1005
. From Craig S. Keener, “Some Rhetorical Techniques in Acts
24
:
2–21
.” Pages
221–51
in Paul’s World. Ed. Stanley E. Porter. PAST
4
. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2008
. Reprinted by permission from Brill.
. See Reed, “Epistle,” esp.
182–91
; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” esp.
561–67
,
584–85
; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory,
114–26
,
280–81
; Weima, “Theory,”
329
; Weima, “Letters,”
644
.
. Of course, critics generally concede that appeal to such rhetorical patterns and ancient Mediterranean culture’s larger plausibility structures remains helpful (cf. Porter, Paul in Acts,
151
n
1
; especially Anderson, Rhetorical Theory,
127
) (certainly we should prefer them to anachronistic speculation).
. Though comparison need not denigrate in epideictic rhetoric (e.g., Menander Rhetor
2
.
1–2
,
376
.
31–377
.
2
;
2
.
3
,
378
.
18–26
,
380
.
30–31
;
2
.
6
,
402
.
26–29
;
403
.
26–32
;
404
.
5–8
;
2
.
10
,
417
.
5–17
), it normally did so in forensic speeches (e.g., Demosthenes Fals. leg.
174
; Cicero Phil.
3
.
6
.
15
). For the rhetorical technique, see further Anderson, Glossary,
22
,
110–11
; Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Marshall, Enmity,
49
,
348–53
.
. See especially Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” esp.
251–52
; Neyrey, “Forensic Defense Speech,” esp.
220–21
(his parallels are genuine and clear, though most fit
22
:
1–21
and
26
:
2–23
, not
24
:
10–21
).
. In addition to sources in the previous note, see the rhetorical outline based on Quintilian Inst.
3
.
9
.
1
in Winter, “Official Proceedings,”
323
.
. Scholars have advanced various positions on the degree of accuracy expected in ancient historians’ speeches; but see especially Gempf, “Speaking,”
299–303
.
. See especially the careful observations on these summaries in Winter, “Official Proceedings,”
307
; Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae.”
. E.g., P. Oxy. 37 and other court minutes found in Select Papyri
2
:
194–221
, §§
257–63
.
. E.g., Cicero Brut.
24
.
91
; Seneca the Elder Controv.
3
.pref.
6
; Plutarch Cic.
7
.
4
. Classical Greek attorneys wrote speeches for their clients to read (see e.g., Theophrastus Char.
17
.
8
).
. E.g., Plato Hipp. maj. and Hipp. min., passim; Apol.
38
D–
39
B. Antisophistic criticism was pervasive enough (e.g., Aristophanes Clouds
244–45
) that rhetors themselves often played on it (Demosthenes Or.
35
, Lacr.
40–41
,
56
) or sought to distance themselves from sophists (e.g., Isocrates Hel.
1
, Or.
10
; Nic.
3
.
26–27
; Antid. and Soph., passim; Sallust Sp. G. C.
4
; Dio Chrysostom
4
th Disc. on Kingship
36–37
).
. It became common to affirm the need for both (e.g., Cicero Brut.
24
.
110
; Inv.
1
.
1
.
1
; Quintilian Inst.
1
.pr.
13
,
18
). Still, the critique does continue in some first-century sages (e.g., Musonius Rufus
8
,
62
.
40
Lutz;
64
.
1–4
Lutz; Seneca Ep. Lucil.
20
.
2
;
40
.
4
; Epictetus Diatr.
3
.
23
; Aulus Gellius
5
.
3
.
7
; see also Dio Chrysostom Or. 32
.
19
in Winter, Philo and Paul,
48–49
; cf. Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
4
), and even after the rise of the Second Sophistic (e.g., Marcus Aurelius
1
.
7
;
1
.
17
.
8
).
. The alliterative pantê . . . pantachou appears in other ancient petitions and was probably conventional (cf. the similar though not alliterative Musonius Rufus
9
,
72
.
32
Lutz), like the use of pronoia in inscriptions honoring benefactors (see Harrison, “Benefaction Ideology,”
8
:
106–16
; Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,”
517
).
. E.g., Let. Aris.
1–2
.
. E.g., Phaedrus Fables
3
, epilogue lines
20–21
.
. E.g., CIL
5
.
875
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
3
,
378
.
26–380
.
3
;
2
.
10
,
417
.
28
.
. E.g., Seneca Nat. Q.
4
A, preface
3
,
13
(to the governor of Sicily).
. E.g., Pindar Ol.
2
.
95
(and other references in the note in the Loeb edition); Horace Ep.
1
.
16
.
25–39
; Juvenal Sat.
3
.
86–87
;
4
.
65–72
; Babrius Fables
77
; Phaedrus Fables
1
.
13
.
1–2
;
3
.
16
.
16–18
;
4
.
13
; Philostratus Her.
26
.
1
; Athenaeus Deipn.
6
.
236
e; Wis
14
:
17
; Josephus Life
367
; Ps.-Phoc.
91
;
1
Thess
2
:
5
. For later instructions concerning entire speeches, see Menander Rhetor
2
.
10
.
414
.
31–418
.
4
.
. E.g., Isocrates Dem.
30
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
1
.
6
.
5
; Cicero Amic.
25
.
94–26
.
99
; Off.
1
.
26
.
91
.
. E.g., Cicero Quinct.
2
.
10
;
9
.
34
;
30
.
91–92
; Rosc. Com.
3
.
7
.
. Cicero Verr.
2
.
1
.
7
.
18
; cf. similar flattery in Mil. 38
.
105
.
. Sipre Deut.
343
.
1
.
2
.
. Quintilian Inst.
4
.
1
.
20
,
23
; cf. Rhet. Alex.
18
,
1433
a.
20–24
.
. E.g., Plutarch Cic.
36
.
5
; Silius Italicus
14
.
686
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
1–2
,
373
.
7–8
;
375
.
7–8
,
18–21
;
376
.
2–23
; Chariton Chaer.
5
.
7
.
1
; cf. Rhet. Alex.
36
,
1442
a.
14–16
; Musonius Rufus
8
,
64
.
13
Lutz.
. E.g., P. Ryl.
114
.
3–5
.
. For the standard praises and their relevance to charges brought in other extant speeches, see especially Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,”
505–31
, passim but especially
507–15
.
. Josephus Ant.
20
.
161
,
168
,
171
; War
2
.
253–54
.
. See Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,” 515–16
, especially with regard to the suppression of the Egyptian prophet mentioned in Acts itself (
21
:
38
).
. See Josephus Ant.
20
.
160
,
163–81
; War
2
.
254–71
.
. Josephus Ant.
20
.
162–64
,
182
.
. For epideictic hyperbole, see e.g., Menander Rhetor
2
.
1–2
,
377
.
10–16
.
. See Winter, “Official Proceedings,”
307
; e.g., Pliny Ep.
4
.
16
.
3
; two days of forensic speeches in Valerius Maximus
5
.
8
.
3
.
. E.g., Aeschines Fals. leg.
118
; see further Witherington, Acts,
707
n
281
. Early courts depended on water-clocks to limit the length of courtroom speeches (e.g., Isaeus Men.
34
; Maximus of Tyre Or.
3
.
8
); a judge allotted each party a segment of time for speaking (Cicero Quinct.
9
.
33
).
. Cicero Brut.
43
.
158
; Orator
40
.
139
; Valerius Maximus
7
.
2
.ext.
4
; cf. advice in Rhet. Alex.
29
,
1437
b.
29–30
;
30
,
1438
a.
38–41
; Musonius Rufus
1
,
32
line
17
Lutz; particularly apt for some genres, e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or.
25
.
2
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
7
,
405
.
15–16
,
29
.
. E.g., Isaeus Phil.
19
.
. E.g., Cicero Verr.
2
.
4
.
47
.
105
;
2
.
4
.
49
.
109
; Let. Aris.
8
.
. E.g.,
26
:
3
; Isaeus Men.
2
; Lysias Or.
19
.
2
, §
152
.
. E.g., Aeschines Fals. leg.
51
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc.
55
; Dem. 18
,
20
,
24
; Lysias
5
; Seneca the Elder Controv.
1
.preface
24
; Valerius Maximus
1
. preface;
3
.
7
.
1
g; Philostratus Vit. soph.
2
.
4
.
569
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
2
.
1–2
, §
190
;
2
.
54
, §
195
;
3
.
44–45
, §
100
;
31
.
20
, §
188
; Demosthenes On the Crown
266
; Pindar Pyth.
4
.
247–48
; Nem.
4
.
33–34
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dem.
32
,
40
,
42
,
46
; Thuc.
55
; Isaeus
14
; Comp.
11
; Valerius Maximus
3
.
7
.ext.
5
; Plutarch Alex.
1
.
1
; Josephus Ag. Ap.
1
.
251
.
. Pro Amer.
32
.
89
. Cicero elsewhere might use all his time lest his opponent protest that he lacked enough to say (Verr.
2
.
1
.
9
.
24–25
).
. Cicero Quinct.
10
.
34
; cf. Lysias Or. 23
.
1
, §
166
.
. Cicero employs the need for brevity in this way (Verr.
2
.
2
.
1
.
1
;
2
.
4
.
26
.
57
;
2
.
4
.
46
.
102
;
2
.
4
.
47
.
105
;
2
.
4
.
47–48
.
118
; Flacc.
5
.
12
), as did others (Aeschines Tim.
109
; Ps.-Cic. Invect. Sall.
8
.
22
. For such insinuatio or paralipsis see Rhet. Her.
4
.
27
.
37
. Cf. an apology for going on too long—offered only once one has finished (Aelius Aristides Defense
73
, §
23
D).
. Lysias Or.
12
.
1
, §
120
.
. Lysias Or.
28
.
1
, §
179
.
. E.g., Isaeus Astyph.
16
; Sallust Cat.
5
.
1
. Cf. the advice in Rhet. Her.
4
.
50
.
63
.
. Lysias Or.
24
.
13
, §
524. On the technique, see e.g., Aristotle Rhet.
3
.
11
.
15
; Rhet. Her.
4
.
33
.
44; Cicero Orator
40
.
139
; Quintilian Inst.
8
.
6
.
73–76; Demetrius Style
2
.
124–27
;
3
.
161
; m. Ab.
2
:
8
; further, in Anderson, Glossary,
122–24
; for a caution, see Rhet. Her.
2
.
20
.
32
.
. Ps-Lysias Or.
10
.
2
, §
116
.
. Cicero Vat.
1
.
1–2
.
. Cicero Pis.
27
.
66
.
. See Lysias Or.
7
.
2
, §
108
.
. The exception would be if they could argue that he profaned it by some particular act, as a Roman soldier had done shortly before Felix became governor (Josephus War
2
.
224
; Ant.
20
.
108
).
. Cicero Verr.
2
.
4
.
40
.
86–2
.
4
.
41
.
90
(for Marcellus as one of the judges, see
2
.
4
.
42
.
90
).
. Cicero Verr.
2
.
3
.
96
.
223
.
. Some provided preemptive strikes against an opponent’s expected denials or countercharges (Aeschines Tim.
71
,
136–37
; see Rhet. Alex.
18
,
1432
b.
11–1433
b.
16
;
33
,
1439
b.
2–14
;
36
.
1442
b.
4–6
,
1443
a.
6–1443
b.
14
).
. E.g., Isaeus Arist.
1
; Rhet. Alex.
36
,
1442
a.
16–18
; Quintilian Inst.
4
.
1
.
11
; such appeals could also appear near the end of speeches (Isaeus Astyph.
35
); cf. Valerius Maximus
8
.
9
.
3
.
. See e.g., Lysias Or.
12
.
3
, §
120
;
19
.
1–2
, §
152
; Cicero Quinct.
1
.
1–4
;
24
.
77
;
26
.
80–27
.
85
; Quintilian Inst.
4
.
1
.
8–11
; for lowering expectations, cf. also Isocrates Panath.
3
, Or.
12
; Lysias Or.
2
.
1
, §
190
; Quintilian Inst.
11
.
1
.
19
;
1
Cor
2
:
3
; Maximus of Tyre Or.
18
.
6
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
4
,
391
.
14–18
; in literary works, Catullus
49
.
5–7; Seneca Nat. Q.
3
, preface
2
; Aulus Gellius
11
.
8
.
3
; Josephus Ant.
1
.
7
; Sirach prologue.
. Cicero Sest.
52
.
1
.
. CPJ
1
.
153
.
99–100
; see Sherwin-White, Society,
51
. This remains relevant even though the language was common for political dissension (Plato Prt.
322
D, in Riesner, Early Period,
100
); Claudius’s letter seems well-known and was probably long remembered in eastern Mediterranean Jewish communities.
. Cf. e.g., Isaeus Arist.
1
; Lysias Or.
5
.
2–3
, §§
102–3
;
7
.
24–29
, §§
110–11
;
16
.
12
, §
146
; Cicero Sest.
30
.
64
.
. The attempted profanation might function as evidence for the broader charge of stirring unrest among the Empire’s Jewish population (Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,”
519
), but in any case Paul’s response demonstrates that this “evidence” itself was in question.
. For Luke’s defense of Paul against the stigma of imprisonment, see Rapske, “Defense.” Luke’s apologetic probably addresses Roman concerns (see Légasse, “Apologétique,” esp.
253–55
; though for possible evangelistic elements, see Tannehill, “Paul’s Defense”).
. For followers forcing change, cf. Xenophon Mem.
1
.
2
.
10
. Romans did prefer to execute especially ringleaders (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
3
.
40
.
3
;
5
.
43
.
2
; cf. John
18
:
8
), though often they executed many followers as well (e.g., Josephus Ant.
17
.
295
).
. In contrast to many scholars, I believe that leaders of the Jerusalem church might have been willing to offer some testimony to this effect. Nevertheless, it was probably not solicited by the court and could only have damaged the Jerusalem church’s own local political situation.
. Ramsay, Pictures,
291
. For a discussion of the political issues here, see Rapske, Custody,
164–66
.
. One criterion for praising a governor is the way he treats trials of individuals (Menander Rhetor
2
.
4
,
389
.
6–7
).
. E.g., Isocrates Antid.
323
, Or.
15
; Lysias Or.
9
.
21
, §
116
; Cicero Deiot.
15
.
43
; Quinct.
1
.
5
;
2
.
1
; Fam.
2
.
4
.
2
; cf. Publilius Syrus
98
;
1
Thess
4
:
9
; Phlm
19
,
21
; Heb
6
:
9
.
. Isaeus Nic.
31
.
. Lysias Or.
15
.
1
, §
144
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
9
.
29
.
3
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
14
.
47
, §
144
;
16
.
21
, §
147
; Aeschines Tim.
196
; Ctes.
260
.
. Aeschines Tim.
107
.
. See Ferguson, Backgrounds,
50
.
. For the practice, see e.g., Lysias Murder of Eratosthenes
16
; Demosthenes Olymp.
18–19
; Rhet. Her.
2
.
7
.
10
; and sources in Keener, “Family,”
363
.
. Winter, “Official Proceedings,”
324
, citing Quintilian Inst.
5
.
21
.
51
.
. E.g., Isaeus Cleon.
41
; Men.
19
; Cicero Mil.
11
.
30
.
. E.g., Isaeus Arist.
23
.
. E.g., Isaeus Astyph. 19
.
. See e.g., Petronius Sat.
14
; Phaedrus Fables
3
.
5
; Jas
2
:
6
; Garnsey, Status and Privilege.
. Cf. Cicero’s efforts to predispose his hearers against wealthy Verres by drawing attention to legal corruption (Verr.
1
.
1
.
1
;
1
.
3
.
8
;
1
.
5
.
13
;
1
.
15
.
45
); likewise Libanius Decl.
36
.
8–9
; perhaps t. Sanh.
1
:
7–8
; Abot R. Nat.
33
, §
73
B.
. In paired declamations on two sides of an issue, the second was often the preferred side (e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 15–16
;
23–24
).
. E.g., Terence Eun.
10–13
; Apuleius Metam.
10
.
7
; Chariton Chaer.
5
.
4
.
9
; t. Sanh.
6
:
3
.
. Cicero Quinct.
2
.
9
;
9
.
33
. Tannaim normally made an exception in capital cases (m. Sanh.
4
:
1
; t. Sanh.
7
:
2
).
. Cf. e.g., Chariton Chaer.
5
.
6
.
11
.
. For nodding to confirm permission or assent, see e.g., Catullus
64
.
202–6
; Callimachus Hymn
3
[to Artemis],
39–40
; Hymn
5
[on Pallas’s Bath],
131–36
.
. Tajra, Trial,
125
.
. See Conzelmann, Acts,
199
; Porter, Paul in Acts,
155
, citing P. Lond.
6
.
1912
.
22
. “Many” suggests no fewer years than the possibly six implied in
24
:
17
. For prayer for continuing “years” of a governor’s rule, see Menander Rhetor
2
.
10
,
417
.
29–30
.
. Favoring
52 CE
, see e.g., Hemer, Acts in History,
129
,
172
. Riesner, Early Period,
219–21
, argues for
49 CE
.
. Philosophers emphasized avoidance of flattery (Epictetus Diatr.
1
.
9
.
20
;
1
.
12
;
4
.
6
.
33
;
4
.
7
.
24
; Diogenes Laertius
6
.
1
.
4
;
6
.
2
.
51
;
6
.
5
.
92
; Marcus Aurelius
1
.
16
.
4
). Paul in his letters (see e.g., Fitzgerald, Cracks) and to a fuller extent Luke in Acts often use Greek models of ideal philosophers to portray Paul’s ministry.
. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
11
.
9
.
1
; Plutarch Aem. Paul.
11
.
3
; Flatt.
1–37
, Mor.
48
E–
74
E.
. Xenophon Mem.
4
.
4
.
4
; cf. Epictetus Diatr.
2
.
2
.
17–18
;
2
Macc
7
; Acts
7
:
51–53
.
. On the ignominious aftermath of Felix’s governorship, see Josephus Ant.
20
.
182
; discussion in Keener, Acts,
4
:
3443–44
; cf.
3439–41
.
. See Josephus Ant.
20
.
160
,
163–81; War
2
.
254–71
in the context of corrupt governors before the revolt. Cf. Cicero’s sarcastic “praise” of Verres’s maladministration of Sicily (Verr.
2
.
5
.
10
.
25
).
. See Quintilian Inst.
4
.
1
.
16
.
. See e.g., Phaedrus Fables
3
.
13
.
4
.
. Josephus War
2
.
224
; Ant.
20
.
106–7
.
. Luke may implicitly contrast the responses to Peter’s Pentecost sermon (
2
:
41–42
) and Paul’s (
22
:
22–24
), although omitting explicit mention of Pentecost in the latter (perhaps because his sources were not explicit and/or it was not the precise date; if Felix was in Jerusalem for the festival, he left before Paul’s arrest perhaps a few days later,
21
:
27
;
23
:
24
).
. Alternatively, the duration suggests that he had not been present long enough “to foment a rebellion!” (Dunn, Acts,
313
), questionable though that argument might be; or that “his stay is easily reviewed” (Conzelmann, Acts,
199
) or that witnesses remain available (Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,”
524
; the last two suggestions are potentially compatible with ours).
. E.g., Hermogenes Issues
47
.
8–11
(though focusing on prosecutors).
. Herodian
5
.
1
.
2
(in a speech attributed to Macrinus). For appeals to shared or public knowledge, see also Luke
1
:
4
; Acts
26
:
4
,
26
; Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
107
; Life
361
; Demosthenes Mid.
1
,
80
; Plato Apol.
32
E; Cicero Verr.
2
.
4
.
52
.
117
; Sallust Sp. G. C.
4
; Euripides Heracl.
219
.
. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
26
.
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
17
.
. For questions in public intellectual settings, see e.g., Plutarch Lect.
11
, Mor.
43
B; Aulus Gellius
1
.
26
.
2
;
8
.
10
;
12
.
5
.
4
;
16
.
6
.
1–12
;
18
.
13
.
7–8
;
20
.
10
.
1–6
; t. Sanh.
7
:
10
; Abot R. Nat.
6
A.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
24
.
24
, §
170
;
25
.
14
, §
172
; Hermogenes Issues
45
.
1–2
; John
8
:
46
.
. Aeschines Fals. leg. passim; Isaeus Cleon.
49
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Comp.
3
; Cicero Mur.
6
.
13
; Flacc.
15
.
34
; Rosc. Amer.
29
.
79
; Aelius Aristides Defense
242
, §
75
D. Only very obvious information did not require evidence (Polybius
12
.
25
K.
9
).
. E.g., Lysias Or.
29
.
5
, §
181
; Cicero Rosc. Amer.
23
.
64–65
.
. E.g., Isaeus Nic.
9
.
. Josephus Ant.
17
.
131
.
. Lysias Or.
27
.
12–13
, §
178–79
.
. For the importance of this matter of definition (perhaps akin to rhetorical orismos) for Luke’s apologetic, see Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 278
.
. See e.g., Solon’s laws in Aeschines Tim.
35
.
. See e.g., Lord, “Introduction,”
358
.
. Aristotle Rhetoric
1
.
15
.
17
,
1376
a. Classical rhetorical handbooks favored arguments from probability over direct evidence, but later orators more frequently employed evidence as a basis for probability (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric,
20–21
).
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
11
.
34
.
1–6
; Arrian Alex.
3
.
3
.
6
; Plutarch Arist.
19
.
5–6
.
. Demosthenes Pant.
23
; Lysias Or.
4
.
5–6
, §
101
;
7
.
12–18
, §§
109–10
;
12
.
27–28
, §
122
;
29
.
7
, §
182
; Isaeus Pyr.
27
; Cleon.
22
.
37
. In apologetic literature, e.g., Josephus Life
350
; Ag. Ap.
2
.
82
.
. Cicero Quinct.
25
.
78–80
.
. Isaeus Cleon.
12
.
36–37
.
. Isaeus Astyph.
14–15
.
. Cicero Quinct.
24
.
76
.
. E.g., Aeschines Tim.
123–26
.
. See e.g., Lord, “Introduction,”
358
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
7
.
30–33
, §
111
;
16
;
18
; Isaeus Cleon.
1
.
35
; Rhet. Alex.
36
,
1442
a.
29–32
;
1443
b.
34–38
; Rhet. Her.
4
.
50
.
63
; Cicero Verr.
2
.
1
.
6
.
17
; Valerius Maximus
2
.
10
.
1
;
8
.
5
.
6
. Cf. Verres’s potential defense in Cicero Verr.
2
.
5
.
1
.
2
(refuted in
2
.
5
.
2
.
5–2
.
5
.
6
.
14
). In philosophy, see e.g., Musonius Rufus
1
,
36
.
4–12
, Lutz.
. Appian Hist. rom.
11
.
7
.
40–41
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
19
.
24
, §
154
; Cicero Sull.
24
.
68
, developed further in
24
.
69–28
.
77
.
. While this was good rhetoric, it is more consistent with the Paul of the epistles than many critics allow; see Rom
9
—
11
, especially
9
:
1–5
; also Paul’s collection (see Hill, Hellenists,
173–78
).
. The strategy appears in other texts, e.g., Philostratus Her.
8
.
8
.
. E.g., Xenophon Hell.
1
.
7
.
16–17
; Libanius Decl.
36
.
28
;
44
.
57–59
; cf. Valerius Maximus
8
.
1
.acquittals
12
; Maximus of Tyre Or.
3
.
4
. On such synchoresis (concessio), see e.g., Rowe, “Style,”
146–47
; cf. paromologia in Anderson, Rhetorical Theory,
224
; Anderson, Glossary,
92
.
. Josephus Life
139
.
. Cf. Aulus Gellius
12
.
12
.
1
.
. Cf. Xenophon Hell.
2
.
3
.
27
;
5
.
11
.
32
; Rhet. Alex.
29
.
1437
a.
14–17
. This is not strictly concessio, which confesses wrongdoing and seeks pardon, especially in the form deprecatio (Cicero Inv.
1
.
11
.
15
;
2
.
31
.
94
;
2
.
34
.
104
; cf. e.g., Phaedrus Fables
3
, epilogue
22
).
. Agesilaus in Xenophon Hell.
5
.
11
.
32
; Epaminondas in Appian Hist. rom.
11
.
7
.
41
; see Rhet. Alex.
36
.
1442
b.
6–9
;
1444
b.
9–20
; Hermogenes Issues
39
.
1–5
. Cf. the similar argument from necessity as a form of purgatio, a kind of concessio (Cicero Inv.
2
.
31
.
94
).
. See Rhet. Alex.
7
,
1428
a.
26–30
.
. Rhet. Alex.
36
,
1443
b.
34–38
.
. As in the later Libanius Decl.
36
.
1–3
.
. See e.g., Hermogenes Issues
73
.
6–7
.
. Beyond the basic affirmation of
24
:
15
, apparently even many Pharisees diverged. Many denied eternal torment for the wicked (t. Sanh.
13
:
3–4
; see Keener, Matthew,
129
; possibly
4
Macc
7
:
14
), a view that seemed to become more prominent over time (b. Abod. Zar.
3
b-
4
a; Shab.
33
b; R.H.
17
a; Gen. Rab.
26
:
2
; Tg. Jon. on
1
Sam
2
:
9
). Many Palestinian Jews, however, undoubtedly affirmed it (see e.g.,
1
En.
22
:
13
;
61
:
5
;
2
Bar.
51
:
1–2
;
4
Macc
9
:
9
;
12
:
12
; t. Sanh.
13
:
5
; cf. b. Sanh.
108
a, bar.; John
5
:
29
; Rev
20
:
4–5
).
. Still, Pharisees would have disapproved extrajudicial killings (cf. the plots in
23
:
12–15
;
25
:
3
) and most probably respected at least James (cf. Josephus Ant.
20
.
200–203
).
. See Josephus Ant.
18
.
9
,
11
. Others used these phrases for Greek schools of philosophy (Epictetus Diatr.
2
.
19
.
20
; Van der Horst, “Macrobius,”
226
, cites Macrobius Comm.
2
.
14
.
6
; Van der Horst, “Hierocles,”
157
, cites Hierocles
37
, col.
8
,
10
).
. For one recent discussion of competing interpretations, see Porter, Paul in Acts,
181
.
. On the piety presupposed in such gifts, see e.g., Tobit
1
:
3
,
16
; other sources in Keener, Matthew,
209–10
,
229–30
.
. E.g., the general in Thucydides
2
.
89
.
1–2
(although he still lost the battle,
2
.
90
.
4–56
).
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Isaeus
3
,
9
; Cicero Quinct.
3
.
11–9
.
33
(the entire narratio).
. Cf. Aeschines Tim.
1–3
.
. Aeschines Tim., passim. In other cases one brought countercharges after one’s own acquittal (e.g., Thucydides
3
.
70
.
3–4
).
. Cicero Cael.
13
.
31
;
24
.
60
.
. Rhetorical handbooks warned speakers not to appear malicious if charging relatives (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
24
); as common as prosecuting relatives was, it was deemed shameful under normal circumstances (e.g., Isaeus Cleon.
6
.
35
; Lysias Or.
32
.
1–2
, §§
498–99
). The same principle may apply here (as in
1
Cor
6
:
5–6
).
. On Roman anti-Semitism, see e.g., Sevenster, Anti-Semitism; Gager, Anti-Semitism.
. E.g., Cicero Mur.
29
.
60
, who cannot afford to alienate Marcus Cato; further, ideal harmony included fellow citizens not charging each other (Philostratus Vit. soph.
1
.
25
.
532
), and lack of complaints about treatment could be viewed as noble (Valerius Maximus
2
.
2
.
5
).
. E.g., Aeschines Embassy
14
,
56
; Xenophon Hell.
2
.
3
.
37
; Cicero Rosc. Amer.
30
.
82–45
.
132
. In early Christian texts, see e.g., Acts
6
:
11
,
13
with
7
:
51–53
; Matt
12
:
24
with
12
:
43–45
; John
8
:
44
and
8
:
48
.
. Orator
40
.
137
; the Loeb edition’s note cites other references in Cicero. Rhetorical handbooks suggested this practice (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
24
).
. Aeschines Fals. leg.
3
; cf. Ctes.
113
,
156
,
259
(or of offering bribes in
69
). Aeschines objects to reversing charges when it works against his own cause, however (Tim.
179
).
. Aeschines Fals. leg.
69
.
. Cicero Sest.
37
.
80
(LCL translation
145
). He borrows this technique of mock surprise while returning charges from earlier Greek rhetors (e.g., Lysias Or.
3
.
1
, §
96
).
. E.g., Demosthenes Fals. leg.
174
; Cicero Verr.
2
.
4
.
54
.
121
; Caec.
12
.
37
; Brut.
93
.
321–22
; Pis.
22
.
51
. Antithesis was a standard rhetorical category (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
14
; see further Anderson, Glossary,
21–22
).
. For ellipsis as a pathos technique revealing emotional intensity, see e.g., Gal
2
:
3–4
; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §§
467
,
480–83
(though I would see this as aposiopesis); cf. the brief anacoluthon for effect in Epictetus Diatr.
3
.
1
.
31
.
. With Conzelmann, Acts,
199
.
. E.g., Cicero Agr.
24
.
63–64
; Verr.
1
.
5
.
14
;
2
.
3
.
24
.
59
;
2
.
4
.
52
.
116
;
2
.
5
.
5
.
11
;
2
.
5
.
8
.
20–21
.
. Pis.
2
.
3
(LCL
147
).
. Cat.
1
.
6
.
14
.
. Vat.
5
.
13
.
. E.g., Demosthenes Cor.
268
; Cicero Sest.
26
.
56
; Aelius Aristides Defense
408
, §§
138
D–
139
D; Phlm
19
; Heb
11
:
32
. The technique is called paralipsis (Rhet. Her.
4
.
27
.
37
; see further Rowe, “Style,”
149
).
. Speakers sometimes recapitulated earlier statements later in the speech (e.g., Demosthenes Fals. leg.
177
).
. Lysias Or.
3
.
39
, §
99
; Aeschines Fals. leg.
122–23
; Hermogenes Issues
69
.
3–13
; cf. Maximus of Tyre Or.
18
.
6
.
. E.g., Isaeus Hagnias
6
; Cleon.
31–32
, §
37
; Hermogenes Issues
45
.
21–46
.
8
.
. E.g., Isaeus Ciron
10–12
; Lysias Or.
4
.
10–12
, §
101
;
7
.
34–40
, §
111; Cicero Rosc. Amer.
28
.
77–78
;
41
.
120
.
. Lysias Or.
7
.
34
, §
111
; Aeschines Fals. leg.
128
; Aristotle Rhetoric
1
.
15
.
26
,
1376
b; Cicero Sull.
28
.
78
; Deiot.
1
.
3
; Quintilian Inst.
5
.
4
.
1
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
7
.
19–23
, §
110
;
7
.
43
, §
112
.
. So Cicero Flacc.
15
.
34
, where any witnesses would have needed to have traveled from Greece to Rome.
. Libanius Decl.
44
.
17
(establishing in
44
.
20–24
that this is a crime which should have produced many witnesses).
. Sherwin-White, Society,
52–53
; Fitzmyer, Acts,
737
.
. Cicero Quinct.
23
.
75
.
. See e.g., Diodorus Siculus
12
.
12
.
2
; Sallust Cat.
16
.
2
; Sp. Phil.
15
; Inv. M. T.
2
; Cicero Invect. Sall.
5
.
14
; Propertius Eleg.
3
.
6
.
20
.
. The penalty was death in Roman (Ferguson, Backgrounds,
51
) and Jewish (Deut
19
:
16–21; Josephus Ant.
4
.
219
;
11
QTemple
61
.
7–11; m. Mak.
1
:
7
; t. Sanh.
6
:
6
; Sipre Deut.
190
.
5
.
1
) law as well as Egyptian custom (Diodorus Siculus
1
.
77
.
2
).
. Cross-examination was also standard in Jewish law (Sus
48–62
; m. Ab.
1
:
9
; Sanh.
5
:
1–4
; t. Sanh.
6
:
3
,
6
; Sipre Deut.
93
.
2
.
1
;
149
.
1
.
1–2
;
189
.
1
.
3
).
. See e.g., Cicero Verr.
2
.
3
.
30
.
71
: “conceal if you can your certainty of what all Sicily saw clearly . . . ” (LCL
2
:
84–85); Josephus Life
257
.
. E.g., Plutarch Alc.
3
.
1
.
. Cicero Rosc. Amer.
22
.
61–62
.
. See Cicero Rosc. Amer.
2
.
6
.
. Demosthenes Fals. leg.
120
. For synoeciosis (conciliatio), seeking to turn one’s opponents’ evidence against their position, see Rowe, “Style,”
145–46
.
. E.g., Aeschines Tim.
107
.
. Cicero Cael.
9
.
22
. In practice this would mean especially arguments from probability.
. See Isaeus Astyph.
18
; Acts
26
:
5
.
. E.g., Aeschines Ctes.
1
; Gal
2
:
12
;
1
Tim
1
:
3
.
. Josephus argues against Judaism’s critics in this way in Ag. Ap.
1
.
219–20
,
267
,
286
;
2
.
8–27
,
148
.
. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys.
15
. One could also use internal consistency to evaluate historical claims (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom.
3
.
35
.
5–6
; Plutarch Them.
27
.
1
).
. Lawyers sometimes did appeal to widely known gossip (e.g., Demosthenes Mid.
1
,
80
; Cicero Verr.
1
.
5
.
15
;
2
.
1
.
40
.
103
), but this was open to challenge if one had nothing else to cite (Aeschines Tim. 44–45
).
. Cicero Quinct.
25
.
78–80
.
. E.g., Lysias Or.
3
.
39
, §
99
;
4
.
13
, §
101
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys. 33 (quoting Lysias Or.
34
); Cicero Quinct.
6
.
22
; Rosc. com.
16
.
46; Mur.
6
.
13
; Quinct.
6
.
22
; in apologetic or polemic, John
8
:
44
; Josephus Ag. Ap.
2
.
79
,
85
,
90
,
98
,
111
,
115
,
121
,
122
,
147
,
289
.
. Cicero Cael.
29
.
69
.