1098 . Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.15–16; 2.12, 422.24–27.

1098 . Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.15–16; 2.12, 422.24–27.

1081. See also this emphasis in Jipp, Visitations, 40–42, esp. 41.

1082. Scholars (e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 356) cite various examples of such hospitality (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 7.4–6; Petron. Sat. 114; Lucian True Story 1.28–29; 2.46); Hock, “Ethnography,” 109, cites as an example of taking in a shipwreck victim Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.4.3. It appears in various genres because here, as often, novels imitated reality.

1083. He claims this as a genuine experience (Dio Chrys. Or. 7.1, 81); even if embellished, it probably reflects a genuine encounter.

1084. Trans. B. Perrin, Lives, LCL, 2:173. Toner, Culture, 155, suggests texts (Cic. Sest. 93; Hor. Ars. 20) that might imply the shipwrecked begging, although he also provides an alternative explanation.

1085. E.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.6. Philanthropy could include hosting banquets and aiding those in distress (Parsons, Acts, 367, pointing to Diog. Laert. 3.98).

1086. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.7–10 (esp. 8–9; to the emperor).

1087. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.82 (inviting imitation); Philost. Hrk. 16.5.

1088. For the Jewish God, in Hellenistic terms, see, e.g., Let. Aris. 257; Marcus, “Names and Attributes,” 48.

1089. See, in Judaism, Let. Aris. 208 (and Hadas, Aristeas, 181, 183).

1090. As a Stoic virtue, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.31; cf. Marc. Aur. 7.31; among other philosophers, e.g., Lucian Dem. 11; among others in general, Portr. 11.

1091. Stoics believed that nature provided a sense of common humanity that made people feel akin to each other (Cic. Fin. 3.19.63).

1092. On reciprocity regarding gifts, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Herman, “Gift”; Highet, “Reciprocity”; Harrison, Grace, 1, 15, 40–43, 50–53; further comment on Acts 23:17–18. Chrys. Hom. Acts 54 also views Paul’s healing ministry here as returning Publius’s benefaction.

1093. For healings understood at least in some way as benefactions in antiquity, see comment on Acts 4:9 and sources cited there.

1094. Johnson, Acts, 461 (citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.26, 30; 3.24–25); cf. Libanius Narration 37. Contrast Cadbury, Acts in History, 25: “Their alien speech foreboded to any Greek unfriendly treatment” (though he may be right that their benefaction adds to the picture of providential circumstances surrounding Paul’s voyage).

1095. Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 72.4–6. On the Greek and Roman concept of some “noble” barbarians, see, e.g., Anacharsis Ep. 9; Strabo 7.3.7; cf. Gr. Anth. 7.92; the introduction, above, to Acts 8:26–40, in Keener, Acts, 2:1538, 1557.

1096. Val. Max. 9.3.ext. 10 (barbari), though he also recounts others’ cruelty.

1097. Philost. Hrk. 19.6 (where Hector speaks a “barbarian” language but his violence was justifiable rather than barbarous); 48.18 (justifying Achilles’s barbarous act). Cf. also 57.9 (not employing the term; Philostratus is post-NT).

1098. Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.15–16; 2.12, 422.24–27.

1099. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.25 (on some barbarous, merely nominal Greeks). People in major urban centers of the empire were sometimes surprised to discover “civilization” elsewhere (Pliny Ep. 9.11.2).

1100. Philosophers tended to divide humanity differently, into wise and foolish (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11g, pp. 72–73.5–8); Jews, into Jew and Gentile.

1101. For “barbarians” as all non-Greeks, see, e.g., Aeschylus Ctes. 259; Isoc. Helen (Or. 10) 67–68; Corn. Nep. 5 (Cimon), 2.3; 7 (Alcibiades), 7.4; 8 (Thrasybulus), 4.3; 9 (Conon), 5.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.16.1; 1.24.4; 1.28.4; Lucian Dem. 34; Paus. 10.32.3; Athen. Deipn. 10.457F; 11.461B. Thucyd. 1.3.3 notes that the distinction is absent in Homer because it postdates him.

1102. Plato Alcib. 2.141C; Theaet. 175A; Laws 9.870AB; 10.887E; Arist. Heav. 1.3.270b; Sext. Emp. Eth. 1.15; Diog. Laert. 6.1.2.

1103. Isoc. Nic. 50 (Or. 3.37); Paneg. 108; Isaeus Menec. 24; Demosth. Lacr. 2; Chers. 6, 67; Cor. 202, 270; Fals. leg. 268; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420b.16; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.14; 9.12; 12.11, 27–28; 31.20; 32.35; 36.43; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 331, §109D; Panath. 1, 150D; Max. Tyre 11.5; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.24–25.

1104. Diod. Sic. 1.4.5–6; 1.9.3, 5; 3.73.6; 11.13.2; 11.32.1; 14.23.3–4; 14.30.5–6; 14.102.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.11.10; 3.23.19; 4.23.2; 4.25.3; 6.8.2; 6.80.1; 6.84.3; 7.70.3; 11.1.2; Appian Hist. rom. 12.16.113.

1105. See, e.g., Strabo 6.1.2; 13.1.1; 15.3.23; Plut. Ages. 10.3; Tim. 28.2; Eum. 16.3; Bride 21, Mor. 141A; Philost. Hrk. 54.10; Rom 1:14; Diogn. 5.4; Tatian Or. Gks. 1, 21, 29.

1106. E.g., Cypria 10; Libanius Invect. 2.1; Speech in Character 15.2, 5 (less surprisingly, Medea in 16.1); Philost. Hrk. 23.12; 31.2. Yet Achilles’s anti-Trojan behavior could be negatively “barbarous” (Philost. Hrk. 48.18).

1107. E.g., Isoc. Paneg. 108; Lysias Or. 2.57, §195; 2.59, §196; Sext. Emp. Eth. 1.15; Strabo 15.3.23; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 72.4; Plut. Themist. 6.2; Arrian Alex. 1.18.1; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.38; Parthians in Jos. Ant. 18.47; Asia in Val. Max. 4.6.ext. 3. In Aeschylus Pers. 391–93, even Persians are depicted as calling their own people barbarians (391) in contrast to the Greeks (393).

1108. Cic. Inv. 1.24.35; Sen. Y. Dial. 5.2.1; cf. Cic. Off. 3.26.99. Some other Roman texts add Romans as a third category (Juv. Sat. 10.138; Quint. Inst. 5.10.24). Polybius had portrayed Romans partly as barbarians, partly as “honorary Greeks” (Champion, “Romans”).

1109. Although Jews sometimes classified themselves differently (cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.165), Greeks included Jews among “barbarians” (Strabo 16.2.38; some considered them the worst of barbarians, Apollonius in Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.148), and some Jews followed suit (War 1.preamble 3). Jewish writers in Greek often summarized humanity as “Greeks and barbarians” (5.17; Ant. 1.107; 15.136; 18.20; Ag. Ap. 1.201; 2.39; Philo Cher. 91; Drunkenness 193; Abr. 267; Mos. 2.20; Decal. 153; Spec. Laws 2.18, 20, 44, 165; 4.120; Good Person 94, 98; Contempl. 21; Embassy 145, 292). They also wrote of Jews versus Greeks where relevant (Jos. Ant. 19.278; see comment on Acts 14:1).

1110. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 353.31–354.1; cf. also Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.268.

1111. The most ancient or kingly of barbarians will be easiest to praise for their heritage (Men. Rhet. 1.2, 354.1–8; e.g., Phrygians for their antiquity, 354.2).

1112. E.g., Plato Cratyl. 409DE; 421D; 425E–426A; Plut. Educ. 6, Mor. 4A; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.267; Max. Tyre 8.8; Philost. Hrk. 19.6; the Isis aretalogy in Grant, Religions, 132; Philo Conf. 6, 190; Sib. Or. 3.516, 528; 1 Cor 14:11. The term βάρβαρος originated as onomatopoeia (on which see Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Anderson, Glossary, 82–84; Flury, “Onomatopoeia,” noting this term on 142); non-Greek language sounded like “bar-bar” to Greeks (Bruce, Corinthians, 131; McCoskey, Race, 54 [“evidently”]).

1113. Cadbury, Acts in History, 32; cf. Judge, Pattern, 60–61.

1114. E.g., Demosth. Philip. 1.40; 3.31; Paus. 8.22.6; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 21; esp. Diog. Laert. 1.33 (thanking gods for being Greek rather than barbarian); on their superstition, Plut. Superst. 2, Mor. 166AB; Char. Chaer. 6.7.12; Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.11; Philost. Hrk. 23.16; on their stupidity, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.4.3; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.2; on their inferior cultural virtues or character, Eurip. Heracl. 130–31; Orest. 485–86; Paus. 9.16.4 (normally); Max. Tyre 19.4; on their inferior beauty, Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.2; on being like beasts, Libanius Invect. 2.1; Topics 2.6. In Philost. Hrk. 28.12, where it applies to Scythians but not Cyrus, it approximates “savages” (cf. the Roman use in Suet. Galba 6.3). Sometimes morally uncivilized, “barbaric” behavior denigrated ethnic Greeks rather than barbarians (Dio Chrys. Or. 36.25; Diogenes Ep. 28). For regions called Barbaria, see Goldenberg, “Barbaria.” Greeks could even look down on Romans at times (e.g., Lucian Dem. 40); not everyone took kindly to their arrogance (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.171, 732; 4.70; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.15–18, 58). The snobbery dominates in pre-Hellenistic sources and after the Greek cultural revival of the second century.

1115. See McCoskey, Race, 54 (noting stereotypes on 56; in Greek comedy, 152). Apul. Flor. 3.6 uses the Latinized form to depict an unkempt Phrygian from mythical times.

1116. With, e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 521; idem, Acts1, 470; Arrington, Acts, 264; Johnson, Acts, 461 (noting Hdt. 2.57; and for ignorance of Greek customs, Char. Chaer. 6.3.7); BDAG (“certainly without derogatory tone”). For accidental barbarisms in speaking Greek, see Rowe, “Style,” 122; Anderson, Glossary, 30; Polyb. 39.1.1–9; in terms of accent, Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490. Greeks could mock foreigners who made slips in their Greek (Appian Hist. rom. 3.7.2); translation into Greek was also typically a “barbarian” initiative (Görgemanns, “Translations,” 850–51). Plut. Educ. 6, Mor. 4A, wants to avoid Greek children’s exposure to barbarian language and character.

1117. Quint. Inst. 1.5.5–33 applies the loanword barbarismus (barbarism) to the use of foreign terms in Latin (1.5.8; also to cruel language, 1.5.9). The Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 1.90.1), who wishes to praise Rome, divides all languages into Greek or barbarian but claims that Latin is a mixture of the two.

1118. E.g., Diod. Sic. 1.2.6; Iambl. V.P. 8.44. Sometimes we read of people protesting that they were not “barbarian,” i.e., lowly assimilated into Greek culture or language (P.Oxy. 1681.4–7, esp. 5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7; Ep. graec. 1.5). The “noble barbarian” tradition sometimes countered this claim (Anacharsis Ep. 2.1–2).

1119. Demosthenes Against Theocrines, pre-Roman. Barbarians’ nature is more servile (Arist. Pol. 3.9.3, 1285a), and unlike Greeks, they are fit to be enslaved (1.2.18, 1255a; Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1401).

1120. Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1400–1401; Demosth. Olynth. 3.24 (cf. also Philip. 3.45); Arist. Pol. 1.1.4, 1252b; Tullius in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.26.2 (insisting that Latins are Greeks). Greeks and barbarians are natural enemies (Plato Rep. 5.470C).

1121. Cadbury, Acts in History, 32 (pointing out that Jews such as Philo and Josephus admit that they are barbarians, he regards this as Greek “superiority,” as in Acts 21:37–39). See further, e.g., Strabo 16.2.38; Jos. War 1.3; Ag. Ap. 2.148; but cf. Philo Embassy 215; Jos. Ant. 18.47.

1122. Indeed, if we take into account the difference between rhetorical expectations for letters and those for (more demanding) historical narrative, Paul’s Greek, on average, compares favorably in some ways to Luke’s!

1123. See Jipp, Visitations, 24, 40–42, 103–5, 258–59. For the image of what came to be called “noble barbarians,” see 43–44; also my comments above and Keener, Acts, 2:1538, 1557.

1124. Salmon, Boardman, and Potter, “Melita”; cf. Casson, Mariners, 66. Melite fell to Rome in 218 B.C.E. (Kalcyk and Niemeyer, “Melite”).

1125. Trump, “Malta,” 404; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 340 (citing Strabo 17.3.15–16; Diod. Sic. 5.12; Cic. Verr. 4.46–47; following Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 841ff., for fuller documentation); see other sources in Hemer, Acts in History, 152n149.

1126. Haenchen, Acts, 713 (citing Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 842); Conzelmann, Acts, 223; Fitzmyer, Acts, 783. For interaction of Latin, Punic, and other languages in nearby Sicily, see Tribulato, Language.

1127. Note the disdain in Apul. Apol. 98. By Apuleius’s day, Latin and Punic bilingualism was probably common in Carthage (Hilton, “Introduction,” 126), at least among the educated.

1128. Many North African indigenes still called themselves “Canaanites” in their Punic language much later (Aug. Ep. 209.2–3; Greene, “North Africa,” 155). Their local identities also asserted themselves against Rome in the Donatist controversies (e.g., Mandouze, “Donatisme,” 366).

1129. Trump, “Malta,” 404. On the Punic period, see Trump, “Malta,” 403–4. Punic religion also persisted (Scheid, “Africa: Religion”).

1130. It became one of Malta’s official languages in 1934. But the Semitic character of the language (which González, Acts, 275, compares with Phoenician) primarily reflects Arabic.

1131. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 175, suggest that Paul’s knowledge of Aramaic would help with communication. Even if Semitic connections were helpful, however, mutual intelligibility would surely be limited.

1132. See Haenchen, Acts, 713; Barrett, Acts, 1220.

1133. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 189.

1134. Ibid., 186 (citing, e.g., CIL 2.4319).

1135. Bénabou, “Résistance,” 374 (on Roman Africa, contending that romanized peasants and townspeople were probably the majority; but the degree of romanization was undoubtedly higher where Rome had more interests, such as grain). Webster, “Creolizing,” argues that outside the elites, Roman provinces were more accurately “creolized” than “romanized.” Local cultures even affected Roman culture; on Gaul, see Woolf, “Romans and Natives.”

1136. Amadasi Guzzo, “Phoenician-Punic,” 324.

1137. Barrett, Acts, 1220.

1138. Ibid., 1221 (noting Diod. Sic. 5.12; Cic. Verr. 2.4.46, mentioned above).

1139. Witherington, Acts, 776.

1140. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 347.13–351.2; 351.10–11.

1141. It fits the gregale in contrast to the warm southeastern winds (Hemer, Acts in History, 153, comparing the sirocco).

1142. See Witherington, Acts, 777. He cites Haenchen, Acts, 713n3; Haenchen in fact follows Zahn in suggesting an October average of 22º C, i.e., over 70º F, with a low of 12º, i.e., some 54º F, during a northeasterly storm and unbearable heat during a southeasterly storm.

1143. According to http://www.holiday-weather.com/malta/averages/december, Malta has an average of 57º F (14º C) in December, the island’s wettest month; 63º F (17º C) in November; 55º F (13º C) in January. The average low for December is 52º F (11º C). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Malta, Malta averages 59–61º F (15–16º C) in winter and 63º F (17º C) during the periods of spring to March and autumn to December.

1144. If one reasons from average temperatures rather than the rain, the cooler temperatures of the proposed Adriatic site would seem more likely at this point (as Barrett, Acts, 1221, notes). Haenchen, Acts, 713n3, notes that those “soaked to the skin” would freeze in the wind.

1145. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 295–96; Bray, Corinthians, 299) applies Paul’s experience of cold and exposure (2 Cor 11:27) to Malta, but Paul wrote 2 Corinthians before this experience.

1146. Dio Chrys. Or. 52.1 compares early summer mornings to autumn weather.

1147. The warming scene is also not distinctively Lukan (Mark 14:54; John 18:18).

1148. BDAG has for φρύγανον, in the plural, “pieces of dry wood / brushwood especially for making fires” and provides documentation. Le Cornu, Acts, 1478, suggests an open bonfire using brushwood, which, as undergrowth, was perhaps less wet, and suggests that Malta had experienced less of the storm. With the ship’s breakup and swimmers using boards, plenty of wood might lie on the shore, but it would still be too wet for kindling. On bonfires for warmth after a storm, see, e.g., Quint. Curt. 8.4.11–12.

1149. With Johnson, Acts, 461, who also points out that Jesus modeled service (Luke 22:24–27). Cf. the model of helping others in practical labor in 2 Kgs 4:39; 6:2–7.

1150. Bruce, Commentary, 521 (following Lawrence, Revolt, 107).

1151. See esp. Currid, Egypt, 86–95, esp. 95.

1152. The fable is also attested in Phaedrus 4.20.

1153. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 4.4. Pliny E. N.H. 25.55.99 calls snakebite “the worst ill of all” (LCL, 7:209).

1154. Apollod. Bib. 1.3.2; 3.6.4; Diod. Sic. 20.42.2; Ovid Metam. 11.775–76 (a nymph!); cf. Hierocles Elements of Ethics 2.12–15; for the expectation that they would be fatal, see Libanius Comparison 5.10. Vipers’ poison was thought to be toxic on arrows (Ovid Pont. 1.2.16; Sil. It. 1.322).

1155. Touwaide, “Disease,” 548 (including also in the toxicological category mushroom poisoning, 10.56 percent). Various texts naturally linked serpents with scorpions as venomous creatures, as in Luke 10:19 (Pliny E. N.H. 11.62.163; 20.71.182; 23.80.155; 27.98.124; Plut. Div. V. 20, Mor. 562C; Deut 8:15 [cf. Grelot, “Étude”]; t. Šabb. 7:23; Sipre Deut. 172.1.1; y. Šabb. 14:1, §2; Exod. Rab. 10:1; Eccl. Rab. 5:8–9, §4); for the danger posed by scorpions, including pain and sometimes death, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.3.12; Pliny E. N.H. 11.30.86–88; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.8 (23); 5.9 (24). For treatments (according to some sources), see Pliny E. N.H. 20.51.133; 20.63.171; 20.71.182; 24.66.108; 27.98.124; 27.104.127; 28.42.155; to keep them away, 20.52.145; 23.80.155; 25.72.119; 28.5.24; to attract them, 20.48.120.

1156. Hom. Il. 2.721–23; Soph. Philoc. passim, esp. 632; Dio Chrys. Or. 59.3; Philost. Hrk. 28.2; Philost. Younger Imag. 17. Snakes were known particularly for biting feet (Aeschylus Suppl. 896–97; Ovid Metam. 11.775–76; Gen 3:15; 49:17; cf. Sib. Or. 1.59–64), and so accidentally stepping on one could be dangerous (Diod. Sic. 20.42.2; Virg. Aen. 2.379–81).

1157. In Scripture, e.g., Prov 23:32 (of wine); Eccl 10:8, 11. Rabbis sometimes mentioned snakebites alongside dog bites (y. Roš Haš. 3:9, §4; cf. y. Ter. 8:7, §6).

1158. E.g., y. Ter. 8:5, §6 (here because one left wine susceptible to uncleanness as well as to venom); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2 (a young man whose father was pious and had pious guests). See esp. R. Eleazar ben Dama in t. Ḥul. 2:22 (Smith, Parallels, 82).

1159. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 57, cites b. Šabb. 156b on protection for Israelites with merit; later, cf. Antony of Choziba Life of Saint George 5.22. The point of the story is deliverance from astrology and fate. Greek heroes such as Heracles conquered serpents, but differently (Paus. 1.24.2).

1160. One should not interrupt prayer even if a snake coiled around one’s heel (m. Ber. 5:1; Exod. Rab. 9:3).

1161. See m. Ber. 5:1; t. Ber. 3:20 (2:20 in some versions). Hanina appears as a “charismatic” sage elsewhere (cf. m. Ber. 5:5; Soṭah 9:14–15; b. Ber. 34b; Yoma 53b; Taʿan. 24a; 24b–25a; Yebam. 121b; Soṭah 49ab; B. Qam. 50a; B. Meṣiʿa 106a; B. Bat. 74b; Ḥul. 86a); see further Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 73–74 (citing also b. Ber. 33a; y. Ber. 9a; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:109); he is portrayed as respected by rabbis (b. Ber. 61b) and demons (b. Pesaḥ. 112b). Others cite the same text for Acts (Cadbury, Acts in History, 25; idem, Making, 343; following Cadbury, see also Kanda, “Form,” 299).

1162. B. Ber. 33a, bar. (Soncino).

1163. For snakes in Greek myth and religion, see, e.g., Kauppi, Gods, 107–10; most fully Charlesworth, Serpent (esp. 125–87). Athena could be portrayed sporting a deadly snake (Libanius Descr. 22.8), and the infant Heracles slew them (e.g., Apollod. Bibl. 2.4.8; Libanius Narration 23; 24.2). In ancient Middle Eastern religion, see Hendel, “Serpent,” 744–45.

1164. Burkert, Mystery Cults, 94. Rousselle, “Snake-Handling,” provides some information on Hellenistic women snake handlers, but the study is marred by its excessive Freudian grid.

1165. Statius Silv. 3.4.25; Paus. 2.27.2; Lucian Alex. 14; cf. Koester, Introduction, 1:182; Klauck, Context, 165. Serpents were sacred to Athena (Plut. Isis 71, Mor. 379D) and also appear in connection with Egyptian traditional religion (cf., e.g., the Isis iconography in Brenk, “Image,” 223).

1166. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 10.46–47; Ovid Metam. 4.454, 475, 491–99; Her. 2.119; Tristia 4.7.11–12; Tibullus 1.3.69; Sen. Y. Herc. fur. 88, 100–103; Statius Theb. 1.103; 8.762–64; Sil. It. 2.546–47; 9.442–43; Lucian Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Paus. 1.28.6 (on Aeschylus); Ach. Tat. 1.3.4; cf. (often with serpent parts elsewhere) Hom. Il. 6.179–82; Apollod. Bib. 1.6.3; 3.14.1; Ovid Metam. 4.481–84, 617–20; Fasti 3.799–800; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 113.9; Dio Chrys. Or. 5.13; 66.29; Paus. 8.42.4; Philost. Hrk. 8.7–8; PGM 4.2614; Apoc. Zeph. 6:8; with scorpion parts, Pliny E. N.H. 8.30.75; Rev 9:7–10. Cf. Bremmer, “Gorgo,” 938.

1167. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 122, citing Plut. Alex. 2.4–5.

1168. See, e.g., Hesiod Melampodia 3 (from scholiast on Hom. Od. 10.494); Ovid Metam. 3.316–38; Lucian Dial. D. 445 (9/28, Menippus and Tiresias 1).

1169. Arrian Ind. 15.11 claims that Greek physicians could not cure Indian snakebites but Indians knew how to.

1170. Pliny E. N.H. 28.42.150. For remedies and prophylaxis against snakebites, 28.42.149–54; against scorpions, 28.42.155; plants useful for curing snakebites are listed in 25.55.99–25.71.119 passim. For further protection against snakebites, see 29.22.71. Among medicinal testicles, those of beavers were among the most highly valued (Hierocles Elements of Ethics 3.12–16). Ancient medical superstitions more generally included bloodletting (Nutton, “Phlebotomy”; see more generally sources in Keener, Acts, 1:417–18).

1171. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 211. For charms against snakes, see Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.19; in Jewish texts, see Ps 58:5; Eccl 10:11; Sir 12:13; cf. Jer 8:17.

1172. Pliny E. N.H. 20.100.264. Asclepius oracles supposedly revealed the useful herbs (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.44).

1173. Most of these are reported in Pliny, never one to suffer folly unchecked—except, apparently, in cases such as these.

1174. Pliny E. N.H. 29.15.59 (trans. W. H. S. Jones, LCL, 8:221), also listing other cures; cf. the decoctions in 24.93.150; 24.99.157; 27.34.57.

1175. Pliny E. N.H. 20.9.18.

1176. Pliny E. N.H. 20.13.23.

1177. Pliny E. N.H. 20.51.132 (clear, Pliny assures us, because weasels eat rue before battling snakes).

1178. Pliny E. N.H. 20.63.171. This herb also healed scorpion stings and snakebites (20.65.173) in case someone had failed to use it as a prevention. For rubdown with another substance, see 24.92.148.

1179. Pliny E. N.H. 20.71.182; another substance, when burned, also keeps them away or intoxicates them into harmlessness (24.92.148). My wife informs me that in Congo, a particular herb planted around a home is believed to keep snakes at a distance (to those who use it, it appears efficacious, but empirical studies are so far lacking).

1180. Pliny E. N.H. 20.87.236. Ground pines cure scorpion stings (24.20.29) and, when mixed with honey, can cure serpent bites (24.20.30); wine mixed with a particular kind of leaf also cures snakebites (24.35.52); so also agnus castus (24.38.61).

1181. Pliny E. N.H. 27.98.124.

1182. Pliny E. N.H. 20.95.254.

1183. Pliny E. N.H. 20.96.256.

1184. Pliny E. N.H. 20.96.258.

1185. Pliny E. N.H. 29.21.69. See other cures for viper bites in 29.21.69–70.

1186. Pliny E. N.H. 23.11.14.

1187. Pliny E. N.H. 23.80.155 (noting that they serve as a prophylaxis if drunk with wine). Some ancients prescribed exactly ten berries for scorpion stings (23.80.156).

1188. Pliny E. N.H. 28.7.35. The tradition of the potentially curative properties of fasting saliva (see further 28.7.35–37; 28.22.76) apparently remained in later eras (Rack, “Healing,” 140–41).

1189. See Bar-Ilan, “Magic and Religion.”

1190. Pliny E. N.H. 28.6.30 (he notes people on one island who have similar effectiveness against crocodiles, 28.6.31).

1191. Conzelmann, Acts, 223, cites Plut. Cleom. 39; Lucian Lover of Lies 11. Cf. later stories about Saint Francis. Strelan, Strange Acts, 291, suggests that here Paul, like Heracles, defeats the netherworld creature by fire; this connection, however, reads too much into the fire here and overlooks the vast repertoire of closer potential parallels.

1192. For the Egyptian background for this motif, see Currid, Egypt, 83–103, 146–55, esp. 87–88, 148–49.

1193. The LXX uses a term here for reptiles, often applied to snakes (see BDAG). These creatures were to obey human commands (Philo Abr. 45), worship Adam (Creation 83), or follow Adam (cf. Gen. Rab. 63:13); Adam named them (Gen 2:19–20; Philo Creation 149) and was to rule them (Gen 1:26–28; Ps 8:6–8; Sir 17:4; Philo Creation 148; cf. 1 Esd 4:2; Wis 10:2). If Jesus evokes Adam in Luke 3:38, Adam typology (cf. Acts 17:26; Neyrey, Passion) might be in the background here, though I believe that it is unlikely. Epict. Diatr. 1.16.5 believed that nature equipped animals to serve people (though he refers especially to sheep).

1194. Because the context is about prevailing over sin, this passage in the Testament of Issachar could be understood in a manner analogous to Luke 10:19, but other parallel lines suggest that the two passages relate on the general principle of authority rather than on their specific object. Cf. Joseph’s immunity to love potion in Test. Jos. 6:1–8, esp. 7–8.

1195. For cooperative animals, see also Test. Job 40:10/11; for creatures’ fear of humans, the purportedly Tannaitic tradition in Gen. Rab. 34:12 (but this applies only before people sin, Song Rab. 3:7, §5, bar.).

1196. Conzelmann, Acts, 223, compares Act Thom. 106; Acts Pet. 5.29.

1197. The latter text is noted by Basil Hom. Hex. 9.6 (Martin, Acts, 312).

1198. See Theodoret in Cat. Act. 28.3; Basil Hom. Hex. 9.6, citing Ps 91:13 (Martin, Acts, 312). This approach continues the similar Jewish model noted above.

1199. Not necessarily dependent on Luke here. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 175, note that snake handling without suffering harm is documented for some experiencing altered states of consciousness.

1200. Thus the reader of Acts 28:4 knows better than to accept the verdict of the outsiders (Klauck, Magic, 114). Serpents may be associated with demons in 1 En. 69:12 (possibly, but not necessarily, in t. Šabb. 7:23), but they are under Gabriel’s control in the earlier 1 En. 20:7. They are associated with casting spells in Sipre Deut. 172.1.1; with snake-charming magic in ANET 326; Iambl. (nov.) Bab. St. 10 (Photius Bibl. 94.75b); perhaps with magic in Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.10; with paganism in Hom. Il. 12.208–9 (a portent of Zeus); Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 45–53; Albright, Biblical Period, 13; Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 42–43. Southern Semites apparently associated serpents (like some other animals) with jinn (Alexander, Possession, 15–16); for other wild beasts (especially hyenas) associated with jinn in Somalia, see Lewis, “Possession,” 191 (for hyenas, see also Tubiana, “Zar,” 19).

1201. E.g., Gaventa, Acts, 358; Thomas, Deliverance, 290–93, esp. 292; Jipp, Visitations, 46, 261 (following Susan Garrett, a noted expert on Lukan demonology, in advancing the concept of a “turf battle” here). Some ancient interpreters compared the viper here with unclean spirits (Bede Comm. Acts 28.3b [L. Martin, 193]) or the devil (Arator Acts 2 [Schrader, 91–92; Martin, Acts, 311–12]). Cf. various negative portrayals of snakes in mythology (e.g., in Bremmer, “Snake”; idem, “Gorgo”; Benson, “Dragon”). Augustan iconography might also use a serpent to depict threats (Knox, “Serpent”). For Genesis’s serpent as the devil, see Wis 2:24; 3 Bar. 9:7; cf. Acts John 94; as Sammael, Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:6 (McNamara, Targum, 121); the devil utilized the serpent in Apoc. Mos. 16:1, 5. For the association of serpents or dragons with witchcraft, see Hor. Sat. 1.8.33–35; PGM 4.662–64, 2426–28, 2614.

1202. See Keener, “Brood of Vipers.” In addition to sources cited there (including Eurip. Orestes 479; Hdt. 3.109; Aelian Animals 1.24 [cf. 15.16]; Pliny E. N.H. 10.82.170; Plut. Div. V. 32, Mor. 567F), see also Apul. Apol. 85; though doubt about the tradition is expressed in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.14. This may be a reason for vipers being sewn into a parricide’s sack (Modestinus Dig. 48.9.9), although the practice may belong to a later period (Robinson, Criminal Law, 47). For “viper” or “serpent” as an insult more generally, see, e.g., Menander Dyskolos 480; Cic. Vat. 2.4; Plut. Them. 29.1; Apul. Apol. 8; Apoll. K. Tyre 32.

1203. This point would appear intelligible in many cultures. Several of my informants from rural Africa, including some Westerners who have lived there, have similarly viewed unusually targeted snake attacks as ultimately propelled by demonic attacks (cf. association with sorcery in Mbiti, Religions, 261–62). An even larger number of informants have affirmed divine protection in the face of snake attacks (e.g., Thomas, Walls, 33–34, 42–43; likely the point in Braun, Way, 54; Braun, Here, 248). For healing, see, e.g., Sithole, Voice, 56 (an African example); Ebenezer Perinbaraj (interview, Dec. 25, 2012, regarding Jharkand in India).

1204. See, e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 713n4; Twelftree, Paul, 266.

1205. Warnecke, Romfahrt des Paulus, 145–56.

1206. Le Cornu, Acts, 1479, citing Sultana and Falzon, Wildlife, 199, 202.

1207. Hemer, Acts in History, 153; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:298 (cf. Peterson, Acts, 699, though including n. 11). Le Cornu, Acts, 1479 (following Sultana and Falzon, Wildlife, 199, 202), writes of the “leopard snake,” the Coronella leopardinus, which averages 3 ft. in length and is yellow or ash gray (with many “reddish-brown spots” bordered by black). Living especially “among stones and vegetation,” it might be found in brushwood, as likely here. Although NT commentators often speak of the leopard snake (the European ratsnake) as the Coronella leopardinus, other sources usually call it Zamenis situla (usually today), Coluber leopardinus, or Elaphe situla (cf. The Reptile Database [http://www.reptile-database.org/]). On various snake species in ancient sources, see Hünemörder, “Snake.”

1208. Conzelmann, Acts, 223, argues that “poisonous snakes do not bite and then hang on” (my wife, who grew up around snakes, said they would hold on if the alternative was to fall into flames). Bruce, Commentary, 522, simply says that vipers do not coil. Le Cornu, Acts, 1479, notes that these kinds of snake do cling as well as bite, though vipers only bite; their saliva is venomous, but they cannot inject it. Because such snakes strike only when threatened, it may have viewed Paul or the heat as a threat.

1209. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 64 (also comparing two similar species found there, the Coronella leopardinus most resembling a viper in color).

1210. It is also true that some ancients believed that snakes harmless to locals could kill foreigners (Pliny E. N.H. 8.84.229); Luke does not explicitly indicate that the snake was deadly but only that the locals believed it to be. Charlesworth, Serpent, 330, apparently suggests that Paul was not actually bitten, or at least that the viper failed to inject much poison.

1211. Hemer, Acts in History, 153; Johnson, Acts, 462. The rabbis also expected snakebite to kill quickly (Le Cornu, Acts, 1482, cites Exod. Rab. 31:6; b. Yebam. 16:6; y. Roš Haš. 3.8.59a). For widely believed but erroneous views about vipers in antiquity, see Keener, Matthew, 123nn146, 148; idem, “Brood of Vipers,” 6–8. Nevertheless, we read of tame pet snakes (Suet. Tib. 72, on Tiberius; Philost. Hrk. 31.3, on the legendary Ajax), and Pliny the Elder, cited above, believed asps deadlier than other kinds of serpents (N.H. 29.18.65).

1212. Barrett, Acts, 1222; Bruce, Commentary, 522 (comparing tradition about early Ireland); Witherington, Acts, 777; Bock, Acts, 743. Fossil remains might be too early.

1213. Hemer, Acts in History, 153. This was pointed out already in Abbott, Acts, 257. Certainly Saint Paul’s Bay in Malta is heavily urbanized today, with a residential population of more than 20,000 and rising to some 60,000 during the summer months, with a population density of 1,400 per sq. km. (3,700 per sq. mi.).

1214. Bauckham, Climax, 357; Weeber, “Environment,” 1007; Schneider, “Ivory.”

1215. This description is probably a misinterpretation of Luke’s “barbarians”; see comment on Acts 28:2. But locals in Libya were thought to plunder shipwrecks (Quint. Curt. 4.7.19), and seizing flotsam was common enough to warrant legal measures, potentially even as harsh as capital punishment (Krampe, “Naufragium,” 541, citing Dig. 47.9.3.8; 48.8.3.4).

1216. Cadbury, Acts in History, 25.

1217. See, e.g., Aune, Environment, 130; Talbert and Hayes, “Sea Storms.”

1218. Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 7; Lucian Phal. 2.4 (ironically in this case); Posts 1 (again reflecting Lucian’s skepticism). Any escape from tragedy was only by God’s power (Let. Aris. 268).

1219. With Dunn, Acts, 347.

1220. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 56 (citing Jonah 1:4–8; b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b); Aune, Environment, 130; also, e.g., 1 En. 101:5; Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 1 (destruction of a fleet); Sen. E. Controv. 7.1.4 (punishment for parricide); Iambl. V.P. 18.88; 34.247 (a Pythagorean who revealed a sacred mystery); see further the introduction, above, to Acts 27.

1221. E.g., Cic. Verr. 2.1.18.46 (the ship carrying divine statues that Verres had stolen was destroyed by a storm). Others, however, recognized that shipwreck, like being robbed, was not one’s fault (Quint. Decl. 320.12).

1222. Publ. Syr. 331; also cited in Aul. Gel. 17.14.4. Perhaps like some other frequent seafarers, Paul would not agree; see 2 Cor 11:25.

1223. Though innocent, Apollonius (wrongly) feared that Neptune had spared him death at sea so that he could die another way (Apoll. K. Tyre 12). Pervo, Acts, 674, compares the robber’s death by snakebite in Heliod. Eth. 2.20.

1224. Ant. Diog. Thule 109b–110a, 112a.

1225. The verdict, however, depends on the rhetorical perspective; thus one could generate pathos with the image of a person surviving a storm only to face shipwreck at the harbor (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.12).

1226. Conzelmann, Acts, 223 (who therefore jumps to the conclusion that Luke’s account is “based on a literary motif”); Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 56; Bruce, Commentary, 522n11; Johnson, Acts, 462; Polhill, Acts, 532; Witherington, Acts, 778. Klauck, Magic, 114, thinks that Gr. Anth. 9.269 (also cited by Johnson and Witherington) is closer, though the slayer is a seal. For snakes’ association with justice and vengeance in Greek sources, see also Kauppi, Gods, 108–10. In a Middle Egyptian story two millennia earlier, by contrast, a large serpent befriended and prophesied to a shipwreck survivor (“The Shipwrecked Sailor,” starting to speak in lines 57–68; see Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 45–53).

1227. Note Mesopotamian proverbs, e.g., ANET 425 (Akkadian proverb I [40:5]; Sumerian proverb 3).

1228. Not Luke’s term for “viper” here, though he knows the LXX term that Amos uses (Luke 10:19; 11:11). Snakebite for a murderer who escaped from a lion appears in a papyrus in Grenfell and Hunt, Fragments, 133–34 (noted by Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 57). For God’s slaying through scorpion sting, see b. Ned. 41a; Gen. Rab. 10:7; through various creatures including serpents and scorpions, Gen. Rab. 10:5.

1229. Cited by Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 56–57; esp. and originally by Miles and Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon,” esp. 262–64. Ladouceur, “Shipwreck and Pollution,” 436–39, shows that some evildoers did escape shipwreck.

1230. Cited by Ladouceur, “Shipwreck and Pollution,” as a better parallel.

1231. Cf. the persistent survival of Polycarp’s body in Mart. Pol. 15.1–16.2.

1232. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.33.1–3; Char. Chaer. 8.4.2 (war as an impartial judge!).

1233. E.g., regarding the hypothetical Vestal priestess who survived being thrown from the Tarpeian Rock for adultery (Sen. E. Controv. 1.3.1–6), whom only some defended as divinely vindicated (1.3.7).

1234. So Lysias Or. 6.21–32, §§105–6, regarding Andocides (disregarding his survival).

1235. With, e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 341; Miles and Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon”; Ladouceur, “Shipwreck and Pollution.” Jipp, Visitations, 46, 262n31, contrasts with this the view that Paul here overcomes demonic opposition; but the approaches can be complementary.

1236. E.g., Wis 11:15–16 (if one had worshiped beasts); t. Sanh. 8:3 (purportedly about Simeon ben Shetah). Cf. the common formula in the prophets (e.g., Jer 16:4; Ezek 5:17; 14:21; serpents in Jer 8:17; Amos 9:3) and the example in Num 21:5–9.

1237. Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 333–34, cite Mek. Kaspa 3.78.12; see esp. Silberman, “Paul’s Viper” (adding other sources, e.g., Lam. Rab. 2:2, and emphasizing that Acts 28 shows Paul as specially favored by God). That Paul is even bitten might challenge, from a Lukan perspective, the idea that such bites should be viewed as punishments.

1238. Jipp, Visitations, 262n31, may be correct, however, that this text emphasizes instead fate’s “unpredictability.”

1239. Hemer, Acts in History, 153.

1240. Suggested by Cadbury, Acts in History, 26. On punishments (including those from deities) fitting crimes, see comment on Acts 3:2.

1241. A lesson also illustrated in Job’s comforters (Job 4–25); cf. ancient Near Eastern wisdom in ANET 434–35; KRT C (vi) (ANET 149); Kramer, “Variation”; idem, “Literature,” 281.

1242. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 341; R. Williams, Acts, 167; Bruce, Acts1, 471; Schnabel, Acts, 1050. The term δίκη in other early Christian sources refers to divine vengeance or judgment (2 Thess 1:9; Jude 7; Herm. 27.5; 96.3; cf. Did. 1.5; 2 Macc 8:11, 13; 4 Macc 4:13, 21; 6:28; 8:14, 22; 9:9, 15, 32; 11:3; 12:12; 18:22; other LXX references).

1243. As a virgin in Dio Chrys. Or. 75.5; alongside Truth in Max. Tyre 10.1 (interpreting allegorically); Zeus’s daughter in Eurip. Andromeda frg. 151 (Stob. 1.3.23). Phrygians worshiped the twin deities “Holy and Just” (Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:25) and—more relevant—a goddess of Justice (2:18). The Greek Dike was one of the three Horae from an ancient period (cf. Hom. Il. 5; Hesiod Theog. 901–2; W.D. 220–24); further on Dike, see van der Horst, “Dike” (on 252 noting the contemporary rather than classical perspective in Acts 28:4); distinct from Dike, cf. Themis (Käppel, “Themis,” 424). On personified abstractions as deities, see Rives, Religion, 17.

1244. E.g., Johnson, Acts, 462; Fitzmyer, Acts, 783; citing Hesiod Theog. 902 (born alongside the Fates); Soph. Antig. 538; Arrian Alex. 4.9.7. She reported to Zeus and he executed justice in Hesiod W.D. 239, 256 (Larkin, Acts, 380). Cf. also Stenger, “Nemesis,” on personified retribution. For the alleged view of the Persians, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.25. Some resented as superstitious views of personified punishment (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14).

1245. Johnson, Acts, 462. Justice also could see in darkness (e.g., Eurip. Oed. frg. 555) and witnessed concealed misdeeds to punish them (Eurip. Archelaus frg. 255.2–6; Phrixus frg. 835; cf. Melanippe frg. 506.7–8), and the sufferings of the wicked were thought to vindicate the existence of deities (Eurip. Oenomaus frg. 577).

1246. Rose and Scheid, “Iustitia.” Citing Ovid Pont. 3.6.25, Wright, Paul, 270, notes that this temple was consecrated in 13 C.E. Following Dihle, Jewett, Romans, 276, notes her association with the imperial cult. Vengeance was likewise a deity (Tac. Ann. 3.18).

1247. Gentiles, too, could attribute justice to the chief deity (e.g., Sil. It. 6.467).

1248. E.g., 3 En. 31:1; Tg. Rishon on Esth 3:1; on these contrasting attributes more generally, see Sipra VDDeho. par. 12.65.2.4; Sipre Num. 8.8.2; Sipre Deut. 26.5.1; 323.4.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Ber. 7a; y. Taʿan. 2:1, §12; Gen. Rab. 12:15; 21:7; 26:6; 33:3; 73:3; Exod. Rab. 6:1, 3; 45:6; Lev. Rab. 23:2; 29:4, 6, 9; Num. Rab. 9:18; Eccl. Rab. 4:1, §1; 8:1, §1; Song Rab. 2:17, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 10:9; 15:17; 40:2; see further Urbach, Sages, 1:448–61; Naeh, “Ποτήριον.”

1249. See esp. the comments about Philonic usage in Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 341 (the term appears 145 times in the Philonic corpus). Cf. δίκη in Jos. War 1.84 (Gaventa, Acts, 357; Josephus employs the term 157 times).

1250. Despite Roman pretensions with urban elites (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186), Punic remained dominant in North Africa even “six centuries after the Roman conquest” (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 193; cf. 203).

1251. See Scheid, “Africa: Religion.” In this period, locals often gave Punic deities Roman names (Rives, Religion, 71).

1252. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 341 (comparing Acts 14:12). Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 11, also thinks that Luke hellenizes their language.

1253. Conzelmann, Acts, 223.

1254. At least as understood by Euseb. P.E. 1.10 (Larkin, Acts, 380), who may have interpreted the source through a Christian grid when he was preserving it. Certainly, a Punic inscription from second-century B.C.E. Malta indicates the continuing worship of Canaanite/Phoenician goddesses at that time (for discussion of the precise translation, see Frendo, “Inscription”).

1255. Cadbury, Acts in History, 25, notes that everyone in antiquity would have accepted the concept of avenging justice, even if only Greeks and Romans personified it.

1256. A question rightly raised, e.g., by Dunn, Acts, 347.

1257. So PGM 1.190–91, promising the angel-helper’s guidance in achieving this.

1258. On ethnic stereotypes in antiquity, see Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 169–72, esp. 171–72.

1259. Anderson, 153; cf. Plut. Superst. 2, Mor. 166AB; Char. Chaer. 6.7.12. The portrayal of the superstition here is not hostile. Romans could disdain “barbaric” Spanish reception of a Roman general with incense and altars (Val. Max. 9.1.5); they were much more favorable toward Asia’s imperial cult.

1260. See Persians in Quint. Curt. 6.6.2; 8.5.11, 14; Indians in 8.10.1. Cf. perhaps Dan 2:46 (with 3:5).

1261. Cic. Flacc. 11.24 (though he is anti-Greek here only because Greeks are prosecution witnesses). More often they portrayed Egyptians as fickle (Quint. Curt. 4.1.30; Pliny Panegyr. 31.2).

1262. On fickleness, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 1.9.11; 5.2.10; Quint. fratr. 1.2.2.4; Vell. Paterc. 2.80.1; Apul. Apol. 77; fuller discussion at Acts 2:47.

1263. E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.10.7.

1264. For the apostles’ enemies manipulating the crowds there, see Bechard, Walls, 431.

1265. As pointed out by Bruce, Commentary, 523n12; Gaventa, Acts, 358. The change of mind here might suggest some humbling, though not on the dramatic level of the apostles’ actual competitors such as Simon (Acts 8:24), Elymas (13:11), or Sceva’s sons (19:16).

1266. For these prejudices in antiquity, see the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:589–96, esp. 592–96.

1267. Or perhaps viewing nonbelievers in general as too credulous (since he makes fun of the Sanhedrin also; cf. Acts 23:9–10). This would be returning a popular pagan perception of early Christians.

1268. For Jewish ridicule of idolatry, see discussion at Acts 14:15–17, esp. Keener, Acts, 2:2158–64.

1269. Although they are mistaken about Paul being a god, Jipp, Visitations, 45–46, argues that they correctly perceive him as connected with the divine (a divine agent).

1270. Jipp, Visitations, 24, in his work clearly demonstrating the connection with theoxenies, on which see 77–95, 122–26 (for divine agents, e.g., 81–88; in Luke-Acts, 219–35); more briefly, Keener, Acts, 2:2148–49. These include Telemachus hosting Athena (Jipp, Visitations, 77–81); Dionysus in the Bacchae (a story to which Luke elsewhere alludes, 88–95). Jipp places the motif in the larger context of hospitality in Jipp, Visitations, 59–170 (including in Roman literature, 112–26; in Jewish sources, including the OT, 131–70; in Luke-Acts, 171–218); on which subject see also Arterbury, Hospitality; briefly, Keener, Acts, 3:2414–20.

1271. Jipp, Visitations, 25, 234–35.

1272. Ibid., 25, 29, 274–81 (cf. more broadly 247–52); see fuller discussion of the idea at Acts 28:17–31. Jipp connects Luke’s motif of hospitality to his larger plot theme of Gentile reception. See my positive review of Jipp’s work in Keener, “Review of Jipp.”

1273. E.g., Pindar Isthm. 7.38–39.

1274. For Luke’s emphasis on God’s providence, see comment on Acts 2:23. Here too Luke may present Paul as like a good sage, making the best of what he faces (see comment on Acts 27:21–26).

1275. Finegan, Apostles, 200, 202.

1276. Ibid., 200.

1277. Ibid.

1278. Certainly it was a common Latin name (e.g., Mart. Epig. 7.87.3; 10.98.11).

1279. E.g., princeps in Vell. Paterc. 2.30.6; 2.53.2; 2.74.4 (“a leading man of the place,” LCL); 2.90.1; Pliny Ep. 3.2.2; 6.31.3. For praises of individuals as among the “first” of their groups, see Symm. Ep. 1.2.4; 1.79; cf. 1.2.3.

1280. E.g., for one of the most prominent people in Pontus, Lucian Alex. 45 (πρῶτος).

1281. Balsdon and Griffin, “Princeps.” For analogous uses, see Balsdon and Levick, “Princeps iuventutis”; Badian, “Princeps senatus.”

1282. Strabo 14.42 (πρωτεύοντες); πρῶτος in OGIS 528, 544–45, 549, 652.

1283. The high priest of the Achaian imperial cult as primus (West, Inscriptions, no. 68.9, pp. 50–51).

1284. Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 283; Conzelmann, Acts, 223; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 669; Ramsay, Pictures, 313; Hemer, Acts in History, 153. The latter text (CIL 10.7495) may simply indicate the first to make some benefactions and so may not be an official title (Barrett, Acts, 1224). Because the designation also appears in Asia Minor, its occurrence on Malta cannot by itself establish the case for Malta (with Suhl, “Titel,” arguing for Kefallinía).

1285. Fitzmyer, Acts, 783 (apparently speaking of the legate of Sicily’s praetor, but possibly referring to the legatus pro praetore, an ex-consul who governed a province with a praetor’s authority); cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 342 (positively—noting Luke’s usual “correct local nomenclature”—but tentatively); Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; Bruce, Commentary, 523.

1286. Barrett, Acts, 1224. Before Paul’s period, Melita belonged to the Roman province of Sicily, but it held municipal status by the early second century C.E. under an imperial procurator (Salmon, Boardman, and Potter, “Melita”).

1287. Barrett, Acts, 1224. Some, however, compare Polybius’s regular abbreviation of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus to Πόπλιος, noting that Luke, as a Greek, might write like Polybius or by how he heard peasants speak of Publius (Bruce, Acts1, 472; idem, Commentary, 523n16; Witherington, Acts, 780n135).

1288. In an earlier period, they did not even bring their wives; after Augustus (cf. Suet. Aug. 24) Roman governors could take wives with them (cf. Tac. Ann. 1.40; 2.54–55; 3.33–34; Matt 27:19; contrast Severus in Hdn. 3.2.5).

1289. Thus, similarly, one of Pontus’s chief citizens is τοῦ Πόντου πρῶτος (Lucian Alex. 45).

1290. Cf. also Calvin. The centurion was responsible for acquiring food for his prisoners, and voluntary hospitality was preferable to needing to requisition supplies from unwilling locals. Prisoners and even ordinary soldiers might not dine with the centurion and his host, but Paul is a citizen with status and leader of a movement. Dining with one’s prisoner violated protocol (see comment on Acts 16:34 at Keener, Acts, 3:2514), but in this case the custodial orders are presumably more favorable (cf. Acts 24:23; 26:31–32) than they were in 16:23, and Paul’s keeper now respects him as an agent of deity (27:31–32).

1291. Though, given the respect Paul commanded as a miracle worker, he could undoubtedly have avoided meat without offense provided he offered explanation, just as Pythagoreans could be generally respected for their distinctive dietary practices.

1292. For the significance of table fellowship in antiquity, see, e.g., Jipp, Visitations, 105–11 (on guest-friendship in the historians); briefly, Keener, Acts, 1:1005. The significance of table fellowship may be more readily intelligible in cultures with similar approaches; see, e.g., Adewuya, “Revisiting”; cf. also Kim, Bread; Velankanni, “Eucharist.”

1293. For discussion of this issue, see, e.g., Powell, “Table Fellowship.”

1294. And probably Paul’s as well; see Gal 2:11–14, though the character of the food itself is not specified.

1295. Cf. Rapske, Custody, 214–15.

1296. Cf. Dunn, Acts, 348 (stressing the need of the 276 to pay for lodgings).

1297. See Hock, Social Context, 79 (n. 28, comparing Sen. Y. Ben. 4.11.3; 37.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.2–20, 55–58; Ach. Tat. 6.9.3).

1298. See also Rapske, Custody, 273.

1299. Also Johnson, Acts, 466; Chance, Acts, 516; Pervo, Acts, 675; Jipp, Visitations, 50, 266–67; Zimmermann, “Hinführung,” 515; for a different approach, cf. Kirchschläger, “Fieberheilung.” In Luke 4:39, Jesus “rebuked” the fever as he would a demon (note 4:35; 9:42; cf. the variant reading in 9:55; 4Q560 I, 4; though cf. also Luke 8:24); cf. interpretations of Lev 26:16; Deut 28:22. Some scholars thus think that a spirit was involved in Luke 4:38–39 (e.g., Pilch, Healing, 99, 106). For fever demons, see also, e.g., Dickie, “Headless Demons”; cf. Levene, “Heal.” The probably deliberate parallel does not require us to suppose that Luke invented either event (one with a source in Mark 1:30–31, the other in a “we” section; on parallels and history, see discussion at Keener, Acts, 1:562–74, esp. 569–74).

1300. With Tannehill, Acts, 340; Witherington, Acts, 776. Tannehill’s doubt that evangelism was involved, however, is questionable: by this point, Luke can expect his audience to know that apostles heal by Jesus’s name (Acts 3:6; 16:18; 19:13), although, of course, Paul’s Greek would be of more limited kerygmatic benefit on Malta (cf. comment on Acts 28:2). Just as baptism, faith, or repentance is not mentioned with every conversion but other passages allow us to infer this pattern of Lukan soteriology, we should expect some evangelism (spiritual benefaction) arising out of the physical benefaction here.

1301. Cf. Niang, “Seeing,” 170, on Rome’s belief in its divine mission to “civilize” barbarians.

1302. Fitzmyer, Acts, 784, notes the practice for exorcism in 1Qap Genar XX, 21–22, 28–29. Cf. also Jos. Asen. 8:9; 21:6; 2 Kgs 5:11 LXX.

1303. With Weissenrieder, Images, 345. Nevertheless, her connection of that image with images of physicians with serpents in the hand seems less compelling, since Luke does not connect the serpent with healing here (despite the common image, e.g., Quint. Curt. 9.8.26–27; Statius Silv. 3.4.25; Paus. 2.27.2; Lucian Alex. 14; Ramsay, Letters, 286; Koester, Introduction, 1:182; Klauck, Context, 165; earlier, Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 42).

1304. One may also note that instead of falling sick from the rain and “cold” in 28:2, Paul healed another’s fever.

1305. I treated these following matters in Keener, “Fever.”

1306. Touwaide, “Disease,” 550. In most cities, some people had fever, but only in unusual epidemics did most people have it (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.92). Snakebite (Acts 28:3–4) could also cause fever (cf. perhaps “fiery” serpents in the wilderness, Num 21:6; Deut 8:15), but the connection is not strong enough (given the wider variety of associations both with snakebite and with fever) to emphasize a connection in Luke’s narrative. “Fever” usually designated a particular class of illness (Nutton, “Fever,” 409).

1307. Touwaide, “Malaria,” 195. Touwaide notes (195–96) that it spread from Africa to Mesopotamia, impacted Greece more noticeably especially ca. 430 B.C.E. and later, but spread farther in the Hellenistic period, peaking in the second century C.E. and then declining in late antiquity and the Byzantine era. For ancient mosquito plagues and local efforts to eradicate them, see Hünemörder, “Mosquito.”

1308. Sallares, “Disease”; especially malaria (Nutton, “Fever,” 410).

1309. This may be especially relevant for those who find much medical imagery in Luke-Acts (see esp. and helpfully Weissenrieder, Images). Ordinary papyri might tell us more about popular views than do medical texts, although Luke’s ideal audience would have been urban and often more educated than those who typically dictated extant Egyptian papyrus documents; one of my doctoral students, Thomas Grafton, has been collecting some observations regarding sickness and health in the papyri. Nevertheless, medical texts at least provide an ancient context, as I suggested in Keener, “Fever.”

1310. The singular appears in Matt 8:15; Mark 1:31; Luke 4:38–39; John 4:52; and Deut 28:22 LXX; never in the Apostolic Fathers.

1311. Hobart, Medical Language, 52; Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 16. That malarial (and “sand-fly”) attacks were intermittent, of course, requires no specialist knowledge (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 343), and Luke’s Mediterranean audience would grasp his point readily.

1312. With, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 343. Sallares, “Disease,” speaks of malarial fevers recurring “every two or three days.” No one would assume that one who had recovered from fever only a few days before had necessarily been cured (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.17). For continuous fever, see, e.g., Hippocr. Epid. 2.2.6; 5.1, 16.

1313. Hippocr. Epid. 7.2. My wife and son both experienced frequent nocturnal malarial attacks in Central Africa.

1314. Hippocr. Dis. 2.40 (recommending withholding medicine until the ninth day, after the patient had finished being “cleaned out”).

1315. Various writers’ ideas are preserved under Hippocrates’s name; although I list most works under their purported authors’ names for the sake of consistency (since degree of certainty about the authenticity of documents varies), probably most of the Hippocratic corpus belongs to Hippocrates’s successors.

1316. Sallares, “Disease,” suggests that malaria was most common in summer and fall; but fall had transitioned into winter here.

1317. Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 24.

1318. Hippocr. Aff. 12; (more severely) Reg. Ac. Dis. 24. Drink and gruel also helped summer fevers (Aff. 14).

1319. For a mother caring for her child (t. Šabb. 12:13 [R. Simeon ben Gamaliel]; y. Maʿaś. Š. 2:1, §4). Fever appears with chills in Deut 28:22 LXX and subsequent incantations (4Q560 and elsewhere; see Lincicum, “Fever”).

1320. See Hippocr. Nat. Man 15.1–40. Sallares, “Disease,” notes three types: (1) falciparum, the most harmful; (2) vivax, the most common; and (3) quartan.

1321. See Hippocr. Epid. 1.24; also Nat. Man 15.22–40, on quartans.

1322. Hippocr. Epid. 6.6.11. On quartan fever (τεταρταίος), see further 4.13; 6.6.5.

1323. Hippocr. Nat. Man 15.22–40. Four-day (quadrini circuitus) fevers did not start in the winter (Pliny E. N.H. 7.50.170).

1324. Hippocr. Epid. 5.89; 7.43, 95, 96.

1325. Hippocr. Aff. 14 prescribes drink and gruel for violent summer fevers, with recovery expected on the seventh or ninth day.

1326. Hippocr. Epid. 6.14.

1327. Φλογιῶσιν, Hippocr. Glands 2. Fevers are καῦσοι in Airs 3.27–29.

1328. Hippocr. Pl. Man 27. Dis. 1.23 views the heating of bile or phlegm as the cause of fever.

1329. Hippocr. Pl. Man 27. One should not, however, heat the head lest one add to the fever and produce delirium (33).

1330. Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 36.

1331. See the occasional beneficial effects of dysentery that Hippocratics supposed, noted below.

1332. Touwaide, “Malaria,” 195.

1333. Stambaugh, City, 136–37 (the source is probably from the first century C.E.).

1334. Pliny E. N.H. 26.71.115; another remedy in 26.71.116.

1335. Dossey, “Greeks,” 237, noting that some Roman physicians such as Caelius objected.

1336. Pliny E. N.H. 28.66.228 (in a larger list in 28.66.228–29).

1337. Pliny E. N.H. 28.66.228. Pliny reports with healthy cynicism such cures proposed by magi (28.66.229); he notes that they specify the necessary details of the cures so precisely that no one can obtain such things (29.12.53)! According to the magi, mixing the head and tail of a dragon with lion’s forehead hair and other substances makes one invulnerable (29.20.68).

1338. Pliny E. N.H. 28.66.228 (the amulet must be worn for seven of the fever’s periods to prevent relapse).

1339. Pliny E. N.H. 28.23.82.

1340. Pliny E. N.H. 28.23.83.

1341. Pliny E. N.H. 30.30.98. For traditional magical cures for quartan fevers, see 30.30.98–104.

1342. Hippocr. Epid. 2.6.26; 7.3; Hobart, Medical Language, 52; see esp. Weissenrieder, Images, 342 (who notes connections with this illness in ancient medical texts, especially Luke’s depiction of the father’s age, the season, and the climate, pp. 343–44). BDAG cites Hippocrates (CMG 1.1:57, lines 27–28; 1.1:60, line 27. Josephus attributes the affliction of Ashdod partly to dysentery (Ant. 6.3).

1343. Hippocr. Prorr. 1.143; Epid. 1.17.5–13.

1344. Hippocr. Prorr. 2.22. So painful was dysentery that later rabbis assigned it atoning efficacy, forgiving all of the sufferer’s sins (Le Cornu, Acts, 1486, citing b. ʿErub. 41b).

1345. Hippocr. Epid. 7.3. Cicero had dysentery for ten days (Fam. 7.26; Shelton, Romans, 86).

1346. Hippocr. Epid. 1.15.16–18.

1347. Fevers made digestion worse (Galen N.F. 2.8.119); thin excretions from the bowels often accompanied dysentery (Hippocr. Epid. 1.17.1–4).

1348. Hippocr. Airs 7.27–29. (On climate conditions for dysentery, cf. also 3.24.) Although not understanding malaria’s transmission by mosquitoes, ancients recognized that malaria prevailed especially in swampy regions (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 11.5; Touwaide, “Malaria,” 195).

1349. Hippocr. Airs 10.13.

1350. Trans. P. Potter, LCL, 5:43 (noting that one should treat it by cleaning the head and providing medicine to clean out bile; doing so while the patient remained strong was his or her only hope).

1351. E.g., Hippocr. Epid. 4.38, 41; 7.3. In one unusual account, a woman had dysentery and bloody stool until she gave birth, then became healthy (5.90; 7.99).

1352. Hippocr. Epid. 5.30.

1353. See also sources cited by Weissenrieder, Images, 341.

1354. Sallares, “Disease.”

1355. Cf. Hippocr. Epid. 4.38, where a patient’s health improved in general after the dysentery ended.

1356. After dysentery ended, the patient would have “an abscess or some swelling” (Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 35 [trans. Potter, LCL, 6:301]).

1357. Pliny E. N.H. 28.58.202–10 deals with cures for the bowels in general.

1358. Pliny E. N.H. 20.11.21.

1359. Pliny E. N.H. 24.72.116. Basil rubbed into the skin also helped diarrhea associated with cholera (20.48.121–22).

1360. Pliny E. N.H. 24.79.129.

1361. Pliny E. N.H. 28.58.204.

1362. Pliny E. N.H. 20.84.227–28.

1363. Pliny E. N.H. 20.86.234.

1364. Pliny E. N.H. 22.55.116.

1365. Pliny E. N.H. 23.3.3. So also omphacium, from vines (23.4.7), and ground-up grape stones (23.9.13).

1366. Pliny E. N.H. 23.81.162.

1367. Pliny E. N.H. 30.19.55–58.

1368. Hemer, Acts in History, 153–54; Bruce, Commentary, 523n17.

1369. Larkin, Acts, 381.

1370. Barrett, Acts, 1226.

1371. Wilkinson, Healing, 160; cf. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 176 (“dysenteric symptoms in only 7 percent of cases”).

1372. Wilkinson, Healing, 160–61; idem, Health, 87.

1373. See Theissen, Miracle Stories, 65.

1374. People brought remedies to these shrines, which they then applied to the afflicted (Val. Max. 2.5.6). Cf. also Graf, “Healing Gods.” In the second and third centuries C.E., those with malaria also invoked “Tertiana or Quartana (CIL 7.99; 12.3129); in Cicero’s day they were not yet deified (Nat. d. 3.24)” (Graf, “Healing Gods”; see also Nutton, “Fever,” 410); on personified Febris, see also Schaffner, “Febris,” 376. Pliny the Elder regarded the temple to Febris as base superstition (N.H. 2.5.15–16, esp. 16).

1375. Scheid, “Febris.”

1376. See Dickie, “Headless Demons”; Levene, “Heal.”

1377. E.g., PGM 36.69, 80–84, 102, 110–14, 199–200, 295–311, 340–41, 346, 355–59; 62.1–24; 101.32–33.

1378. Cf. esp. LiDonnici, “Burning.” In third-century C.E. Jewish sources, cf. Test. Sol. 8:5–7 (brought to my attention by an anonymous reviewer of my article Keener, “Fever,” for the Bulletin for Biblical Research).

1379. This source derives from a later period when hero cults were more common, but the hero cult with which healing was most associated—that of Asclepius—was quite prominent by Paul’s day. See Keener, Acts, 1:326–29.

1380. Although most of my African informants have suffered malaria and used medicine, there are reports of some instant and permanent healings from severe forms of malaria (e.g., Thomas, Walls, 84; cf. Chevreau, Turnings, 142). People report many other immediate healings from fevers in the context of prayer, although these did not ordinarily provide permanent immunity from subsequent cases of fevers of any sort (e.g., in Keener, Miracles, 230, 275–76, 282, 283n123, 284n125, 295, 335, 346, 346n236, 347–50, 364, 367, 373, 383n210, 386, 388, 408n427, 411–12, 418, 419n518, 431n26, 448, 452, 504n506, 546–47, 569, 641; for dysentery, see ibid., 279).

1381. See, e.g., Derickson, “Cessation,” arguing partly from Paul’s not healing Epaphroditus (Phil 2:26–27), Timothy (1 Tim 5:23), and Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20). But not everyone was healed earlier in Paul’s ministry, either, including Paul himself (Gal 4:13). See the brief discussion concerning signs in this commentary’s introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:537–49, esp. 539–41). Some allow that healings continued but suggest that they were no longer appropriately called “signs”; but see comment in Keener, Acts, 3:2239n319.

1382. Certainly signs and charismatic activity are still emphasized in later books, such as Revelation (e.g., Rev 11:3–6; 19:10) and the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:18; 4:14).

1383. Dollar, “Theology of Healing,” 46, for the table; for the conclusion, 47.

1384. They seem to predominate in missionary church-planting settings, breaking fresh ground in evangelism (with Wagner, Acts, 536); this remains true both in earlier history and in many modern accounts (see, e.g., Keener, Miracles, 226, 240n159, 241, 265, 277–79, 288, 367–68; Yung, “Integrity,” 173–75; Moreland, Triangle, 166–67). One would not expect as many during a period of detention, even if it is depicted in great detail, but Paul’s continuing charismatic speech, at least, is assumed (cf. Luke 12:11–12).

1385. See Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 149.

1386. Ibid., 150, specifically arguing that the emphasis on persecution later in Mark does not negate the earlier emphasis on miracles but adds to it. The frequent parallelisms in Luke-Acts (noted by, e.g., Goulder, Talbert, and Tannehill) suggest that, if Luke’s repetition diverges from the common aggregative function of repetition at all, it is only to make it more emphatic.

1387. Though, as already noted, the “noble barbarian” tradition already existed, as did other more nuanced perspectives. Luke’s perspective is friendly but is not unique to him.

1388. E.g., Phaedrus 4.23; Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 1–2; cf. similarly in the case of a refugee from war (Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 3).

1389. Finegan, Apostles, 202, citing Chrys. Hom. Acts 54. Third- to sixth-century C.E. catacombs in the proximity of Rabat point to a strong Christian presence at least in that period (Kalcyk and Niemeyer, “Melite”).

1390. Many would have at least regarded his God as particularly powerful, and the strict monotheism of Paul’s message would have invited a more specific faith content for those who embraced it.

1391. See Keener, Acts, 1:362–77, and other sources noted there.

1392. Kurz, Acts, 378–79. Other recent commentators on various books have also begun to take account of Majority World testimony to extraordinary healing and the like (e.g., Das, Galatians, 300).

1393. Twelftree, Paul, 229–71. One should note that he treats many of the individual accounts in just one or two pages. I address this work here because it appeared too recently for treatment in this commentary’s introduction.

1394. Twelftree, Paul, 270. The minimum, however, seems to me a very bare minimum, and on grounds that I believe are often far less dependable than would be considering Luke’s general reliability where we can test him. Twelftree rejects both Luke and “we” as eyewitnesses. Twelftree’s argument pertains only to Luke’s reports, however; Twelftree does not deny the possibility or reality of miracles (see, e.g., Twelftree, Miracle Worker, 41–42; idem, “Historian and Miraculous”).

1395. Twelftree, Paul, 271.

1396. See, e.g., Gonzalez, “Healing” (published in the same year as Twelftree). For my own approach to Luke’s miracle reports, see more extensively Keener, Acts, 1:320–82; idem, “Miracle Reports: Perspectives”; “Raising”; “Reports and Analogy”; “Reports Today”; “Miracles”; “Miracles: Dictionary.” Because I find Luke generally reliable where he can be tested, including in the claim that miracles were believed to have happened through Paul’s ministry (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12), I accept the core of his reports as historical evidence as I would any other ancient historical source so otherwise credible (see Keener, Acts, 1:166–257). This means not that such sources did not elaborate, mix information (accidentally or deliberately), and the like but that historical reports are themselves evidence to be considered with or without specific external corroboration.

1397. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 16.

1398. Roman armies also had medical staff (see Southern, Army, 233–37), but there is no reason to believe that Julius’s small band of soldiers included one.

1399. Ibid., citing also Harnack. Knowling, “Acts,” 541–42, cites Holtzmann to this effect but treats the matter only as possible, not certain.

1400. Both terms also have their figurative uses (Luke 4:23; Acts 28:27). See likewise the critique by Wilkinson, Healing, 164.

1401. See comments on honor and shame at Acts 13:44–45 and 26:32; cf. comment on gratitude at 23:17–18. Even Stoics allowed honor as a contingent good (though not an intrinsic one; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5 L, pp. 34–35.17–20).

1402. See, e.g., Klauck, Context, 165. Suggestions that this image informs 1 Cor 12:12–27 (cf. Hill, “Temple”; Garner, “Temple of Asklepius”; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 165) are unlikely in view of closer Stoic language.

1403. With Witherington, Acts, 780; Bruce, Commentary, 524. One could “honor” physicians financially (Sir 38:1) and hence a healer such as Paul; this need not suggest Luke’s medical skill here (a possibility suggested, e.g., by Bruce, Commentary, 524n18). Pervo, Acts, 671, finds implausible Luke’s “neglect” of Paul’s prisoner status in this section, but Luke has supplied plausible reasons for his favored treatment, treatment that could also be given to other honorable prisoners on occasion (e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.203).

1404. Johnson, Acts, 463, thinks “honors” more likely in the first phrase because the second phrase is monetary; but the first phrase may refer to honors or gifts during the many weeks that Paul spent with the people of Malta, and the second to parting gifts (though the Greek is not fully clear). In Symm. Ep. 1.20.2, pupils should honor their teachers with gifts.

1405. Cf. Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66.

1406. Witherington, Acts, 783.

1407. Neither in Acts nor in Paul’s letters did everyone appreciate Paul (see, e.g., Phil 1:15, 17; Keener, “Apologetic”), but emphasizing the affection of many who knew or knew of Paul functions as a narrative means of praising Paul’s character, thus supporting the narrative’s overall apologetic agenda. It also fits the expressions of affection, often mutual, in Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–15; 2 Cor 1:6–7; 6:11–13; 7:2–4; 12:14–15, 19; Gal 4:12–20; Phil 1:7–8; 2:17; 1 Thess 2:7–12; 3:5–12).

1408. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 343.

1409. Fitzmyer, Acts, 784, suggests this sailing date. Sailing season opened in Corinth one year on March 5 (Apul. Metam. 11.5, 17; Conzelmann, Acts, 223).

1410. The fast was later (Oct. 5) in 59 C.E., and so they possibly reach Malta as late as late October (Hemer, Acts in History, 154); see comment on Acts 27:9. Luke does not specify how long the fast had been over.

1411. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 343; Bruce, Commentary, 525; Hemer, Acts in History, 154; Rapske, “Travel,” 24–25; cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 223. Libanius Descr. 7.5 has ambiguously “spring.”

1412. See Davis, “Navigation,” 71–72.

1413. Witherington, Acts, 781. On incentives, see comment on Acts 27:9.

1414. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 379, thought that these vessels often sailed in a body (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 77.1), but admitted that there were exceptions such as this one and that in Acts 27:6.

1415. Ships that wintered in or near Italy might have a better voyage back to Alexandria in the spring than the reverse (cf. Casson, Mariners, 210).

1416. E.g., Bruce, Acts1, 473; Witherington, Acts, 781. Valletta was built in 1565; its heart is on the Mount Sceberras promontory, between the east and west harbors.

1417. A much larger town, Sliema, with some 15,000 residents, is in Valletta’s immediate proximity.

1418. Finegan, Apostles, 200.

1419. Though, for ancient ships, “a rather wide and dangerous stretch of the sea” separated Malta from Sicily (Cic. Verr. 2.4.46.103 [LCL, 8:409]; cf. the story of a shipwreck en route to Sicily in Libanius Narration 13).

1420. See Rapske, Custody, 272–73; comment on Acts 27:3.

1421. Bede Comm. Acts 28.11 rightly corrects the Latin insigne Castrorum (“standard of fortified camps”; see comment on Acts 28:16) to insigne Castorum (“standard of the Castores”), based on Διοσκούροις in Acts’ Greek manuscripts.

1422. An old ship dedicates herself to the Dioscuri in the image in Catull. Carm. 4.25–27; sailors often dedicated their rudders to sea deities as well (Max. Tyre 2.1). In a novel, Clitophon has heard sailors claim that ships may be sacred (Ach. Tat. 5.16.8), perhaps referring to their dedication to deities on their figureheads. On the Dioscuri, note also the brief discussion in Keener, Miracles, 584–85; Dowden, “Dioskouroi,” 258.

1423. E.g., NRSV; Bruce, Acts1, 473.

1424. Greeks favored these literal figureheads far less than did their Phoenician predecessors (Casson, Mariners, 79); the prows often extended forward like battering rams, though not for that purpose (192). Ancient Homeric prows did have “fish-shaped or bird-shaped” ensigns on top (42); the cult image in Philost. Hrk. 9.6 might be attached to the prow. The upright beam on the prow often included a relief relevant to the ship’s name (Casson, Mariners, 193), such as a deity (ibid., plate 42).

1425. Cf. the head of a deity in the niche on the prow in Casson, Mariners, plate 38.

1426. Lucian Ship 5. For how they may have been portrayed, see Bredow, “Dioscuri: Iconography.”

1427. BDAG suggests a textual corruption, but Luke’s wording might reflect Jewish anti-pagan influence (the adjective παράσημος is used for a pagan brand in 3 Macc 2:29).

1428. BDAG, citing, e.g., Plut. Mor. 162a; P.Lond. 2.256a, 2 p. 99; P.Tebt. 486; CIL 3 = ILS 4395.

1429. Bruce, Acts1, 473; Longenecker, Acts, 362; Johnson, Acts, 463 (citing Plut. Dinner 18, Mor. 162B; Br. Wom. 9, Mor. 248A; also the Isis in Lucian Ship 5).

1430. With various nuances, see Ladouceur, “Shipwreck and Pollution,” 443–47; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 57; Witherington, Acts, 770.

1431. Lucian Dial. C. 14 (Dorio and Myrtale 4), 321.

1432. It could be mere description, but that he mentions only this insignia and not those of other ships suggests that he does have a point here and that he is well aware of the association of the Dioscuri with sea voyages.

1433. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.21.12; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2; for superstition and sailing, see Casson, Travel, 155; for specifically astrological superstition and sailing, see Manilius Astrology (Astronomica) (ca. 14 C.E.) in Friedländer, Life, 1:189.

1434. Given grain ships sailing to and from Alexandria, association with an Egyptian goddess (Isis) is not surprising.

1435. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 148, §46D. They work for Poseidon in Lucian Dial. G. 287 (25/26, Apollo and Hermes).

1436. E.g., Bruce, Acts1, 474; Johnson, Acts, 463 (citing Epict. Diatr. 2.18.29; Lucian Ship 9; Ael. Arist. Or. 4.35–37); cf. Gradl, “Glaube,” 260.

1437. Eurip. El. 1240–42.

1438. E.g., Diod. Sic. 4.43.1–2; Artem. Oneir. 2.37; Lucian Dial. G. 287 (25/26, Apollo and Hermes); Alex. 4 (cf. Casson, Travel, 178); cf. Libanius Topics 3.7 (comparing the role of physicians for the sick). Helen joins them as a “savior” of sailors in Eurip. Orest. 1636–37 (she was their sister even in the earliest sources; Hom. Il. 3.237–38; she secured immortality for them in Lucian Charid. 6).

1439. Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103C. Alexander scorning the Dioscuri (Dio Chrys. Or. 64.20) is an example of his hubris (64.21).

1440. E.g., Sil. It. 15.82–83; Catull. Carm. 68A.65; Epict. Diatr. 2.18.29.

1441. E.g., Ovid Fasti 5.720. They are depicted with stars on their heads in Lucian Dial. G. 282 (25/26, Apollo and Hermes).

1442. Max. Tyre 9.7 (Trapp, Maximus, 83n23, compares Alcaeus frg. 34; Hom. Hymns 33 [to the Dioscuri]; Theoc. 22.8–22).

1443. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 101.

1444. Corcoran in LCL, 1:21n2. “Saint Elmo” is an Italian corruption of “Saint Erasmus” of Formia (died ca. 303 C.E.), one of sailors’ patron saints. Sailors also endured nearby lightning during storms (Libanius Anecdote 3.25).

1445. Lucian Ship 9. Lucian regards many claims of their appearing on the masthead as fabricated (Posts 1).

1446. Lucian Charid. 3.

1447. Artem. Oneir. 2.37.

1448. Plut. Lys. 12.1 (the stars disappeared before another battle that the Spartans lost, 18.1). They also reportedly appeared in the Forum so as to symbolize a victory (Plut. Coriol. 3.4) and allegedly appeared at the lake of Juturna (Val. Max. 1.8.1). For their association with Sparta, see also, e.g., Robbins, “Kastoreion.”

1449. Appian Hist. rom. 12.15.101, 103. Euhemerus extolled them among the Argonauts and noted that they appear as helpers of those in danger (Sacr. Hist. 6, in Grant, Religions, 76).

1450. E.g., Cypria frg. 9, from Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.30.5 (GEF 89).

1451. Cypria frg. 17, from Philod. Piety B 4833 Obbink (GEF 97). He was killed in the course of the brothers’ stealing cattle (Cypria 3)! Elsewhere, they plundered Athens (Cypria frg. 12, from scholiast D on Hom. Il. 3.242 [GEF 93]).

1452. On the alternation, see also, e.g., Sil. It. 9.295; 13.804–5; Lucian Dial. D. 328–29 (1/1, Diogenes 1). Many ancients seem to have assumed six months in heaven apiece annually, but Hom. Od. 11.304 has both living every other day (so also Cypria 3; Lucian Dial. G. 276 [4/24, Hermes and Maia 1]; 281 [25/26, Apollo and Hermes]). Some thought that Castor received the better end of the deal (Suet. Jul. 10.1); others joked that the alternation was a foolish way to express love, since they would not manage to see each other (Lucian Dial. G. 286 [25/26, Apollo and Hermes]).

1453. Ovid Tristia 4.5.30; Pont. 1.7.32; Val. Max. 5.5.3.

1454. E.g., Hor. Odes 3.3.9–10 (Pollux); 4.5.35–36 (Castor); Epodes 17.40–44; Quint. Curt. 8.5.8 (a Roman probably creating dialogue for earlier Greeks); Arrian Alex. 4.8.2–3. Some people had identified them with Samothracian gods (e.g., Varro Latin Language 5.10.58). On their role in religion, see, e.g., Scheer, “Dioscuri.”

1455. E.g., Paus. 1.18.2.

1456. E.g., Paus. 3.13.6; 5.15.5.

1457. So, apparently, Gr. Anth. 6.149.

1458. Pers. Sat. 5.49. Both Greeks and Romans included them in the zodiac (Hübner, “Constellations,” 1189); this constellation also appears in Jewish astrological texts (e.g., 4Q318 2 II, 9). For astrology in seafaring, see, e.g., Friedländer, Life, 1:189.

1459. Bruce, Commentary, 474, citing Hor. Odes 1.3.2; 3.29.64.

1460. Pausanias (reporting local stories) in 3.16.2–3; 4.3.1. This fits the behavior of immortal “heroes” in Philost. Hrk. passim.

1461. E.g., using heroes as patron deities (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 14.4) or sacrificing to them when passing through their regions (17.6; 18.2).

1462. See Parker, “Dioscuri.”

1463. Purcell, “Castor.” Cf., e.g., Symm. Ep. 1.95.3; and Salzman’s list of other versions in Symmachus, 174n6 (Val. Max. 1.8.1; Ovid Fasti 1.708; Latin Panegyrics 2.39.4).

1464. Val. Max. 1.8.1.

1465. Cic. Sest. 15.34; 37.79; 38.83; 39.85; Quinct. 4.17; Phil. 6.5.13; Verr. 2.1.50.130; 2.1.51.133; Res gest. 4.20. It was visible from the venue of Verres’s trial (Verr. 2.3.16.41).

1466. Statius Silv. 1.1.53–54 (“Leda’s son”).

1467. Suet. Tib. 20.

1468. Suet. Calig. 22.2.

1469. Vanderpool, “Portraiture,” 376–77 (her examples are from Corinth, and Paul may have seen them). For use in imperial propaganda, cf. also Purcell, “Castor”; Kauppi, Gods, 113–14. Unlike cultures fearful of twins, Romans celebrated them (in the imperial family, see Tac. Ann. 2.84); some ancient authorities attributed twins’ birth to superfetation (“Twins,” 50; Pindar Pythian 9.84–86; Apollod. Bib. 3.10.7; Sen. Y. Ben. 7.1.3; Pliny E. N.H. 7.11.48–49; for superfetation generally, see Remus, Conflict, 31–34; Pliny E. N.H. 10.83.182).

1470. Occasionally the Dioscuri are portrayed as riding on horseback, a fairly distinctive posture among Greek and Roman deities (Oppermann, “Rider-gods”; they ride white horses in Lucian Dial. G. 283 [25/26, Apollo and Hermes]); Castor was also an old patron deity of chariot racing (Pindar Pyth. 5.9; much earlier, Homer linked him with horses, Il. 3.237; Od. 11.300; for their charioteers, see Pliny E. N.H. 6.5.16, who assumes them to be historical figures; cf. Robbins, “Kastoreion”). This claim is, however, of no relevance to Luke’s narrative; the more prominent associations are more relevant.

1471. That another pair of twin deities was native to Sicily as early as the sixth century B.C.E. and continued to be venerated into this period (Lamboley, “Palici,” 386) might have also facilitated the early welcome of the Dioscuri in Sicily, Paul’s next stop.

1472. See Kee, Every Nation, 294.

1473. Pliny E. N.H. 3.10.96.

1474. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:28, notes what are thought to be the Dioscuri on reliefs in south Pisidia, where Paul has also traveled.

1475. Some evidence cited in support of this (Jacobson, “Colors”; cf. idem, “Helmet”), however, does not seem compelling (Brenner, “True to Form”).

1476. Lüdemann, Christianity, 265.

1477. Although the voyage from Malta to Syracuse was roughly half that from Cephallenia, Barrett, Acts, 1229, considers neither suggestion implausible.

1478. Casson, Mariners, 208.

1479. E.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.15 (in transit from Italy to the east).

1480. Sicily is en route to western Italy in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.10; it also appears on or near that route in Lucian True Story 1.34 (one of the account’s few resemblances with reality).

1481. On Sicily, see Pliny E. N.H. 3.8.86–3.9.94 (including volcanoes in 3.9.93–94); Olshausen, “Sicily”; Finley, Sicily; Goldsberry, “Sicily”; Wilson, Sicily; Scramuzza, Sicily; Guido, Sicily; Messineo and Borgia, Ancient Sicily; Tribulato, Language; earlier, Freeman, Story of Sicily; for recent excavations, see De Angelis, “Archaeology”; for archaeology of Syracuse, Günther, “Syracusae,” 51–52; Olshausen, “Sicily.” Given Greek history in Syracuse, educated Greeks also knew that Syracuse lay in Sicily (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.14–15); its capture by Rome in 212 B.C.E. allowed Rome to make Sicily a Roman province (Vell. Paterc. 2.38.2).

1482. So Hemer, Acts in History, 154, who suggests a north or northwest wind hindering “the passage of the Straits of Messina.” A delay for unloading is very unlikely, since this Alexandrian ship was undoubtedly carrying grain for Rome.

1483. Casson, Mariners, 208 (noting that ships in a hurry might press ahead against northwesterly winds anyway). A Roman writer says that southerly winds were dominant in summer (Pliny E. N.H. 2.47.123–24); for Italy, the south and southwest winds are damp (2.48.126; Pliny held the south wind to be especially unhealthy when dry, 2.48.127); Pliny also held that the south wind generates higher waves on average than the northeast wind (2.48.128).

1484. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103, estimate a quarter million for Syracuse.

1485. Cic. Verr. 2.4.52.117 (trans. L. H. G. Greenwood, LCL, 8:427); the claim suits his purpose of emphasizing Verres’s wickedness against it. That Augustus called his private study “Syracuse” (Suet. Aug. 72.2) may reflect Roman aesthetic appreciation for the city; cf. Gowers, “Syracuse.”

1486. Finegan, Apostles, 206, lists five districts.

1487. On Arethusa (and its supposed subterranean link with Greece), see Pliny E. N.H. 2.106.225; cf. 3.8.89.

1488. Finegan, Apostles, 206.

1489. Tac. Ann. 13.49.

1490. Finegan, Apostles, 207.

1491. On Corinth, Archias, and the wealth, see Strabo 6.2.4; for the date, see Bruce, Commentary, 526. The harbor contributed to Syracuse’s wealth (Clarke, “Italy,” 479).

1492. See also Woodhead and Wilson, “Syracuse,” 1464; Jameson, “Sicily,” 1402. For Syracuse’s history, especially the Greek period, see Günther, “Syracusae,” 40–51 (though the Roman period is treated only briefly, 50–51); Cartledge, Ancient Greece; Champion, Tyrants; Favorito, Coinage.

1493. Jameson, “Sicily Cults.”

1494. Woodhead and Wilson, “Syracuse.” On Persephone worship in Syracuse, see Zuntz, Persephone, passim.

1495. See Rutgers, “Interaction.” See at length Simonson, Jews in Sicily.

1496. Pliny the Elder estimated the Strait of Messina, between Italy and Sicily, at ca. 1.5 mi. (12 stadia; N.H. 3.5.73; also noted in 3.8.86); in fact, the strait is 8 mi. (13 km.) wide at the south and 2 mi. (3 km.) wide at the north (Finegan, Apostles, 208). Rhegium was estimated by Pliny at 11.5 mi. (93 stadia) from that tip. (Most sources either identify ancient Columna Regia, on the strait, with—or locate it near—the modern Reggio di Calabria [e.g., H. Rackham in LCL, 2:54 n. a, on N.H. 3.8.86]. A recent source brought to my attention by Joseph Carey places Columna Regia somewhat further, about 15 km. north, between Porticello and Punta Pezzo.)

1497. On navigating Scylla and Charybdis here, see Davis, “Navigation,” 232–33.

1498. Ibid., 231, citing Med Pilot 2.560.

1499. Heavy winds required greater caution, having destroyed ships in this area (see Davis, “Navigation,” 232, following James Smith in n. 122).

1500. Davis, “Navigation,” 231, notes (at least with respect to the calmer seasons) that ships would normally “enter the southern end of the strait at mid-channel in the morning at or near the onset of . . . the northerly flood current which averages approximately 5 kts,” propelling the ship north. Ships always navigated the passage by daylight.

1501. Ibid., 231–32.

1502. Lomas, “Rhegium.” The emperor Gaius Caligula had built places for receiving Alexandrian grain ships in Sicily and Rhegium (Jos. Ant. 19.205).

1503. For the Alexandrian route, cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:352; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 377; Moore, “Life,” 229.

1504. Clarke, “Italy,” 479. Messene was founded at about the same time on the Sicilian side (Finegan, Apostles, 208).

1505. Lomas, “Rhegium.” Rhegium produced the great sculptor Pythagoras (Pliny E. N.H. 34.19.59, 60). Further on Rhegium, see also Muggia, “Regium”; earlier, Vallet, Rhégion.

1506. Conzelmann, Acts, 224. The voyage from a comparable point in Italy south to Messene took about three days in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.15.

1507. For this leg of the voyage, early spring was much more favorable than summer or autumn (Davis, “Navigation,” 233).

1508. Finegan, Apostles, 208, noting that it had twelve villas and Tiberius lived there from 26/27 to 37 (described in Tac. Ann. 4.67).

1509. Finegan, Apostles, 208. Vesuvius, which erupted violently in 79 C.E., was ca. 30 km. from Puteoli.

1510. Ibid., 209.

1511. Ibid., 210.

1512. Ibid., 211.

1513. Ibid. (noting that the amphitheater was expanded to seat forty thousand under the Flavians, making it one of Italy’s largest; this in turn suggests its prominence already in Paul’s day). Already in 1851 scholars had counted thirteen structures in Puteoli’s harbor (Abbott, Acts, 259).

1514. Cf. Cadbury, Acts in History, 60; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 13; Clarke, “Italy,” 479; Casson, Mariners, 210. Ships from western Sicily sailed northeast toward Puteoli or other Roman ports, a trajectory confirmed by a cluster of shipwrecks in the Sicilian Channel; see Davis, “Navigation,” 84, following McCann and Oleson, Shipwrecks; cf. also McCann and Freed, Archaeology.

1515. Casson, Travel, 129; idem, Mariners, 199–200. In the late republic, Puteoli was known for its granaries (Cic. Fin. 2.26.84).

1516. Conzelmann, Acts, 224 (citing, for Ostia’s later ascendancy, Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 77; for Puteoli’s corresponding decline, OGIS 595); cf. Strabo 5.4.6. Based on dental enamel, some argue for heavy first-century youthful immigration to Ostia-Portus (Prowse et al., “Isotopic Evidence”); some criticize that study’s methodology (Bruun, “Isotopes”), but others defend it as the simplest explanation of the data (Killgrove, “Response”). On Ostia (and Claudius’s lighthouse there), see further, e.g., Meiggs, Gallina, and Claridge, Roman Ostia; Bakker, Mills-Bakeries; Olssen, Mitternacht, and Brandt, Synagogue; Davis, “Navigation,” 234–36; Bédoyère, Cities; Stöger, Rethinking Ostia; Laurence and Newsome, Rome, Ostia, Pompeii; van der Meer, Ostia Speaks. Further on Puteoli, see Zevi and Jodice, Puteoli; Jones, Bankers; Ostrow, “Problems”; earlier, see, e.g., Dubois, Pouzzoles.

1517. Johnson, Acts, 464; Hemer, Acts in History, 154–55; Dunn, Acts, 350.

1518. Those from the Greek East sometimes used the name “Dicearchia” (or “Dicaearchia”) (Jos. Life 16).

1519. Lomas, “Puteoli.”

1520. Conzelmann, Acts, 224. The first road may have been rough (Rapske, “Travel,” 20).

1521. Allen, “Appius, Forum of”; Bruce, Commentary, 527.

1522. Salmon and Potter, “Via Appia”; “Italy’s most famous road” (Rathmann, “Via Appia,” 368).

1523. Salmon and Potter, “Via Appia”; idem, “Pomptine Marshes.”

1524. Salmon and Potter, “Pomptine Marshes.”

1525. Paul did have enemies in Rome (Phil 1:15–17) but seemed to have more friends (Phil 1:14–16; Rom 16:3–15).

1526. Also Witherington, Acts, 784.

1527. Grant, Gods, 30–32; Hemer, Acts in History, 155.

1528. Grant, Gods, 29.

1529. Clarke, “Italy,” 480; Bruce, Acts1, 474; idem, Commentary, 527; Hemer, Acts in History, 155; for Jews in Italy outside Rome, see, e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 2:51–55; Stern, “Diaspora,” 160–70. Exaggerating Rome’s greatness, some rabbis told of late first-century sages hearing Rome’s “traffic from as far away as Puteoli, a hundred and twenty mil away” (Sipre Deut. 43.3.7 [Neusner, 1:139]).

1530. Finegan, Apostles, 212–13, tentatively suggesting that the cross be construed as a Christian symbol and allowing that its removal might relate to the owner’s martyrdom under Nero. (Alternatively, the owner might have removed it during Nero’s persecution to prevent such martyrdom.) The Pompeian Rotas-Sator Square is not specifically Christian (Hofmann, “Square”; cf. Baines, “Square”).

1531. Spencer, Acts, 236; cf. Hamm, Acts, 123.

1532. On locating people by inquiry, see Ling, “Stranger in Town”; cf. 1 Sam 9:11, 18.

1533. But then where were Julius and his other prisoners?

1534. Hospitality was a Christian virtue (Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; 5:10; 1 Pet 4:9), but also one pervasive and widely respected in antiquity (see comment on Acts 16:15) and hence one profitable for Luke to report.

1535. Cf. Plut. Cic. 32.1: respecting Cicero, most people disregarded Clodius’s order that no one provide him shelter (later they were rewarded, 33.4).

1536. After Paul’s custody in Rome had lasted for some time, he had both supporters and detractors in the Christian community there; see Phil 1:16–17 (on the assumption that Philippians refers to a Roman detention). For Acts as partly an apologetic for Paul after his execution, see also Keener, “Apologetic.”

1537. Dunn, Acts, 350.

1538. Although Leptines, because he was eager to stand trial in Rome, was counted a low enough security risk to be sent to Rome without chains or guard (Polyb. 32.3.5).

1539. Further, a centurion might do what he could for his prisoner with whom he had become friends, if he anticipated his soon release (Jos. Ant. 18.230–33). As noted earlier, the narrative leads the reader to understand that Paul was sent with the favor of both Festus and Agrippa.

1540. Despite what appears to be an early departure from Malta (see comment on Acts 28:11 for reasons).

1541. Rapske, “Travel,” 20–21, citing Acts Pet. 2.6. Rapske notes (21) that billeting facilities closer to Rome would be more prioritized, provincial soldiers with prisoners constituting a lower priority (one wonders, however, whether supply would increase as well as demand).

1542. Witherington, Acts, 786.

1543. Salmon and Potter, “Pomptine Marshes.” Malaria was known to be more common in swampy areas (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 11.5; Touwaide, “Malaria,” 195). The Pontine Marshes offered the main body of water between Lake Avernus and the Tiber (Tac. Ann. 15.42).

1544. Rapske, Custody, 273–74; idem, “Travel,” 20. Requisitioning was sometimes abused and often generated resentments; see, e.g., Sherk, Empire, 89, 136; further comment on Acts 27:2.

1545. Rapske, Custody, 275. Rapske argues that “the venue and offer” of hospitality may have proved sufficient even apart from Julius’s respect for Paul (though I believe that the latter is Luke’s literary emphasis).

1546. Ibid.

1547. Ibid., 276. Rapske also suggests (276) the value of waiting in Puteoli if Julius wanted a vehicle; a centurion could requisition a cart, three mules, or six donkeys cheaply (idem, “Travel,” 18, citing Horsley, Documents, 1, §9.21). But finding one of suitable size may have been difficult.

1548. Finegan, Apostles, 213 (noting, however, that modern Capua is 3 mi. [5 km.] closer to Rome than the ancient town).

1549. Ibid.

1550. Haenchen, Acts, 720; Conzelmann, Acts, 224. Paul himself hopes to supply a theological foundation of some sort (Rom 1:11, 15) yet delays visiting the Roman Christians precisely because he is occupied with territories genuinely needing evangelism (15:20–24).

1551. See also Franklin, Interpreter, 132, rightly noting that Luke could have omitted mention of other Christians there.

1552. For Christians within the empire, Rome did eventually (long after Luke’s death, whenever one dates him) become a center of Christian faith, as did Constantinople. Quite different, almost antithetical, is Revelation’s approach to Rome, which contemporary Jewish thinkers usually identified with Daniel’s fourth and final predicted kingdom; for Augustine, the ultimate city of God lay elsewhere.

1553. Fitzmyer, Acts, 787. Of course, it is possible (even quite likely) for Luke to be a good “storyteller” without insisting that he invented the story; Fitzmyer himself accepts the “we” narrative as an eyewitness account (98–103).

1554. With, e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 234; Faw, Acts, 292.

1555. Gaventa, “Believers,” 106, does warn that Luke may not have known of the letter and hence allows that it may not have been influential. But given the brevity of Luke’s account, it is too much to infer from Luke’s silence whether he knew about the letter; if Luke authored the “we” source, Luke visited Rome with Paul and presumably had a more important firsthand acquaintance with believers there.

1556. Riesner, Early Period, 316–17.

1557. Paul would have met many of the Jewish Christian leaders in Corinth and elsewhere in the East after Claudius’s expulsion (cf. Jewett, Romans, 59–60, 968), though Paul probably did not know all of them (cf., e.g., ibid., 970). Some early Christians believed that even Peter was there before Paul’s arrival; see (in Bray, Romans, 23–24) Ps.-Constantius Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (ENPK 22); Theodoret Interpretation of Romans (IER, PG 82:56). We lack, however, any genuinely early attestation for this idea. Although Luke could ignore Peter to focus on the importance of Paul reaching Rome, it is likelier that later Roman Christians’ emphasis on their Petrine foundation led them to place it before Paul’s arrival (see also comment on Acts 12:17). This emphasis may have arisen through their earlier connections with the Jerusalem church, which was originally led by Peter (Hengel, Peter, 94).

1558. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 99.

1559. This is assuming the integrity of Rom 16, the greetings at least being part of the original letter; so most scholars today, e.g., Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 24–35; Lönnermark, “Frågan”; Donfried, “Note”; Morris, Romans, 28; Haacker, Theology, 12; Donfried, “Note on Romans 16,” 57; Hultgren, Romans, 22–23; pace Manson, “Letter”; Richards, “Chronological Relationship.” Esp. influential has been Gamble, Textual History.

1560. Some commentators read Heb 13:24 as referring to them, perhaps implying that they remain in Italy (Montefiore, Hebrews, 254), but I believe that this interpretation is unlikely (preferring the understanding that Heb 13 is written from Italy).

1561. Certainly, if they did know of Paul’s appeal, his failure to arrive before now would not have caused consternation; people would more readily assume that his ship had wintered somewhere than that it had been lost.

1562. These texts show that he planned to come after visiting Jerusalem; his custody in Judea had delayed this, but it could be assumed that he would come if and when the custody was resolved.

1563. See, e.g., Nanos, Mystery, 77–84; Dunn, Romans, liii, 900; Moo, Romans, 9–13; Das, Paul and Jews, 60, 64; idem, “Audience”; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 37, 408; Haacker, Theology, 12; Jewett, Romans, 59, 70; Kruse, Romans, 2; earlier, cf. Schlatter, Romans, 11.

1564. Cf. Dunn, Romans, 900.

1565. Ibid.

1566. Some of the groups apparently lacked leaders known to Paul, perhaps because their original leaders had been expelled in 49 C.E. (Jewett, Romans, 61; see comment on Acts 18:2); but would not new leaders have arisen in the groups? Paul, however, may know many of the leaders precisely because, between the expulsion and their return, he met them in the East (Jewett, Romans, 59–60).

1567. Many suspect that Herodion was a slave or freedman of the Herodian household (Rom 16:11; see Dunn, Romans, 896; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 250; Jewett, Romans, 967).

1568. It was a common name, but many cite Jos. War 2.221; e.g., Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 425; Hunter, Romans, 132; Dunn, Romans, 896; Jewett, Romans, 72–73n485, 966. Josephus does not, however, indicate whether Aristobulus would remain alive in Rome in the late 50s; if he was not, it seems unclear that his former household would continue to be called by his name.

1569. Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 147, argues that it was (noting catacombs and customs). A short generation later, some suggest Flavius Clemens and his wife, Domitilla (see Dio Cass. 67.14.1–2; cf. Suet. Dom. 15), fitting later Christian tradition (Euseb. Chron. 96 [Helm, 192]; H.E. 3.18.4; Ramsay, Church in Empire, 261; Chadwick, Early Church, 26; Mattingly, Christianity, 35; Parkes, Conflict, 87; Caird, Revelation, 20–21; allowing for somewhat more varied possibilities, Robinson, Redating, 232; Reicke, Era, 295–97).

1570. With Dunn, Romans, 900; Venetz, “Frauen.” From 1 Clem. 21.7, Dunn, Romans, 900, surmises that the church later became more hierarchical; but even then, 1 Clement, though more hierarchical than the Pastorals, is more egalitarian than many of Clement’s contemporaries (see Keener, “Woman,” 1211–12). Women had more freedom in Rome than in many other parts of the empire (see Keener, Acts, 1:605–37, esp. 606, 608–9), perhaps including in synagogues (White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 32), although, at least in the late republic, men probably outnumbered women in Rome (Stambaugh, City, 89).

1571. Jewett, Romans, 62 (noting the high density of apartment buildings there).

1572. Ibid., 63.

1573. Ibid., 62–63. On the basis of later material, Jewett also assigns (63) Christians to the Campus Martius and the Aventine Hill, but Christians may have expanded there later as the church won more Latin-speaking Roman citizens.

1574. Luke omits the church’s founding (though cf. Acts 2:10) because his narrative is focused on Paul (with Johnson, Acts, 464).

1575. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 39, infers “at least five different house churches” in Rom 16:3–16; cf. also Jewett, Romans, 62. Perhaps going too far, Judge, First Christians, 442–43, infers no “church” there, but merely immigrants Paul knew from the East.

1576. See further Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35; Jewett, Romans, 61–62.

1577. Rome remained a center of persecution in the views of early Christians (cf. Ign. Eph. 1.2; 21.2; Rom. 5.1; 10.2).

1578. Although the LXX lacks this technical usage, going out to meet someone to honor them appears (Judg 11:31, 34; 1 Sam 13:10; 30:21; 2 Sam 6:20; 19:26; Jer 41:6 [48:6 LXX]). For generals and rulers, see Vespasian in Jos. War 3.459 (at Tiberias); 7.70–71 (at Rome; Talbert, John, 118); for officials or prominent persons, see further Milligan, Thessalonians, 62 (citing P.Tebt. 43.7; Polyb. 5.26.8).

1579. On the imagery in 1 Thess 4:17, see Best, Thessalonians, 199; Bruce, Thessalonians, 102–3; Marshall, Thessalonians, 131; Ladd, Hope, 91; Donfried, Thessalonica, 34; Harrison, Authorities, 59–60 (emphasizing imperial connections).

1580. Gizewski, “Adventus.”

1581. In this case, Trajan permitted the freedom not to do so, but (at least in Pliny’s view, and probably more generally) he proved an unusually generous emperor. Not being permitted to come to welcome the emperor indicated the latter’s displeasure (a death sentence under Nero, Tac. Ann. 16.24). Even cities from Asia sent delegations to congratulate the emperor (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.13–14). Pliny sought to greet Trajan on a later occasion (Pliny Ep. 10.10.2). One should run to meet a king (b. Ber. 58a), although this action might otherwise be thought undignified.

1582. Those in Ashkelon met (συνάντησιν) Jonathan to honor him (1 Macc 10:86; cf. 11:60), but probably in lieu of being captured (cf. 10:84–85).

1583. E.g., Alexander in Plut. Alex. 14.1; generally, Friedländer, Life, 1:211; see discussion at Acts 25:13. For athletes, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.118.1.

1584. Trans. N. H. Watts, LCL, pp. 201, 203. People put out torches and lamps to honor him as he passed, as one who had achieved a great triumph (Plut. Cic. 22.3–4).

1585. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 381.7–10 (Russell and Wilson, 101).

1586. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 381.11–12 (Russell and Wilson, 101).

1587. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 381.15–17.

1588. Common in the LXX (Judg 4:18; 14:5; 15:14; 19:3; 20:25, 31; 1 Sam 4:1; 6:13; 9:14; 13:15; 15:12; 16:4; 21:2; 25:32, 34; 1 Chr 12:18; 14:8; 19:5; 2 Chr 12:11; 15:2; 19:2; 20:17; 28:9; 1 Esd 1:23; Add Esth 16:9; Jdt 5:4; 1 Macc 12:41; 2 Macc 12:30; 14:30; 15:12; 3 Macc 1:19; Sir 19:29; Jer 28:31 [51:31 ET]; 34:3 [27:3 ET]); most of the seventy LXX uses of συνάντησις have this technical meaning; other cognate nouns would add up to twenty-six more references. Cf. even more the cognate verb (Mark 14:13; Luke 17:12; Herm. 23.3), but it seems to bear a wider semantic range.

1589. Admittedly, Luke could allude to Paul’s celebrity status among Christians without referring to the Roman triumph (so Witherington, Acts, 787). Paul does not, of course, enter the Porta Triumphalis, and though ἀπάντησις (in Acts 28:15) can be applied to a triumphal entry, nothing in the term itself requires this specific interpretation. It is the connection between Jesus’s kingly triumphal entry and Paul’s welcome into Rome that might lend credibility to this image in both cases.

1590. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.26.9; 11.50.1; Cic. Verr. 2.5.26.65–67; Sall. Jug. 114.3; Livy 3.29.4–5; 31.49.3; 35.8.9; 40.43.4–6; Val. Max. 2.8.1, 6, 7; 4.4.5; 5.2.6; Vitruv. Arch. 1.1.5; Sil. It. 17.173–74; Appian Hist. rom. 12.17.116; Plut. Cam. 7.1; Caes. 55.2; 56.4; cf. further Hafemann, “Triumph”; idem, Suffering, 12–34; Thomas, Revelation 19, 21–45; here, e.g., Horton, Acts, 404; for pre-Roman analogies, see, e.g., the Assyrian custom in Monson, “Kings,” 86. Augustus tried to reserve the image for himself and his successor (see Hickson, “Augustus triumphator”; Eder, “Triumph,” 947–48; for some public response to Augustus’s victory in 13 C.E., cf. Billows, “Procession”); late in his reign, women could participate more than during the republic (Flory, “Integration”). By Luke’s day, Rome may have celebrated some three hundred triumphs since its founding (Talbert, Corinthians, 140, citing Orosius Hist. 7.9.8). Although the exact date of the custom’s origin is debated (e.g., Rüpke, “Triumphator”; Versnel, “Herring?”), it is pre-Christian by several centuries. For other triumph-like greetings in Rome that were not technically triumphs (technically closer to Paul’s entry here), see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.45.5; 2.59.6; 2.89.1; Res gest. 2.12.

1591. Chrys. Hom. Acts 55 also compares Paul’s entrance to the imperial triumphal entries, emphasizing the victory of martyrdom.

1592. See 2 Cor 2:14–16 (see various approaches in, e.g., Williamson, “Triumph”; Marshall, “Shame”; Breytenbach, “Proclamation”; Duff, “Metaphor” [cf. also idem, “Suffering”]; Scott, “Triumph”; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 191–95), where I understand Paul to be a captive awaiting execution, sharing Christ’s suffering and resurrection power (Keener, Corinthians, 164; cf. Hafemann, Suffering; Barnett, Corinthians, 150; Witherington, Corinthians, 368–69); Tert. Apol. 50.3. Cf. perhaps Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 209–10; Bray, Corinthians, 209); Euseb. H.E. 6.41. Some find allusions to triumphs in other Pauline texts, such as Eph 1:20–21; 4:8; Phil 2:9–10; and most clearly Col 2:15 (see Barth, Ephesians, 1:170; Ramsay, Letters, 388; idem, Luke the Physician, 297; cf. Kreitzer, “Rome”).

1593. Likewise a peaceful one not truly analogous to Roman triumphs, since donkeys (Luke 19:30–35) characterized civil processions (Judg 10:4; 1 Kgs 1:33; cf. Hdn. 4.1.3); asses were of lower status than horses (Babr. 76.18–19). (Others also contrast Jesus’s triumphal entry with Roman triumphs, noting the irony, e.g., Graves and May, Matthew, 83–84, 89.) If one were to view Luke 21:24 as alluding to a Roman triumph (as in Thomas, Revelation 19, ch. 2; cf. Brent, “Cult”), one might contrast this with Luke 19:37–38; but the language in Luke 21:24 is probably more general than that.

1594. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 6.29–30 (though some think 6.29 an interpolation).

1595. See, e.g., Keener, Paul, 140–42. Earlier cults such as those of Asclepius (in 293 B.C.E.) and Cybele (in 204 B.C.E.; Grant, Gods, 32–33) had become naturalized. Egyptian Mysteries became especially popular under Caligula (Dunand, “Mystères,” 38), but they faced serious challenges.

1596. Luke, however, does probably contrast the true Savior-King, laid in a manger, with the mighty Augustus in Luke 2:1, 8–14.

1597. See comment on Acts 26:26.

1598. Rapske, Custody, 378–81, argues that this is the primary sense of “brothers” here (based on parallels with Ignatius, Peregrinus, and some Pauline usage). This is not, however, Luke’s usage (Luke 8:21; Acts 1:15–16; 9:17, 30; 10:23; 11:1, 12, 29; 12:17; 14:2; 15:1, 3, 7, 13; 16:2, 40; 17:6, 10, 14), and so his emphasis is on Christians’ spiritual unity, not the “rank” of the delegates.

1599. Ibid., 225; cf. 2 Cor 2:13; 7:5. The related idea of courage included a variety of components (in Stoic anthropology, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.16–18).

1600. See Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 5, 101, 207, 418; cf. Dahl, Studies, 77.

1601. See Rapske, Custody, 310. See further comment on Acts 21:33–34; 26:29. Many believe that Paul had some detractors in Rome when he wrote his letter (cf., e.g., Rom 3:8; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 6, 8–9, 50).

1602. Rapske, Custody, 385–88.

1603. Johnson, Acts, 465. Although rabbinic sources were written later, they provide a wide sampling of the sorts of thanksgivings, including blessings recited when meeting wise persons, friends, etc. (Le Cornu, Acts, 1499, citing m. Ber. 9:3–4).

1604. On the forum in Roman towns (which generated the name of this market town and others such as Forum Julii), see DeLaine, “Forum” (on Forum Julii specifically, see Stevens and Drinkwater, “Forum Iulii”).

1605. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 345; Haenchen, Acts, 718n4; Conzelmann, Acts, 224; Hemer, Acts in History, 156.

1606. Cadbury, Acts in History, 60.

1607. Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 254–55 (inferring two groups from the grammar, following Newman and Nida, Acts, 507), though others doubt that these groups, if they existed, met separately in Rome (Das, Debate, 49–51).

1608. Luke’s Ἀππίου Φόρον reflects the Latin Appii Forum; even with respect to Roman colonies, Luke elsewhere speaks of a forum (a Latin term missing also in the LXX, Philo, and Josephus) as an ἀγορά, but here he transliterates a place name.

1609. Allen, “Appius, Forum of” (citing Strabo 5.3.6); Finegan, Apostles, 213.

1610. Witherington, Acts, 787; cf. Strabo 5.3.6 (Hemer, “Three Taverns,” 843).

1611. Allen, “Appius, Forum of.”

1612. Conzelmann, Acts, 224.

1613. Finegan, Apostles, 214.

1614. Hemer, “Three Taverns,” 844; Clarke, “Italy,” 481; Uggeri, “Tres Tabernae.” Cicero’s friend Curio met him when he had just left the road to Antium for the Via Appia, at Tres Tabernae (Att. 2.12); he sent the letter from Tres Tabernae and moved on shortly afterward (2.13). The crossroads made it a likelier place for chance encounters, unlike the meeting depicted in Acts 28:15.

1615. Casson, Travel, 201.

1616. Clarke, “Italy,” 481.

1617. Cic. Att. 2.10 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 345; Witherington, Acts, 787). From Rome to the Forum of Appius on the Appian Way, see, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.5.1–8.

1618. Rapske, Custody, 206.

1619. E.g., Tac. Hist. 2.54. Presumably, had Julius lost his in the shipwreck, he could have acquired the necessary documents from appropriate officials in Syracuse or probably even in Malta.

1620. Rapske, “Travel,” 14–15, noting also that the more basic rest stops were mutationes and the more complete, mansiones.

1621. Longenecker, Acts, 363.

Continuing Ministry in Rome (28:16–31)

1. See Parsons, Departure, 155. For a survey of the history of research on Acts 28:16–31, see Puskas, Conclusion: Significance, 1–32.

2. See Keener, “Apologetic.”

3. For Luke’s defense of Paul’s legacy, probably challenged in light of Paul’s detention and execution, see Keener, “Apologetic,” and sources cited there.

4. Like Jesus, Paul was accused by his own people’s leaders and consequently oppressed (however reluctantly) by the Mediterranean world’s dominant kingdom. Both endured, however, with ironic confidence in the triumph of the greater kingdom of God that they served.

5. Spivey, Smith, and Black, Anatomy, 267. Cf. the argument of Skinner, Locating Paul.

6. This does not, of course, mean that Acts is “incomplete,” any more than Homer’s Iliad is incomplete for not depicting Achilles’s death (Fitzmyer, Acts, 792) and for ending anticlimactically.

7. Marguerat, “Enigma of Closing,” 304.

8. Cf. ibid. For Luke’s emphasis on the mission to all peoples in Luke-Acts, see Keener, Acts, 1:437–40, 505–11; and now also Marguerat and Steffek, “Naissance.”

9. Witherington, Acts, 793.

10. His favorable treatment from Rome suggests acquittal (as does Acts 28:30–31), but hints in the narrative and (on the probable later date) the audience’s knowledge of Paul’s martyrdom suggest a later condemnation under Nero.

11. Luke offers hope even in his depiction of conflict with Roman Jewish leaders (Acts 28:24; see Tannehill, “Rejection,” 98–99). For Luke’s motives for a positive ending, cf. Trompf, Retributive Justice, 78–90, esp. 83, 89.

12. Inclusio can cover entire books (e.g., John 1:1, 18; 20:28–31; Rom 1:5; 16:25; see also examples in Harvey, Listening, 66–67, 104–6, 111–12, with Hom. Il. 1, 24), including in histories (see Xen. Hell. in Brown, Historians, 92).

13. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 177 (albeit before the closing illustration), 196; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 55; Demosth. 32; Cic. Quinct. 19.60 (concluding a section); 28.85–29.90 (for the entire proofs section, immediately before the conclusion); Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.43–44; Gorg. Hel. 20 (cf. Hel. 21).

14. Isaeus Cleon. 48 (trans. Forster, LCL, 31), out of fifty-one paragraphs.

15. Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.29–1434a.17; 36, 1444b.21–35. On recapitulation, cf. also Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82.

16. Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.29; cf. 37, 1445b.21–23.

17. Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.30–31; see summaries, κεφαλαίοι, in 1433b.32. It was useful for every kind of speech and every part of the speech (36, 1444b.23); for repeating the charge, see 36, 1443b.15–16. See also Hermog. Method 12.427 (where Kennedy adds Anonymous Seguerianus 203, 206, and 236; Apsines 10.54); for summarizing points just after making them, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 249.14.

18. Rhet. Alex. 37, 1445b.21–23 (LCL, 441); Quint. Decl. 338.2 (refreshing the judge’s memory at the end).

19. Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.1–11 (1434b.5–8 for each division, and 1434b.8–11 at the speech’s end).

20. Montefusco, “Epilogue”; cf. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82. Cf. also closing exhortations (e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.2; 2 Cor 13:11–12). For epilogues arousing pathos, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 338.3; comment on Acts 26:29. For epilogues seeking to please hearers and invite favor, see Quint. Decl. 338.1, 3.

21. See, e.g., Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.12, pp. 102–3.1–11, though noting that he has covered his topic.

22. Even in speeches, if one was abbreviating rather than expanding, one could skip recapitulation at the ends of sections and reserve it for the very end (Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.11–18, esp. 15–17).

23. E.g., Polyb. 2.71.7–10, esp. 7–8 (summarizing the preliminary section of Polybius’s history, i.e., Polyb. 1–2); 39.8.3–6 (he announces his closing summary in 39.8.3, provides it in 39.8.4–6, then offers closing comments in 39.8.7–8). On Luke’s own use of summaries, see comments on Acts 2:41–47; 6:7.

24. E.g., philosophic essays, as in Cic. Fin. 5.32.95–96; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.23–29 (summarizing all of Mus. Ruf. 3); 6, pp. 54.26–56.11 (esp. ἐν κεφαλαίῳ in 54.26), with a summary of the summary in p. 56.7–11; Hippol. Her. bk. 10, esp. 10.1.

25. Cf. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 74–77. Puskas updated this work in idem, Conclusion: Significance, including, on this point, 66–73.

26. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 111–12; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 96–103. Cf. further Dupont, “Rapport,” 380–402; the extensive work of Flichy, Oeuvre de Luc, offering literary connections, including between the two-volume work’s beginning and end.

27. Though the Gospel refers to a current phenomenon.

28. Elsewhere in Luke-Acts only at Acts 13:45; perhaps Luke 20:27 (a less likely variant).

29. This form, σωτήριον, appears in Luke-Acts only at Luke 2:30; 3:6; and Acts 28:28 (and elsewhere in the NT only at Eph 6:17, echoing Isa 59:17).

30. This comparison is too tenuous, since the nature of what is known differs substantially in the two cases.

31. Parsons, Departure, 156–58, likewise concurs with much of Puskas’s work on Acts 1 and 28.

32. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 92–93; cf. idem, Conclusion: Significance, 82–86.

33. Josephus concludes his Jewish Antiquities by noting that he has fulfilled what he promised at the work’s beginning (20.261); cf. Quint. Decl. 267.12.

34. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 103–5; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 91–96; see also Neirynck, “Luke 4,16–30,” 387–95.

35. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 97–98; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 86–91.

36. Acts 28:17 is at most implicit on this point.

37. Cf. Borgman, Way, 309, who treats Acts 13:16–41 and 28:25–28 as Paul’s “Two Framing Speeches to Israel”; many others note the repetition of rejection (e.g., Langner, Hechos, 387).

38. Conzelmann, Acts, 227, contrasting the future conversion in Rom 9–11; cf. similarly Rese, “Second Thoughts,” 201; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 628 (summarized in Marshall, “Acts,” 600). Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 116, believes that the Gentile mission continues beyond Rome but that the Jewish mission ends there. Sometimes rhetoricians would close a speech by stirring indignatio against antagonists, as a form of pathos (see Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82); such conflict could well be in view here, but that does not require permanent repudiation of the Jewish people.

39. Treating the text not as fully paradigmatic but as against those who see the “Gentile era” as a turning from Israel, Moessner, “End(s)ings,” 219, argues that the gospel is offered to both Jew and Gentile (as in this passage), but “times of the Gentiles” means that Gentiles may hear without preaching to Israel first (arguing [218] from Diodorus that the conclusion of one narrative may usher in a divergent narrative).

40. Tannehill, Acts, 352; Dunn, Partings, 150; cf. Tannehill, Shape, 145–65.

41. Certainly, at the very least, those persuaded earlier (Dunn, Partings, 150–51). Acts 28:29 is probably a later addition to smooth the transition from 28:28, and so 28:30 follows directly on the affirmation of the Gentile mission in 28:28. For comment on the textual variant constituting 28:29, see discussion in, e.g., Hauser, Strukturen, 42–43; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 502.

42. Cf. also Dunn, Partings, 150–51; Witherington, Acts, 802–3 (noting that Acts 28:24 and 28:30 “frame the quotation”).

43. Tannehill, “Story of Israel,” 339; cf. Tyson, “Problem,” 137 (who notes the inadequacy of partial acceptance but thinks that Luke views the Jewish mission as having failed and ended). Luke appears ambivalent, refusing “to decide on the future of the relation between church and synagogue” (Marguerat, “Enigma of Closing,” 304). He wanted all, both Jewish and Gentile, to respond, but this did not fit what he saw happening (Tannehill, “Rejection,” 101).

44. Dunn, Partings, 151; cf. Litwak, “Views,” 239. Dunn’s same arguments in Partings appear in idem, Acts, 353. Stagg, “Mission,” 278, argues that this passage is less optimistic than Rom 9–11, suggesting that perhaps historically Paul had by this time grown disillusioned “because of the negative reception in Jerusalem.” But this is unlikely both in Acts and in Paul (who already anticipated hostility in Jerusalem, Rom 15:31).

45. For the compatibility of Paul’s speech here with Pauline theology in Romans, see esp. Litwak, “Views” (focusing on Rom 11); idem, Echoes, 241–48; cf. Watson, Gentiles, 81–82; Kruse, Romans, 68; Marshall, “Acts,” 600, cites also Koet, Studies, 119–39; Larkin, Acts, 390–91; Wall, “Acts,” 361–64.

46. Dunn, Acts, 182–83. Dunn (353) emphasizes that in this sense the passage is not a “final” scene so much as a “typical” scene. Marguerat, Histoire, 333; idem, Historian, 152–54, 230, argues that the narrative’s open ending allows for varied Jewish responses. If starting with synagogues is a matter of strategy as well as of theology (see discussion at Acts 13:5), we might envision Luke allowing the pattern to be expanded to cover other groups that knew Scripture, but he would not repudiate ministry to the Jewish people.

47. See Bock, “Israel,” 113: “Nothing suggests that the story has changed from the one told in the infancy material and the teaching of John, Jesus, and Peter”; “Gentile inclusion does not mean Israel’s exclusion.” Cf. also the hope of Israel’s restoration as part of Luke’s vision of the kingdom in Bird, Gospel of the Lord, 16.

48. With Dunn, Partings, 150.

49. Tannehill, “Story of Israel,” 339 (also suggesting that Paul offers a model for continuing the appeal to Jewish hearers, despite increasing hostility).

50. Dunn, Acts, xii, arguing that the Christian movement’s schism with the synagogue is nowhere final in Acts.

↑ Back to top