713. I treat this material also in Keener, Acts, 2:2158–72.
712. From Craig S. Keener, “The Exhortation to Monotheism in Acts 14:15–17,” pages 47–70 in Kingdom Rhetoric: New Testament Explorations in Honor of Ben Witherington III (edited by T. Michael W. Halcomb; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013).
713. I treat this material also in Keener, Acts, 2:2158–72.
714. Regarding Acts 25, see especially here Witherington, Acts, 119–20; Barrett, Acts, 1139.
715. See esp. Walton, Leadership.
716. See esp. Winter, “Official Proceedings.”
717. Barnabas also speaks here (14:14), but Paul is the main speaker (14:12).
718. Glad, “Adaptability,” 20–21; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 134; Litfin, Theology, 115–17; Marshall, Enmity, 71–73; Ps.-Phocylides 49; cf. Dio Chrysostom Or. 4.123; Herodian 4.7.3–4; 4.8.1–3; 5.5.5. Whether the case of Alcibiades is more negative or positive may be debated (Plutarch Alc. 23.4–6; positive in Cornelius Nepos 7 [Alcibiades], 11.2–6).
719. For an example, see e.g., Albucius, adapting for both academic and popular audiences (Suetonius Rhet. 6); later, Libanius (Eunapius Lives 495–96). See further Litfin, Theology, 65, 104–6; cf. Thebaid frg. 8; Maximus of Tyre Or. 1.2; Diogenes Laertius 2.66; Exod. Rab. 47:5.
720. Cf. Siffer, “Annonce.”
721. Porter, Paul in Acts, 139, following especially Breytenbach, “Zeus und Gott.”
722. Scholars cite many examples (Aelian Var. hist. 8.15; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 2.22.12; Conzelmann, Acts, 82, 110; Grant, Gods, 26). Refusing any kind of honors sometimes led to greater praise in the long run (Valerius Maximus 4.1.6a); mortals failing to refuse divine honors was wicked (Josephus Ant. 19.345–46).
723. Josephus Ant. 19.345–46.
724. Grant, Paul, 9.
725. With Wenham, “Paulinism”; Witherington, Acts, 426; Grant, Paul, 9.
726. With e.g., Porter, Paul in Acts, 145. Philo and many other monotheistic thinkers challenged pagan natural philosophy (Miller, “Idolatry”).
727. Cranfield, “Romans 1.18,” predicates both “revelations” on the gospel, but this argument depends too heavily on the connective force of the gar.
728. Haacker, Theology, 103–4.
729. In Rom 1, see e.g., Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 52; Davies, Paul, 28; deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 1268–76 (here 1274); Hooker, “Adam,” 299 (noting differences as well); Dunn, Theology of Paul, 91; Talbert, Romans, 63. Bornkamm, Experience, 53, deems the parallels well-known.
730. Cf. deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 1272.
731. Kennedy, Epistles, 26; Poniży, “Recognition”; cf. Collins, “Natural Theology”; Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie.”
732. See Downing, “Common Ground.” Of course it would be inadequate to view Paul and Barnabas as philosophers here (see Rowe, World, 21–22).
733. Grant, Paul, 9.
734. Socratics Ep. 28.
735. See e.g., Cicero Inv. 1.15.20; De or. 1.31.143; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.5.
736. E.g., Wis 13:10—14:7; Bel and Dragon; Ep Jer; Let. Aris. 134–38. For other polemic, see e.g., Sib. Or. 3.8–35; 4.4–23; among later Christians, Sib. Or. 8.359–428.
737. Many texts use reductio ad absurdum to ridicule paganism.
738. Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 181–216.
739. Jub. 36:5; Ep Jer passim; t. Sanh. 13:8; Peah 1:2; Sipra VDDeho. par. 1.34.1.3; Ab. R. Nat. 40A; b. Git. 57b; Shab. 145b-146a; y. Sanh. 3:5, §2; 6:7, §2; 8:8, §1; 10:1, §2; 10:3, §2; Lev. Rab. 37:1; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Num 35:25. The evil inclination encouraged this activity (e.g., Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; Song Rab. 2:4, §1; 7:8, §1).
740. Wis 14:27; Mek. Pisha 5.40–41; y. Ned. 3:9, §3. Idolatry was equivalent to repudiating all of God’s law (t. Bek. 3:12; Sipre Deut. 54.3.2; b. Qid. 40a), and could result from such repudiation (Sipre Deut. 43.4.1).
741. E.g., 3 En. 5:6–11. Idolatry made them susceptible to demons (Gen. Rab. 23:6; 24:6).
742. Similar traditions were applied to Job in T. Job 2–5.
743. E.g., Jub. 21:3 (summarizing his righteousness); Apoc. Ab. 1—8. Cf. further Abraham’s fight against idolatry in Flusser, “Upanishads” (citing e.g., Jub. 11:16–18; 12:1–6, 12–14; Josephus Ant. 1.155–56).
744. Jub. 11:12–14. Cf. Judg 6:25–27.
745. Jub. 11:16–17; 12:1–8.
746. Pesiq. Rab. 33:3. In Gen. Rab. 39:1 (attributed to a Tanna), he questioned and God revealed himself to him.
747. Dunn, Acts, 191.
748. Third-person denunciations are also prominent in the context of some of these references, e.g., Isa 44:9–20; 46:6–7.
749. E.g., Dio Chrysostom Or. 11, passim (e.g., 154, mocking the changing of Hecuba into a dog). For other critics of Greek religion, see e.g., Grant, Gods, 20.
750. Van de Sandt, “Amos 5, 25–27,” thinks that Luke in Acts 7 read the calf story (Exod 32) intertextually in relation to Deut 4:1–28.
751. E.g., Let. Aris. 138; Wis 13:13–14 (but also mocking Greeks’ human images); Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.81, 85, 128–29, 139 (gladly taking to task Apion on a point where Josephus’s Hellenized audience will agree; he contrasts Moses in Ag. Ap. 2.75–76). The Jewish belief was well-known (so Strabo 16.2.35; Tacitus Hist. 5.5).
752. E.g., Plutarch Is. Os. 71, Mor. 379DE; Lucian Parl. G. 10–11; Astr. 7 (if genuine); Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.5 (but cf. 2.10); see further Pearson, “Idolatry, Jewish Conception,” 526–28. Paul may mock them in Rom 1:23 (Grant, Gods, 47; Pearson, “Polytheism,” 818). Apollodorus Bib. 1.6.3 claims that the gods disguised themselves as animals in Egypt (ultimately leading Egyptians astray; cf. apparently Egyptian claims in Lucian Sacr. 14). Even where Greek and Egyptian culture interpenetrated in Egypt, of course, Egyptian practices remained (see Dhennin, “Necropolis”).
753. Grant, Paul, 67 (citing Diodorus Siculus 1.83.6–9). Egyptians lavished care on their sacred animals (Diodorus Siculus 1.84.1–8).
754. Pliny Nat. 2.5.16.
755. Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.18–19. Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.3 concurs that human images are nobler for deities than animal images are.
756. E.g., Lucian Dial. S. G. 305–6 (11/7, South Wind and West Wind 1); 325–26 (15, West Wind and South Wind 2); 327, ¶3; Dial. G. 206 (6/2, Eros and Zeus 1); 207–8 (7/3, Zeus and Hermes 1); 269–71 (2/22, Pan and Hermes 1–2); Byzantine polemic in Ps.-Lucian Patriot 4.
757. See Lucian Z. Cat. 2–5; cf. Pliny Nat. 2.5.22; Lucian Indictment 2; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.245.
758. Lucian Z. Cat. 7–8.
759. Lucian Z. Cat. 8; also in Sacr. 5–6; cf. Z. Rants 40. For such susceptibility of deities to harm, see e.g., Homer Il. passim; Apollonius Rhodius 3.853; Apollodorus Epit. 4.2; Apollodorus Bib. 1.7.1; Libanius Enc. 1.10; cf. the similar demise of the bronze giant Talos, when he died from loss of his ichor (Apollonius Rhodius 4.1679–80; Apollodorus Bib. 1.9.26); or Chiron relinquishing immortality to evade the pain of his wound (Apollodorus Bib. 2.5.4); and perhaps Polyphemus in Euripides Cycl. 231, 321 (Kovacs, “Introduction to Cyclops,” 55); in ancient Near Eastern accounts, see e.g., ANET
²
, 139–40; Albright, Yahweh, 125–27; Gordon, “Psalm 82,” 130–31. Such “divine” mortality was rejected by Stoics (e.g., Seneca Ep. Lucil. 95.49–50), and writers evaded such wounded deities by allegorization (Heraclitus Hom. Prob. 30.1, 4; 31.1, 11; 52.5–6; 53.1).
760. Homer Il. 5.339–42, 855–59, 870, 881–87; cf. 5.130–32, 335–39, 829–30.
761. Lucian L. Lies 2–5. Lucian is harsher in Amber 3, 5–6; cf. also the criticism in Valerius Maximus 4.7.4.
762. Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 5.14.
763. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.14–16, 19.
764. Lucian Icar. 9; Phil. 4.
765. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Sacr. 11.
766. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Dial. G. 240 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 2). Although angry at the negligence of Helios for nearly destroying the earth, Zeus allows him to evade discipline in Lucian Dial. G. 278–80 (24/25, Zeus and Helios 1–2). Heraclitus evades this charge by allegory (Hom. Prob. 52, esp. 52.4).
767. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Prom. 17; Parl. G. 7; L. Lies 2; Dial. G. 206 (6/2, Eros and Zeus 1); 231 (19/11, Aphrodite and Selene 1); 233–34 (20/12, Aphrodite and Eros 1); 243 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 3); 245–46 (21/17, Apollo and Hermes ¶¶1–2); 269–71 (2/22, Pan and Hermes 1–2); 272, ¶4; Dial. S. G. 305–6 (11/7, South Wind and West Wind 1); 325–27 (15, West Wind and South Wind 2–3); Philostratus the Elder Imagines 1.8. Some deemed it wrong for a deity to engage in sexual intercourse with a human (Hermogenes Progymn. 5.On Refutation and Confirmation, 11; cf. Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.40). Zeus does withhold intercourse if the offspring of the union could overthrow him; see Lucian Dial. G. 205 (5/1, Prometheus and Zeus 2).
768. Lucian Dial. G. 229 (14/10, Hermes and Helios 1), mocking (for a more serious version, see e.g., Apollodorus Bib. 2.4.8).
769. Lucian Dial. G. 214–219 (9/6, Hera and Zeus ¶1–5). Zeus was angrier in the more serious version of the same myth (Apollodorus Epitome 1.20).
770. Aphthonius Progymn. 5. On Refutation, 29S, 13R; cf. Lucian Dial. G. 242, Hermes and Apollo 2. Most mortal objects of Apollo’s affection seem to have spurned him (e.g., Apollodorus Bib. 3.12.5; Ovid Metam. 2.603–11; Lucian Dial. G. 242 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 2); 244 [18/16, Hera and Leto 1]).
771. Lucian Dial. G. 239–40 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 1–2); Philostratus the Elder Imag. 1.24; Philostratus the Younger Imag. 14; also Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.245. For deities’ inability to protect beloved mortals, see e.g., Euripides El. 1298–300; Apollodorus Bib. 3.10.3; cf. Apollodorus Bib. 1.5.1.
772. Heraclitus Hom. Prob. 39.1 (on Homer Il. 14.347–53). Cf. 1 Kgs 18:27; contrast Ps 121:3–4.
773. Lucian Icar. 28 (mythographers would have probably replied that Helios was moving back eastward beneath the earth; but he would have trouble making Olympian banquets without reliable assistants).
774. Lucian Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1); 243 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1).
775. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.21.
776. Lucian Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1).
777. Callimachus Hymn 1 (to Zeus), lines 8–9; Lucian Sacr. 10; Parl. G. 6; Timon 4; Z. Rants 45; L. Lies 3; Ps.-Lucian Patriot 10 (Byzantine); cf. Euhemerus Sacred History 6 (in Grant, Religions, 76); Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.4.569; Sib. Or. 8.45–49; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 136.
778. Grant, Paul, 4–5; beyond philosophers, e.g., Libanius Invect. 7.2. Allegorizing allowed them to develop acceptable morals (Cicero Nat. d. 2.28.70; cf. Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.255; Murray, Stages, 202; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98); some simply rewrote stories (e.g., Recantation of Stesichorus; Pindar Ol. 1.52–53).
779. Dio Chrysostom Or. 37.32 (Favorinus). Dio Chrysostom Or. 11.19, protests Homer’s depiction of the gods, going on even to charge him with lying (11.23). (This was not Dio’s approach always; 12.23 favors Hesiod, and 18.8 regards Homer as the greatest poet).
780. E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.685–86; Lucian Dial. G. 220 (11/7, Hephaistos and Apollo 1); Philostratus the Elder Imag. 1.26; cf. Lucian Prom. 5. He also stole Apollo’s property in Apollodorus Bib. 3.10.2; in 2.1.3, Zeus ordered him to steal a cow. For earlier deities’ covetousness, see e.g., Gordon, Near East, 100; Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 63.
781. Ovid Metam. 2.687–707 (esp. 705–7; cf. Mercury killing by turning to stone in 2.830–32).
782. Zeus became a bull to mate with Hera when she was a cow (Aeschylus Suppl. 299–301; cf. Poseidon’s behavior in Thebaid frg. 11, from scholiast D on Iliad, 23.346). Earlier, Baal apparently turned into a bull to mate with his sister Anath when she became a heifer; see ANET
²
139; Gordon, Near East, 99; Albright, Yahweh, 128–29; Moyer, “Practices,” 25; Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 9, 58, 60, 155–56; cf. perhaps divine bestiality in ANET
²
84; that of Helios’s daughter Pasiphae in Apollodorus Bibl. 3.1.2–4; 3.15.8; Ovid Metam. 8.131–37, 155–56; Libanius Narr. 21; 22.
783. E.g., Sophocles Searchers 212–15; Euripides Antiope 69–71, frg. 223.72–77; Pir. 22–24; Alope frg. 107; Archel. frg. 228a.15–16; Dan. frg. 1132.26–34; Andromeda frg. 136; Menander Heros frg. 2; Apollodorus Bib. 1.5.1; 1.7.8–9; 1.9.3; 3.2.1 (bringing about her death); 3.1.1; 3.4.3; 3.5.5; 3.7.6; 3.8.2; 3.10.1, 3; 3.12.2, 5–6; 3.15.2, 4; Epit. 1.9, 22; Thebaid frg. 11 (from scholiast D on Iliad, 23.346); Cypria frg. 10 (from Athenaeus Deipn. 334b); frg. 11 (from Philodemus Piety B 7369); Varro Lat. Lang. 5.5.31; Ovid Metam. 2.714–47; 3.1–2, 260–61; 4.234–44; 5.391–408; 14.765–71; Silius Italicus 13.615; Lucian Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Pausanias 8.25.7–8; Parthenius Rom. 15.3 (leading to another’s death); Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Libanius Sp. Ch. 27.3; Narr. 1; 4.1–2; 17; 31; 32; 39; 41 (cf. Narration 3). Once in awhile a human escaped, whether by outwitting a deity (Apollonius Rhodius 2.946–54) or by running faster (Libanius Sp. Ch. 27.4; cf. Narr. 17).
784. For the boy Ganymede (raped by Zeus), see e.g., Callimachus Epig. 53; Apollodorus Bib. 3.12.2; Virgil Aen. 1.28; Ovid Metam. 10.155–61; Lucian Parl. G. 8–9; Dial. G. 208–12 (10/4, Zeus and Ganymede ¶¶1–5), especially 208, ¶1; 213 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶2); 214, ¶¶2–3; Ps.-Lucian Affairs 14; Charid. 7; Alciphron Parasites 23 (Limenterus to Amasetus), 3.59, ¶2; Philostratus Ep. 8 (46); Philostratus the Younger Imag. 8. For Apollo’s love for Hyacinthus, see e.g., Apollodorus Bib. 3.10.3; Ovid Metam. 10.162–219; Lucian Dial. G. 239–240 (16/14, Hermes and Apollo 1–2); 242, Hermes and Apollo 2; 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Philostratus the Elder Imag. 1.24; Libanius Narr. 2. Occasionally goddesses or nymphs acted similarly (e.g., Lucian Sacr. 7; Apollonius Rhodius 1.1226–39; Ovid Metam. 4.368–79; Silius Italicus 5.15–21; Apollodorus Bib. 3.12.4).
785. E.g., Ovid Metam. 2.603–11 (despite his subsequent remorse, 2.612–13). Cf. Libanius Narr. 2; 4.2; 32.
786. E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–46, 275; Athenagoras 20—22; Theophilus Autol. 1.9; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.15.1–4.19.3.
787. E.g., Aeschylus Aetna, frg.; Euripides Bacch. 94–98; Sophocles Searchers 212–15; Callimachus Hymn 4 (to Delos), lines 55–58; Apollodorus Bib. 1.4.1, 3; 3.4.3; Ovid Metam. 2.477–88; 3.261–72, 280–309; 4.416–530; Appian Hist. rom. 12.15.101; Lucian Dial. G. 207 (7/3, Zeus and Hermes 1); 213 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶¶1–2) (of Ganymede); 228 (12/9, Poseidon and Hermes 2; Lucian Dial. S.-G. 315 (9/10, Iris and Poseidon, ¶1); Seneca Hercules 1–29; Libanius Narr. 12.
788. E.g., Euripides Hipp. 1–28, 1400–1403 (because deities desire honor, 8); Apollonius Rhodius 3.64–65; nonlethally in Pindar Hymns frg. 37; Apollodorus Bib. 1.9.15. A mortal woman who preferred another to a divine lover might be killed (Apollodorus Bib. 3.10.3).
789. Ovid Metam. 4.543–62; 5.409–37. A mortal who challenged Apollo was skinned to make a wine-bottle (Apollodorus Bib. 1.4.2; Philostratus the Younger Imag. 2); Athena flayed Pallas alive (Apollodorus Bib. 1.6.2). A deity could also seek the destruction of the object of his jealousy (Apollodorus Bib. 2.4.3; 3.14.1; one view in 3.4.4).
790. Often they inspired them with folly that destroyed them (Homer Il. 18.311–13; but cf. also 1 Sam 2:25; 2 Sam 17:14).
791. Statius Ach. 1.364.
792. E.g., Euripides Or. 417–18, 595–96. This seems to exceed sentiments such as those in 2 Sam 6:8; Ps 89:38–49.
793. Odysseus in Euripides Cycl. 606–7. Polytheists often reminded a deity of favors owed, soliciting aid on contractual grounds (see e.g., Homer Il. 1.39–41; 10.291–94; Od. 1.61–62, 66–67; 4.762–64; 17.240–42; Apollonius Rhodius 1.417–19; Virgil Aen. 12.778).
794. E.g., in Silius Italicus 9.438–39; Apollodorus Bib. 3.14.1; Libanius Narr. 7.1–3; 17; cf. Hephaistos opposing Ares’s adultery with Hephaistos’s wife (Homer Od. 8.266–366; Libanius Narr. 26.1–2).
795. E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5.
796. E.g., Aeschylus Eum. 179–84, 299–300; Ovid Tristia 1.2.4–5; Silius Italicus 9.438–39.
797. E.g., Aeschylus Eum. 640–51.
798. E.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.1.554; Achilles Tatius 1.5.5–7; cf. Pindar frg. 199 (from Strabo 17.1.19); Diodorus Siculus 1.27.1; Philostratus Ep. 30 (58); Mattingly, Christianity, 23. Cf. Jewish and Christian critiques on this point (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.244–46; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 4.15.1–4.19.3). Gentile admonitions to imitate deities naturally did not appeal to these models (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 6.2.29; Cicero Tusc. 5.25.70; Seneca Dial. 1.1.5; 7.8.4; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64.14; Epictetus Diatr. 2.14.12–13; Dio Chrysostom Or. 3.82; Plutarch Borr. 7, Mor. 830B; Heraclitus Ep. 5; Maximus of Tyre Or. 35.2; Sent. Sext. 44–45; Libanius Thesis 1.3).
799. E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.232–49, 275; Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Tatian 33–34.
800. See Pelikan, Acts, 163, noting especially Origen’s Contra Celsum (e.g., Cels. 4.5).
801. For the latter approach, see Proclus Poet. K147.7–10, 21–25.
802. Homeric Problems 39.2–17; cf. Proclus Poet. K135.19–22.
803. Homeric Problems 68—69, esp. 68.8–9; 69.8–16.
804. Homeric Problems 26.1, 7–8.
805. Proclus Poet. K44.7–16; K96.11.
806. K65.19–23; K72.24–26; K96.9–10; K99.18–19. If they fabricate stories about the gods, they must retain their genuine character (K65.29–30).
807. K45.18–21; quotation from K45.20–21, trans. 9.
808. K72.20–26 (quotation lines 21–22; trans. 65).
809. K82.2–7; K83.8.
810. K74.15–16; K74.25–31.
811. As in K119.2–3.
812. Lamberton, Proclus, 69n90.
813. K80.5–6.
814. K80.10–12; K83.9–10; cf. the symbolic approach of some in K131.5–9. Thus the poets “disguised” truth (K90.92–93) with “symbolic” teaching (K134.3; K135.18–19).
815. K82.10–17.
816. K90.8–14.
817. K141.16–21. Similarly, the pursuit of and wars for Helen merely teach the value of invisible beauty (K153.25–29).
818. K132.16; signifying this generative dyad as an origin of the universe in K134.10–15.
819. Rives, Religion, 32–34.
820. Rives, Religion, 34.
821. Rives, Religion, 34–36.
822. Lucian Portr. D. 23; cf. Klauck, Context, 27; still harsher critiques by Cynics, in Downing, Cynics, 213.
823. Grant, Paul, 4.
824. Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.74–75, 77.
825. Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.52, 54, 59. Against images made by people, see Iamblichus Letter 18.1–3 (Stobaeus Anth. 3.11.35).
826. Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.60 (though preferring human figures, 12.61). For Celsus’s defense of venerating images, opposing Christian criticisms, see Cook, Interpretation, 91–94.
827. Iamblichus Myst. 7.1; cf. Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.2, 10. Later Christian Platonists were able to adapt this approach to defend the incarnation (and ultimately the use of icons) while retaining Platonic notions. For the early Christian Platonists, cf. e.g., Frend, Rise of Christianity, 369–79, 660, 664, 719.
828. Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.10. Such a position is ridiculed in Lucian Parl. G. 11.
829. Apocritica 4.20–23 (in Hoffmann, Porphyry Against Christians, 83–88). Cults stressing a supreme God but allowing intermediary grew in popularity in late antiquity (Lake, “Proselytes,” 94).
830. See DeSilva, Honor, 47.
831. Fournier, Episode, 84.
832. E.g., Xenophon Mem. 2.2.13; Cicero Fam. 13.22.2; Seneca Controv. 9.1.intro; 9.1.9; Valerius Maximus 5.2; Pliny Ep. 3.2.6; 4.13.10; 7.15.3; 7.31.7; Fronto Ant. Pium 9.1; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148; deSilva, Honor, 109–10, 116, 142; deSilva, “Patronage,” 768; Harrison, Grace, 40–43. People also viewed gratitude toward deities as obligatory (e.g., Aelius Aristides Panath. 21, 161–62D; Menander Rhetor 2.17, 437.7–9, 13–15; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.24; cf. Porphyry Marc. 35.534–35).
833. Cf. Luke 17:4. Jewish sources normally invite turning to God, with Christians adding turning to Jesus (Acts 11:20–21; Dupont, Salvation, 71); yet even for Christians, polytheists’ conversion required turning to monotheism (cf. 1 Thess 1:9).
834. Cf. perhaps also Philo Virt. 175–82 (as understood by Bekken, Word, 85–90); cf. also later in Islam (Qur’an 39.17).
835. Cf. Dionne, “Figure de Dieu.”
836. E.g., Jub. 1:25; 21:4; Sib. Or. 3.763; 4Q504 frg. 1–2Rv.9; frg. 8R.12; 5Q10 frg. 1.4; pervasive in Philo (over 100, perhaps close to 150, times); later, cf. b. Sabb. 137; Erub. 13b; Pesah. 87b; Yoma 35b; Hag. 12b; Ned. 65a; Git. 6b; Qid. 36a.
837. Although the LXX omits Jer 10:10. Cf. the usage in Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Is 37:4, 17; Dan 6:20, 26; cf. also 2 Cor 6:16.
838. Lev 17:7 (LXX only); 1 Kgs 16:2 (LXX only), 13, 26; 2 Kgs 17:15; 2 Chron 11:15 (LXX); Is 2:20 (LXX); 44:9; Jer 2:5; 8:19 (LXX); 10:3, 15; 51:18 (LXX 28:18); Ezek 8:10 (LXX); Jon 2:8; Wis 13:1; 15:8; 3 Macc 6:11; using a different term, Wis 14:14. The language applied to any kind of deception in which people trusted (e.g., Ezek 13:6–9, 19; 21:29; 22:28; Sir 34[31]:5). Cf. also Kelly, Peter, 74, on LXX background for 1 Pet 1:18.
839. E.g., the probably pre-Christian oracles in Sib. Or. 3.29, 547–48; cf. the euhemeristic application to the human “gods” in 3.551–54 (esp. 554).
840. Cf. Sib. Or. 3.555: idols lead to thinking vain things.
841. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62, esp. 57. See Pilgrim, “Creation,” for God as creator in Luke-Acts.
842. Also Porter, Paul in Acts, 147 (mentioning the Stoic description there).
843. Virgil Georg. 4.221–22 (Virgil also links these three parts of creation in Aen. 1.58, 280); Ovid Metam. 1.180; Horace Ode 1.12.13–18 (cf. 3.45–48).
844. Menander Rhetor 2.17, 439.18–19 (the linking of these spheres also appears in 439.20–21).
845. Rives, Religion, 16.
846. Aeschylus Seven 16; Pindar Nem. 6.1–2; Ol. 7.38; Ovid Metam. 1.393; Fasti 2.713–19; Valerius Maximus 7.3.2; Pliny Nat. 2.63.154; Suetonius Jul. 7.2; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.15; 4 Ezra 10:9–14 (in the context of Zion as mother, 9:41—10:24); as nurse, Pausanias 1.22.3; Athenaeus Deipn. 10.451E; for Nature as mother, Pliny Nat. 24.1.1; 37.78.205.
847. E.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 890; Lib. 44; Lucretius Nat. 2.581–99.
848. E.g., Virgil Aen. 10.220 (cf. 10.234); Pliny Ep. 10.49.1; Greek Anth. 6.220. In iconography she is identified with Cybele (Uggeri, “Mater Magna,” 459).
849. E.g., Apollonius Rhodius 3.716; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.217; Valerius Maximus 8.15.3; Pliny Nat. 2.6.37; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.1. Prometheus as a Titan was a child of earth (Lucian Z. Rants 1; Prom. 3).
850. Homeric Hymn 30, to Earth, line 1; Virgil Aen. 6.595; Greek Anth. 7.461; cf. Philo Creation 133.
851. Valerius Maximus 7.5.2; Grattius lines 19–20.
852. Seneca Troj. 72; cf. Catullus 63.9.
853. For specifically Phrygian associations, see e.g., Euripides Bacch. 58–59, 79; Lucretius Nat. 2.611; Rhet. Her. 4.59.62; Valerius Maximus 7.5.2; Seneca Ep. Lucil. 108.7; Lucian Gout 30–32; Ps.-Lucian Affairs 42. Cf. Gordon, “Ma,” on the traditional Anatolian mother goddess “Ma” (i.e., “mother”), though she was not centered specifically in Phrygia.
854. MAMA 7, xliv; see also Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:155.
855. Euripides Bacch. 58–59 (Rhea being Zeus’s mother). For Cybele as Zeus’s mother (Rhea in Greek myth), see e.g., Martial Epig. 9.39.
856. Diogenes Laertius 6.1.1; cf. Orphic Hymns 27.12.
857. Apuleius Metam. 11.4–5.
858. E.g., Lucretius Nat. 2.618–20; cf. Apuleius Metam. 8.30.
859. Roller, “Great Mother.”
860. Note Cybele in e.g., Samothrace (Welch, “Statue Head”) and Crete (Sanders, Crete, 37; Strabo 10.3.11, 13), though mother goddess veneration appears already in Minoan Crete (Pomeroy, Goddesses, 13–14). For other mother goddesses, see e.g., Tacitus Germ. 40, 45; cf. Jer 7:18; 44:17.
861. See Valerius Maximus 1.1.1.
862. Valerius Maximus 7.5.2; 8.15.3; Silius Italicus 17.1–4 (line 8 calls her Cybele); cf. the temple in Tacitus Ann. 4.64; Tiberius’s interest in Pliny Nat. 35.36.70. See also discussion in Uggeri, “Mater Magna,” 458.
863. See discussion in Grant, Gods, 33; Klauck, Context, 124.
864. E.g., Lucian Dance 37. Cf. some heavenly, earthly, and chthonic deities in Homer Il. 3.276–78; PGM 1.315–16; 17a.2–3 (cf. the three tiers in Pr. Jos. 11); heavenly, terrestrial, and marine (PDM Suppl. 131–34); heavenly, marine, and chthonic (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.240); deities above and below in Livy 31.31.3; PGM 1.264.
865. For tensions between urban and rural populations in the early Empire, see Keener, Acts, 1:589–96; MacMullen, Social Relations, 15, 30, 32; Lee, “Unrest,” 128. Emphasis on rural stereotypes has sometimes been overplayed here, however, since for Luke the Lystrans’ behavior is not stereotypically rural, but stereotypically gentile (see Keener, Acts, 2:2169).
866. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:195.
867. E.g., in Egypt (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 37–46).
868. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:18. Other peoples also had fertility deities; see e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 3.21.12; in Roman Egypt, Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 37–46; cf. Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 77–78; on older fertility emphases and practices in agrarian societies, see e.g., ANET
²
, 126–28, 129–42; Harrelson, Cult, 12–13; Bright, History, 118–19; Moyer, “Purity,” 59.
869. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:23.
870. Schnabel, Missionary, 167, also highlighting the regional prominence of Zeus Bronton as patron deity of agriculture, and this deity’s connections with Hermes.
871. Note rituals (cf. Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 10.51) and propitiatory sacrifices to counter drought (Pausanias 2.29.8; Alciphron Farmers 33 [Thalliscus to Petraeus], 3.35, ¶¶1–2; rejected by Seneca Nat. Q. 4.7.3).
872. E.g., Ovid Am. 1.8.9–10; Iamblichus Bab. 10 (Photius Bibl. 94.75b); cf. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 226.
873. On Zeus as a weather deity, see Lucian Icar. 25–26; Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 37ff, 125–26; particularly in Anatolia, Rives, Religion, 60. Cf. the emphasis on Zeus’s local function here in Breytenbach, “Zeus und Gott.”
874. Cf. Parthenius Rom. 6.6; heroes in Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59; Pausanias 2.29.8; Philostratus Her. 15.6.
875. Pliny Nat. 2.39.105–6; 2.43.112 (giving a much more accurate perspective in 2.42.111). Against incantations affecting rain, see Seneca Nat. Q. 4.7.3.
876. Mufwata, Extrémités, 16; Johnson, Acts, 249; Dunn, Acts, 191.
877. Cf. e.g., God not delegating the keys of rain, in b. Sanh. 113a; Taan. 2a; Gen. Rab. 73:4; Pesiq. Rab. 42:7; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 30:22; Tg. Ps.-Jon. to Deut 28:12; cf. Josephus Ant. 18.285; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4.
878. E.g., b. B. Meṣ. 28a.
879. E.g., 1 Sam 12:17–18; Jdt 8:31; Josephus Ant. 13.343–46; 14.22; m. Taan. 3:8; t. Taan. 2:13; Ab. R. Nat. 6A; b. Taan. 8a; 19b–20a; 23ab; 24a–26a; y. Taan. 1:4, §1; 3:9, §§6–8; 3:10, §1; 3:11, §4; cf. 1 Kgs 17:1; 18:41–46; James 5:17–18; Evans, “Holy Men”; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 70, 76.
880. Lev 26:3–4; Deut 11:13–14; Sipre Deut. 41.6.4; Num. Rab. 3:12. God could withhold rain to punish sins (Deut 28:48; 1 En. 101:2; Ps. Sol. 17:18; Josephus Ant. 8.318–19; b. Taan. 7b; Lev. Rab. 35:10) or (apparently) in mourning the temple’s destruction (b. Taan. 19b).
881. T. Suk. 3:18; Eccl. Rab. 7:14, §3; Song Rab. 7:2, §2.
882. See prayers for rain then in m. Taan. 1:1; b. B. Meṣ. 28a; y. Taan. 1:1, §§1–10. Later tradition associates God’s decisions about rain with this festival (e.g., t. Ros Has. 1:13; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 7:2; y. Ros Has. 1:3, §43; perhaps also m. Ros Has. 1:2; but cf. m. Taan. 1:1), though cf. instead the New Year (soon after) in Sipre Deut. 40.4.2; y. Ros Has. 1:3, §§45–46.
883. So Moore, Judaism, 2:44–45 (comparing the functions of libations among pagans); Ringgren, Religion, 190; Harrelson, Cult, 69; Uval, “Streams.” See esp. b. Taan. 25b; cf. Zech 14:16–19.
884. Ab. R Nat. 4A; b. Taan. 19b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 52:3.
885. Pesiq. Rab. 52:3; cf. Gen. Rab. 13:5.
886. Repentance (Gen. Rab. 13:14); tithes (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:4); and almsgiving (Lev. Rab. 34:14).
887. Cf. Apollodorus Bib. 1.5.3; 3.14.4; Ovid Metam. 5.564–71; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43–49; Guthrie, Orpheus, 55–56. By now it ought to go without saying that such seasonal revivification differs starkly from the Jewish notion of resurrection behind the Christian teaching (see at greater length Keener, Historical Jesus, 334–39; Keener, John, 1172–77; esp. Wright, Resurrection, 80–81; Licona, Resurrection, 536–37).
888. Cf. also Let. Aris. 190 (trans. M. Hadas, 175): God gives humanity “health and food and all other things in due season.”
889. For one discussion of miracles as they relate both to historiography and to philosophic theology, see Keener, Miracles; in Acts, for miracle reports see Keener, Acts, 1:320–82; for signs theologically, see Keener, Acts, 1:537–49.
890. On litotes, see e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 128; cf. Rhet. Her. 4.38.50.
891. See Keener, John, 341–42, 371–72, 376–77; cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134, 147. Kee, Miracle, 199, applies this concept to Acts 14:17.
892. Grant, Gods, 49–50. Among philosophers, Stoics and Epicureans (Acts 17:18) would diverge radically on this point.