196
. From Craig S. Keener, “Paul and Sedition: Pauline Apologetic in Acts,” Bulletin for Biblical Research
22
(
2
,
2012
):
201–24
, reprinted with permission from Pennsylvania State University Press.
. Some have associated the adventures in Acts, including trial scenes, with novels (Pervo, Profit,
18
)—despite the far more extensive list of sufferings in Paul’s own letters (
1
Cor
4
:
11–13
;
15
:
32
;
16
:
9
;
2
Cor
1
:
4–11
;
2
:
14–16
;
4
:
7–16
;
6
:
4–10
; esp.
2
Cor
11
:
23–33
).
. For their rhetorical crafting, see Veltman, “Defense Speeches”; Neyrey, “Forensic Defense Speech”; Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques.”
. This is especially the case if some cases could reflect official court summaries; see Winter, “Official Proceedings.”
. Some scholars date Acts before Paul’s martyrdom (e.g., Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,”
58
). The majority date Acts afterward (e.g., Witherington, Acts,
61
). The Acts commentary of F. F. Bruce, which originally supported the pre-
70
date, in its final edition settles on a post-
70
date (Bruce, Acts
3
,
16–17
). I address the question of date in my Acts,
1
:
383–401. The primary argument of this essay does not require a decision either way, although one’s decision affects one’s reading of the circumstances to which one may apply the argument. I work from a date after Paul’s execution, but those who favor an earlier date could adopt much of my argument a fortiori.
. E.g., Hengel, Acts and History,
60
; Kent, Jerusalem to Rome,
17
; Bruce, “Apologetic and Purpose”; Puskas and Crump, Introduction,
143–46
. Gerd Lüdemann views Luke’s political apologetic approach as a serious distortion (Lüdemann, “Tale”); ancient historians, however, often treated their histories as cases to be defended (see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History,
65–66
).
. The verb apologeomai appears eight times in Luke-Acts (all forensic, including the six in Acts; Luke-Acts provides
80
percent of the NT uses; it appears once in the Apostolic Fathers and just three times in the LXX); the noun apologia twice more (Acts
22
:
1
;
25
:
16
). The verb katêgoreô appears
13
times in Luke-Acts (almost
60
percent of NT usage; in the LXX and Apostolic Fathers, only once each) and the noun katêgoros four times (all NT uses, though cf. Rev
12
:
10
).
. Alexander, Context,
204–5
.
. Schwartz, “Trial Scenes,”
118
.
. An exception is Mattill, “Purpose”; Mattill, “Naherwartung.”
. See Cassidy, Society,
145–55
, noting the disciples’ defiance (Acts
4
:
19–20
;
5
:
29
, on
154
; though cf. ad loc.) and the Zealot (Acts
1
:
13
; Luke
6
:
15
, on
155
). Cf. the tension in the NT more broadly in Bryan, Caesar.
. Some Roman officials do reject the gospel, but even the least favorable officials (e.g.,
24
:
27
) do not condemn Paul, despite the request of high-status accusers; they are not Paul’s primary enemies, and often they protect him. A case was considered very strong when one could appeal it to even otherwise unfavorable judges (Pliny Nat. pref.
10
); Luke shows that objective or even negatively biased but not hostile critics will not repress the faith.
. Marshall, “Luke and ‘Gospel,’” esp.
291; Schneider, “Zweck” (noting how Luke emphasizes the community’s connection back to Jesus). See also Witherington, Acts,
37
,
63
, who accepts it as apologetic, but for insiders rather than outsiders. Stoops, “Riot,”
90
, suggests that happy as Luke may have been for Roman authorities to read the work, he would not assume that likely; rather, he encouraged Christians, establishing self-definition and providing “political apologetic.”
. E.g., Let. Aris. is commonly viewed as an apologetic, but some think that Let. Aris. is meant to keep Jews and others in Egypt on friendly terms, and to justify residence there (Hacham, “Aristeas”), or is propaganda to make Jews more open to Greek education (Tcherikover, “Ideology,”
83
).
. See Feldman, “Reflections on Jews.” For a survey of sources, see Stern, Authors.
. See discussion in Alexander, Context,
183–206
.
. Alexander, Context,
200
. I would count three, since Festus is part of the audience in Acts
26
; but the Jewish element in Acts
22
and
26
cannot be minimized.
. Alexander, Context,
205
.
. Alexander, Context,
206
.
. Which seems to be the case even later in some such settings as Rev
2
:
9
; Mart. Pol.
13
.
1
;
17
.
2
;
18
.
1
.
. Johnson, Acts,
12
; Smith, “Gospels,”
8
–
14
; Litwak, Echoes,
206
. This practice fits some ancient expectations: some earlier Greek historians (like Thucydides and Xenophon) envisioned their narratives as picking up where their predecessors left off (Darbo-Peschanski, “Origin,”
33–34
; Brown, Historians, 91–92
).
. Sterling, Historiography,
20–53
. Herodotus was said to be the first historian to publish a universal rather than specific ethnographic history (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc.
5
).
. Sterling, Historiography,
55–102
. For negative Greek views of “barbarian” intellect, see e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
5
.
4
.
3
; Josephus Ant.
18
.
47
; Xenophon of Ephesus Eph.
3
.
11
; Diodorus Siculus
1
.
2
.
6
; Epicurus in Diogenes Laertius
10
.
117
; contrast (in the Cynic Epistles) Anacharsis Ep.
2
.
1–2
; Diogenes Ep.
28
; also Josephus Ag. Ap.
1
.
15–18
.
. Tacitus Ann.
2
.
88
(admitting some, but lesser, Roman bias). Most Roman historians, of course, focused on Rome (cf. comment in Levene, “Roman Historiography,”
287–88
), and their treatment of other peoples could promote the ideology of Roman conquest (see e.g., O’Gorman, “Politics,”
384
).
. Greek historians were part of Alexander’s conquests from the start, and imposed their understanding on the peoples among whom Greek education was spreading, inviting local responses (Dillery, “Historians,”
221
). Some of the best known today, Berossus (cf. Kuhrt, “Mesopotamia,”
62–63
; Dillery, “Historians,”
222–25
), Manetho (Dillery, “Historians,”
225–28
), and eventually Josephus “were priests who used the records of their own people to write their histories” (Sterling, “Historians,”
502
).
. Sterling, Historiography, 103–36
(though not all explain these minority histories as primarily apologetic; see Dillery, “Historians,”
228–30
).
. Sterling, Historiography,
135
. For the apologetic argument from antiquity, see below. Greeks themselves could provide apologetic slants on history, however; Polybius, before writing his history, had to absolve the memory of some earlier Greek leaders to prevent the Romans from destroying their statues (Polybius
39
.
3
.
3–11
).
. Sterling, Historiography,
136
.
. Sterling, Historiography,
137–225
; see also Sterling, “Appropriation,”
234–38
. Josephus’s rival Justus probably provides one example no longer extant (see Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias,”
92
). For apologetic in hellenistic Jewish narrative writers, see further Holladay, “Theios aner,”
234
and passim.
. Wandrey, “Literature: Jewish-Hellenistic,”
696
.
. Sterling, Historiography,
226–310
. More generally, others also emphasize Josephus’s apologetic objectives; see e.g., Feldman, “Apologist of World”; in defending himself, Vogel, “Vita
64
–
69
”; Lamour, “Organisation.”
. Harrington, “Bible,”
245
. For example, Josephus’s story about Moses may challenge Alexandrian anti-Jewish propaganda influential in Rome (see Hata, “Moses within Anti-Semitism”).
. Mason, Josephus and New Testament,
71
(concluding his discussion of Antiquities on
65–71
).
. Mason, Josephus and New Testament,
60–61
; for the Life as a self-defense against Justus, see
73–76
; his fullest apologetic, of course, was the explicit apologetic in Ag. Ap. (see Josephus and New Testament,
77–81
). Others also note Josephus’s apologetic motifs (e.g., Boccaccini, Judaism,
241–42
).
. See e.g., Kelley, “Perspective.”
. See Meiser, “Gattung.” Its discourses help support this conclusion.
. For example, Flaccus is more rhetorical and focuses on the blame aspect of epideictic, with abundant overt editorializing.
. Sterling, Historiography,
311–89
; see also e.g., Mason, Josephus and New Testament,
196–97
; Johnson, Acts, xii. For Luke’s apologetic use of outsiders’ speeches in a manner comparable to specifically Jewish historiography, see Padilla, Speeches.
. Luke undoubtedly intends his audience to recognize that Paul’s opponents add charges; changing the charges against a defendant during the trial is a sign that the accusers have invented them (Lysias Or.
7
.
2
, §
108
; Cicero Att.
2
.
24
). Failure to have raised a charge at an earlier hearing or occasion could be deemed suspicious (Quintilian Decl.
301
.
19
; Hermogenes Inv.
3
.
5
.
148
).
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isaeus
3
,
9
; Cicero Scaur.
13
.
29
; Demosthenes Or.
21
.
1
(cited in Hermogenes Method
5
.
418
); Quintilian Decl.
252
.
10
; Hermogenes Inv.
1
.
1
.
99
. Ideally, one could attack both character in general and specific acts (Hermogenes Inv.
1
.
2
.
102–3
).
. Isaeus passim, e.g., Astyph.
16
; Lucian Runaways
18
; Tacitus Ann.
3
.
12
(cf. the attack on a defendant’s previous career in Tacitus Ann.
3
.
10
). Had the defendant accused me of merely killing his father rather than mine, one complained, I would not be taking him to court (Ps.-Lysias Or.
10
.
2
, §
116
). Rhetoricians also learned to multiply existing charges by subdividing them into component elements (Hermogenes Inv.
1
.
2
.
101–2
).
. M. Aurelius replied that this approach would win Fronto more favor from those sympathetic to the accused (Fronto M. Caes.
3
.
5
). An advocate might have to knowingly charge someone falsely, but might manage to reduce harshness to the level necessary to his role (Quintilian Decl.
333
.
8
).
. Neyrey, “Forensic Defense Speech,”
215–26
(citing Rhet. Her.
2
.
3
.
3–4
; Cicero Inv.
2
.
5
.
16
—
2
.
8
.
28
); followed by Winter, “Official Proceedings,”
320
; Witherington, Acts,
707
.
. With Conzelmann, Acts,
199
; Johnson, Acts,
411
; Fitzmyer, Acts,
732
.
. Mark
14
:
2–3
includes the “king of the Jews” charge but, while mentioning other charges, does not specify forbidding to pay taxes, which Luke may have from passion tradition or inference from Mark
12
:
13–15
.
. Robinson, Criminal Law,
76
; as a broad category,
74–78
.
. Robinson, Criminal Law,
76
.
. Robinson, Criminal Law,
78–80
.
. Robinson, Criminal Law,
80
.
. P. Lond.
1912
.
82–100
; CPJ
2
:
36–55
, §
153
. Luke probably expected his audience to recognize the weakness in this charge, or he might have suppressed it the way he omitted in Acts
18
:
2
the alleged association of Christ with unrest in Rome, if he knew a tradition similar to what we apparently have in Suetonius (Claud.
25
.
4
).
. Imperial propaganda also used “all the world” freely; see e.g., Ovid Tristia
2
.
324
; Vitruvius Arch.
1
. pref.
1
; Pliny Nat.
3
.
5
.
67
; Dio Chrysostom Or.
3
.
7
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
12
,
422
.
9–10; Josephus War
2
.
361
; negatively,
4
Ezra
11
:
1
.
. E.g., those of Caligula in Josephus Ant.
19
.
1
,
14
. During the Roman civil war, Cicero lamented that the entire world was flaming (Fam.
4
.
1
.
2
).
. Nock, Paul,
140
.
. E.g., Rom
3
:
8
;
15
:
31
;
1
Cor
4
:
11–13
;
2
Cor
1
:
8–10
;
4
:
8–11
;
6
:
5
;
11
:
23–26
,
32–33
; Gal
5
:
11
;
6
:
12
; Eph
3
:
1
;
4
:
1
; Phil
1
:
14–17
;
1
Thess
2
:
2
;
2
Thess
3
:
1–2
; Phlm
9
.
. Wallace and Williams, Acts,
18–20
, note six scenes in Acts where mobs are stirred against Paul, and note that other sources from the period confirm that mobs were easily started.
. With the possible but unlikely exception of Ephesus (if one accepts an Ephesian imprisonment). Paul probably had significant reasons to avoid the city (in addition to the reason explicitly offered in Acts
20
:
16
), but his worst troubles there probably became political rather than legal.
. Luke of course also has incentive to leave this impression. Abandoning charges was itself a chargeable offense; see Suetonius Claud.
15
.
2
; Dio Cassius
60
.
28
.
6
; Sherwin-White, Society,
52–53
.
. On Paul’s possible benefactors in Ephesus, see Keener, “Asiarchs”; Parsons, Acts,
369
.
. It seems a likely surmise that we can reconstruct one line of charge against Paul here, as Josephus’s replies to Apion inadvertently preserved the latter’s anti-Semitic claims. Cf. similarly the apologetic against David as a usurper in
1–2
Samuel (e.g.,
1
Sam
16
:
13–14
;
19
:
5
,
11–17
;
23
:
16–18
;
24
:
4–22
;
27
:
8–10
;
29
:
4–11
;
2
Sam
1
:
14–15
;
3
:
28
;
4
:
11
); or Philostratus’s apologetic against Apollonius as a magician (Vit. Apoll.
1
.
2
;
5
.
12
;
7
.
17
,
39
;
8
.
7
). Cf. also Luke preempting charges against Jesus, e.g., by explaining that the swords were only so Jesus could fulfill the prophecy about being considered a transgressor (Luke
22
:
36–38
).
. On the problematic character for Roman readers of Paul’s association with tumults, see esp. Cassidy, “Opponents.”
. E.g., Johnson, Acts,
356
; Dunn, Acts,
269
; Marshall, Acts,
328
.
. Paul’s own letters testify of conflicts with his own people (
2
Cor
11
:
24
,
26
), although he had them with gentiles as well.
. On Luke’s approach to Judaism, see the sources and discussion in Keener, Acts,
1
:
459–77
.
. Chrysostom Hom. Acts
50
.
. E.g., Rhet. Alex.
36
,
1442
b.
6–9; Cicero Or. Brut.
40
.
137
; De or.
3
.
204
; cf. Cicero Cat.
2
.
3
; turning an opponent’s argument against him in Hermogenes Inv.
3
.
3
.
138
. See the discussion in Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,”
244–50
; more briefly and less relevantly, Keener, John,
752–53
.
. See e.g., Euripides Cret. frg.
472
e.
33–35
; Thucydides
3
.
61
.
1
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
24
(advising that this be done “at the outset,” LCL
1
:
67
). Another form of counteraccusation involved admitting an offense but blaming the victim for deserving it (Hermogenes Issues
39
.
1–5
).
. Xenophon Hell.
2
.
3
.
37
.
. Lysias Or.
3
.
1
, §
96
.
. Likewise, Philocrates (convicted of treason) used not Aeschines but Demosthenes as his advocate (Aeschines Fals. leg.
14
), and Demosthenes rather than Aeschines was his business partner (Fals. leg.
56
). Aeschines elsewhere objects to this frequent practice of countercharging accusers (Tim.
179
), yet practices it himself where convenient.
. Fals. leg.
69
(LCL p.
211
).
. E.g., Cicero Quinct.
3
.
11
—
9
.
33
(i.e., the entire narratio); Rosc. Amer.
30
.
82
—
45
.
132
; Pliny Ep.
3
.
9
.
29
;
4
.
9
.
20
;
6
.
22
.
2
,
4
;
7
.
33
.
7
.
. Cicero Sest.
37
.
80
(LCL p.
145
).
. See here Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques,”
244–46
.
. See Anderson, Glossary, 41; cf. Rhet. Her.
4
.
30
.
41
; Rowe, “Style,”
149
; Porter, “Paul and Letters,”
583
; Anderson, Glossary,
24
.
. So especially Fronto in Naber,
211
(LCL
1
:
40–41
); see also Cicero Verr.
2
.
5
.
66
.
170
. Some other kinds of speeches could also display intense emotion by disrupting normal rhetorical patterns (Menander Rhetor
2
.
9
,
413
.
12–14
).
. Often noted, though variously explained.
. In true ellipsis, the words as well as the meaning can be reconstructed (Plath, “Ellipsis,”
926
); on ellipsis, see also Rowe, “Style,”
135
. The present case is closer to aposiopesis (on which see Rowe, “Style,”
149
; Black, “Oration at Olivet,”
87
). Aposiopesis could be linked with paraleipsis, arousing suspicion by implication (Hermogenes Method
7
.
419–20
), as probably here.
. E.g., Aeschines Ctes.
1
; Dio Chrysostom Or.
12
.
36
; Gal
2
:
4
,
12
;
1
Tim
1
:
3
.
. On insinuatio in Roman rhetoric more generally, see Bower, “Ephodos and insinuatio”; Christian, “Insinuatio,” chs.
3–4
. For examples besides those below, see e.g., Quintilian Decl.
331
.
22
;
335
.
13
; Hermogenes Inv.
4
.
13
.
206
,
208–9
.
. Ps.-Cicero Invect. Sall.
8
.
22
.
. In the case of defendants as relatives, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
24
; for responding gently to respected opponents, see Rhet. Alex. 37
.
1445
b.
17–19
; for claiming to be forced to speak, unwillingly, see Aeschines Tim.
1
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isaeus 10
,
11
; for not accusing other members of one’s Jewish people, see
2
Macc
4
:
5
.
. E.g., Valerius Maximus
2
.
2
.
5
.
. E.g., Agr.
24
.
63–64
. He also can describe briefly matters that he claims to pass over (Cicero Sest.
26
.
56
).
. Pis.
2
.
3
(LCL
147
).
. Vat.
5
.
13
(LCL
257
); he then returns immediately to the tribunate, having slipped this accusation in.
. By allowing that “the enormity of so great a crime has either existed in this state or has escaped punishment” (Cat.
1
.
6
.
14
; LCL
27
); he similarly avoids repeating other accusations because they are obscene and violate public propriety (Verr.
1
.
5
.
14
; Flacc.
15
.
34
).
. LCL
27
.
. Verr.
2
.
4
.
52
.
116
; more briefly,
2
.
3
.
24
.
59
; cf.
2
.
4
.
59
.
131
.
. For lying as a charge against accusers, see e.g., Lysias Or.
3
.
39
, §
99
;
4
.
13
, §
101
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
33
; Cicero Quinct.
6
.
22
; Rosc. com.
16
.
46
; Mur.
6
.
13
; cf. Isaeus Astyph.
19
. Writers against Jews tell “lies” about them (Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
79
,
147
,
289
); Apion is a prime example of such a liar (Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
85
,
90
,
98
,
111
,
115
,
121
,
122
).
. See Stoops, “Riot,”
78–80
.
. Cf. Stoops, “Riot,”
81
.
. See Suetonius Claud.
25
.
4
, addressed more fully loc. cit. in my commentary on Acts
18
:
2
.
. So does a condemned criminal (Luke
23
:
41
), though this would not impress the more elite members of Luke’s audience.
. Bruce, Commentary,
20–21
and
21
n
16
(though Bruce in this earlier work still applied this claim to a life setting before Nero’s persecution,
22
).
. Witherington thinks that Acts is positive toward Roman authorities because it was not safe to be otherwise in the Flavian period (Acts,
62–63
, citing Tacitus Agr.
2
, but this probably has only Domitian in mind); but antigovernment tracts would be considered subversive at any time in the period of the Empire.
. Parkes, Conflict,
9
.
. Political expediency figured more highly than either anti-Judaism or Jewish antiquity in the Empire’s response to its Jewish residents (Garnsey and Saller, Empire,
169–70
).
. Josephus likewise notes that God’s law forbids accusing others’ laws or mocking their gods (Ag. Ap.
2
.
237
).
. For one discussion concerning this edict’s date, see Eilers, “Date of Edict.”
. Sanders, Judaism,
212
.
. The right to assemble had to be explicitly stated, since Rome regulated and normally forbade that right (Rabello, “Condition,”
719
); Sanders, Judaism,
212
, regards that right as virtually unique to Jews (citing Josephus Ant.
14
.
215–16
; Suetonius Jul.
42
.
3
; Philo Embassy
311
), though this was their primary special privilege (see Ben Zeev, “Position”).
. Sanders, Judaism,
212
. For a full discussion of Jewish privileges, see Kraft, “Judaism on Scene,”
88–90; Whittaker, Jews and Christians,
92–105
; Tajra, Trial,
14–21
; Applebaum, “Legal Status,”
420–63
.
. See here especially the emphasis in Rajak, “Charter,”
112–14
.
. See Winter, Left Corinth,
289–90
; Rhodes, “Documents,”
65
(citing Ant.
14
.
187–88
about documents in the capitol, and noting that most today accept most of Josephus’s documentary appeals); and most thoroughly Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, passim. Ben Zeev, “Ambiguities,” admits Josephus’s errors and some of his tendentiousness, but contends that his work mostly reflects genuine material.
. Pliny Ep.
10
.
65
.
2
(though those so suspected seem to have been a minority).
. E.g., precedents in law (Rhet. Alex.
1
,
1422
b.
20–25
); previous honors conferred listed in city encomia (Menander Rhetor
1
.
3
,
365
.
10–18
).
. Gager, Anti-Semitism; Tajra, Trial,
21–24
.
. Cf. e.g., Joseph and Aseneth, if it is not influenced by Christian perspectives.
. On the most common, post-
70
, dating of Luke-Acts, Nero’s persecution was over; but Christians were now a known and vilified entity, and the precedent of controlling them was now available (see, later, Pliny Ep.
10
.
96–97
; Lucian Peregr.
12–14
). As noted above, I work here from the more common assumption of a post-Pauline date, but much of the argument could be applied a fortiori by those favoring an earlier date.
. Cf. Suetonius Nero
16
.
2
; Tertullian Apol.
5
.
3–4
; cf. later Sulpicius Severus Chronicle
2
.
29
(in Barrett, Background,
17
).
. In the instance I have cited, Trajan benevolently appeals to what the local laws already were (Ep.
10
.
109
).
. For temporary love for Nero in the east, see e.g., IG
22
3277
; IG
7
.
2713
(Sherk, Empire, 110–112
,
115
); cf. even the circulation of Nero impostors (Dio Chrysostom Or.
21
.
9–10
; Tacitus Hist.
1
.
2
;
2
.
8
; Suetonius Nero
57
.
1–2
; Lucian Book-Coll.
20
; Dio Cassius
66
.
19
.
3
); on Nero’s philhellenism, see Griffin, Nero,
208–20
. For the Roman aristocracy’s hatred, see e.g., Juvenal Sat.
4
.
136–139
;
8
.
211–230
; Tacitus Hist.
1
.
72
; Suetonius Nero passim; Tit.
7
; Pliny Ep.
1
.
5
.
1
;
3
.
5
.
5
;
3
.
7
.
3
;
5
.
5
.
3
;
6
.
31
.
9
;
8
.
6
.
17
; Marcus Aurelius
3
.
16
. Some report that in Nero’s day, the Roman aristocracy hated him, but the masses did not (Tacitus Hist.
1
.
4
). The celebration of masses at his death (Suetonius Nero
57
), however, may suggest that this is an aristocratic exaggeration.
. Cf. Tertullian Apol.
5
.
3–4
; Ac. Paul
11
.
3–6
; Eusebius Hist. eccl.
2
.
25
; Sulpicius Severus Chron.
2
.
29
(in Barrett, Documents,
17
); Sib. Or.
8
.
68–72
.
. Josephus Ant.
20
.
195
; Life
16
; cf. further Williams, “Tendencies.” On Poppaea as Nero’s mistress, see e.g., Tacitus Hist.
1
.
13
. Later suspicions that Jewish complaints contributed to Nero’s treatment of Christians, however, probably represent polemic (Hare, “Relationship”).
. For Josephus on Tiberius’s expulsion of Jews from Rome, cf. Suetonius Tib.
36
; Josephus Ant.
18
.
81–83
; some are highly skeptical (perhaps overly so) of Josephus’s version (Moehring, “Persecution in A.D.
19
”). Philo, meanwhile, attributes Tiberius’s opposition against Jews to Sejanus, which Tiberius discovered immediately after the hated praetorian prefect’s death (Embassy
159–60
).
. Stoops, “Riot,”
73
, argues that Luke here employs “a pattern of apologetic argument developed among diaspora Jews. The argument ran: ‘Because our opponents riot our rights ought to be confirmed’” (
79–80
citing Philo Embassy
335–36
; Josephus Ant.
14
.
244–46
;
16
.
58–60
;
19
.
284–85
; War
2
.
487–498
;
7
.
107–11
). Jewish people had learned that demonstrating their opponents to be at fault in riots led to reaffirmation of Jewish rights, but failure to do so led to their mistreatment (Stoops, “Riot,”
79
). The same principles could apply to Christians as a Jewish sect (
81
). We may add Josephus’s arguments on how unjust repression of Jews helped spark the tragic war (e.g., Josephus Ant.
20
.
183
).
. Minority cults depended on sponsors of status to achieve more mainstream status (White, Origins of Architecture,
1
:
58–59
), and the words of people of rank weighed much more heavily in courts (Gaius Inst.
4
.
183
; cf. Jas
2
:
6
; Rapske, Custody,
56–62
), although this may have been more fully formalized legally in the second century (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 115–16; Krause, “Honestiores”). For the Jewish apologetic use of outsiders’ speeches affirming Jewish identity, see again helpfully Padilla, Speeches,
42–105
(applying this insight skillfully to comparable outsiders’ speeches in Acts,
106–32
).
. As some would argue; see e.g., Keener, Acts,
1
:
407–14
,
431–32
;
3
:
2350–74
.
. See Witherington, Acts,
73
.
. Cf. Luke-Acts as an apologetic for Paul in Wasserberg, “Lk-Apg als Paulusapologie.” This function does not exhaust the work’s purpose, but it seems important, especially given the final quarter of Acts.
. Paul himself connected his case with the defense of the gospel (Phil
1
:
7
).
. Polybius
20
.
10
.
7–9
;
38
.
17
.
2
; cf.
2
Tim
1
:
16
; Heb
11
:
36
; Raspke, “Prison,”
829
; for punishment in general, Dio Chrysostom Or.
76
.
4
.
. See again Keener, Acts,
1
:
389–92
.
. I comment more extensively on these parallels and their limitations, as well as the larger context of ancient historiography, in Keener, Acts,
1
:
550–74
.