954
. From Craig S. Keener, “Paul’s ‘Friends’ the Asiarchs (Acts
19
.
31
),” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
3
(
2006
):
134–41
. Reprinted by permission from Sheffield Phoenix.
. See Winter, Philo and Paul,
149–51
(focusing especially on
1
Cor
2
:
3
).
. See more fully Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,”
119–30
.
. Keener, Background Commentary,
380
; Keener, “Friendship,”
386
.
. Witherington, Acts,
595
; Parsons, Acts,
369
; cf. Strelan, Artemis,
146
.
. For the egalitarian ideal of friendship, see Homer Il.
18
.
81–82
; Aristotle Eth. eud.
7
.
9
.
1
,
1241
b; but Aristotle defined “equality” proportionately rather than quantitatively—Eth. nic.
8
.
7
.
2–3
,
1158
b. See more fully, Keener, “Friendship,”
380–82
; Keener, John,
1008–9
.
. For clients as friends, see e.g., Martial Epig.
3
.
36
.
1–3
;
3
Macc
5
:
26
; for patrons, e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Comp.
1
; Valerius Maximus Deeds and Sayings
7
.
8
.
7
,
8
; Philostratus Her.
4
.
3
;
10
.
2
. See also “friends of the king” and other political uses of friendship language in Keener, “Friendship,”
380–81
.
. E.g., Cicero Verr.
1
.
7
.
18
; Plutarch Ages.
23
.
6
; Pomp.
70
.
4
; Statecraft
13
, Mor.
806
F–
809
B; more fully, Keener, “Friendship,”
381
; on mutual obligation, Alciphron Farmers
12
.
3
.
15
; Fishermen
7
.
1
.
7
; Evans, “Friendship,”
202
.
. See Garnsey and Saller, Empire,
148–49
.
. See e.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire,
151–52
; Winter, Left Corinth,
188–89
.
. Marshall, Enmity, passim, e.g.,
174–77
,
227–32
,
257; cf. Socrates in Xenophon Mem.
1
.
26
.
. MacMullen, Social Relations,
25
,
40
,
47
; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt,
77–82
; deSilva, Honor,
99–100
. In New Testament studies, see e.g., Elliott, “Patronage.”
. For indications in Paul’s letters of his contacts with the elite, see esp. Gill, “Élites,”
105–18
.
. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,”
155–56
(and cf.
180–93
).
. Commentators sometimes suggest the possibility of a wealthy benefactor, e.g., Dunn, Acts,
258
; Witherington, Acts,
575
.
. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,”
154–55
, citing e.g., I. Eph.
2065
.
. See e.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire,
149
; Winter, Left Corinth,
189–90
; Marshall, Enmity,
32
.
. Cf. Taylor, “Asiarchs,”
256
; Cadbury, Acts in History,
42–43
; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,”
138–49
,
163
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
9
.
10
,
13
, §
115
; cf. Aeschines Tim.
193–95
; Cicero Scaur.
17
.
38
. On urban enmity relationships in ancient literature, see Marshall, Enmity,
35–69
.
. See e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment,
48
; Marshall, Luke,
280
.
. For proselytes with honor in the synagogues, see e.g., CIJ
1
:
384
, §
523
.
. Cf. CIJ
2
:
16
, §
751
; Goodenough, Symbols,
12
:
191
; Mitten, “Look,”
61–62
,
65
; Hanfmann, “Campaign,”
23
ff; Meyers and Kraabel, “Remains,”
184–85
,
192
; Seager and Kraabel, “Synagogue”; Trebilco, Communities,
37–54
; Botermann, “Synagoge”; Bonz, “Approaches”; Gilbert, “Civic Life”; cf. Kroll, “Greek Inscriptions”; Edwards, “Nomen Sacrum”; though the synagogue might be from the Byzantine era (cf. Botermann, “Synagoge”; Magness, “Synagogue”).
. Note the God-fearers inscription there; cf. Tannenbaum, “God-Fearers”; Feldman, “Sympathizers”; Levinskaya, “Inscription and Problem”; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting,
51–82
(cf. also
105–26
); van der Horst, “Aphrodisias”; Gempf, “God-Fearers”; Trebilco and Evans, “Diaspora Judaism,”
286–87
; Trebilco, “Communities,”
566
; Noy, “Inscriptions,”
540
; Judge, Athens,
121–29
.
. See especially R. A. Kearsley, in Horsley, Documents,
4
, §
14
, pp.
53–55
; Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis”; Kearsley, “Asiarchs (
1994
),”
366
; Kearsley, “Asiarchs (ABD)”; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” esp.
137–38
.
. See Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,”
5
.
. See e.g., Diodorus Siculus
10
.
4
.
4–6
; Valerius Maximus Deeds and Sayings
2
.
6
.
11
;
4
.
7
, passim; Musonius Rufus
7
,
58
.
23
(Lutz); Epictetus Diatr.
2
.
7
.
3
; Philostratus Her.
51
.
12
; John
15
:
13
; for much fuller documentation, see Keener, “Friendship,”
383–84
. Occasionally this might be applied to patronal ideology (see deSilva, Honor,
136
).
. The usually-cited figures of
24
,
000–25
,
000
are more relevant to the early second century (see Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,”
1026
). It was, however, already being expanded under Nero (Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,”
8
).
. So many scholars understand Suetonius Claud.
25
.
4
(e.g., Smallwood, Jews,
211
; Leon, Jews of Rome,
24–26
); though the matter has long been debated (cf. e.g., Benko, “Edict”).
. On avoiding those convicted of crimes, see e.g., Theophrastus Char.
29
.
2
. Those never convicted could more easily appeal to a burden of proof in their favor (Isaeus Arist.
1
; Lysias Or.
5
.
2–3
, §§
102–3
;
7
.
24–29
, §§
110–11
;
16
.
12
, §
146
; Cicero Sest.
30
.
64
).
. See e.g., Sir
6
:
7–16
;
12
:
8
; Valerius Maximus
3
.
8
.ext.
5–6
; Musonius Rufus
9
, p.
68
.
13–15
(Lutz); much more fully, Keener, “Friendship,”
382–83
. For “trust” in patronal friendships, see Marshall, Enmity,
21–24
.
. Cicero Handb. Elec.
45
; Rhet. Her.
3
.
3
.
4
.
. See e.g., Marshall, Enmity, 42–43
.