55 . Garnsey and Saller, Empire , 84, 98–99.

55 . Garnsey and Saller, Empire , 84, 98–99.

51. Israel had already known many radical transitions in its history, from the exodus to the monarchy to the exile to Roman rule. Some of these transitions were decisive and largely unanticipated by the people.

52. Nanos, Mystery, 242–44 (cf. 26, 28n13), connects this decision with Paul’s theology expressed in Romans, though I believe that he may overstate the case (e.g., I doubt the necessity of this sequence—or even Paul’s arrival—for an “apostolic foundation”).

53. Last, “Social Policy,” 456–58; cf., on the “eternal city,” Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 57 (citing I. Eph. 599; Jos. War 5.367). For polemic against the “eternal city,” see Rev 18:7; perhaps L.A.B. 7:1; in b. Ber. 58a, see Zalcman, “Eternal City.” On the divinity of Roma, see, e.g., Aune, Revelation, 922–23; Bauckham, Climax, 344; Reicke, Era, 231; Engels, Roman Corinth, 92; Beauvery, “Prostituée.”

54. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 83. Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.66 estimates that by 73 C.E., Rome’s walls were 13 mi. and 200 yards around.

55. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 84, 98–99.

56. Jeffers, World, 143.

57. Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.67 (trans. Rackham, LCL, 2:51). Cf. the famous, lengthier praise of Rome by Aelius Aristides in the second century C.E.

58. Dion. Hal. Anc. Or. 1.3.

59. B. Pesaḥ. 118b. Rome’s riches were incomparable (so ʾAbot R. Nat. 28 A).

60. Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 133, citing “recent studies.”

61. Watson, “Cities,” 212.

62. See Storey, “Population.” Lower estimates may be plausible within the city walls if the dole included those in outlying areas. But could parts of the popular capital (outside public spaces, which consumed much of the city) have a higher population density than Pompeii and Ostia, and (in view of ancient writers’ complaints about toppling buildings) higher buildings?

63. Packer, “Housing,” 83; cf. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 7–9. But the meaning of insulae in the Regionary catalogues is disputed (Storey, “Insulae,” argues for residential units, not the larger buildings).

64. Packer, “Housing,” 85–86. Storey, “Units at Ostia,” views insulae there also as residential units.

65. Packer, “Housing,” 82–87, esp. 87.

66. E.g., Lintott, Romans, 85; Mattingly, Christianity, 10–11 (about a million, but admitting uncertainty); Clarke, “Italy,” 465 (about a million); Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103 (a million or more); Friedländer, Life, 4:17–28, esp. 24–25 (more than a million); Crawford, “Population” (more than a million); Ellison, Mystery, 23 (more than a million in less than 8 sq. mi.); Harrison and Yamauchi, “Census,” 268; idem, “Cities,” 301; even higher is the estimate of Carcopino, Life, 20–21, with some 1,700,000 residents (Friedländer, Life, 4:24–25, gives more than 1.5 million for the early second century). Stambaugh, City, 89, estimates (from the grain dole) 750,000 to a million; Gager, “Class,” 106, accepts an estimate of 600,000 to a million.

67. Galinsky, “Continuity,” 78, sees “upward of a million” as the consensus for Augustan Rome.

68. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.20.1.

69. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.75.3.

70. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.96.4.

71. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.15.2. The number later declined to (or the counting was refined to) 103,000 (9.36.3).

72. Plut. Caes. 55.3 implies that this was the census of all the people, but his generalization is probably less accurate.

73. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 83. Packer, “Housing,” 83, also notes that not all Rome’s residents were direct beneficiaries of the grain dole (though also noting [p. 89] that grain imported to Rome would feed the entire metropolitan area). When earlier Rome had 110,000 citizens (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.15.2), other residents (including women, children, foreigners, and other noncitizens) outnumbered citizens at least three to one (hence at least quadrupling the number).

74. See Dresken-Weiland, “Fremde.” On Rome’s ethnic and religious diversity, see, e.g., Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 62–66; not all elite Romans, of course, viewed this favorably (see Meeks, Moral World, 25, citing Tac. Ann. 15.44.3).

75. White, “Development,” 44. The dramatic increase in Roman census figures under Augustus may reflect many Roman citizens living abroad (Crawford, “Population”).

76. Jeffers, World, 62; see esp. Stambaugh, City, 90, comparing Calcutta.

77. Packer, “Housing,” 82.

78. On the latter point, see ibid., 89.

79. Expanding the walls also added suburbs (Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.67); long before Paul’s day, the city stretched well beyond its walls (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.13.4–5).

80. McRay, Archaeology, 49, contending that the lower estimate in Frontin. De aquaeductibus 65–73 reflects an earlier situation. Frontinus is closer to Paul’s time, but his own estimate of 222,237,060 gallons is still more than enough for drinking (and probably bathing and sewage as well).

81. Finegan, Apostles, 214.

82. With, e.g., Lawrence, Atlas, 167. For the most part (with some significant exceptions), Rome’s medieval roads basically follow the ancient road patterns (Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 7). Guards at Rome’s gates apparently observed those who entered, but only stopped those appearing suspicious (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.39).

83. Fitzmyer, Acts, 788.

84. Jewett, Romans, 63. Many immigrants lived there (p. 62), fitting the Greek names and language of much of the congregation.

85. Finegan, Apostles, 218: on the left the Aventine, on the right the Caelian, directly ahead the Palatine, beyond it the Capitoline, and on to the north the Esquiline, Viminal, and Quirinal.

86. See, e.g., Varro Latin Language 5.7.41; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.13.2–3; Ovid Tristia 1.5.69–70; Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.66; Sil. It. 10.586; 12.608; Statius Silv. 2.3.21; 4.1.6–7; Suet. Dom. 4.5; Symm. Ep. 1.12.3; Sib. Or. 2.18; 11.113, 116; Caird, Revelation, 216 (citing, e.g., Virg. Geor. 2.535; Aen. 6.782–83; Hor. Carm. 7; Cic. Att. 6.5); Aune, Revelation, 944–45. Some other cities imitated this tradition (see Pisidian Antioch in Levick, Roman Colonies, 78); in fact, one could count more than seven (Langdon, “Hills”; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 36.24.122).

87. Some of the traditions are clearly later (see Chadwick, “Paul in Rome”), but others are early (1 Clem. 5.6–7); cf. also traditions of Peter’s crucifixion in Rome (Tert. Scorp. 15; Euseb. H.E. 2.25.5–8; cf. Falasca, “Bones”; Keener, John, 1237–38). Tertullian seems to think that Rome’s archives record the executions of Peter and Paul (Scorp. 15); Tertullian appeals to such archives elsewhere (Marc. 4.7; Apol. 21; see Yamauchi, “Archives,” 80).

88. On the premise of a Caesarean imprisonment, the praetorium is the governor’s palace (mentioned in Acts 23:35), but it also suits the Roman Praetorian Guard (word circulating through their headquarters, also a praetorium).

89. Many do favor the Roman imprisonment, e.g., Barth, Ephesians, 1:3; Dodd, New Testament Studies, 99; Nock, Paul, 221; Knox, Gentiles, 179; Reicke, “Caesarea”; Fee, Philippians, 34–37; cf., without ruling out Ephesus, O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xlix–liv; Dunn, Epistles, 39–41; Moo, Letters, 41–46. Some others think that an Ephesian detention better accounts for Philippians (Duncan, Ephesian Ministry, 72–87; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 312n2, following Hyldahl, Chronologie, 18–51; cf. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 122; Deissmann, Light, 237); an imprisonment in Ephesus is possible but (in contrast to Rome) hypothetical (see the introduction, above, to Acts 19:23–41; against an Ephesian imprisonment, see, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 272; Johnston, Ephesians, 2; against Philippians, but not some other letters, being written there, see Harrison, “Ephesian Theory,” 260–61). Most detentions were brief, and banishment from Ephesus is much likelier than a long enough detention there to offer Philippians’ statements about custody (Hemer, Acts in History, 272). Cousar, Philippians, 11, thinks an Ephesian provenance for Philippians somewhat likelier than a Roman one, but in n. 18 recognizes that “an increasing number of recent commentators opt for the Roman imprisonment as the place for writing the letter” (noting for the Roman provenance O’Brien, Philippians, 18–26; Fee, Philippians, 34–38; Bockmuehl, Philippians, 25–31; and Hooker, “Philippians,” 473–75). Some cite the journey of Onesimus as an argument for an Ephesian provenance of Philemon (Phlm 10–18), but Onesimus likely fled for at least enough time for his hair to grow before meeting Paul (if Onesimus’s head was shaved, as suggested for adult male slaves in Wilson, “Barbers,” 142). A more substantive argument can be made for Rome: it is far likelier that Epaphroditus would have fallen deathly sick (Phil 2:27, 30) due to a voyage from Philippi to Rome than due to a much shorter journey from Philippi to Ephesus.

90. He also anticipated trouble in Judea (Rom 15:31), where Luke claims that Paul was arrested.

91. This could be in response to the assumption of his innocence suggested in the accompanying letter of 25:26–27; 26:31–32.

92. Haenchen, Acts, 718n5. Nero himself apparently avoided personal involvement with cases until 62 C.E. (Sherwin-White, Society, 110).

93. Sherwin-White, Society, 108–9; O’Rourke, “Law,” 169; Jeffers, World, 170 (in Paul’s day, the Praetorians intervened in Tac. Ann. 11.1); Conzelmann, Acts, 224; Blaiklock, Acts, 197; cf. Calvin. On the Praetorian prefect, see Campbell and Matthews, “Praefectus praetorio”; Gutsfeld, “Praefectus praetorio.” On the praetorian guard, see Campbell, “Praetorians”; now most extensively, Bingham, Praetorian Guard.

94. Apart from Burrus and earlier Sejanus, there were normally two prefects; they were normally equestrians (Stevenson, “Army,” 233). If this is the office in view, the Western text’s language is strikingly accurate for the period in view (D. Williams, Acts, 448, citing Tac. Ann. 12.42; 14.51), but Luke could mean simply whatever prefect would supervise prisoners, regardless of whether he had a colleague (D. Williams, Acts, 448).

95. Tac. Ann. 12.42; 14.51; Momigliano and Griffin, “Burrus.” Poison (as opposed to the alternative of sickness) was the sort of rumor that would have naturally spread in view of hatred of Nero. Along with Seneca, Burrus had helped restrain Nero’s misdeeds (Tac. Ann. 13.2); Seneca also helped preserve Burrus for a time (13.20–21), and Burrus’s death weakened Seneca’s influence (14.52).

96. O’Rourke, “Law,” 168–69. The case of Sejanus showed the office risky regardless of precautions.

97. Luke 21:20; 2 Macc 8:12; 9:9; 3 Macc 6:17; 4 Macc 3:13; Wis 12:8.

98. On the praetorian prefect’s sometimes limited duties, see Gutsfeld, “Praefectus praetorio,” 757. Burrus might have heard Paul’s final case at the end of his first Roman detention (Schnabel, Missionary, 116); Burrus died in 62 C.E. (Momigliano and Griffin, “Burrus”).

99. Bruce, Commentary, 528–29 (in addition to the possibility of Burrus); Barrett, Acts, 1233 (as a lesser possibility).

100. Tajra, Trial, 178–79.

101. Sherwin-White, Society, 110; followed by O’Rourke, “Law,” 169; Tajra, Trial, 179; Barrett, Acts, 1233. Rapske, Custody, 174–76, suggests either the princeps castrorum or the princeps praetorii. The princeps castrorum was the highest centurion over the frumentarii in Rome, with little opportunity for promotion in this era (Gross-Albenhausen, “Princeps castrorum”); for the office of praefectus castrorum in Roman legions, normally after a tribunate, see Eck, “Praefectus castrorum.”

102. Witherington, Acts, 788 (favoring the Praetorian prefect).

103. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 41.

104. Stevenson, “Army,” 232; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 41.

105. Stevenson, “Army,” 232–33.

106. Ibid., 234; on Rome’s police force, see Campbell, “Cohortes urbanae”; Eck, “Urbanae cohortes” (noting that they shared the camp with the praetorians); Nippel, “Police” (questioning [463] to what extent they were involved in fighting crime); Gutsfeld, “Praefectus urbi”; Southern, Army, 119–20; on the city prefect of Rome, see Cadoux and Tomlin, “Praefectus urbi”; on the equestrian commander of the vigiles, sometimes promoted to praetorian prefect, see Eck, “Praefectus vigilum.”

107. Friedländer, Life, 1:191.

108. Stevenson, “Army,” 233.

109. Ibid., 234; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:191; Jones, “Army,” 198. It was important for the emperor to ensure their loyalty in particular.

110. Cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 99–104; Knox, Gentiles, 179; Erdman, Philippians, 59; Michael, Philippians, 28–30; Jones, “Army,” 198; Reicke, Era, 247–48; Johnston, Philippians, 37; Fee, Philippians, 113; Horton, Acts, 409; Krentz, “Games,” 360; see comment above. I do not find persuasive here the alternative reconstruction of Duncan, Ephesian Ministry, 108–11. Among other means, the daily watchword kept the emperor in regular contact with the praetorian guard (Eaton, “Significance”).

111. Rapske, Custody, 250 (noting prison records such as P.Oxy. 43.3104).

112. Cf. Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,” 526n104. Rapske, Custody, 330, suggests that Paul defended himself even in Rome; if so, however, he probably would have been at the disadvantage of using Greek (accepted, but sometimes with prejudice; see Val. Max. 2.2.2; comment on Acts 18:14–50). Yet a few decades later Dio apparently delivered a speech in Rome (Dio Chrys. Or. 72).

113. Conzelmann, Acts, 224.

114. Correspondingly, note the single “chain” of Acts 28:20 (versus the plural “chains” in 21:33; 26:29).

115. Witherington, Acts, 788–89, noting that the duty was probably rotated every four hours (Jos. Ant. 18.169).

116. Rapske, Custody, 180–81. Witherington, Acts, 789–90, argues against any perceived diminution of Paul’s status, suggesting instead that the case is viewed as less important on the basis of Paul’s perceived innocence.

117. The usual custom (Acts 12:6; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 5.7; Jos. Ant. 18.196; Conzelmann, Acts, 93). The “chains” appear also in Eph 6:20; 2 Tim 1:16, but Paul probably had been wearing chains for a long period (Acts 21:33; 22:29; 26:29; Johnson, Acts, 469).

118. See comment above on Phil 1:13 and 4:22.

119. As some other commentators suggest (e.g., Dunn, Acts, 351). The potential conversion of captors is not the exclusive realm of fiction; it is reported, for example, that a prison guard claimed to have been converted through Watchman Nee’s testimony in a setting of a far harsher detention (Kinnear, Tide, 304).

120. Witherington, Acts, 788.

121. If the documents were lost at sea; copies could be sent for but would take months to arrive.

122. Tajra, Trial, 180, notes that the governor normally decided the form of custody on the basis of both the charge and the prisoner’s status (Dig. 48.3.1).

123. Rapske, Custody, 9. See further comment below regarding the Mamertine prison. See also Fortini, Carcer; earlier, Gori, Carcere Mamertino; O’Reilly, Victims; Parker, Prison.

124. Rapske, Custody, 9, 20–25.

125. Ibid., 14 (citing a vast range of sources: Ovid Ars 271–82; Val. Max. 6.9.13; Sen. Con. 9.2.2–3; Pliny E. N.H. 8.145; Dio Cass. 58.1.3; 58.11.3–4; 59.18.3; 60.16.1; 61.35.4). On the horror of corpses remaining unburied, see comment on Acts 8:2.

126. Rapske, Custody, 28, noting that this form arose during the time of the empire (comparing Dig. 48.3.1, 12, 14; 48.22.7.1); cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 157. Still, some undoubtedly experienced better treatment than others (Rapske, Custody, 29–30).

127. Rapske, Custody, 9.

128. Pervo, Profit, 155n163, compares Apollonius’s relaxed custody after his first interrogation (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.40).

129. Rapske, “Prison,” 828 (citing Dig. 48.3.1). For entrustment to sureties in the house of a citizen, see further Rapske, Custody, 32–34.

130. Barrett, Acts, 1232 (following Tajra, Trial, 179–81).

131. Rapske, Custody, 171.

132. Rapske, “Prison,” 828.

133. Ibid. (citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 5.7; Tranq. 10.3; Jos. Ant. 18.189–237; Ign. Rom. 5.1).

134. For fuller discussion, see Rapske, Custody, 31; comment on Acts 26:29.

135. See Rapske, Custody, 381–83, esp. 382. Cf. the circumstances in Mart. Just. 3.3A (in Talbert, Acts, 230).

136. Rapske, Custody, 276.

137. See Rapske, “Prison,” 829; fuller discussion at Acts 16:25; 24:23.

138. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13.

139. Rapske, Custody, 332–33.

140. Ibid., 342–46.

141. Ibid., 347.

142. Ibid., 183. As noted above, Julius’s oral report might have had to suffice temporarily if the documentation perished in the shipwreck and had to be replaced later. If the soldiers managed to preserve anything, however, this sort of documentation would have had priority.

143. Esp. at Keener, Acts, 3:2766–67.

144. Rapske, Custody, 177.

145. Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.67.

146. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 789n26.

147. Rapske, Custody, 237. On the disrepute associated with these, see p. 232; comment on Acts 16:15.

148. See Packer, “Housing,” 80–81; Clarke, Houses, 26; Stambaugh, City, 157, 172–78; Owens, City, 156; Carcopino, Life, 24–30; Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 7–10; Höcker, “House,” 546; McRay, Archaeology, 82–83; cf. Jewett, Romans, 53–55.

149. Rapske, Custody, 238–39. The claim that an apartment would allow him to prepare (kosher) meals (238), however, is questionable; because of their limited facilities, many apartment dwellers ate at taverns.

150. Ibid., 239.

151. Ibid., 365; emphasis Rapske’s.

152. Ibid., 366. Even many of the wealthy lived in apartment buildings, albeit on the ground floor.

153. Ibid., 228; Packer, “Housing,” 81.

154. Blue, “House Church,” 155–56; cf. Packer, “Housing,” 80; Harrison and Yamauchi, “Cities,” 301.

155. Clarke, Houses, 26. For archaeological evidence for multistoried dwellings in Pompeii and especially Herculaneum, see Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 74. Subletting was common for higher floors (Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 110).

156. Stambaugh, City, 157, 172–73; cf. Clarke, “Italy,” 477.

157. Höcker, “House,” 546 (following Juv. Sat. 3.188–310); cf. idem, “Insula”; Carcopino, Life, 31; Packer, “Housing,” 81–82.

158. Stambaugh, City, 175, notes that “separate tenants” sometimes “occupied the sleeping and sitting rooms opening off a shared medianum” (citing Dig. 9.3.5.2).

159. Blue, “House Church,” 155–56n138.

160. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 7–9; cf. Packer, “Housing,” 83.

161. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 9–10. Carcopino, Life, 29, suggests that “blocks of flats” typically looked the same from the outside. Some tenements were already perilously high by the late republic (pp. 24–25), and in imperial Rome, even some persons of the higher class found themselves on the third floor (26) in buildings that went much higher (26, citing Juv. Sat. 3.190–96). For their fragility, see pp. 30–32.

162. Owens, City, 54, 71, 156, is closer to the idea of housing blocks, as is Balch, “Families,” 259. Storey, “Insulae,” suggests residential units and also works with a lower population estimate than in Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 7–9. In any case, it seems to refer to a multioccupant unit (Stambaugh, City, 90).

163. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 10.

164. Jeffers, “Families,” 132; Stambaugh, City, 174.

165. Carcopino, Life, 40.

166. Jeffers, “Families,” 132.

167. Carcopino, Life, 41–42 (noting that babies were sometimes also abandoned on such dung heaps). Emptying it out the window was a punishable offense, especially when it hit a pedestrian below (Juv. Sat. 3.269–72; Carcopino, Life, 42–43, 46).

168. Jeffers, “Families,” 132; on the reduced cost of higher apartments, see also Rapske, Custody, 232. Owners built them as high as possible, renting out even the smallest spaces (231).

169. Jeffers, “Families,” 132.

170. Ibid., 133. For apartment churches (not all of the well-endowed), see Jewett, Romans, 63, also noting that this fits the dominant form of housing in Trastevere.

171. Jeffers, “Families,” 132; Rapske, Custody, 231.

172. Toner, Culture, 109–10; Jeffers, “Families,” 132; Rapske, Custody, 231.

173. Rapske, Custody, 231.

174. Ibid.

175. Packer, “Housing,” 81, citing Sen. Y. Ben. 4.6.2; 6.15.7; Ira 3.35.4–5.

176. Packer, “Housing,” 81, citing Tac. Ann. 15.43; Suet. Nero 16.1. Nero’s and Tigellinus’s estates may have escaped conflagration partly because they were not tightly packed like the wooden housing of the poor.

177. Packer, “Housing,” 81, citing Mart. Epig. 1.108.3; 1.117.6–7; 3.30.3; 4.37; 5.22; 6.27.1–2; 7.20.20; 8.14; Juv. Sat. 3.6ff., 166, 190–202, 223–25, 235, 268–77; 11.12–13.

178. Packer, “Housing,” 82, citing Aur. Vict. Epit. Caes. 13.13.

179. Packer, “Housing,” 82, citing Aul. Gel. 15.1.2–3. Fires continued (SHA, Antonius Pius 9; Ulp. Dig. 9.2.27.8).

180. Stambaugh, City, 154. Blue, “House Church,” 156, estimates that most upper-story apartments rented for 2,000 sesterces a year, requiring most tenants to sublet.

181. Stambaugh, City, 154. As Talbert, Acts, 229, observes, Juvenal (a satirist who often does exaggerate) laments the high rent in Rome for inferior lodging (Sat. 3.164–66) and that one could buy a good house outside Rome for the cost of a year’s rent of a chamber near the roof in Rome (3.223–25). The dole and perhaps prospects of better or easier wages presumably lured workers there.

182. Stambaugh, City, 356n41.

183. Ibid., 154, notes that earlier, during the republic, an average worker received two to four sesterces per day (Cic. Rosc. com. 28); thus, housing aside, five days’ wages each month would be necessary to purchase grain for feeding an individual for the month (correspondingly higher with more people). The food situation was happily alleviated somewhat by the dole (noted above). For food needs generally, see Schneider, “Nutrition.”

184. Stambaugh, City, 157; Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 141, 183; Owens, City, 156.

185. See further SIG 1024, 1200; Philo Spec. Laws 1.280; Johnson, Acts, 472–73; discussion in Mealand, “Close and Vocabulary,” 584–85. Cf. one sense of μίσθωσις in Thür, “Misthosis,” 69–70. “Two years” (as a common length), “rented,” and “unrestricted” all appear in ancient leases (Mealand, “Close and Vocabulary,” 595).

186. With, e.g., NASB; NRSV; Witherington, Acts, 813; Pervo, Acts, 687; Schnabel, Acts, 1075. Haenchen, Acts, 726n2, notes that though the term normally designates “house-rent,” it is equivalent to “καθ᾽ἑαυτόν in [Acts] 28.16 and ξενία in 28.23”; Pervo, Acts, 687, is probably right to explain it as a metonym. Inns for the poor had daily or other short-term leases, but apartments, especially lower ones, had long-term leases (Rapske, Custody, 235–36). Regarding prisoners in rented housing, Conzelmann, Acts, 224, cites Ulp. Dig. 48.2.3.

187. Rapske, Custody, 177–79, esp. 179.

188. Ibid., 234.

189. Ibid., 324–26.

190. Johnson, Function, 32, suggests that ἰδίῳ in Acts 28:30 implies that Paul is living from his own means rather than that of the Roman church, but could the term simply deny instead a cost to the Roman government?

191. See Phil 2:25–30; 4:10–19; on the likely economic sense of κοινωνία in Phil 1:5 (and cf. the cognate verb in 4:15), see Ogereau, “Κοινωνία,” 371–74; Wansink, “Law,” 990; Panikulam, Koinōnia, 83–85 (as both spiritual and material). The phrase sometimes applied to covering rent (Michael, Philippians, 11).

192. Even if, as I doubt, the collection was wholly rejected and thus left in Paul’s hands.

193. See Suet. Jul. 42.1; cf. Suet. Aug. 42.3; Pliny Ep. 10.5.1; Sherk, Empire, 127–28.

194. Rapske, Custody, 239–42 (noting that the dole, distributed monthly, amounted to about ten gallons of free corn each year). Cf. Sen. Y. Ben. 4.28.2, who notes that every citizen receives the dole, even thieves (in Rapske, Custody, 241; Talbert, Acts, 230), though Seneca may not think of those actually in custody.

195. Rapske, Custody, 239. Paul’s favorable treatment may have reduced the apparent likelihood of execution, but one might not wish to trust a potential criminal, guard or no guard, as much as someone else.

196. Ibid., 229.

197. Finegan, Apostles, 224. Although the tradition itself is not implausible, one can also see why Roman tradition would associate Paul’s final detention with this site.

198. Even had he lacked it before Corinth, he would certainly have learned it in new Corinth, which imitated Rome at every turn (see Winter, Left Corinth, 8–11).

199. So Fitzmyer, Acts, 792.

200. Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 389.

201. Rapske, Custody, 330–31. Poppaea Sabina’s influence may come somewhat later (especially in 62 C.E.), but precedent may have rendered it more effective. On the question of historical tradition in the narrative, cf., e.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 631.

202. He might also need to explain his chains and his case to prevent these from reflecting badly on the Christian movement in the Roman Jewish estimation. Historically, perhaps some local Christians ultimately found his imprisonment too embarrassing to defend him, using it as an occasion to preach Jesus but distance themselves from him, but his case may have simply provided increased opportunity for open conversation (Phil 1:14–17).

203. On Roman Judaism, see further Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 167–93; Leon, Jews of Rome; Nanos, Mystery, 42–75; Penna, “Juifs à Rome”; Kraabel, “Jews in Rome”; Ilan, “Torah”; for brief summary, e.g., Keener, Romans, 10–13; on the synagogues, Leon, Jews of Rome, 135–66; on burial places, see, e.g., CIJ 1:lvi–lxii; Pitigliani, “Catacombs”; Leon, Jews of Rome, 54–55. For the Jewish community in Ostia, see, e.g., CIJ 1:393, §533.

204. CIJ 1:lxxi–lxxxi. At least eleven are known, though not all from the same period; they appeared in the Campus Martius, near the Porta Capena, in Subura, but especially across the Tiber (Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 182–85; Clarke, “Italy,” 466).

205. See Williams, “Structure Re-considered.”

206. Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 97 (citing CIJ 1:230, §291; 1:288, §371; 1:373, §510; 1:397, §535).

207. See Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 169; the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9 (Keener, Acts, 2:1304–6).

208. Leon, Jews of Rome, 170; Witherington, Acts, 794. Rome may well not have wished its resident-alien communities too united.

209. Nanos, “Churches,” 15, suggesting hundreds of them and noting that our hard evidence for synagogue buildings in Rome is later.

210. Jeffers, “Families,” 131; cf. Stambaugh, City, 95; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 167–93; Clarke, “Italy,” 466. Although Jewish people settled elsewhere, the majority still remained here.

211. Richardson, “Synagogues,” 18–19.

212. Jeffers, “Families,” 131.

213. Ibid.

214. Ibid.

215. Ibid., 132. The first Gentile followers of Jesus in Rome were mostly Greek-speaking and were influenced by Jesus’s Jewish followers.

216. Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 93–101, esp. 95–99.

217. Richardson, “Synagogues,” 19–23.

218. Ibid., 23–28; quotation, 28. The plural could allow a later Herod, e.g., Agrippa I or II, permitting the “synagogue of the Agrippans” the same referent (28n48).

219. White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 33–34.

220. Ibid., 43–46, 49–50; though cf. also White, “Synagogue and Society”; Runesson, “Oldest Building.” Inscriptions note that it was renovated through a patron’s donations (White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 53–66; both donors were apparently Roman citizens, p. 62).

221. Most of the inscriptions concerning some thirteen Roman synagogues are two to three centuries after Paul, but at least three to five of the known ones probably precede him (Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 22).

222. Richardson, “Synagogues,” 18; Clarke, “Italy,” 466.

223. Richardson, “Synagogues,” 17. Rome treated their religious meetings as collegia (19).

224. Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 120.

225. Ibid.

226. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 295, citing Tac. Ann. 2.85.4, who includes Egyptians but limits the number to freedmen (citizens) and those of military age. Josephus claims that the majority of Jewish men refused conscription (Ant. 18.84).

227. Higher estimates often reach 50,000 (Jewett, Chronology, 37); the relative proportion of Rome’s population varies with estimates of the total population. For 40,000–50,000, see, e.g., Cullmann, Peter, 79; Clarke, “Italy,” 466. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 182, notes that the estimates range from 10,000 to 60,000; Jewett, Romans, 55, estimates 15,000–60,000 in the mid-50s; Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 208, mentions 20,000–60,000; Hultgren, Romans, 7, lists 20,000–50,000.

228. Leon, Jews of Rome, 135. Leon also cites (136) the 4,000 men aged 18 to 45, pressed into Tiberius’s military service, as supporting 50,000. Yet this both seems a generous estimate and fails to reckon with a possible reduction in the local Jewish population in consequence. For a discussion of evidence concerning Roman Jews’ longevity, see pp. 229–30.

229. See fuller comment on Acts 18:2; also Keener, “Edict.”

230. Esp. Keener, Acts, 3:2708.

231. Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–77; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 105; Noy, “Writing”; Avi-Yonah, “Archaeological Sources,” 54. For Greek inscriptions, see CIJ 1:6–143; for Latin, CIJ 1:143–97. Of 534 inscriptions, Leon, Jews of Rome, 75, reckons that 76 percent are in Greek, 23 percent in Latin, and only about 1 percent in other languages. The Appia catacomb was the most romanized, with 36.4 percent in Latin (63.6 percent in Greek); but Monteverde is 78.2 percent Greek; Nomentana, 92.6 percent Greek; and others, 87.7 percent Greek (Leon, Jews of Rome, 77). There was no distinctive Roman Jewish form of Greek or Latin (77–92, esp. 92). Some interchange occurred, however (cf. a Latin inscription in Greek letters, and a Greek one in Latin letters; Cappelletti, “Inscriptions”). Use of Greek was conventional for immigrants from the urban eastern Mediterranean world.

232. For some possible Aramaic, see Chilton, “Epitaph”; see more fully CIJ 1:228–32.

233. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 161–62 (suggesting that half the names are Latin, yet all but a quarter of the inscriptions are in Greek); Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 102–3.

234. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 164.

235. Jeffers, “Families,” 131.

236. Snyder, “Interaction,” 78–81. At least in later sources, however, their adaptation of Roman memorial customs suggests significant acculturation; see Williams, “Image and Text.”

237. Snyder, “Interaction,” 81–86 (though noting that Christians infused them with new meaning). Roman authorities viewed Christians as distinct from the larger Jewish community (Judge, First Christians, 431–41).

238. Jeffers, “Families,” 129.

239. White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 67; idem, “Synagogue and Society”; but the arguments are disputed by Runesson, “Oldest Building.”

240. Keener, Acts, 3:2697–711.

241. Esp. excursus at Keener, Acts, 3:2472–77. E.g., it was secretive, subversive, and unfriendly (Juv. Sat. 14.100–103; Tac. Hist. 5.5). Some may have also confused Jews with other Eastern groups from Syria (perhaps in Juv. Sat. 8.160). For one brief survey of views about Judaism in Rome, see Judge, First Christians, 427–30.

242. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 55–56; Tajra, Trial, 21–24; see comment on Acts 16:20–21. For Jewish proselytism in Rome, see also Leon, Jews of Rome, 250–56; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 107–8.

243. Christian proselytism could thus have offered a secondary reason to withdraw (Walters, “Impact,” 181–82).

244. On this ridicule and ostracism, cf., e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.47; Plut. Table 4.4.4, Mor. 669C; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.137–38; Leon, Jews of Rome, 39; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 136–39; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 57; Sanders, Figure, 37; Rochette, “Juifs et Romains.”

245. On Gentile sympathizers to Roman Judaism, see, e.g., Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 23; Jewett, Romans, 57–58. For Gentile antipathy to proselytism in Rome, see comment above.

246. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 185–92.

247. Ibid., 186–87. On this title elsewhere (where it may have sometimes involved patronage), see discussion at Acts 13:15; cf. also 18:8, 17.

248. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 187. The gerousiarchs of Ostia’s synagogue were “socially connected and upwardly mobile” (White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 66). Roman Jews displayed particularly high respect for old age (Leon, Jews of Rome, 230).

249. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 187–90.

250. Ibid., 190.

251. Ibid.

252. Ibid.

253. Ibid., 190–91.

254. Ibid., 191.

255. Ibid., 192. Cf. also ἐξάρχων, possibly a liturgical title at some point in history (Williams, “Exarchon”).

256. E.g., Clarke, “Italy,” 467; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 454. For Alexandrian Jewish traditions, see, e.g., Schwemer, “Gründungslegenden”; further comment on Acts 18:24.

257. Leon, Jews of Rome, 235–36. For Jewish family life in Rome, see CIJ 1:cxii–cxviii; for social life, 1:lxii–lxviii. Unable to enter Roman associations because of idolatrous ceremonies, Roman Jews had their own associations (1:lxii–lxviii). Some suggest that most Christians before Nero were of low status, lacking even citizenship to protect them from Nero’s persecution (Gray-Fow, “Why Christians?”).

258. With Clarke, “Italy,” 467; see also the discussion above.

259. Leon, Jews of Rome, 236.

260. With Walters, “Impact,” 176; Nock, Paul, 207; cf. Dunn, Romans, xlvi–l; Acts 2:10. They could even have come from Jerusalem (so Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 257–58; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 82–83, following Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome, 103–4). Some scholars have even suggested that the movement grew primarily from immigration and experienced little public preaching before Paul’s arrival (Judge and Thomas, “Origin”). On Eastern immigration to Rome, see Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 376; Clarke, “Italy,” 466; Carcopino, Life, 55; Nock, Conversion, 66–70; of Jews, CIJ 1:282, §362; 1:287–88, §370; 1:411, §556 (involuntarily); 1:365, §500; Leon, Jews of Rome, 238–40; on provincials in Rome, e.g., Friedländer, Life, 4:11; most thoroughly on the church in Rome, see Lampe, Paul to Valentinus.

261. Cf. Wiefel, “Community,” 108.

262. Cf. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 45, 417; Simpson, “Investigation.” Paul can articulate views in Judean ways (Davies, Paul), and Roman and Jerusalem Jews were kept in constant contact by travelers to the capital (cf. m. ʿErub. 4:1; Sanh. 4:7; b. Sanh. 32b; Meʿil. 17ab; if Avi-Yonah, “Archaeological Sources,” 54, is correct, some Roman synagogues might even be oriented toward Jerusalem). But while most Roman Jews had Judean backgrounds (Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 23, citing Philo Embassy 155), their Judean ancestors had come more than a century earlier. (Still, many continued to come from Judea voluntarily, e.g., CIJ 1:282, §362; 1:287–88, §370; Leon, Jews of Rome, 240.) Some have argued that the Roman church in Paul’s day remained predominantly Jewish (e.g., Fahy, “Romans”; Klausner, Jesus to Paul, 505), although this view is no longer widely held. Perhaps more plausibly the Roman church, while predominantly Gentile, retained ties with the Jerusalem church (Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 136, 146); Jewish concerns certainly figure prominently in Paul’s letter to Jesus’s followers in Rome.

263. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 37, citing Rom 1:5–6, 13; 15:16; Tobin’s argument from names in 16:3–16, however (following Lampe, Christen, 124–53), is weak; see also Hunter, Romans, 26; Wiefel, “Community in Rome,” 93; Hare, Persecution, 173; Fitzmyer, Romans, 33; Das, Paul and Jews, 64; idem, Debate, 54–70; Haacker, Theology, 12; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 408; Rodríguez, Call Yourself, 7–10. Some doubt that we can know which group predominated (Cranfield, Romans, 1:18).

264. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35–36; cf. 40–41. Roman Jews did interact with Roman Gentiles (see Rutgers, “Evidence”). Some find Luke offering in Acts 28 a justification or reason for the break (cf. Hauser, Strukturen, 240).

265. Keener, Acts, 3:2697–711.

266. Das, Paul and Jews, 59; cf. Haacker, Theology, 13; for expulsion in 49 C.E., see Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 40–41.

267. E.g., Harrington, God’s People, 57. This may have simply completed a process begun earlier when Claudius prohibited Jewish meetings (41 C.E., in Dio Cassius; see comment on Acts 18:2; more briefly, Keener, “Edict”).

268. See Keesmat, “Capital,” 48. Some xenophobic sensitivities to Jewish practices may have contributed another factor. Nanos suggests that most Roman anti-Judaism emerged later, in the backlash against the Judean war (“Churches,” 17), but note the pre-70 evidence (such as Cicero, Horace, and the expulsions under Tiberius and Claudius) cited in my excursus on anti-Judaism at Acts 16:20 (Keener, Acts, 3:2472–77). Appreciation for and antipathy toward Judaism coexisted among Roman Gentiles in this period.

269. This contrasts with the probable situation envisioned for the later Johannine community (see Keener, John, 194–214, esp. 207–14). Some argue that only the most radical voices were expelled from Rome to begin with and the others had less knowledge of Christianity (see Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 256), but surely some of those expelled had by now returned (cf. Rom 16:3–5).

270. E.g., Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 413–14; Harrington, God’s People, 57; Chilton, Approaches, 222–24; Haacker, Theology, 48–49; Watson, Gentiles, 175–91; cf. Keener, Romans, 11–16. The approach is not new; for example, note Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:3 (see Reasoner, Full Circle, xxv); cf. Nicholas of Lyra’s preface to his Romans commentary (Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 53); further, in the nineteenth century, J. W. Colenso addressed multiethnic questions in Romans (see Draper, “Drama”).

271. With Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 39; for texts referring either to households or to ministry (though the ministries need not be limited to leading house churches), see Rom 16:5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15.

272. On Nero’s persecution from a Christian perspective, see Euseb. H.E. 2.25; among Tacitus’s contemporaries, more briefly see Suet. Nero 16.2. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35, rightly emphasizes the large number of Christians, even allowing for exaggeration by Tacitus. Of course, some of those arrested may have also been falsely accused out of expediency.

273. Cf. 1 Clem. title; 65.2; Ign. Rom. title.

274. Lane, Hebrews, lx.

275. Ibid.

276. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 41.

277. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 44; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 38–46, 54–58; see discussion of the unity of Luke’s Acts speeches in Keener, Acts, 1:305–6, 499–500.

278. Chance, Acts, 525, compares initial openness to Paul’s message (Acts 13:42–43; 28:21–22), a larger audience (13:44; 28:23) with less openness (though 13:45 is far more negative than 28:24–25), and a quote from Isaiah and announcement of turning to Gentiles (13:46–47; 28:26–28).

279. Cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 32; further discussion in Keener, John, 762–63; comment on Acts 24:5.

280. Cf. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 135; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 117.

281. Witherington, Acts, 796–97, sees this designation as something of a captatio benevolentiae, though it is not part of a direct address.

282. Unless perhaps Paul is graciously avoiding implicating Jerusalemites (or other Jews) for the riot; even in Acts 24:18, addressing a Roman rather than a Jewish audience, he only implies his opponents’ guilt and stops short of explicit accusation.

283. On the level of the narrative, his opponents claimed to have arrested him (Acts 24:6), and Lysias claims to have rescued him (23:27); that Paul’s summary here agrees with the former perspective (against Luke’s own account) underlines how conciliatory Paul is being.

284. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 141–43; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 124.

285. Regarding Jerusalem opposition, Luke 13:33 provides a theological template for persecution in Jerusalem. At the same time, Luke’s theological interest suggests that he deployed information usefully, not that he fabricated it: Jesus’s crucifixion historically was near Jerusalem; subsequent persecution occurred in that region (1 Thess 2:14–15); and Paul himself expected hostility there (Rom 15:31) and appears in history in Roman custody after this journey.

286. Tannehill, Acts, 346; Witherington, Acts, 797; Chance, Acts, 521.

287. See the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:299–319.

288. Paul’s persecution tried to “compel” Christians to blaspheme (Acts 26:11); persecution against Paul “compelled” him to appeal to Caesar (28:19).

289. E.g., Hermog. Issues 77.20–78.21; Anderson, Glossary, 17; examples include Pliny Ep. 1.8.6. See comment on Acts 11:17; cf. also comment on Acts 26:19.

290. See Keener, Acts, 3:2708–11.

291. See, e.g., Lysias Or. 3.1, §96; Thucyd. 3.61.1; 3.70.3–4; at greater length, comment on Acts 24:18–21 (esp. 24:19).

292. With Rapske, Custody, 189.

293. Against Diaspora Jews’ airing their community’s dirty laundry, see, e.g., comments by Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, 110; Bruce, Corinthians, 59; for Christians, see 1 Cor 6:6. One should not accuse one’s people, especially during persecution (Bonsirven, Judaism, 149).

294. Tiberius’s expulsion involved a scandal of exploitation; the more recent one under Claudius may have even involved strife over Jesus’s identity, making it closer to the present situation (see comment on Acts 18:2; though the leaders in Acts 28:22 sound less familiar with the sect).

295. E.g., Xen. Symp. 2.10; Apol. 31; Plut. Themist. 2.6; Mart. Epig. 2.56; Gaius Inst. 3.221; Diog. Laert. 2.114; Sir 42:11; 1 Cor 11:5.

296. For identity insults and aggression, cf. Korostelina, “Insults,” 221. Witherington, Acts, 799, even cites 11QT LXIV, 6–8 to suggest that the strictest Jews regarded as treasonous presenting information damaging to the Jewish people to foreigners. This passage probably directly refers, however, only to betraying them directly.

297. Safrai, “Self-Government,” 408.

298. For insinuation, see, e.g., Cic. Cat. 1.6.14; fuller comment at Acts 24:18–19.

299. E.g., Cic. Mur. 6.13; John 8:44; see further comment on Acts 24:18; Keener, John, 762.

300. Rhet. Alex. 37.1445b.17–19.

301. Dion. Hal. Isaeus 10, 11. This reluctance was, of course, often genuine, but for orators’ sometimes feigning reluctance to address matters that they, in fact, desired to prove, see Marshall, Enmity, 349.

302. Aeschines Tim. 1.

303. See Malina, Windows, xv, on general usage; elsewhere, cf. Robinson, “Destination,” 129. For various uses of “Judea” in Luke-Acts, see Bechard, “Judaea,” including the use for the Roman district (683–84); highlighting the diverse usage in light of the ambiguities of ethnicity, see Barreto, Negotiations, 81–90. This appears especially frequently in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., Cuming, “Jews”; Lowe, “ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ”; Meeks, “Jew,” 181–82; cf. Geyser, “Israel”), though especially applied to the Jerusalem elite (with, e.g., Brown, John, 1:lxxi; Crossan, “Anti-Semitism,” 199; Baum, Gospel, 111; Pereyra, “Significado”; Tsuchido, “Anti-Semitism”; Beutler, “Identity,” 230–31). On the Johannine usage, see also discussions in Keener, John, 214–27; differently but extensively, White, “Jews” (for Jewish sources, 84–92).

304. See Williams, “Ioudaios”; Meeks, “Aliens,” 290n2 (to p. 130); Barreto, Negotiations, 78–79; cf. recent discussions from varying perspectives in Baker, “Jew”; Miller, “Ioudaios”; idem, “Ethnicity”; Schwartz, “Judaisms.” Although applicable in Palestine (e.g., CIJ 2:158, §972, from 197 C.E.), it could also apply to Diaspora Jews (e.g., CPJ 1:134–35, §9; 1:149–50, §18; CIJ 1:509, §697; 1:512, §709; 1:513, §710; 2:13–14, §746). It need not even be limited to descendants of Judah (and Benjamin); see, e.g., Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49:8; Gen. Rab. 98:6.

305. Cf., e.g., CIJ 1:495, §683; 1:509, §697; 2:13–14, §746 (Ephesus); 2:158, §972 (Palestine); CPJ 1:134–35, §9; 1:149–50, §18. Cf. also Overman, Crisis, 401. I am adapting two sentences here from Keener, John, 219–20.

306. See Tomson, “Israel” (citing a range of sources, including inscriptions, papyri, and coins); Ashton, Understanding, 153, citing, e.g., usage in 1 Maccabees.

307. Saldarini, Community, 34–36. Cf. Tomson, “Israel.” Pervo, Acts, 682, complains that the term gives away Luke’s parallel to Luke 23:15–20; although a parallel to Jesus’s passion is not improbable, the term does not appear in that passage (though Jerusalemites appear included in 23:13). The label in Acts 12:3 cannot easily apply to all Jerusalemites (although conditions now differ from those reported in 2:47), but it may link Peter with Paul’s accusers in 24:27, where it applies to members of Jerusalem’s elite.

308. See Kraemer, “Meaning of ‘Jew.’”

309. Overman, Crisis, 401.

310. Luke can use it of a specific group rather than of the people as a whole; e.g., it applies to just forty men in Acts 23:12–13.

311. E.g., Val. Max. 2.2.1a; 5.6 passim; see further comment on Acts 21:39 (there applying to Tarsus as one of Paul’s two home cities, here to the other, Jerusalem).

312. Val. Max. 5.6.praef. (whether Romans’ loyalty to Rome or Carthaginians’ to their own).

313. On this concept among Romans, see Greene and Scheid, “Pietas.”

314. See deSilva, Honor, 171–72 (and his example in Test. Jos. 17:1–2).

315. Dion. Hal. Lysias 24, summarizing the recommendation of contemporary rhetorical handbooks.

316. Establishing that a defendant’s character was such that the defendant would not commit such an offense was conventional rhetoric (e.g., Lysias Or. 7.41, §112; see fuller comment on Acts 24:14–17).

317. So also Riesner, Early Period, 150.

318. See Luke 7:4; 8:31–32, 41; 15:28; Acts 9:38; 13:42; 16:9, 15, 39; 19:31; 21:12; in pleas for a fair hearing, Acts 24:4; 25:2. For the semantic range, see BDAG. In letters, see Aune, Environment, 188; Stowers, Letter Writing, 24, 78. One could strengthen such entreaties through tears (Cic. Sest. 11.26) or through invoking deities in one’s appeals (e.g., Isaeus Menec. 47; Rom 12:1).

319. E.g., Cic. Fam. 13.14.2; 13.20.1; 13.24.3; 13.26.2; 13.30.2; 13.32.2; 13.35.2; 13.54.1; 13.72.2; 13.74.1.

320. E.g., Cic. Fam. 13.28b.2 (LCL, 27:89); 13.41.2; 13.43.2; 13.45.1; 13.47.1; 13.73.2; 13.76.2. Cicero also uses this wording in a nonrecommendation letter, imploring his brother to stay well (Quint. fratr. 3.1.7.25).

321. See comments on Acts 21:33–34; 26:29; but the chain itself was used to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial, not as a legal penalty itself (O’Rourke, “Law,” 174). Philosophers (especially Stoics) could view fetters as irrelevant to what mattered, one’s soul (Cic. Fin. 3.22.75).

322. Such a claim might appeal to Judean nationalists rather than to Roman Jews, especially since many of the Jewish leaders meeting him may have been, like himself, Roman citizens; but he can explain it.

323. From a different perspective, given the charge against Paul in Acts 21:28, he would be a prisoner for the sake of Gentile Christians (Eph 3:1).

324. Though the enemy here is not a pagan tyrant but the Jerusalem elite, Jewish Maccabean literature also condemned some members of the priestly elite, especially pagan accommodationists.

325. Rapske, Custody, 206–9; idem, “Prison,” 828; see further comments at Acts 12:6; 26:29.

326. Cf. lesser detentions in Rapske, Custody, 9, 25–27 (though normally only those of high status completely escaped chains in prison, p. 28; cf. Polyb. 32.3.5).

327. Rapske, Custody, 181. Thus even light custody could include some bonds (Jos. Ant. 18.233).

328. With more nuancing, see Anderson, Raised, 261–92. For Jewish uses of hope (e.g., Jub. 31:32) and being on trial for a higher cause, see comment on Acts 26:6–7. The Lord himself was Israel’s hope (Jer 14:8; 17:13).

329. The hope fulfills the inaugural hopes of the first volume (Luke 2:25–28; 24:21; Pervo, Story, 95). Before the final fulfillment, much suffering would intervene, but Jesus had promised (and established) future hope beyond it (cf. Fusco, “Future of Israel”). Deutschmann, “Hoffnung,” argues that the “hope of Israel” here enters an intra-Jewish dialogue and evokes Acts’ major themes (cf. idem, Synagoge, 188–217).

330. Rapske, Custody, 411. Cf. Rom 15:25, 31.

331. On Luke’s apologetic for Paul and its grounding in genuine historical events, see Keener, “Apologetic.” Paul did experience Jewish accusations in some settings, but the potential charges that stand behind his experience in the final quarter of the book derive specifically from Jerusalem.

332. See, e.g., Dunn, Romans, xlvi–xlvii. Jerusalem’s high priest would wield influence in the Diaspora (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 255–57; cf. 2 Macc 1:1, 10, 18; Let. Aris. passim). Late first-century rabbis reportedly traveled to Rome (Sipre Deut. 43.3.7). Some argue that some of the Sanhedrin’s pre-Herodian influence in the Diaspora was eventually acquired by the rabbinic movement (Safrai, “Relations,” 204–9). Later rabbis applied some laws only to Eretz Israel (t. ʿOr. 1:8) but articulated other rules also for the Diaspora (m. Roš Haš. passim, e.g., 1:4; t. Sanh. 2:6; Sipre Deut. 59.1.2; 188.1.2; y. B. Qam. 4:1, §3; Giṭ. 5:6, §3). Probably in the early period, however, few in the Diaspora knew rabbinic prescriptions, but leaders of Diaspora communities probably knew about major decisions among scribal leaders in Judea (cf., e.g., Katz, “Issues,” 45–46).

333. Rapske, Custody, 323, sees only a seasonal travel delay here. On a narrative level, such correspondence between Jewish communities could evoke the letters that Paul carried in Acts 9:2 and 22:5; but Luke employs a different term (though the semantic range overlapped; see BDAG, s.v. γράμμα, 2.b). If documents regarding Paul’s trial were lost in the shipwreck, securing duplicates would also require a new message to Judea and time for documents to arrive (Arrington, Acts, 269, citing the first edition of Blaiklock, Acts, 194).

334. It would be conceivable for the Sanhedrin to send official representatives or agents (on which cf. De Ridder, Discipling, 125–26) instead of simply entrusting documents to travelers. Cities accusing governors sent delegations (see comment on Acts 24:27); but Paul, though perceived as a serious nuisance, would merit neither this expenditure nor, apparently, the continuance of the case.

335. McKechnie, “Paul,” 121–22.

336. Hemer, Acts in History, 157; Bruce, Acts1, 477; idem, Commentary, 530; cf. Tajra, Trial, 187–88; Witherington, Acts, 799.

337. Conzelmann, Acts, 240–41 (citing BGU 628), though he cites (p. 228) other texts that can be used against the view that Romans would automatically dismiss such a case.

338. Bruce, Acts3, 541–42.

339. E.g., Lysias Or. 3.39, §99; Max. Tyre 18.6; see comment on Acts 24:21.

340. See Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437a.18–21.

341. Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.7 (accusatorem non habeo); cf. John 8:46.

342. E.g., Bammel, “Activity,” 363: the lack of accusations and the previous cases of Roman fairness point to acquittal.

343. Though not all agree (Bunine, “Félix”). Bede Comm. Acts 28.31b predicates Paul’s release to preach in the West on Nero’s not yet having become as evil as in his later years (citing Jerome Vir. ill. 5 [TU 14:10, 6/9]).

344. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 530; on her respect for Judaism, see Das, Debate, 199–200; Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 308; Grüll and Benke, “Graffito.” But while some think that she diverted Nero’s anger from Jews to Christians, there is no evidence for this (Walters, “Impact,” 180); she may have viewed Christians as a Jewish sect and respected them for the same reasons she respected Judaism. Josephus, a high-class Judean like Paul’s opponents, found her favorable, but she also secured the appointment of Gessius Florus, one of Judea’s worst governors (Cadoux and Griffin, “Poppaea Sabina”). Goffin, “Poppaea,” 614, regards her as smart but extravagant (citing Dio Cass. 62.28.1; Pliny E. N.H. 28.182–83; 11.238).

345. Riesner, Early Period, 225–26, citing b. Yoma 9a for his long tenure and Jos. Ant. 20.194–96 for his deposition (but the long tenure is more difficult to harmonize with Josephus; cf. 18.34).

346. Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 22.

347. With Barrett, Acts, 1242.

348. In view of Luke’s apologetic, it might seem odd that he mentions complaints about the sect unnecessarily (see comment on Acts 18:2), but if (possibly) Paul was posthumously accused of making matters worse for Christians by his preaching, the note that such sentiments existed before his arrival (quite plausible, especially in view of Suet. Claud. 25.4; see Keener, “Edict”) would serve a useful purpose.

349. E.g., “this sect” is used sympathetically for Stoics in Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.6b, pp. 38–39.19; 2.7.7, pp. 42–43.26.

350. Haenchen, Acts, 728, views their ignorance as historically implausible. Judge, First Christians, 450, counts their ignorance against Suet. Claud. 25 referring to Christians. Yet on 452–53, he suggests that the believers continued to meet “under the umbrella of the synagogues.” On 431–41, he emphasizes that Rome’s officials viewed Christians and Jews as distinct in all of our other sources.

351. Certainly the first Roman Christians were Jewish (Acts 2:10); according to a plausible tradition, they wanted Roman converts to keep the law (Ambrosiaster Comm., on Rom 6, in Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 203).

352. Rapske, Custody, 331.

353. Rutgers, “Policy,” 106; Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 126; Das, Paul and Jews, 59; cf. Rapske, Custody, 331. Nanos, Mystery (e.g., 14, 384; esp. 72–74), believes that Gentile Christians remained in Roman synagogues, but this remains a minority view.

354. See Keener, Acts, 3:2708–11.

355. Rackham, Acts, 501. By this period the Roman church seems to have included both Gentiles (Rom 1:5–6; 11:13) and Jews (7:1; 16:3–4, 7, 11), perhaps divided along the lines of house churches (Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 123–25), but most scholars (e.g., Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 37) argue that the majority were now Gentiles.

356. Walters, “Impact,” 181 (leaving Christians “exposed in 64 C.E.”); Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35–36, argues that they were even expelled. Nanos, Mystery, 375, who doubts significant expulsion, argues that an expulsion over the issue of Christ should have produced greater hostility against the Christian movement than this passage suggests.

357. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35, citing Tac. Ann. 15.44 (but cf. the interpretation in Lund, “Verbrennung,” where they are part of the Jewish community).

358. See Keener, Acts, 3:2705–8.

359. Luke is also clear that Christians have been in Rome before (Acts 2:10; 18:2) and are there now (28:15), so it is not likely that he should be construed as implying that the movement was completely unknown there.

360. Incidentally, Christian history suggests that Christendom has displayed the same disappointing patterns as Israel’s history did—as if to suggest that the problem is one endemic to human nature.

361. The kingdom proclamation may also relativize Rome’s authority (Burfeind, “Muss nach Rom”) and surely does so eschatologically (see Acts 1:6; 3:21), but given Luke’s apologetic, this is not likely Luke’s emphasis (cf. 17:7).

362. For global references, see comment on Acts 3:18; such a summary serves the literary purpose of suggesting more than Luke has space to report (see Aune, Environment, 127–28, comparing Hellenistic historians; comment on Acts 2:40). Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 140–41, argues that Luke shows Jesus and Paul to be prophets themselves.

363. For continuity between Jesus and the disciples in preaching the kingdom in Luke-Acts, see helpfully Siffer, “Proclamation du Royaume.”

364. Pace Rapske, Custody, 361.

365. Ibid., 180.

366. Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 260, 265. At least in homes without guards, they could walk in uninvited (260).

367. The term ξενία could mean “hospitality” but also applied to a guest room (Phlm 22; other sources in BDAG) or to where hospitality was shown (cf. Jos. Ant. 1.200; 5.147; Witherington, Acts, 800–801), not necessarily “the inn in which he has rented a room” (Haenchen, Acts, 723).

368. By way of one simple illustration that I can recount firsthand (others could offer similar illustrations), as a professor I have taught intensive courses both in the United States and in Africa consisting primarily of forty hours of lecture over five days, sometimes for multiple weeks back to back. Admittedly, with the lecture format I could continue at this pace only for a few weeks, and I was younger than Paul is in this narrative. Interactively, however, one can dialogue at significantly greater length; I debated with another academician for more than seven hours and have taught interactively for as long as fourteen continuous hours.

369. Language also applicable to worship and prayer (Luke 2:37; 18:7; Acts 26:7; cf. 1 Thess 3:10; 1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3) and that Paul also applied to his ministry elsewhere (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8).

370. Peter also apparently preached a long sermon of at least a few hours (Acts 3:1; 4:3), though speeches of such length were common.

371. Nor only an ancient one, as Kisau, “Acts,” 1347, illustrates by citing an Akamba proverb. Like a chorus in an ancient play that functioned as a single character (Arist. Poet. 18.19, 1456a) but could be divided, Luke can depict a group as unified, but he often emphasizes the divided opinions among hearers.

372. For “persuasion” suggesting adherence, see, e.g., Acts 17:4; 19:26; 26:28; for persuasion in a synagogue setting, 18:4; 19:8. The unbelief at the end of the Gospel (Luke 24:11, 41, Luke’s only other uses of ἀπιστέω) differs in being temporary, applying to disciples (cf. Mark 16:11, 14, 16); but unbelief was culpable (Luke 9:41). Nevertheless, as in Paul’s theology, the “unbelief” of some Jews would not negate God’s faithfulness to his promise (Rom 3:3; cf. 11:20, 23).

373. Rapske, Custody, 362.

374. Tannehill, Acts, 352.

375. Cf. also Dunn, Acts, 354 (who mentions Acts 13:50; 14:4; 17:5; 18:12; 22:30; 23:12).

376. Soards, Speeches, 206; cf. Green, “Acts,” 767. Contrast Wright, People of God, 375, for whom Paul’s preaching in Rome redefines the meaning of Israel’s restoration in Acts 1:6; in my opinion this approach overlooks the pattern of returning to Israel and also Luke’s continuing expectation of the Jewish people’s faith (in light of how the words would be understood in a first-century context, see 1:7; 3:19–21; 26:6–7; 28:20).

377. For judgment against Israel, see, e.g., Isa 2:1–3:26; Jer 4:6; 5:9, 29; 9:9; 15:1–9; Amos 2:6; 3:2; 5:5; 7:8–9; 9:4; Mic 1:6–16; for the righteous-minority idea, see, e.g., Ezek 9:4–6; Mal 3:16–17; Rom 9:27; 11:5.

378. E.g., Ovid Metam. 3.513–18; cf. Porph. Marc. 22.348–60. Philostratus recognizes that failing to believe a semidivine hero after sufficient evidence has been presented would be unjust (Hrk. 17.1). Yet one should neither believe too much (gullibility) nor disbelieve too much (skepticism; Plut. Cam. 6.4).

379. E.g., b. B. Bat. 75a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 25:29, 32.

380. Jipp, Visitations, 25, 29, 271 (emphasizing the pattern of Jewish leaders rejecting the message on 247–52, and in Acts 28:17–27 specifically, on 274–81).

381. For such competing views regarding the nature of the proclaimer’s speech, see, e.g., Ezek 33:32–33; for Paul himself, Acts 24:25–26. For Paul speaking as a prophet here, see Litwak, Echoes, 181–200 (including as an example of those who prophesy in Acts 2:18, p. 198). Popkes, “Worte,” argues that 28:25–28 is important for the portrayal of Paul in Acts (regarding the relation to Judaism, etc.).

382. That Luke believes his message’s truth to be absolute and not simply relative does not mean that he would endorse social intolerance or persecution of those who reject his gospel, a different (political) form of absolutism often (conveniently?) conflated today with any affirmation of objective truth. Luke portrays dialogue in this passage and never in his entire work condones violence as a means of spreading the apostolic message. In Luke’s world, Luke expected Christians to be objects of persecution at times, not its authors.

383. Marguerat, Historian, 219. On the theme of reversal of judgment in antiquity, see comment on Acts 7:51–53, 56; Keener, “Inverted Guilt.”

384. Cf. Shiell, Reading Acts, 193 (following Soards, Speeches, 132), in seeing this as ironic.

385. Like Matt 13:15 and John 12:40, Luke also follows the LXX’s “and I shall heal them” rather than Mark’s mention of forgiveness (which may reflect an Aramaic interpretive tradition; see Evans, World, 61). Some dispute the usual interpretation of Mark’s passage (Peisker, “Konsekutives”; Jeremias, Parables, 17), and some construe Matthew’s point as different from that of Mark (Stern, Parables in Midrash, 201–2), but even if intended partly ironically, both likely have God’s plan in view (Keener, Matthew, 380–81).

386. E.g., Isaeus Hagnias 50; Cic. Quinct. 25.78–80.

387. Cf. also Ehrhardt, Acts, 128. For a treatment of Acts 28:25–28 in light of Luke’s larger use of Isaiah, see Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 101–9.

388. I have argued that even parabolic interpretations can derive from the tradition (Keener, Matthew, 381–82), as was standard with Jewish parables in general (Johnston, “Interpretations,” 561–62, 565–66, 638; Vermes, Religion, 92–99; Stern, Parables in Midrash, 24). Contrary to many earlier scholars, the burden of proof rests with those who deny that Jesus—alone out of Jewish parable makers—would have sometimes supplied interpretations. Nor is there any historical reason to deny the authenticity of parable interpretations attributed to Jesus simply because of multiple extrinsic referents, since these were also common in rabbinic parables (Johnston, “Interpretations,” 608, 638–39; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 72; cf. Scott, Parable, 44; at greater length, see Blomberg, Parables).

389. For the text’s hortatory value (rather than spelling Israel’s rejection), cf. Kilgallen, “Heal.”

390. Cf. also Longenecker, Acts, 366–67; Witherington, Acts, 804–5; Bonnah, Spirit, 253. Although Ezek 2:3–5 and 3:4–5 expand the interpretive horizons of this text (van de Sandt, “No Salvation”), it is not clear that Luke’s audience would note allusions to these texts.

391. Gaventa, Acts, 27, believes that Acts anticipates Paul’s death and Jesus’s parousia without narrating them; the same can be said of Jerusalem’s fall in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 19:43–44; 21:20–24).

392. See comment in Keener, Acts, 1:537. The major programmatic texts (Luke 4:18–19; 24:46–49; Acts 1:8; 2:17–18; cf. 10:38) mention the Spirit’s equipping God’s agents for ministry; the text that Luke cites here does not mention the Spirit explicitly, and so Luke may compensate by more explicitly attributing the text to the Spirit.

393. Cf. Mark 12:32. The sense in Luke 6:26 is different (“well” being attached to the object rather than to the speaker).

394. Bovon, Studies, 117, argues that καλῶς suggests a Christian way of reading Isaiah over against the synagogue way, comparing (117–18) Mark 7:6; Matt 15:7; Barn. 10.11. He argues that the aorist points to a particular past speaking and historical context but it can be reapplied for new settings (p. 119).

395. Luke presumably expected his audience to catch the irony (see Ray, Irony, passim).

396. E.g., Heath, “Invention,” 97.

397. Cf. Lindars, Apologetic, 159: early Christians exploited Isa 6:9–10 as an apologetic response to Jewish unbelief.

398. See Evans, “Isaiah in Writings.” Some take the apparent purpose of God to blind his people as irony (Ray, Irony, 55, following Hollenback, “Irony”); but it may reflect penal blindness (God handing them over to their choices), and in Luke’s larger narrative it probably functions intertextually as God’s way of enabling the Gentile mission so that all could have an opportunity (cf. Rom 11:32; Ray, Irony, 159).

399. Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 791: the condemnation was not new; Luke used traditional language because they continued the obduracy of their ancestors.

400. Promises also came to the ancestors (Luke 1:55; Acts 3:13, 25; 13:17, 32; 26:6), but Isaiah’s message here concerns disobedience. Like the OT prophets themselves, Luke includes both strands, with a noticeable shift from “our fathers” (Acts 28:17, applicable to all Jewish people) to “your fathers” (28:25, not applicable to members of the remnant). The pattern was not new and hence not surprising, and would presumably continue to repeat; there is no decisive change or rejection of ministry to Israel here.

401. With Soards, Speeches, 207–8n52.

402. On the relevance of Acts 28:20 for interpreting this paragraph, see Brawley, “Promises and Jews,” 296. Given the mixed Jewish responses earlier in the Gospel, Brawley, “Borderlines,” views the Jewish people’s ultimate decision to Jesus as open-ended.

403. Cf. also Witherington, Acts, 802–3 (also noting the remnant of Isa 6:13).

404. Luke’s contemporaries would read Isaiah as a unity (as in the Isaiah scroll; cf. 1QIsaa).

405. Luke also explicitly mentions Isaiah at Acts 8:28, 30 and at programmatic, key points in Luke 3:4; 4:17; and strongly implies Isaianic material in Acts 1:8; see the discussion of Luke’s programmatic use of Isaiah in Pao, Isaianic Exodus.

406. The blinded eyes of Rom 11:8 recall Isa 29:10; Deut 29:4. Although Paul often reads christocentrically, many of Paul’s readings address the definition of God’s people (Hays, Conversion, 187). For Israel’s disobedience, Ware, Synopsis, §63, pp. 118–23, cites, e.g., Rom 9:1–5; 9:30–10:4; 10:19–21; 11:7–10, 11–32; 1 Cor 1:23–24; 1 Thess 2:14–16.

407. For a survey of scholarly interpretations of Luke’s use of Isaiah here, see Lehnert, “Verstockung” (viewing Luke’s use as positive toward God’s promise).

408. For the call to decide between two paths toward the end of a work, cf. Josh 24:15 (somewhat earlier, Deut 30:19). Elsewhere, see, e.g., the two ways in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 8.3; 27.4; Diogenes Ep. 30; Ps 1:1; m. ʾAb. 2:9; 4 Ezra 7:3–16, 60–61; 8:1–3; Test. Ab. 11:2–11 A; 8:10–16 B; Test. Ash. 1:3, 5; Matt 7:13–14 (cf. Luke 13:23–24); Did. 1.1–6.2; Barn. 18.1–21.9.

409. Admittedly, it is not in any way distinctively Lukan; Matthew employs the verb in the imperative seven times (without including this part of the Isaiah citation). But elsewhere in the NT, it appears only twice in John (and also once in an interpolated section [John 8:11, in 7:53–8:11]); in the Apostolic Fathers, it appears only six times, all in Hermas (35.2; 38.11; 46.2; 61.4; 66.6; 77.4). Luke-Acts employs it seventeen times (about 63 percent of NT uses); proportionately, only Matthew’s uses (in half as much material as Luke-Acts) come close.

410. Luke’s use of Greek is necessary for his audience but also appropriate here for Paul’s audience in Rome, given the dominance of Greek use in the Roman Jewish community. Scripture citations appear at Rome in Greek (resembling the LXX or Aquila), Hebrew, and Latin versions (CIJ 1:lxvi).

411. For the figurative moralistic use of body parts (e.g., tongue, eyes, ears), in addition to OT uses see, e.g., Thucyd. 3.38.7; Rhet. Her. 4.49.62; Cic. Vat. 2.4; Livy 3.71.5; Val. Max. 6.2.praef.; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 20.2; 40.4; Pliny E. N.H. 18.1.4; Plut. Statecraft 5, Mor. 802DE; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.3; Lucian Dem. 12; Max. Tyre 7.7; 25.6; Philost. Hrk. 34.4; Libanius Declam. 44.70, 79; 4QpNah 3–4 II, 8; b. ʿArak. 15a; perhaps most relevant, Paul’s accumulation in Rom 3:13–18; cf. Porph. Marc. 33.506–7; Gen. Rab. 67:3; Lev. Rab. 16:4; Song Rab. 1:15, §2; 4:1, §2; 7:5, §2. For the figure synecdoche, where a part represents the whole, see Rhet. Her. 4.33.44–45; Rowe, “Style,” 127; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 578; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85 (citing Quint. Inst. 8.16.19); Anderson, Glossary, 112 (adding Cic. De or. 3.168).

412. Early Christian authors, such as Paul, also mined these other texts (see, e.g., Rom 11:8, which seems to mix Isa 29:10 with wording from the present text).

413. Renehan, “Quotations,” 20, cites numerous classical “parallels” for Acts 28:26 (Hom. Il. 15.128–29; Aeschylus Prom. 447–48; Ag. 1623; Soph. Oed. tyr. 413; Soph. frg. 837 Nauck = frg. 923 Pearson; Demosth. Aristog. 1.89; Heracl. frg. 34 Diels-Kranz) but concedes that they are coincidence, because (p. 21) NT writers depend here on the OT (Isa 6:9–10; cf. Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2). Centuries later, some non-Jews used the earlier biblical prophetic tradition of Israel’s being blind and deaf to God’s messengers (cf., e.g., Qur’an 5.71).

414. E.g., Marcus Perperna in Val. Max. 8.13.5; cf. Democritus in Aul. Gel. 10.17.1.

415. E.g., Tiresias in Soph. Oed. tyr. 371, 375, 402–3, 419, 454, 747, 1266–79; Ovid Metam. 3.336–38, 525; Apollod. Bib. 3.6.7. Cf. Phineas in Ap. Rhod. 2.184.

416. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 50.3; Epict. Diatr. 1.18.4, 6.

417. Epict. Diatr. 2.20.37; 2.24.19. A Skeptic portrays the ignorant accordingly in Lucian Phil. Sale 27. Cf. Heraclitus on the uselessness of eyes and ears to the unwise (frg. 107 Diels-Kranz, 22B, in Byrskog, History, 147).

418. E.g., Aeschylus Prom. 447–48; Val. Max. 7.3.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.26; Epict. Disc. 2.24.19. Receptivity to hear could be described poetically as offering “vacant ears” (vacuas aures, Val. Max. 2.4.4; cf. Philost. Hrk. 57.1; 2 Tim 4:3–4); one might persuade another by filling his “ears” (Quint. Curt. 10.1.36).

419. Cf. Isa 29:9; 42:18–19; 56:10; 1 En. 99:8; 4Q424 1 3; 4Q434 1 I, 3–4; Wis 2:21; Test. Levi 13:7; Exod. Rab. 30:20; Mark 4:12; 8:17–18; John 9:39–41; 12:40; Rom 1:21; Eph 4:18.

420. The obduracy lay with the hearers, not with the message or the messenger (cf. Cassandra’s inability to persuade with her mantic gift, Apollod. Bib. 3.12.5).

421. For Luke’s use of blindness and healing, including Paul’s, see also, e.g., Hartsock, “Blindness,” 91. In other narrative, see, e.g., the argument of Kiel, “Blindness” (on Tobit).

422. Although some located understanding in the head (Philo Dreams 1.32 notes the debate), the “heart” was regularly associated with understanding and cognition, as in this quotation (cf., e.g., Luke 9:47; Deut 29:3 [29:4 ET]; LXX Prov 2:2; 14:33; 20:5; Philo Flight 123).

423. “Eyes to see” and “ears to hear” were familiar phrases (Deut 29:4; Eccl 11:7; Ezek 12:2; 40:4; 44:5; Mark 4:9, 23; Matt 11:15; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rom 11:8; 2 En. 65:2; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3). Closed eyes could be associated with sleep (including spiritually, Isa 29:10) or with death (e.g., Gen 46:4; Ps 13:3; Val. Max. 2.6.8). On ears in Luke-Acts (esp. Luke 4:21), see Ulrichs, “Ears.”

424. In his letters, Paul believed that God sovereignly delayed that wholesale turning (while allowing a present remnant) to allow time for Gentiles to be converted (Rom 11; cf. Acts 28:28).

425. Jipp, Visitations, 280, finds a contrast in the juxtaposed narratives of Gentile welcome in 28:1–10 and Jewish rejection here, including Gentiles in Malta receiving healing (28:8–9) that is here rejected.

426. The sudden shift from subjunctive to future indicative, though permissible in Koine, might “highlight the hope of salvation” (Peterson, Acts, 717). Mark 4:12 says “forgiven” instead of “healed,” perhaps reflecting a Jewish interpretive tradition also found in the Targumim (see Chilton, “Targum,” 246).

427. Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 93; idem, Conclusion: Significance, 84; emphasizing the importance of 28:28 for Luke’s conclusion, see also Kilgallen, “Acts 28,28.” Similarly, the ascended Jesus sends Paul to Gentiles (Acts 22:21; 26:17–18) and to Rome (23:11) in his latest quoted statements.

428. Litwak, Echoes, 189, suggests verbal and conceptual resemblances with Ezek 3:7; these do not, however, appear very distinctive or obvious.

429. With, e.g., Soards, Speeches, 206; Witherington, Acts, 805–6; Le Cornu, Acts, xxxv, 1522; see the introduction, above, to Acts 28:17–31.

430. In Romans, technically, an apostle to the Gentiles (with, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 656; Kruse, Romans, 430).

431. With Tannehill, Acts, 352.

432. Soards, Speeches, 206–7. Likewise, from the perspective of both Luke and Paul, preaching to the Gentiles fulfills a “promise given to Israel by the prophets” (Le Cornu, Acts, xxxv).

433. See Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 76–81; cf. the approaches of Eisen, Poetik; Deutschmann, Synagoge, 188–217; and others; on the compatibility of Rom 11 and Acts 28:16–31, see esp. Litwak, “Views.” Apparently, both Paul (Rom 11:11–12, 15, 25–26) and Luke (Acts 3:19–21) believe that Jewish disobedience providentially delayed the consummation of the kingdom and hence allowed time for further evangelizing of Gentiles (cf. Acts 1:6–8).

434. See Litwak, “Views,” 237–38.

435. See Lehnert, “Absage”; Litwak, “Views,” 240. For the text’s use as a reproof inviting conversion rather than rejection, see van de Sandt, “No Salvation.” The subject of provocation could be Paul’s success in the anticipated eschatological conversion of Gentiles (Nanos, Mystery, 18, 249–50).

436. The first-century Christian movement was part of middle Judaism (Boccaccini, Judaism, 16–19, 215; Meyers, “Judaism and Christianity,” 69; earlier, though only on pre-Pauline Christianity, cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 29) and continued to be so viewed by some Gentile outsiders into the second century (Lucian Peregr. 11; though cf. Judge, “Judaism and Rise”). Both Jewish Jesus-followers’ necessary repudiation of Bar Kokhba and the growth of Gentile Christianity probably facilitated the rejection of the Jewish Jesus-followers by most other Judeans (Schiffman, Jew, 75–78). (The earlier Birkath ha-minim may have simply made Jewish Jesus-followers uncomfortable; see Hare, Persecution, 56; Katz, “Issues,” 51.) The earliest patristic sources often differentiated Jewish believers they considered faithful to Jesus from those they deemed heretical (see Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 19–28, 75; Bagatti, Church, 31), but later Gentile writers rejected most (Jerome Ep. 112.13 and other sources cited in Bagatti, Church, 34–35; Finegan, Records, 59; though cf. more nuanced sources in Daniélou, Theology, 56). Nevertheless, popular Gentile Christian and Jewish piety continued to overlap at least as late as the end of the fourth century (see Kinzig, “Non-Separation”). As late as the tenth century, Jacob al-Kirkisani, an author from the Jewish Karaite sect, may have continued to view Jewish Christians as a Jewish sect analogous to Pharisees (though he may simply reflect earlier sources; see Simon, Sects, 131).

437. For “God’s salvation,” see, e.g., Ps 50:23; but God speaks often of “my salvation” in Isaiah (Isa 46:13; 49:6; 51:5–6, 8; 56:1; cf. “his [God’s] salvation” in 25:9).

438. Occurring together nowhere else in the NT, the two terms appear together in this form in 1 Esd 2:18; Ezra 4:12, 13; 5:8 LXX; cf. similar language in Test. Jud. 20:1; Test. Iss. 6:1.

439. Cf. Roberts, “Closure.”

440. On Nero’s persecution, see, e.g., Tac. Ann. 15.44; Suet. Nero 16; Euseb. H.E. 2.25.5–7; cf. also Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.29 (in Barrett, Documents, 17; Finegan, Apostles, 23); Goppelt, “Existence,” 194; idem, Times, 106 (citing Euseb. H.E. 4.26.9); Koester, Introduction, 1:313. On the authenticity of Tacitus’s report, see, e.g., Mattingly, Christianity, 31–32; Harris, “References,” 348–50; pace Fau, “Authenticité.” Some scholars suggest that Christians’ apocalyptic perspective on the fire contributed to their function as scapegoats (Giovannini, “Incendium”); some suggest a delay between the fire and the persecution, dating the latter to 65 (Robinson, Redating, 145; idem, Trust, 66–67). Against some scholars (e.g., Smallwood, Jews, 217–18), it is unlikely that the Jewish community instigated this persecution (Hare, “Relationship”).

441. For one detailed survey of explanations by category, see Omerzu, “Schweigen,” 128–44.

442. Winandy, “Finale des Actes” (following T. Zahn on the third volume). For an exploration and evaluation of different solutions to why Acts, in contrast to later legends, does not narrate Paul’s death, see Omerzu, “Schweigen” (with conclusions, 151–56).

443. Uhlig, “Actaschluss in Version.” This was probably accidental, but ancient writers sometimes wished to “finish” or polish works regarded as incomplete (Suet. Vergil 41).

444. Proponents of a planned third volume could suggest this obstacle as one of the reasons the third volume never appeared; the frequency of open endings in antiquity, however, undercuts the necessity for such an appeal.

445. A view mentioned in C. Williams, Acts, 18–19.

446. Moreover, Acts is close to the length of the Gospel, and so such a conclusion would have had to be succinct, hardly a fitting parallel (especially without a resurrection) to the Gospel’s passion narrative.

447. E.g., Mattill, “Purpose.”

448. Keener, Acts, 1:383–401.

449. Admittedly the arguments currently advanced for dating Mark no earlier than 64 C.E. are less than satisfactory, but also unaware of satisfactory arguments to date it earlier I work within the consensus range of dates. Even if the consensus on Mark shifted earlier, other reasons exist for dating Luke after 70. Many arguments for dating the Gospels, however, are admittedly more speculative than our scholarly views that rest on more substantive ancient evidence.

450. Witherington, Acts, 807.

451. Cf. self-censorship due to political sensitivities in Cic. Fam. 2.4.1; 2.5.1; 2.12.1; 3.1.1; 4.4.2; Quint. fratr. 3.8.2; cf. also Att. 8.2 (where he burned Atticus’s last letter to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands).

452. Litwak, Echoes, 197–98 (proposing a model, not echoes); the view is mentioned (but not followed) also by Aune, Environment, 118. The proposal that Luke models the conclusion of Acts on the conclusion of 2 Kings (2 Kgs 25:27–30), because the exiled king there epitomizes his people’s hope (Davies, “Ending”; cf. Paul as a prisoner in the new Babylon in Schmidt, “Abkehr”), is questionable; Jehoiachin is too tangential a figure. Nevertheless, 2 Kings offers an example of Jewish narrative works that tended to prefer happy endings, in contrast to Greek tragedy; 2 Kings ends on a note of hope in captivity—as an implied promise for the future.

453. Brosend, “Means,” 358–62, esp. 362. Some think that the original ending of Mark is missing, because the ending at Mark 16:8 proved a problem to later scribes. But as already noted, abrupt endings were common in antiquity; this ending appeared problematic to later scribes only because subsequent Gospels (at least our extant ones, especially the popular Gospel of Matthew) ended differently, redefining the concept of gospel genre and its appropriate ending.

454. Brosend, “Means,” 360–61.

455. See Plut. Fame Ath. 8, Mor. 351B; Fort. Alex. 2.13, Mor. 345B; Fort. Rom. 13, Mor. 326C; Uned. R. 7, Mor. 782F; Isoc. Demon. 52; Demet. Style 5.304; Hdn. 8.8.8; L.A.B. (perhaps in this case the original end is missing?); Mark 16:8; see also discussion in Adams, Genre, 233–42; esp. Magness, Sense.

456. Aune, Environment, 118, on Philostratus Vita Apollonii.

457. Lucan’s Civil War ends abruptly (at 10.542–46), possibly because he never finished it (book 10 is one of the shortest books in the Civil War). Schiffman, “Scroll,” allows this possibility for Qumran’s Temple Scroll.

458. It may have originally ended with Thucyd. 7.87.6, which sounds like a temporary ending; Thucydides then may have added Thucyd. 8 later, not finishing it (only Thucyd. 8 lacks speeches) because he intended to add another book after the war was resolved.

459. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 12 (complaining that Thucydides violates his stated intention in Thucyd. 5.26).

460. Moles, “Time,” 113, citing Marincola, “Looking to End.” Moles finds in Herodotus the most relevant model, noting the tension between his “unresolvedness” and “multiple closural devices” (citing also Dewald, “Kings”), as in Acts.

461. E.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 367.8.

462. Dio Chrys. Or. 13 (in 13.37); Or. 19 (at 19.5); Or. 34 (at 34.53); Or. 41 (at 41.14; it may have ended there, since he had made his point, though it lacks any formal summarizing conclusion); Or. 70; 71.

463. See Val. Max. 9.15.ext. 2; but also at the conclusions of earlier books, e.g., 1.8.ext. 19; see Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 289 (noting that Valerius offers transitions only in his prefaces and otherwise marks a division into books only at Val. Max. 9.15.1).

464. Isaeus Pyrr. 80. For brief conclusions, see, e.g., Lysias Or. 23.12, §167–23.16, §168.

465. See Marguerat, “Enigma of Closing,” 304; idem, “Énigme”; idem, Histoire, 333; idem, Historian, 215–16.

466. Dunn, Acts, 278; both for carrying on the mission of the apostle to the Gentiles and for the future response of the Jewish people, Marguerat, Histoire, 333; idem, Historian, 152–54, 230; cf. Magness, Sense, 124–25, for Mark. The final scene occurs in a world much closer to that of the members of Luke’s audience than did the opening scene, hence opening into their world (Alexander, Context, 228–29; idem, “Back to Front”), but with the overall effect of connecting them to the larger narrative of salvation history. See now esp. Troftgruben, “Ending,” 187, 233, 243–44, noting both closure and openness and how this combination in epics provides links to a larger narrative of salvation history and continuing witness. (The feature shared with “epic” here is the character of foundation story [cf. Troftgruben’s “narrative of beginnings,” 236], not epic poetry or the nature of relation to extrinsic reality. Troftgruben’s work does not argue regarding Acts’ genre [235]; historiography has diverse endings [145].)

467. Chrys. Hom. Acts 55 (pointed out by Talbert, Acts, 231; also Adams, Genre, 231).

468. Rosner, “Progress,” 232–33; cf. Willimon, Acts, 192; Backhaus, “Hörsaal”; Marguerat, Historian, 230; as an invitation to a nonbeliever, Lang, “Self,” 173 (cf. Jeremias, Parables, 131–32; Goppelt, Theology, 1:136 on Luke 15:32). Cf. Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,” 131, who contrasts novels’ “happily-ever-after” endings, noting that these are inappropriate “if the narrator means to extend the narrative into the world of the implied audience.”

469. Cayzer, “Ending.” Or, in keeping with my discussion of Acts’ focus, Luke points to the continuing mission as the continuation of his story.

470. Moles, “Time,” 117, citing also the opinion of “Cyril, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Ambrose” from Just, Luke, 114; Martin, Acts, 9–10. See also Jipp, Visitations, 286; further discussion of the phrase in Keener, Acts, 1:702–8, and sources cited there (esp. Pao).

471. Moles, “Time,” 118, treating Paul in the closing scene as a model; “in continuing the Christian mission,” Luke’s audience “themselves will become apostles, ‘sent-out ones,’ like Jesus himself (Lk. 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; Acts 3:20, etc.), like the twelve,” and like Paul. See similarly Jipp, Visitations, 286–87.

472. “Open” ends also appear in Luke 22:47–53 (Tannehill, Luke, 298) and 24:44–53 (Dunn, Acts, 278), though ending a final volume would not be quite the same.

473. Tannehill, Acts, 354; see also Jipp, Visitations, 281–82, on “both elements of narrative closure and openness” (following Troftgruben, Conclusion, 144–78).

474. Marguerat, “Énigme” (also suggesting a reversal of expectations, in which Israel rather than Paul is judged in Rome).

475. See Burridge, Gospels, 146–47, 179–80. For evidence for open endings in collected (as opposed to individual) biographies, however, see Adams, Genre, 238–42 (for death in individual biographies, see 260).

476. Brosend, “Means,” 356–57; Witherington, Acts, 808–9.

477. Hanson, Acts, 256.

478. Moles, “Time,” 115, underlines this contrast.

479. See, e.g., Char. Chaer. 8 (ending happily for everyone involved). Repath, “Leucippe,” argues that Achilles Tatius diverges from the standard convention of novels ending happily.

480. For the contrast, see Troftgruben, “Ending,” 145, 232. Moles, “Time,” 115, critiques those who view Luke’s conclusion as tragic, arguing that they neglect 28:30–31.

481. Acts develops Luke’s Gospel more fully than Joshua develops Deuteronomy, but might be compared with Joshua in some respects (though the movement’s expansion in Acts is antithetical to conquest; see comment on Acts 16:9). As in the early narratives of Acts (esp. chs. 4–6), Israel faced various internal and external challenges in Joshua; although the work is clearly unfinished, Joshua focuses on positive summaries. Platonists mistrusted both tragedies and comedies, because they nurtured unhealthy emotions (Proclus Poet. 5, K42.12–17; K50.12–15).

482. Pervo, Acts, 689–90, 695–96, citing novels, biblical texts, epics, and Greco-Roman historiography, including 2 Kgs 25 (see discussion below) and, most beneficially, 2 Macc 15.

483. Spencer, Acts, 241; Aune, Environment, 118; see further, for aesthetic and other considerations, Trompf, “Death of Paul.”

484. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 236. On the death of Judas, see 1 Macc 9:18–22; for 2 Maccabees’ positive ending, see 2 Macc 15:35–37 (followed by a literary conclusion in 15:38–39). Cf. Homer’s Iliad, probably the most commonly read book of Greek antiquity; Il. 24 closes before Achilles’s death, but announcements have foreshadowed it (21.110; 23.80–81); likewise the fall of Troy (12.15). Holloway, “Truths,” shows that later church historians like Eusebius (423–25) and Theodoret of Cyr (426–29), as well as earlier Jewish sources like 2 Chronicles (429–30) and 2 Maccabees (430–32), like Luke, chose to end before particularly unpleasant events.

485. Contrast the Aeneid, the conclusion of which reinforces Augustan imperial ideology (even if in limited form; cf. the argument of Nickbackht, “Aemulatio”).

486. Perkins, Reading, 258. Many who think that Acts implies Paul’s execution recognize that Luke ends where he does because he has achieved his objective (which is not Paul’s death) fully by Acts 28:30–31 (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 228; Spencer, Acts, 241; Johnson, Acts, 475).

487. Johnson, Acts, 476 (though I believe that he errs concerning the finality of rejection of the Jewish mission).

488. Filson, “Journey Motif,” 76–77, even argues that Luke wanted to emphasize that Paul, rather than Peter (who arrived later), was the Roman church’s “apostolic sponsor” and hence his gospel is paramount there. This approach probably reads second-century church politics into a first-century source, however.

489. Except on the early-date view that Luke finished Acts at that time.

490. On banishment to an island as a frequent penalty, see, e.g., Plut. Exile 12, Mor. 604B; Pliny Ep. 3.9.34; 6.22.5; Tac. Ann. 1.3, 53; 3.68–69; Rev 1:9; further comment on Acts 18:2. For its role as a political strategy under Augustus, see Drogula, “Controlling Travel.”

491. Chrys. Hom. Acts 55 suggests two years in Asia, three in Corinth, and two in Rome.

492. There Paul remained captive because he was a political problem, here perhaps because of bureaucracy, which may impinge on Paul’s freedom but not so much that it prevents Luke from leaving the tone positive.

493. Mealand, “Close and Vocabulary,” 588–89, 595; Witherington, Acts, 813.

494. Usually citing also Pliny Ep. 10.56.4 (a grace period for different reasons) and 10.57.2, which are even less relevant; see Fitzmyer, Acts, 796–97; cautiously, Bruce, Acts1, 480.

495. With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 473; Schnabel, Acts, 1076.

496. Bruce, Commentary, 534–35; Conzelmann, Acts, 240–41 (citing BGU 628), but cf. p. 228.

497. Ramsay, Teaching, 352.

498. Admitting his lack of expertise, he was following the opinion of Cambridge scholar J. S. Reid.

499. The additional three months might factor in winter delays in travel, but the intervening length was doubled for capital charges.

500. Ramsay, Teaching, 365.

501. Ibid., 366.

502. Cadbury, “Law and Trial,” 319–26. Robinson, Criminal Law, 21, notes that limits to how long an offense was prosecutable started under Augustus and varied by offense (e.g., five years for adultery but no limit for parricide); the general rule of twenty years was introduced much later under Diocletian.

503. Sherwin-White, Society, 108–19 (also refuting others in addition to Cadbury). This is not to deny that “old” crimes might invite leniency or dismissal in some cases; see below.

504. Barrett, Acts, 1251–52; Bruce, Acts3, 541–42; Schnabel, Acts, 1076; cf. already Abbott, Acts, 262.

505. Rapske, Custody, 322–23. Already in Claudius’s era, court cases were innumerable, and this problem would hardly have decreased under Nero (Talbert, Acts, 230, citing Dio Cass. 60.28.6 on Claudius’s era).

506. With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 792. Barrett, Acts, 1251–52, thinks it possible that the “two years” means that the case was dropped, though he follows Sherwin-White in finding Cadbury’s particular defense of this position inadequate; see also Omerzu, “Schweigen,” 148–49. Sherwin-White, Society, 119, allows that Paul may have “secured a merely casual release,” though he thinks this unclear from Acts.

507. Though Nero had some concern with law; Suet. Nero 15.1.

508. Jeffers, World, 170.

509. Some suggest that Eusebius dates Paul’s execution even later, to 67, but where Eusebius’s evidence is most clear is simply that Paul suffered under Nero (H.E. 2.25), who reigned from 54 to 68.

510. The debated options concerning the close of Felix’s tenure in Judea range earlier, rather than later, than 60 C.E.; see comment on Acts 24:27. To dismiss the involvement of Felix, and hence to assume the invention of his and Festus’s participation in the detailed “we” narrative, runs against the evidence surveyed above and is far less probable than a release and rearrest.

511. Periodically it was helpful to clear the jails of those thought probably innocent (Rapske, Custody, 326–28; cf. Jeffers, World, 171). Though Caesar claimed that long imprisonment was a harsher punishment than death (Cic. Cat. 4.4.7), scholars often argue that detention was not normally intended as a punishment (Aune, Revelation, 166; Hemer, Letters, 68; Caird, Revelation, 35), and it does not seem to be meant as such in Paul’s case.

512. With, e.g., Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 9; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 175n28.

513. Le Cornu, Acts, 1526, suggests that some less important cases could even be dropped to reduce the backlog.

514. With others, including Bruce, Commentary, 535.

515. Cf. something like a statute of limitations in Lysias Or. 7.17, §109; Aeschines Tim. 39; Hermog. Issues 44.10–12 (not a statute of limitations). After long delays, some governors were also reluctant to enforce a sentence (Pliny Ep. 10.31.3); even Trajan was reluctant if the men were elderly, but only if the case dated back more than ten years (10.33.2); cf. those who claimed not to have been Christians for many years (10.96). Trajan ruled against making a man repay a forbidden grant, since twenty years had passed (10.110–11).

516. Metzger, Outline, 50.

517. See the information in Rapske, Custody, 326–28.

518. See esp. the detailed information in ibid., 250.

519. Ibid., 329.

520. Barrett, Acts, 1250. Contrast the reception described by Luke in Acts 28:15.

521. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 228; Jewett, Chronology, 45; Tannehill, Acts, 353; Faw, Acts, 296; Omerzu, “Angeklagter,” 136–37; Talbert, Acts, 231. Barrett, Acts, 1249, remains uncertain what happens after two years, but suggests that it might be omitted because it was unedifying.

522. Trompf, “Death of Paul”; Aune, Environment, 118; Spencer, Acts, 241; Dunn, Acts, 343 (who also notes [344, 346] that with Paul’s vindication in Acts 28:1–7, Luke’s audience need not await Caesar’s verdict). Death without a resurrection does not provide a helpful parallel to Luke 23–24.

523. Barrett, Acts, 1252 (tentatively).

524. Witherington, Acts, 815–16n132.

525. With, e.g., Bammel, “Activity,” 363n25.

526. Or that it would occur at the end of the two years, although, all other factors being equal, this inference seems the most obvious one (i.e., that it occurs on this visit to Rome preceded by the storm and not on another). Luke could have telescoped historically discrete events, but as in the case of Acts 20:25, this is not the most probable way to read the text unless other evidence invites this reading.

527. Tannehill, Acts, 355.

528. McKechnie, “Embassies,” noting a number of successful Judean delegations in Josephus.

529. Though they do bring the case up early with Festus, this could be partly because Paul was one of the few prisoners with whom they had not already succeeded (or, perhaps in some cases, decisively failed) under Felix.

530. They might get an opponent beheaded (e.g., Jos. War 2.246), but this was over a conflict with the Samaritans on which Rome would pronounce judgment.

531. The prediction need not point this way, but it does put Luke’s details in tension with the thesis that Paul visited Ephesus after his release (a thesis that could provide a way to chronologically harmonize Acts with the tradition in the Pastorals). Luke may have deliberately heightened pathos, pointing to the execution and omitting consideration of a later journey irrelevant to his story. (Cf. Chariton’s false cues that create suspense before his typically happy ending [Doulamis, “Ends Well”]; for concluding narratives modifying expectations generated by earlier narratives, cf. also Peirano, “Hellenized Romans.”) Nevertheless, by itself the evidence of Acts 20:25 would lend more support against a later visit to Ephesus than in its favor. Alternatively, Paul’s being unable to enter Ephesus (see comment on Acts 20:16) might suggest his leaving Timothy there without Paul entering himself (1 Tim 1:3), but this suggestion is speculative.

532. Karris, Invitation, 232 (comparing biographic movies today, which need not end with a subject’s death).

533. Bammel, “Activity,” 363; Rapske, Custody, 191; Longenecker, Acts, 368; Witherington, Acts, 618–20; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 218; Reicke, Era, 220 (noting Nero’s release of other Jewish prisoners in 62 C.E.); Schnabel, Acts, 1076; very tentatively, Walaskay, Acts, 246; Arrington, Acts, 271–72.

534. Cf. Marshall, Acts, 426: “It is hard to see how Paul could have been condemned to death on the evidence offered in Acts” (though Marshall also thinks that Luke recognizes Paul’s impending martyrdom).

535. See commentary at these verses; also, e.g., Ramsay, Teaching, 353–58.

536. With, e.g., ibid., 359–61, 367; Witherington, Acts, 618.

537. Rapske, Custody, 191.

538. Ramsay, Teaching, 361, noting the parallel.

539. One might expect Luke to narrate Paul’s death to correspond to that of Jesus, but if Luke writes after Paul’s decease, he disappoints our expectation whether Paul was executed at this time or later.

540. So also Ramsay, Teaching, 369, as well as the many scholars who give the same reason for Luke’s not recounting Paul’s martyrdom.

541. Perhaps also from Luke’s narratorial vantage point, since Luke probably did not know enough Latin to venture farther west himself.

542. Scholars sometimes note both apparent trajectories (e.g., Marshall, Acts, 425–26).

543. Otherwise, if he sought to “surprise” the members of his audience with a happy ending, he would certainly surprise them, but he might confuse them as well—as much as he has confused modern scholars trying to determine where his evidence points! It is not impossible that such information is irrelevant to his purpose, and hence Luke leaves unanswered the tension between his positive ending and their knowledge of Paul’s eventual martyrdom; but it seems likelier than not that at least the center of Luke’s ideal audience had some more information.

544. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 10; R. Williams, Acts, 170–71; Witherington, Acts, 792; Peterson, Acts, 721; Schnabel, Missionary, 116–17; at length, see Lightfoot, Acts, 338–51; earlier, Chrys. Hom. Acts 55 (Martin, Acts, 318–19). Koester, Paul and World, 78, offers a plausible argument for Paul’s martyrdom in Philippi after ministry in the East, dating the tradition of his final Roman imprisonment no earlier than Acts of Paul. Koester could be correct, but 1 Clem. 5.5–7 does sound (pace Koester) as though Paul ended in the West, before the emperor; 1 Clement has a pro-Rome bias, but it is early. Schnabel, Missionary, 117, doubts that 1 Clem. 5 depends merely on Rom 15:24, since it speaks of the “limits of the west” rather than Spain.

545. Later the Muratorian Canon, lines 35–39, adds that Paul went from Spain to Rome (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 10; Schnabel, Missionary, 117). Talbert, Acts, 231, notes also Acts Pet. 3.1 and Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca but suggests that all these references reflect an inference from Rom 15:24, 28. The possibility of an inference may be increased by later Christians’ probable reluctance to think that an inspired apostle’s plans failed (already problematic to the Corinthians, though it should have been more obvious to Paul’s later readers; cf. 2 Cor 1:17–24).

546. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 124–25 (though, conversely, uncertain about the widely attested tradition that Paul was martyred in Rome); idem, Paul and World, 77–78.

547. With many (e.g., Barth, Ephesians, 1:3; Dodd, New Testament Studies, 99; Nock, Paul, 221; Knox, Gentiles, 179; Reicke, “Caesarea”; Bruce, Epistles, 32–33, 193–96; Fee, Philippians, 34–37; Bence, Acts, 248–49), though many others demur; see further Keener, Acts, 4:3723n89.

548. With Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 9; Longenecker, Acts, 368; Horton, Acts, 410. The language of “hope” normally suggests a positive expectation. The Pastorals and the traditions of Paul’s martyrdom could both be read in light of the church’s growing martyrology after Paul, in contrast to Paul’s expectation of freedom.

549. Such words in Philemon and Philippians fit less easily with Paul’s plans to evangelize Spain (Rom 15:24, 28); perhaps he simply lacks reason to mention those plans in these letters, or perhaps he abandoned them for logistical reasons.

550. Jeffers, World, 170, suggests that Nero, who avoided hearing cases earlier, may have tried cases of Christians from 64 C.E. forward.

551. The voluntary submission of Polycarp and Ignatius to arrest (once discovered) might be rooted in earlier models.

552. See, e.g., Goppelt, “Existence,” 194.

553. The same limitation of the pogrom to Rome might invite anyone wishing to try him to do so in Rome; his citizenship might have led to the same destination on appeal.

554. If the Pastorals are pseudepigraphic, as most think (e.g., Scott, Pastoral Epistles, xvi–xxiii; Zmijewski, “Pastoralbriefe”; Maloney, “Authorship”; Cook, “Fragments”; Rogers, “Pastoral Epistles”; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 347–50), some traditions that they reflect may be fitted into Acts without concern for the others. But if they are Pauline by an amanuensis (as a minority of scholars think, e.g., Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 3–33; Fee, Timothy, xx; Ellis, “Authorship”; McRay, “Authorship”; Spencer, Timothy, 2–10) or even include substantial traditions edited by a close disciple of Paul (a common mediating position, including by some who classify them as pseudepigraphic), we must make more room for them. When comparing diverging sources that probably provide some historical information, it is methodologically more comprehensive to see if both can be accommodated somehow unless one or both sources can be completely dismissed out of hand.

555. The problem then is apparent doublets with material earlier from Paul’s ministry, but most such “doublets” contain the sort of details most likely to recur (see the table in the excursus “Acts and the Pastorals” at Acts 20:25 [Keener, Acts, 3:3024–25]).

556. Clark, Acts, 390, makes the second imprisonment hinge on the genuineness of the Pastorals (and is uncertain about their genuineness). But the traditions in the Pastorals (whether they are attributed directly to Paul or not) are one argument among several, and not the only argument, for this position. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 68–71, who does not ultimately think Paul the direct author of the Pastorals (though the material is Pauline), rejects arguments that a second imprisonment is implausible, noting that a second imprisonment simply stems from our data (including the data in the Pastorals).

557. The sequence seems to be Rome, then Ephesus, but it is possible that he thinks of service in Ephesus before Rome (the sequence can be read this way if the other evidence requires it).

558. Finegan, Apostles, 22–25. For traditions on Paul’s martyrdom, see briefly Talbert, Acts, 231–32 (citing Euseb. H.E. 2.22.1–2; 2.25.5–8; Acts Paul 10; Acts Pet. 3.1; Tert. Praescr. 36).

559. Finegan, Apostles, 24 (though Acts of Paul says that milk spurted out!).

560. Keener, Acts, 3:2517–27.

561. Finegan, Apostles, 24; Heid, “Romanness,” 410 (more questionably suggesting this interpretation earlier in Ign. Rom. 4.2–3, and citing on 411 archaeological evidence from ca. 160 C.E.). On the Ostian Way, see Finegan, Apostles, 28–30. Finegan also explores (30–34) other evidence from catacombs (including the tradition that the apostles were buried there; but the traditions cannot all be correct).

562. Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.29; cf. Tac. Ann. 15.44.

563. Finegan, Apostles, 23.

564. Ibid., 34.

565. With Johnson, Acts, 473 (who also cites 2 Tim 4:9–13, though it may refer to a different captivity).

566. Skinner, Locating Paul, 187, 194–95.

567. Ibid., 200; cf. Gwalther 905–6 in Chung-Kim and Hains, Acts, 370.

568. For Luke’s view of the kingdom as in some way the expected Davidic kingdom, see Hahn, “Kingdom,” 295 (because Jesus is king for the church, Hahn’s article connects this kingdom with the church).

569. See the excursus on God’s kingdom at Acts 1:3 (Keener, Acts, 1:671–74).

570. Though Dan 7:7–8, 19–27 is more ambiguous (the ten horns do not precisely fit Alexander and his four successor kingdoms), the description does sound like the desolation of the Seleucids in Dan 11. Perhaps the text would blend Greek and Roman kingdoms as “Western” invaders (cf. Caragounis, “Culture”). The Medes do appear in Vell. Paterc. 1.6.6 (treated by some as a gloss); cf. Mendels, “Five Empires”; Gen. Rab. 99:2; y. Taʿan. 2:5, §1.

571. Cf. Rabin, “Jannaeus”; Burrows, Scrolls, 123–42; idem, More Light, 194–203; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 167–68; the excursus on God’s kingdom at Acts 1:3 (Keener, Acts, 1:671–74).

572. Though, at this point, present and future are not yet distinguished.

573. E.g., Luke 17:21 is present, but the context in 17:22–37 and 18:7–8 is future; see esp. 13:18–21.

574. For “proclaiming” (usually one of two verbs) the “kingdom,” see with κηρύσσω Luke 8:1; 9:2; Acts 8:12; 20:25; with εὐαγγελίζω Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12.

575. For inclusio, see, e.g., Catull. Carm. 52.1, 4; 57.1, 10; Plut. Demosth. 26.4; 28.5; Pliny Ep. 3.16.1, 13; Matt 5:3, 10; 19:30; 20:16; 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1; Rev 1:4, 8; comment in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 229; Harvey, Listening, 61–96 (esp. 66–67, 75–76), esp. 102–3; in narratives, see Hermog. Inv. 4.8.195, commenting on Demosth. Or. 20.73 (Against Leptines); in Luke-Acts, Luke 15:24, 32. Dupont, “Rapport,” finds inclusio between Acts 28:16 and 30 (362–64); between 28:17a and 25a (364); and between 28:23 and 30–31 (364–65).

576. Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 435–36; Wright, Paul, 480.

577. See also Moessner, “End(s)ings,” 221; Pervo, Acts, 687. For a whole-book inclusio, see, e.g., John 1:1; 20:28 (cf. Falconer, “Prologue,” 233; Keener, John, 426); Isa 1:13, 29; 66:3, 17, 23 (Harvey, Listening, 91–92); Hom. Il. 1; 24 (ibid., 111–12).

578. For continuity with Jesus, see also Siffer, “Proclamation du Royaume.”

579. One should also note the irony of Rome’s prisoner proclaiming the kingdom of an executed king titled “Lord” in 28:31; see Cassidy, “Proclamation.”

580. For John (Luke 3:3; Acts 10:37), Jesus (Luke 4:18–19, 44; 8:1), disciples (Luke 8:39; 9:2; 24:47; Acts 10:42; cf. Luke 12:3), Stephen (Acts 8:5), and Paul (9:20; 20:25; here at 28:31; and, by outsiders’ attribution, 19:13) and paralleled once with teaching Moses in the synagogues (15:21). On this verb, see also comment on Acts 8:5.

581. For Jesus (Luke 4:15, 31; 5:3, 17; 6:6; 11:1; 13:10, 22; 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; Acts 1:1 [where it summarizes half of his ministry]; by outsiders’ attribution, Luke 13:26; 20:21; 23:5), the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:12), the Jerusalem apostles (Acts 4:2; 5:21, 42; in outsiders’ words, 4:18; 5:25, 28), Paul and Barnabas (11:26; 15:35), false teachers (15:1), Apollos (18:25), and Paul (18:11; 20:20; outsiders’ attribution, 21:21, 28). Paul is accused of teaching against Israel (21:21, 28) but instead teaches the kingdom (28:31; cf. 28:17–28).

582. For a discussion of meaning, see comment on Acts 5:42.

583. Some note that the phrase “with all boldness” was not uncommon (Jos. Ant. 16.379; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.53.7; Witherington, Acts, 814).

584. For comparison with philosophers here, see also Johnson, Acts, 473; Witherington, Acts, 814. The term was applicable to frank speech before a ruler (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.3, 386.7–9; see further comment on Acts 4:13) and certainly to defiance of Rome had that proved necessary.

585. Rapske, Custody, 311–12, emphasizing that God’s provision overcame the shame associated with chains.

586. Noted by Horton, Acts, 409.

587. See, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 80; more fully idem, John, 746–51, esp. 750–51.

588. Cf. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11g, pp. 72–73.26–28, esp. 27.

589. See Dunn, Acts, 356; Mealand, “Close and Vocabulary”; BDAG (citing, e.g., P.Oxy. 502; BGU 917.14; P.Lips. 26.11; 30.9; and other sources). Some compare Socrates not being hindered in talking with his friends (Dupertuis, “Speech,” 166, cites Plato Apol. 39E), which might be closer in sense to Acts 24:23. Although I do believe that Acts depicts Paul as a wise sage and sometimes uses the model of Socrates (see comments on Acts 4:19–20; 5:29; 17:18–19), and I affirm that Socrates offers a model for martyrdoms (hence passion stories) in general, I believe that Socrates provides only one element of the wider context. (For a heavier emphasis on comparison with Socrates, suggesting even dependence on Plato and Xenophon, see MacDonald, “Categorization.”) Certainly Luke did not invent Paul’s martyrdom (which he does not narrate); Luke’s apologetic fits other evidence that cumulatively suggests that Paul ultimately died in Roman custody, though of course Paul could not narrate that either (cf. Phil 1:7, 20–24; Phlm 10; Col 4:3, 18; Eph 6:20; 2 Tim 4:16–18; 1 Clem. 5.5–7).

590. Johnson, Acts, 473 (noting also the usage for doing tasks uninterrupted, Jos. Ant. 12.104); Witherington, Acts, 814.

591. Haenchen, Acts, 726, 732; cf. Liefeld, Acts, 46: by this phrase Luke “does not so much summarize the past as he opens the future.”

592. Chrys. Hom. Acts 55 notes the irony that Paul, though hindered in Judea, was now unhindered in Rome. But Luke here probably emphasizes Roman respect for Paul’s religious freedom.

593. With, e.g., Stagg, Acts, 266.

594. Cf., for hindrances to the mission, also in Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 2:16. Luke uses the term four times as often as Mark (Mark 9:38, 39; 10:14).

595. That nothing could hinder God was long-standing Jewish theology (1 En. 41:9; cf. the adjective ἀκώλυτος, albeit in a different sense, describing Wisdom in Wis 7:23). Cf. Spencer, Acts, 241; Witherington, Acts, 815–16.

596. With Rapske, Custody, 182 (who also notes the Roman tolerance of preaching).

597. With Johnson, Acts, 473; Faw, Acts, 296. Cf. also Cassiodorus Commentary on Acts 72: although bound, Paul frees others from sin (Pelikan, Acts, 295).

598. R. Williams, Acts, 27, 170; cf. Barclay, Acts, 193; cf. also the title of Troftgruben, Conclusion. (I believe that Luke envisioned Rome’s relation to the ends of the earth, however, as merely proleptic; see also Keener, Acts, 1:702–8.) This theme of God sovereignly surmounting obstacles also appears in Israel’s Scripture, e.g., in Genesis, where God’s purpose for Israel surmounts obstacles (threats from the promised land’s inhabitants; closed matriarchal wombs; kings interested in the matriarchs; etc.).

599. Luke need not narrate it explicitly in a third volume (pace, e.g., Winandy, “Finale des Actes”) because he implies it within the narrative world (starting from Acts 1:8). But (as factors such as the appearance of the African official in 8:26–40 suggest) the ends of the earth do remain as an objective beyond these ends’ immediate and proleptic fulfillment in Rome (see Rosner, “Progress,” 218; Gaventa, Acts, 65–66; comment on Acts 1:8).

600. Umurhan and Penner, “Crossroads,” 192, follow Cadbury (Acts in History, 13) in citing Juv. Sat. 3.62.

Postscript

1. Cf., e.g., Luke 6:36 (and other material evoking both Luke’s and Matthew’s likely adaptations of Q) in 1 Clem. 13.2; Poly. Phil. 2.3; perhaps 1 Tim 5:18 (unless just a shared logion). Aside from what I still regard as the likely echo of Acts 2:24 in Poly. Phil. 1.2, echoes of Acts seem weaker, e.g., “judge of the living and the dead” in Acts 10:42 and Poly. Phil. 2.1; 2 Clem. 1.1 (but also the verb in 1 Pet 4:5; 2 Tim 4:1; Barn. 7.2); Acts 20:35 in 1 Clem. 2.1 (but both may echo an agraphon or Q); possibly Acts 14:22 in Barn. 7.11.

2. Again, I argue that ancient readers would understand the “we” as a claim that the author traveled with Paul (see comment on Acts 16:10 in Keener, Acts, 3:2350–74) and that other modern approaches ingeniously circumvent the obvious evidence. Early Christian tradition associates the work with the likeliest of the traveling companions named in Pauline literature.

3. For example, although I acknowledged already the biographic element in Luke’s historiography, the evidence provided for successive biographies of sages in Adams, Genre, invites further attention. Martin, “Topic Lists,” argues that biographers used progymnastic topic lists in designing biographies. At the same time, both biography and history more generally used rhetoric in ways appropriate to the genre. Even when focusing on a person, historians valued description in ways that pure epideictic did not (cf. Farrington, “Action”).

4. See, e.g., Cornell, Fragments (2,736 delicious pages); Nichols, Ctesias; Llewellyn-Jones and Robson, Ctesias. Cf. also Broggiato, “Artemon,” for discussion of Artemon’s likely research in the massive library of Pergamum.

5. Men. Rhet. 1.1.333.31–1.1.334.5. Dionysius contends that most historians were satisfied merely to report facts, whereas he also wanted to explore events’ causes (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.56.1). Greek historians often had multiple sources (see, e.g., Muntz, “Diodorus Siculus”; Évrard, “Polybe,” comparing Polyb. 26.1 and Livy 41.20), though these are not always easily reconstructed (Muntz, “Sources”), but considered it better to consult living sources than to depend solely on written ones (Schepens, “Aspects,” 113–14). On some points in 2 Maccabees, see, e.g., Shanks, “Inscription”; Gera, “Olympiodoros.”

6. Contrast, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.252 (the fuller account) with War 2.183. Yet at times Josephus could also be more accurate than we expect (see Ben David, “Settlements”), and elsewhere he provides evidence that coheres with other evidence (cf., e.g., Kavanagh, “Identity,” on Aquila in Jos. Ant. 19.110–11).

7. On Acts and historiography, see Uytanlet, Historiography. On the influence of Tendenz in ancient Jewish historiography, see Kelhoffer, “The Maccabees at Prayer” (cf. also Hellenistic influence on the prayers in 2 Maccabees in Simkovich, “Greek Influence”; for different outlooks among different Greek historians, see, e.g., Chaplin, “Conversations”; among Roman historians, e.g., Beneker, “Crossing”). Examining rhetorical aspects of event-focused literature remains appropriate (cf., e.g., Grillo, “Scribam”). For earlier periods (in this case legendary ones) shaped from the perspective of the present (in this case in epic), cf. Franke, “Truth in Time” (epics reshaped history fairly freely; see, e.g., Chiu, “Importance,” on Lucan). With regard to speeches in Acts, Lightfoot, Acts, 311, notes the possible limitations of Luke’s sources and the necessary presence of his own style; with regard to his sources, he suspects that some would be oral, e.g., from Philip the evangelist with whom Luke had lodged (321).

8. For some samples of newer or missed works (which could be multiplied): historians’ narrative use of geography (Edwards, “Capri,” on Tac. Ann. 4.67); novelists’ frequent lack of concern for precision in geography (though cf. suggestion of a copyist error in Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.10.2 in Capra, “Detour”); not only did novels and histories share some narrative techniques, but novelists sometimes emulated historians (Trzaskoma, “Echoes”; idem, “Miletus”) as well as dramatists (Scourfield, “Chaereas”); Greek respect for women physicians-midwives (Laes, “Midwives”); how Acts could be heard in a second-century setting (Dupertuis and Penner, Engaging; esp. the orienting approach in Penner, “Reading”); Acts’ Aegean audience (Zeichmann, “Location”); changing thought on Lukan theology (Bottini, “Lukásova teológia”); the narrative unity of Luke-Acts (Morgan, “Luc-Actes”); the authorial unity of Luke-Acts (Parsons and Gorman, “Unity”); narrative clues to how Luke highlights ethnic universalism (García Serrano, “Origins”; cf. Marguerat and Steffek, “Naissance”); Luke’s ecclesiology (Scaer, “Foundations”); the prophetic character of and connections with Luke-Acts (Johnson, Prophetic Church, an important work; see also Stronstad et al., “Review”; McWhirter, Prophets); suffering’s role in God’s present purposes in Luke-Acts (Tabb, “Salvation”); Luke’s narrative development of Peter as a character (Schreiber, “Berufen”); Theophilus’s proposed relationship with Paul (Nodet, “Théophile”); Luke’s implicit homiletical guidance (Graves, “Paradigm”); Acts 1:4’s implicit hermeneutical guidance (Wall, “Waiting”); reading Acts 1:6–8 like an ambiguous oracle (Bale, “Oracle”); fresh discussions of whether seating was ever segregated in ancient synagogues (relevant for the discussion at Acts 1:14; Spigel, “Reconsidering”); discussion on the ascension (for 1:9–11; Bovon, “Ascension Stories”; Bracci, “Mistero”; cf. Kapic and Vander Lugt, “Ascension”; Acts 1:3 being postascension in de Jonge, “Chronology”); Pentecost as a Lukan evidence of the resurrection (Brink, “Proof”); theological reflections on glossolalia (for 2:4; Augustine, “Pentecost”); debates concerning Augustan “golden age” expectations (for 2:17; Zanker, “Lyric”); historians sometimes using numerical hyperbole (for 2:41; Hilbert, “Enemies”); the cultural distinctiveness and theological basis for the friendship activity depicted in 2:41–47 (Hume, Community); the salvation-historical shift in the temple’s significance through Luke-Acts (for 2:46; García Serrano, “Temple”); Luke requiring faith in Christ for salvation (for 4:12; Barrett, “Pour Out,” contesting other readings of 2:17 and 10:34–35; regarding 4:12, cf. discussion in Michel, “Annäherungen”); God’s dangerously holy presence through the new community extending beyond the temple proper (Le Donne, “Offering”); probable Pentheus allusions even in Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius (for Acts 5:39; Praet, Demoen, and Gyselinck, “Domitian”); Luke’s interest in widows (for 6:1; Leineweber, Witwen); ancient Jewish Hellenists (for 6:1; Zugmann, “Judentum”); possible origination of ἐκκλησία among the Hellenists (Trebilco, “Call Themselves”; but contrast Kooten, “Church”); thoughts on the role of the Seven (Koet, “Díptico”); Luke’s typological use of Joseph (for 7:9–14; Lunn, “Allusions”); speculation that Stephen baptized some uncircumcised Gentiles (Zehetbauer, “Stephanus”); a proposed parallel with Stephen’s vision (7:55–56; Back, “Spirituelle Einsicht”); contrasts between the martyrdoms of Zechariah (2 Chr 24) and Stephen (for Acts 7:60; Kalimi, “Episoden”; cf. already idem, “Murders”); a narrative treatment of Philip (esp. Acts 8; Fabien, Philippe; Legrand, “Review”); Simon the tanner as marginal socially rather than ritually (for 9:43; Oliver, “Insignificance”); ancient dream-visions (esp. 1QapGen XIX) and Acts 10 (Miller, “Exploring”); apocalyptic elements in the rabbinic bat qol traditions (for 10:13; Costa, “Littérature apocalyptique”); Roman approaches to ritual purity (for 10:15; Lennon, “Pollution”); Christ as Lord challenging Caesar’s hegemony (for 10:36; 17:7; Alexander, “Vision”); Galilee as part of Judea (for 10:37; from the perspective in Pliny E. N.H. 5.15.70); other discussions of Agrippa’s self-serving and Roman character (for Acts 12:1–4; cf. Kerkeslager, “Agrippa”; coins in Schwentzel, “Images”) and of Judean slaves (for 12:13; e.g., González Echegaray, “Esclavos”); Paul’s implicit character development in Acts 13–14 (Schmidt, “Weg”); challenging Josephan evidence for the South Galatian theory (Koch, “Völkertafel”); information possibly relevant for ethnic neighborhoods yet cosmopolitan interaction in Antioch (for 13:1; cf. Eickelman, Middle East, 218, on pre-1975 Lebanon); some Gentiles viewing Moses as a magician (mentioned at 13:6; see Apul. Apol. 90); ancient name interpretation (for Acts 13:9; Zingerman, “Name”); Philo on the conquest (for 13:19, Cover, “Conquest”); public respect for the counsel of women only when they were elite, in times of crisis (for 13:50; Buszard, “Speech”), and even then sparingly (Stevenson, “Women in Livy,” on Livy 1); expanded definitions of “Greeks” (for Acts 14:1; Ferrary, “Géographie”); moderate rabbinic approaches toward idolatry (for 14:15–17; 19:33–34; Furstenberg, “Views”); round characters even in epic (for 15:39; cf. Grillo, “Reflections”); Paul and ethnicity (for 16:1–3; the thorough work of Sechrest, Jew); complexities of ethnic hybridization (for 16:2–3; Scott, “Local Responses”); Samothracian mysteries or the Cabiri in Thessalonica (for 16:11 and 17:1; Dimitrova, Theoroi; Verhoef, “Reacted”; cf. also Maull, “Stream,” though more speculatively); single women honored by freedpersons (for 16:15; Mueller, “Single Women”); church hospitality in contrast with inns (for 16:15; cf. Lau, “Gasthäuser”); suicide for love (for discussion at 16:27; Dutsch, “Genre”); challenges regarding Athens’s intellectual priority (for 17:16–31; Roberto, “History”); Epicurus regarding the chief good as pleasure (for 17:18; Cic. Fin. 1.9.29) and anti-Epicurean tendencies (Cic. Fin. 2.12.35–2.13.43; Dyson, “Pleasure,” on Sen. Y. Vit. beat. 11.1; Warren, “Pleasure”); a character’s misunderstanding serving humor (for Acts 17:18; Aristoph. Acharn. 751–52), or ancient perceptions of Judaism as a philosophy (Bosch-Veciana, “Filosofia”); Epimenidean tradition and Acts 17 (esp. for 17:23, 28; Rothschild, Paul in Athens, including careful examination of the traditional attribution in 17:28 on 8–23; Epimenidea in the early empire, 37–49; skillful and relevant, though not all will press the analogy with Epimenides this far [e.g., 133]); some henotheistic trends (for 17:28; Gasparini, “Isis”); Luke’s dependence on a genuine speech of Paul at Athens (Ramelli, “Discours”); early Christian citations of noncanonical sources (17:28; Billings, “Poets”); discussion of baths (at 18:8; Hoffman, “Baths”); an attempt to connect Gal 2 and Acts 18:22 (Konradt, “Datierung”); the Isis and Serapis cults in Alexandria (for 18:18, 24; Schmidt, “Sturz des Serapis”; Bommas, “Isis in Alexandria”) and the scientific resources at Alexandria’s library (for 18:24; Engster, “Alexandria”); conflict with the Artemis cult as fighting beasts (in view of connections between the huntress deity and animals; Hooker, “Artemis”); Roman antipathy toward plundering temples (for 19:37; e.g., Wells, “Impiety”); the offensiveness of rejecting gifts (for the discussion at 21:17–18; Mendels, “Rejection”); comparison of the Nazirite vow in Acts 21:23–27 and in Josephus and Philo (Chepey, “Timing”); how a Greek visitor would understand the temple’s warning inscription (for 21:28; Llewelyn and Beek, “Reading”); the comparability of the Judean rioters (21:27–22:29) with the pagan ones in Ephesus (19:23–40; Golding, “Pagan Worship”); connection of meal scenes in 16:34; 20:7–12; 27:33–36 (Grappe, “Repas”); the Hebraism of followers being at one’s feet (for Acts 22:3; see, e.g., MT Judg 4:10 [and LXX]; 8:5); and so forth.

↑ Back to top