Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1-23:35 9780801048388, 0801048389

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
Part 5: Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)
Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)
Excursus: Circumcision
Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)
Excursus: Dreams
Excursus: Acts and First-Person Usage in Some Ancient Historians
Excursus: Purple
Excursus: Patrons, Clients, and Reciprocity
Excursus: Hospitality
Excursus: Pythoness Spirits
Excursus: Demons and Spirit Possession
Excursus: Ancient Anti-Judaism
Excursus: Suicide in Antiquity
Excursus: Epicureans
Excursus: Stoicism
Excursus: Baths in Greco-Roman Antiquity
Part 6: To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)
Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)
Excursus: Acts and the Pastorals
Excursus: Prophetesses
Excursus: Why Mention Their Virginity?
Dangers in Jerusalem (21:17–23:35)
Excursus: Hostility to Paul’s Temple Theology?
Excursus: The Defense Speeches of Acts 22–26, Especially 22:2–21

Citation preview

Praise for Volume One “Somewhat surprisingly, a socio-historical approach to Acts still needs to be defended and its value demonstrated. No one does this better—is more informed about ancient literature, parallels, and precedents, and more interactively and fruitfully engaged with contemporary literature and issues—than Craig Keener. For anyone wanting to appreciate how Acts ‘worked’ in its original context and to get into the text at some depth, Keener will be indispensable and ‘first off the shelf.’” —James D. G. Dunn, University of Durham “Keener takes very seriously the claim of the book of Acts to be historiography. His encyclopedic knowledge of ancient literature and his intelligent skill as an exegete make this a magisterial commentary.” —Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews; Ridley Hall, Cambridge “Keener’s magnum opus is a rich resource that will serve Acts scholars for years to come. . . . A scholar with extensive knowledge of Jewish and Greco-Roman materials, Keener brings this expertise to his commentary, introducing scores of relevant citations to subsequent scholars of Acts. . . . This volume is the result of the careful, balanced work of a senior scholar. Any serious scholar will want to have this valuable commentary ready-tohand.” —Daniel L. Smith, Review of Biblical Literature “To my knowledge, Keener’s four-volume project . . . is by far the largest single-author work on Acts to date. . . . Keener’s strong suit has always been his impressive acquaintance with the literary environment of the New Testament. . . . He is also remarkably thorough in citing other scholars. . . . Anyone concerned with Acts is best advised to take account of this extensive study from a widely read and dedicated scholar.” —Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 1

“This promises to be the most comprehensive commentary on Acts to date. Keener pre­sents a socio-historical reading of the text with meticulous precision, and his knowledge of scholarly research is impressive. The book of Acts is read as a historiographical work in which its author rewrites traditions; the documentation from ancient Jewish literature is exceptionally rich. Keener treats hermeneutical issues and the historical reliability of the text astutely and clearly. From now on, any exegesis of Acts will need to take into account this major work.” —Daniel Marguerat, University of Lausanne, Switzerland “As one has come to expect from Keener, there is thorough knowledge and use of the best and most important secondary literature and abundant utilization of a wide range of ancient sources. This is a commentary that will continue to serve as a detailed resource for both scholars and students wishing to explore the book of Acts.” —Stanley E. Porter, McMaster Divinity College “Craig Keener has provided us with a rich gem of a commentary on Acts. One can use it and get a real sense of what this key work is all about.” —Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary “By almost any measure, Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts is a remarkable achieve­ment. . . . He is thoroughly engaged with a wide range of critical studies of Acts and related writings. Keener also brings to the study of Acts a deep and extensive acquaintance with ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish literature, and the result is a rich, detailed commentary packed with abundant and useful information. . . . I am unable to agree with many of his convictions about Acts but am compelled to admire his well-conceived and well-documented arguments and interpretations.” —Joseph Tyson, Review of Biblical Literature

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Praise for Volume Two “Acts has now taken a new step forward . . . the starting point for all Acts scholarship from now on!” —Scot McKnight, Northern Seminary “This is the most expansive treatment of Acts in modern scholarship. Keener offers the reader a sweeping tour of the relevant ancient material and modern scholarship on Acts. He takes Acts seriously as a work of ancient history; at the same time, he is aware of the literary and rhetorical dimensions of the text.” —Gregory E. Sterling, Yale Divinity School “Craig Keener, a master of primary and secondary sources, has crafted another meticulous commentary that is a joy to read. It is full of information that shows Keener’s unusual industriousness and precision. Highly recommended.” —James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary “A magnificent achievement. This volume continues in the same vein as the first, with superbly detailed exegesis of the text as well as many helpful excursuses on more general topics of interest—with a wealth of material to back up all the claims made. Without any shadow of doubt, an indispensable reference work for all students of Acts and early Christianity.” —Christopher Tuckett, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; president of the Society for New Testament Studies (2013) “Craig Keener has proved himself to be one of the greatest living commentators on the New Testament. This second volume on Acts— packed with an incredible amount of contextual information as well as wisdom about the text itself—is bound to become a standard reference work for many years to come.” —Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary; St. Andrews University, Scotland

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 2

“This commentary is so thorough and comprehensive that it can truly be said to ‘leave no stone unturned.’ Keener has singlehandedly wrought an encyclopedic work, the likes of which only whole teams of scholars have been able to produce in multivolume compendia. It therefore will be the first commentary to which scholars, students, and pastors will turn with any question on the text of Acts.” —Seyoon Kim, Fuller Theological Seminary “Keener’s commentary on Acts is a tour de force. One might be daunted by such hefty volume(s) on one book of the New Testament, but be reassured: this commentary may be all that you will ever need on Acts. It is not only exhaustive in its historical detail, it is rich in inspiring interpretation.” —David E. Garland, George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University “This is the second of a projected four volumes of Craig Keener’s monumental commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. To describe this as ‘monumental’ is an understatement. In size alone it will certainly be the most extensive commentary on Acts ever penned. . . . More important than its size, however, is the quality of Keener’s scholarship and his interpretation of this key New Testament book. . . . Keener musters a truly impressive array of knowledge about the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts of the first century and has a command of the extensive literature on the Acts of the Apostles and related topics. This will certainly remain a standard resource work for study of Acts.” —Donald Senior, CP, The Bible Today

6/18/14 10:14 AM

ACTS

AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY VO L UM E 3

15 :1— 23 : 35

CR AIG S. KEENER

K _Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 3

6/18/14 10:14 AM

© 2014 by Craig S. Keener Published by Baker Academic a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakeracademic.com Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Keener, Craig S., 1960– Acts : an exegetical commentary / Craig S. Keener. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8010-4838-8 (cloth) 1. Bible. N.T. Acts—Commentaries. I. Title. BS2625.53.K446 2012 266.6 077—dc222011048744 Unless noted otherwise, all translations of Scripture are those of the author. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20   7 6 5 4 3 2 1

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 4

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents Abbreviations    xiv

Part 5: Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)    2193 Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)    2194

1. Introduction a. The Relevance of Galatians 2:1–10 i. Arguments Favoring Galatians 2:1–10 as the Famine Visit of Acts 11:30 ii. Against Arguments That Galatians 2:1–10 Is the Famine Visit iii. Other Arguments for Galatians 2:1–10 as the Jerusalem Council b. The Decrees of Acts 15:20, 28–29 i. No Decrees in Paul’s Letters ii. Why Not in 1 Corinthians? iii. Does Luke Conflate Two Events? c. The Significance of Acts 15 i. Significance for Luke ii. Did Luke Invent Consensus? iii. Shifting Consensus? 2. Conflict over Circumcising Gentiles (15:1–5) a. Conflict at Antioch (15:1–2) i. Shifting Politics Affects the Church (15:1) ii. Galatians and the Antioch Conflict iii. Circumcision for Salvation? (15:1)

Excursus: Circumcision    2215 1. The Importance of Circumcision 2. Circumcision in a Missionary Setting 3. Biblical Concerns iv. Seeking Resolution from Jerusalem (15:2) b. Received by the Churches (15:3–4) i. Reporting in Phoenicia and Samaria (15:3) ii. Reporting in Jerusalem (15:4) c. Insistence on Circumcision (15:5) i. Pharisaic Believers ii. Arguments and Power



3. Peter and the Missionaries Invoke God’s Acts (15:6–12) a. Leaders’ Discussion (15:6–7a) b. Peter Invokes God’s Example (15:7b–11) i. Tradition? ii. Recalling the Cornelius Incident (15:7–9) iii. Testing God by Yoking Gentiles (15:10) iv. Saved the Same Way (15:11) c. Paul and Barnabas Recount Signs (15:12) 4. James’s Biblical Proposal (15:13–21) a. The Speech and the Historical James b. James’s Introduction (15:13–14) c. Amos’s Prophecy (15:15–18) i. James’s Words ii. Use of the Septuagint iii. The Sense in Amos iv. James’s Interpretation v. David’s Tent (15:16) vi. Turning of Gentiles (15:17) d. James’s Compromise Solution (15:19–21) i. The Proposed Decree (15:19–20) ii. Proposed Backgrounds of the Decree (1) Moral Interpretation (2) Avoiding Pagan Temples (3) Laws for Sojourners (4) Noahide Laws iii. Content of the Decree (1) Idol Food (2) Sexual Immorality (3) Avoid Blood (and Strangled Animals) iv. Plausibility of the Decree v. Law Observance Will Not Suffer (15:21) 5. The Consensus Decree (15:22–29) a. Choosing Emissaries (15:22) b. Greetings (15:23) c. The Letter Body (15:24–29)

v

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 5

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



i. Dissociation from the Schismatics (15:24) ii. The Importance of Harmony (15:25) iii. The Council’s Consensus (15:25) iv. Recommending Judas and Silas (15:26–27) v. A Charismatic Decree (15:28–29) 6. Delivering the Message in Antioch (15:30–35) a. Delivering the Letter (15:30–31) b. Receiving Jerusalem’s Delegates (15:32–33) c. Who Remains? (15:34–35)



Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)    2297

1. New Colleagues, Old Areas (15:36–16:5) a. Conflict with Barnabas over Mark (15:36–39) i. Following Up on Converts (15:36) ii. Barnabas’s Loyalty to Mark (15:37) iii. Paul’s Concern with Mark (15:38) iv. The Missionary Schism and History (15:39) v. A Negative Portrayal (15:39) b. Strengthening Churches in Syria and Cilicia (15:40–41) c. Recruiting Half-Greek Timothy (16:1–3) i. Travel to Derbe and Lystra (16:1) ii. Jewish-Gentile Intermarriage (16:1) iii. Timothy’s Ethnic Status (16:1) iv. Timothy’s Reputation (16:2) v. Timothy’s New Role (16:3) vi. Timothy’s Circumcision (16:3) d. Strengthening Churches in Phrygia (16:4–5) 2. God’s Leading to Macedonia (16:6–10) a. The Spirit’s Prohibitions (16:6–7) i. The Phrygian-Galatian Region (16:6) ii. Not North Galatia (16:6) iii. Mysia and Bithynia (16:7–8) iv. Divine Guidance (16:6–7) b. Divine Invitation to Macedonia (16:8–10) i. Troas and Ancient Troy (1) Alexandria Troas (2) Evocative Connections with Ancient Troy? ii. Asia’s New Gift to Europe (1) The Troad, Europe, and Asia (2) Between Asia and Europe? (3) A Mission toward Rome iii. The Dream-Vision (16:9–10) (1) The Macedonian Man (16:9) (2) Paul’s Dream (16:9)



Excursus: Dreams    2347

(3) The Interpretation (16:10) iv. “We” Passages (16:10) (1) A Fictitious Literary Device (2) Sea-Voyage Category of Fictitious Narratives? (3) Travel Journal (4) Luke as Paul’s Traveling Companion

Excursus: Acts and First-Person Usage in Some Ancient Historians    2363 1. Historians’ Use of Third and First Person



a. Third Person b. First Person 2. “We” as a First-Person Historical Claim? a. Questioning “We” as a Historical Claim b. Acts’ Anonymity? c. What Historians Meant by “We” 3. Use of “We” instead of Author’s Name a. Other Meanings of the First Person Plural? b. Usage Varied c. Keeping the Focus on Paul 4. Conclusion



3. Ministry and Opposition in Philippi (16:11–40) a. Lydia and Her House Church (16:11–15) i. From Troas to Neapolis (16:11) (1) Voyage to Macedonia (2) Samothrace (3) Neapolis ii. Philippi (16:12) (1) Philippi’s Prosperity and Past (2) Philippi and Rome (3) A “First” City iii. Finding the Sabbath Meeting (16:13) (1) Locating the Gathering (2) Which River? iv. Speaking to Women (16:13) (1) Women’s Status in Religion (2) Women and Judaism (3) Focusing on Women v. Lydia’s Response (16:14) (1) Lydia’s Conversion (2) Lydia’s Freed Status? (3) Lydia’s City (4) Lydia’s Occupation (5) Lydia’s Economic and Social Status



Excursus: Purple    2399 1. Tyrian Purple 2. Status Symbol vi. Lydia’s Hospitality (16:15) (1) A Property Owner (2) Scandalous Hospitality?

Excursus: Patrons, Clients, and Reciprocity    2408 1. Benefactors and Patrons 2. Reciprocity in and beyond Patronage 3. Problems in Patronage Excursus: Hospitality    2414 1. Inns 2. Greeks and Hospitality 3. Hospitality Connections and Obligations 4. Hospitality in Judaism 5. Accepting Hospitality

b. Exorcism of a Powerful Spirit (16:16–18) i. The Slave and Her Exploiters (16:16) Excursus: Pythoness Spirits    2422 1. Pythian Apollo

vi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 6

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



2. The Delphic Pythia 3. Apollo’s Oracles beyond Delphi 4. Apollo’s Prophecies 5. Hostility toward the Oracle

Excursus: Demons and Spirit Possession    2429 1. Daimones 2. Jewish Demonology 3. Possession 4. Prophylaxis against Demons 5. Exorcism 6. Cross-Cultural Character of Such Experiences 7. Possession Behavior 8. Interpreting Spirit Possession 9. Exorcism in More Recent Times

ii. A Spirit Exposes the Mission (16:17) (1) A Spirit’s Testimony (2) A Positive Testimony? (3) A Suppressed Female Voice? (4) “Most High God” iii. Jesus’s Name Expels the Spirit (16:18) c. Paul and Silas Beaten, Imprisoned (16:19–24) i. Aftermath of the Exorcism (16:19) (1) The Slave Girl’s Liberation (16:19) (2) Dragged to the Forum (16:19) ii. Xenophobic Charges (16:20–21) (1) The Officials (16:20) (2) Legal Accusations (16:20–21) (3) The Charges (16:20–21) Excursus: Ancient Anti-Judaism    2472 1. Roman Xenophobia 2. Grounds for Anti-Judaism 3. Alexandrian Anti-Judaism



iii. Abuse by Mob and Magistrates (16:22) (1) Lictors’ Rods (2) Scourging (3) Lack of Protest (4) Historical Likelihood? (5) Public Humiliation iv. Imprisoned (16:23) (1) Imprisonment (2) A Veteran? (3) The Jailer’s Anonymity v. Securing the Prisoners (16:24) d. Deliverance and Jailer’s Conversion (16:25–34) i. Worship at Midnight (16:25) (1) The Inner Cell (2) Sleepless Nights (3) Midnight Worship ii. The Earthquake (16:26) iii. The Jailer Intends Suicide (16:27)

Excursus: Suicide in Antiquity    2498 1. Reasons for Suicide 2. Views of Suicide 3. Philosophers’ Views of Suicide 4. Jewish Views of Suicide

iv. The Message of Salvation (16:28–32)



(1) Paul’s Intervention (16:28) (2) How Can I Be Saved? (16:29–30) (3) Salvation through Faith (16:31–32) v. Receiving God’s Agents (16:33–34) (1) Mutual Washing (16:33) (2) Risky Hospitality (16:34) e. Paul and Silas Vindicated (16:35–40) i. Attempted Release (16:35–36) ii. Criminal Abuse of Roman Citizens (16:37) (1) Objections to Paul’s Roman Citizenship (2) Arguments Supporting Paul’s Citizenship iii. The Officials’ Reversal (16:38–39) (1) The Officials’ Danger (16:38) (2) Begging Them to Leave (16:39) iv. Leaving Philippi (16:40) 4. Ministry in Thessalonica and Beroea (17:1–14) a. Ministry in Thessalonica (17:1–9) i. Comparing the Thessalonian Correspondence ii. Relocating to Thessalonica (17:1) (1) Amphipolis (2) Apollonia (3) Thessalonica iii. Ministry in the Synagogue (17:2–4) (1) Three Sabbaths of Ministry (17:2) (2) Dialogue in the Synagogue (17:3) (3) Jewish and Gentile Converts (17:4) (4) The Leading Women (17:4) iv. Jewish and Gentile Opposition (17:5) (1) Extrinsic Historical Evidence (2) Luke’s Narrative Purposes (3) Stirring a Mob (17:5) (4) Attempted Prosecution (17:5–6) (5) Jason (17:5–9) v. Denunciations in Court (17:6–9) (1) The Authorities (17:6) (2) The Charge of Sedition (17:6) (3) The Charge of maiestas (17:7) (4) Caesar’s “Decrees” (17:7) (5) Released with a Pledge (17:9) b. Ministry in Beroea (17:10–14) i. Night Flight from Thessalonica (17:10) ii. Shifting Southward to Beroea (17:10) iii. Received Favorably in the Synagogue (17:11–12) iv. Enemies Arrive (17:13–14) 5. Ministry in Athens (17:15–34) a. Introduction i. Athens ii. The Narrative’s Plausibility iii. The Narrative’s Function b. Reasoning with Jews and Philosophers (17:15–21) i. Paul’s Setting in Athens (17:15–16) (1) Flight to Athens (17:15) (2) Paul’s Arrival in Athens (17:15–16) (3) Disturbed by Idols (17:16) (4) The First Idols Encountered (5) Acropolis Idolatry (6) Agora Idolatry

vii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 7

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



(7) Other Idols (8) Further Cults ii. In Synagogue and Agora (17:17) iii. Responses of Stoics and Epicureans (17:18) (1) Dialoguing with Philosophers (2) Conflict with Philosophers



Excursus: Epicureans    2584 1. Epicureans and Pleasure 2. Epicureanism and Religion 3. Epicureanism and Afterlife 4. Pagan and Jewish Critiques of Epicureanism Excursus: Stoicism    2593



(3) The Cocksparrow (4) Preaching Foreign Deities? iv. Led to the Areopagus for Questioning (17:19–20) (1) The Areopagus Council (2) Licensed to Teach in Athens? (3) The New Socrates (4) Luke’s Point Here (5) Early Judaism as Philosophy (6) Christianity as a Philosophic School (7) Going Further for Evangelism v. Craving New Ideas (17:21) c. Paul’s Philosophic Discourse (17:22–31) i. Introduction (1) Philosophic Elements in the Speech (2) Paul’s Exposure to Philosophy (3) Rhetoric of the Speech (4) Authenticity (5) Function of the Speech in Acts ii. Setting, exordium, and narratio (17:22–23) (1) Religious Athenians (17:22) (2) Observations about Athens (17:23) (3) Altars of Unknown Deities (17:23) (4) Jewish Approaches to Pagan Deities (5) Ignorance of This God (17:23) iii. The Nature of the Deity (17:24–29) (1) The Creator Needs No Temples (17:24) (2) God Needs Nothing (17:25) (3) God’s Sovereignty over Humanity (17:26) (4) Groping for God (17:27) (5) God’s Offspring (17:28) (6) Idols Are Unlike God (17:29) iv. Repent before the Risen Judge (17:30–31) (1) Repenting from Ignorance about God (17:30) (2) The Coming Judge (17:31) (3) Preaching the Resurrection (17:31) d. Response to Paul’s Speech (17:32–34) i. Mixed Reactions (17:32–33) ii. Paul’s Success (17:33–34) iii. The Conversion of Damaris (17:34) 6. Ministry in Corinth (18:1–17) a. Historical Accuracy? b. Settling in Corinth (18:1–3) i. Corinth

(1) Corinth’s Political Prominence (2) Corinth’s Economic Prominence (3) Corinth’s Moral Reputation (4) Corinth and Rome (5) How Roman Was Corinth? (6) Greek Elements in Roman Corinth (7) Corinth’s Jewish Community (8) The Stop after Athens (9) Corinth’s Religion ii. Claudius’s Expulsion of Jews from Rome (18:2) (1) Other Expulsions (2) The Nature of Expulsions (3) The Expulsion’s Political Context iii. Expelled or Restricted? Suetonius versus Dio Cassius (18:2) (1) Who Was Expelled? (2) Probably Some More than Ringleaders iv. Date of the Expulsion (18:2) (1) Dio Cassius and 41 c.e. (2) An Expulsion in 49 c.e. v. Suetonius’s “Chrestus” (1) A Different Messiah? (2) The “Chrestus” of the Chrestians vi. Aquila and Priscilla (1) Aquila and Rome? (2) The Couple’s Travel (3) Priscilla and Women Artisans vii. Economic Status and Housing (1) Successful among “Poor” Artisans (2) Shops (3) Insulae (4) Corinth’s Markets viii. What Connected Paul with This Couple? (1) Shared Faith? (2) Trade Ties (3) Paul’s Mission ix. Working a “Menial” Job (18:3) (1) The Reproach of Manual Labor (2) Philosophic Discussions (3) A Jewish Model? (4) Views of Work in Corinth (5) Laborers’ Self-Identity (6) Status and Luke’s Report x. Learning a Trade (18:3) (1) Various Possibilities (2) Apprenticeship (3) Rabbis and Training in Manual Labor xi. The Nature of Paul’s Work (18:3) (1) Fabric Worker? (2) Leatherwork? (3) The Nature of Leatherworking (4) Activity and Discussion in Shops c. Ministry in and out of the Synagogue (18:4–8) i. Reasoning in the Synagogue (18:4) ii. Reinforcements Arrive (18:5) iii. Turning to the Gentiles (18:6) iv. Titius Justus’s House (18:7) v. Crispus’s Faith and Baptism (18:8) (1) Crispus and Corinthian Christians (2) Water Sources in Corinth

viii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 8

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents

Excursus: Baths in Greco-Roman Antiquity    2751

d. Jesus’s Promise of Protection (18:9–11) i. Assurance (18:9–10) ii. Paul’s Lengthy Stay (18:11) e. Gallio Refuses Paul’s Case (18:12–17) i. Historicity of the Appearance before Gallio ii. Date iii. Hauled before Gallio’s Tribunal (18:12–13) (1) Gallio (18:12) (2) The Governor’s Tribunal (18:12) (3) The Immediate Conflict (4) The Plaintiffs (5) Language of the Trial (6) The Charge (18:13) iv. Gallio Rejects the Case (18:14–15) (1) Gallio’s Impatience (18:14) (2) Gallio’s Speech (18:14) (3) Rejecting the Charge (18:15) (4) Refusing Jurisdiction (18:15) (5) A Favorable Precedent v. Abuse of the Plaintiffs (18:16–17) (1) Driving Away the Plaintiffs (18:16) (2) Who Did the Beating? (3) Court Settings (4) Luke’s Perspective (5) Sosthenes 7. Ministry in Ephesus (18:18–19:41) a. Beginning the Work (18:18–19:7) i. Paul Begins Work in Ephesus and Leaves for Syria (18:18–23) (1) En Route from Corinth (18:18) (2) Beginning Ministry in Ephesus (18:19–21) (3) Revisiting Judea, Antioch, and Phrygia (18:22–23) ii. Priscilla and Aquila Help Apollos (18:24–28) (1) Introduction (2) Apollos from Alexandria (18:24) (3) Apollos’s Incomplete Knowledge (18:25) (4) Paul’s Colleagues Instruct Apollos (18:26) (5) Apollos’s Corinthian Ministry (18:27–28) iii. Paul Helps Twelve of John’s Disciples (19:1–7) (1) John’s Disciples and Apollos (2) John’s Preparatory Baptism (19:1–4)



(3) Baptized in Water and the Spirit (19:5–7) b. All Asia Hears the Message (19:8–22) i. Paul in the Synagogue and a School (19:8–10) (1) Teaching in the Synagogue (19:8) (2) Conflict in the Synagogue (19:9) (3) Paul’s School (19:9) ii. Paul’s Signs (19:11–12) (1) Extraordinary Miracles (19:11–12) (2) Use of Cloths (19:12) (3) Exorcisms in Ephesus (19:12) iii. Magic Inferior to Paul’s Signs (19:13–20) (1) Exorcists versus Jesus’s Name (19:13–16) (2) Jesus’s Triumph over Magic (19:17–20) (3) Plans for Jerusalem and Rome (19:21–22) c. Hostility in Ephesus (19:23–41) i. Luke’s Report and Historical Conflict in Ephesus (1) The Riot and Luke’s Apologetic (2) Paul’s Own Letters (3) An Ephesian Imprisonment? (4) Local Color (5) Questions and Objections ii. The Artemis Cult in Ephesus (1) The Emperor and Ephesus (2) Ephesus and Artemis (3) An Anatolian Fertility Deity? (4) Artemis’s Cult and Women? iii. Demetrius’s Charge (19:23–27) (1) The Setting: Stirring Silver Workers (19:23–25a) (2) Speech Defending Artemis (19:25b–27) iv. A Riot for Artemis (19:28–34) (1) Acclaiming Artemis (19:28) (2) The Mob in the Theater (19:29) (3) Restrained from Entering the Theater (19:30–31) (4) The Confused Assembly (19:32) (5) Anti-Jewish Outcry (19:33–34) v. An Official Defends the Disciples (19:35–41) (1) Introduction (2) No Doubt about Artemis (19:35–36) (3) Empty Charges (19:37) (4) Lawful Venues (19:38–39) (5) Answering to Rome (19:40–41)

Part 6: To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)    2945 Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)    2946

1. Macedonia, Achaia, and Macedonia (20:1–5) a. Ephesian Interest (20:1) b. Ministry in Macedonia (20:1–2a) c. Ministry in Achaia (20:2b–3) d. Paul’s Colleagues (20:4)



e. Geographic Diversity (20:4) f. Luke’s Group in Macedonia (20:5) 2. Resuscitation in Troas (20:6–12) a. Philippi to Troas (20:6) i. Observing Festivals ii. A Chronology of the Journey

ix

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 9

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



iii. The Chronological Goal iv. Troas and Its People b. Breaking Bread on the First Day (20:7) i. The Meeting ii. The First Day of the Week iii. Sunday Morning or Evening? c. Lamps in the Upper Room (20:8) i. The Upper Room ii. Lamps d. A Deadly Fall (20:9) i. Sitting in a Window ii. Size and Location of Windows iii. Multistory Buildings iv. Eutychus’s Sleep e. Paul Resuscitates Eutychus (20:10) f. Finishing the Message (20:11–12) 3. Further Travel, Avoiding Ephesus (20:13–16) a. Assos (20:13) b. Mitylene (20:14) c. Chios (20:15) d. Samos (20:15) e. Miletus (20:15) f. Avoiding Ephesus (20:16) g. Paul’s Haste as a Factor (20:16) 4. Farewell to the Ephesian Church (20:17–38) a. Introduction i. Genre and Its Consequences (1) Testaments and Farewell Discourses (2) Deliberative and Epideictic Aspects (3) Commissioning Speech (4) Literary Connections with the Mission ii. Authenticity (1) Pauline Style (2) Particular Parallels iii. Structure b. Setting of Speech (20:17–18a) c. Paul’s ēthos and (Implicitly) His Example (20:18b–21) i. Introduction ii. Paul’s Sacrificial Service (20:18–19) (1) Appeal to Their Knowledge (20:18) (2) Serving Sacrificially (20:19) (3) Pathos (20:19) iii. Proclaiming Openly (20:20–21) (1) Withholding Nothing (20:20) (2) Public and Private Teaching (20:20) (3) Repentance and Faith (20:21) d. Paul Expects Danger in Jerusalem (20:22–25) i. Risking Danger in Jerusalem (20:22–23) (1) Bound by the Spirit (20:22–23) (2) Paul’s Passion Predictions (20:22–23) (3) Timing of Death Unknown (20:22) ii. Fulfilling the Calling regardless of Cost (20:24) (1) Motif of Bravery (2) Sacrificial Devotion (3) Fulfilling His Ministry iii. Sad Parting (20:25)



Excursus: Prophetesses    3093

Excursus: Acts and the Pastorals    3023

e. Innocent of Ephesian Blood (20:26–27) i. Protesting Innocence ii. Ezekiel’s Watchman

f. Paul Warns Leaders to Guard the Believers (20:28–32) i. Guard God’s Flock (20:28) (1) Taking Heed to Themselves and the Flock (2) Overseers (3) Shepherds (4) The Great Cost of God’s Church ii. Dangerous Wolves (20:29–30) (1) Paul’s Departure (20:29) (2) Shepherds versus Predators (3) Figurative Wolves (4) Who Are the False Teachers Here? (5) From among Yourselves (20:30) iii. Continual Vigilance (20:31) (1) Hortatory Language (2) Continuous Activity (3) Emotional Intensity iv. Committing the Elders to God (20:32) g. Paul’s Example of Sacrifice (20:33–35) i. Introduction (1) Leaders and Greed (2) Austerity (3) Relevance for Ephesus ii. Paul’s Example of Generosity (20:33–35a) (1) Avoiding Covetousness (20:33) (2) Providing for Others (20:34) (3) An Example of Serving the Weak (20:35a) iii. Jesus’s Teaching on Generosity (20:35) (1) Climactic Maxims (2) Jesus’s Teaching? (3) Benefaction Ideology h. Tearful Parting (20:36–38) i. Establishing Paul’s ēthos ii. Parting Prayer (20:36) iii. Weeping and Displaying Emotion (20:37) iv. Kissing (20:37) v. The Final Parting (20:38) 5. Voyage and Warnings in Tyre (21:1–7) a. En Route to Tyre (21:1–3) i. Cos (21:1) ii. Rhodes (21:1) iii. Patara (21:1) iv. Passing Cyprus (21:2–3) b. Visiting Tyre (21:4–6) i. Staying in Tyre (21:3–4) ii. Ambiguous Prophecies (21:4) iii. The Prophecies Here (21:4) iv. Farewells (21:5–6) c. Visiting Ptolemais (21:7) 6. Warnings in Philip’s Home in Caesarea (21:8–14) a. Visiting Philip in Caesarea (21:8) b. Philip’s Virgin, Prophetess Daughters (21:9)



Excursus: Why Mention Their Virginity?    3094 1. Consecrated Virgins 2. “Prophetic” Virginity 3. Views on Marriage and Celibacy in Antiquity

x

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 10

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



4. Luke’s Point 5. Conclusion



c. Response to Agabus’s Warning (21:10–14) i. Remaining in Caesarea (21:10) ii. Agabus’s Coming and Symbolism (21:11) iii. Agabus’s Prophecy (21:11) iv. Pleas Not to Go to Jerusalem (21:12) v. Ready to Die for Jesus (21:13) vi. Acknowledging God’s Will (21:14) 7. Final Journey to Jerusalem (21:15–16) a. Starting to Jerusalem (21:15) b. Lodging with Mnason (21:16)

Dangers in Jerusalem (21:17–23:35)    3113

1. Concerns of the Jerusalem Church (21:17–26) a. Introduction i. The Jerusalem Church’s Hostility? ii. Rejecting the Collection? b. Meeting the Jerusalem Church’s Leaders (21:17–19) i. Welcomed in Jerusalem (21:17) ii. Meeting the Leaders (21:18) iii. Recounting God’s Attestation (21:19) c. Zealous Myriads (21:20) i. Praising God for His Work among Gentiles ii. Myriads of Believers iii. Zeal for the Law d. Rumors of Apostasy (21:21) i. The Practice of Slander ii. Slandering Paul iii. Apostasy? iv. Reasons for Their Malice e. Strategy for Proving Piety (21:22–24) i. Noting the Need for a Plan (21:22) ii. The Reason for a Plan (21:22–24) iii. A Trap? iv. Sponsoring Four under a Vow (21:23–24) v. James’s Own Fate f. Allowance for the Gentiles (21:25) g. Paul Accommodates Concerns (21:26) i. Would Paul Have Accommodated Concerns? ii. Luke’s Approach 2. Ephesian Jews Stir Riot against Paul (21:27–30) a. The Accusation (21:27–29) i. Paul’s Accusers (21:27) ii. Their Charges (21:28) iii. Past the Boundary (21:28) iv. Desecrations Punished

Excursus: Hostility to Paul’s Temple Theology?    3150 1. Spiritual Sacrifices 2. Critiques of the Temple 3. Luke, Paul, and the Spiritual Temple

v. In the Context of Luke-Acts vi. Paul’s Custody b. Attack on Paul (21:30) i. A Festival Crowd? ii. Dragged from the Temple iii. Closing the Doors



3. Paul Enters Roman Custody (21:31–40) a. Luke’s Apologetic Interest b. Roman Intervention (21:31–32) i. Trying to Kill Paul (21:31) ii. Word Coming “Up” to the Antonia (21:31) iii. The Commander and Cohort (21:31) iv. Stopping the Aggression (21:32) c. Uncertain Charges (21:33–34) i. The Tribune Chains Paul (21:33) ii. The Crowd’s Confusion (21:34) d. Romans Rescue Paul (21:35–36) i. Carried up the Stairs (21:35) ii. “Away with Him” (21:36) e. Paul’s Surprising Use of Greek (21:37) i. The Quality of Paul’s Greek ii. Expecting Egyptian Greek? iii. Nature of Paul’s Eloquence f. Not the Egyptian or an Assassin (21:38) i. The Tribune’s Assumptions ii. The Egyptian “Prophet” iii. The Sicarii iv. The Wilderness g. Citizen of Tarsus (21:39) i. Denial of Low Status? ii. Civic Pride iii. Could Paul Have Been a Tarsian Citizen? iv. Why Not Roman Citizenship Here? h. Addressing the Crowd in Aramaic (21:40) i. Plausibility ii. Paul’s Linguistic Versatility iii. Hebrew or Aramaic? iv. Aramaic Use

Excursus: The Defense Speeches of Acts 22–26, Especially 22:2–21    3195 1. Plausibility 2. Apologetic Interests 3. Rhetorical Approaches

4. Paul’s Defense in the Temple (22:1–21) a. Introduction i. Source and Plausibility ii. Paul’s Prophetic Pentecost Speech b. Addressing the Crowd (22:1–2) i. Paul’s exordium (22:1) ii. Deepened Hush (22:2) c. Paul’s Zealous and Orthodox Background (22:3–5) i. Educated in Jerusalem (22:3) (1) Not Raised in Jerusalem? (2) Nurtured and Educated in Jerusalem (3) Stages of Education (4) Greek Education Even in Jerusalem (5) Rhetoric but Especially Law ii. Student of Gamaliel I? (22:3) (1) Historical Objections (2) Arguments Supporting Luke’s Claim (3) Selecting a Teacher iii. Sitting at a Teacher’s Feet (22:3) iv. Paul’s Zeal for God (22:3) (1) The Epistolary Paul’s Zeal (2) Jewish Appreciation for Zeal

xi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 11

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



v. Paul the Persecutor (22:4–5) (1) Paul Persecuted the Way (22:4) (2) His Former Superiors Can Testify (22:5) d. Paul’s Encounter with Jesus (22:6–11) i. Narrative and Retellings (1) Variation in Retellings (2) Telling One’s Own Story (3) Rhetorical Observations ii. Paul’s Damascus Road Encounter (1) On the Road at Noon (22:6) (2) Saul Persecutes Jesus (22:7–8) (3) Partial Revelation to Companions (22:9) (4) Entering Damascus (22:10–11) e. An Orthodox Prophet’s Message (22:12–16) i. The Devout Prophet (22:12–13) ii. God’s Prophetic Calling for Saul (22:14) iii. A Witness of His Experience (22:15) iv. Washing Away Sins (22:16) f. Paul’s Call to the Gentiles (22:17–21) i. Paul’s Trance in the Temple (22:17) ii. Warning to Flee Jerusalem (22:18) iii. Paul’s Objection (22:19–20) iv. Sent to the Gentiles (22:21) 5. Discovering Paul’s Citizenship (22:22–29) a. The Crowd’s Outcry (22:22) i. Interruption ii. Connections with Other Lukan Riot Scenes iii. Rejected Prophet and Impending Judgment b. Cloaks and Dust (22:23) i. Throwing Off Cloaks ii. Hurling Dust c. Interrogation by Flogging (22:24) d. Revealing His Citizenship (22:25) i. Interrogation Procedures ii. Why Did Paul Wait So Long? e. The Tribune’s Discovery (22:26–27) i. The Centurion’s Role (22:26) ii. The Tribune’s Difficult Situation (22:27) iii. Testing Paul’s Claim f. Citizenship by Birth, Not Purchase (22:28) i. The Tribune’s Rank ii. Means of Achieving Citizenship iii. The Source of Paul’s Citizenship g. The Tribune’s Fear (22:29) 6. The Divided Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10) a. Introduction i. Comparing Previous Sanhedrin Hearings ii. Plausibility b. Bringing Paul before the Sanhedrin (22:30) i. Plausibility? ii. Ordering the Sanhedrin’s Appraisal iii. Stationing Paul among Them c. Conflict with the High Priest (23:1–5) i. Paul’s Claim of Good Conscience (23:1) (1) Honorable Self-Claims (2) Good Conscience ii. Ananias Orders Paul Struck (23:2) (1) Ananias



(2) Corruption among the Aristocratic Priests (3) Blows to the Cheek iii. Paul’s Rebuke (23:3) (1) Paul’s Demand for Justice (2) Appeal to the Torah (3) Insult, Curse, or Prophecy? (4) Answering One’s Abuser iv. God’s High Priest (23:4–5)? (1) Citing the Law (23:5) (2) Failing to Recognize the High Priest (3) Ironic Lack of Recognition? d. Dividing the Council (23:6–9) i. A Pharisee (versus Sadducees) (23:6–7) (1) Paul’s Partisan Politics (2) Plausibility (3) Pharisaic Commitment to the Resurrection (4) Son of Pharisees (23:6) (5) Paul’s Pharisaism Claim (23:6) ii. Angels and Spirits (23:8–9) (1) Sadducean Skepticism (23:8) (2) Pharisaic Tolerance for Apparitions (23:9) e. Danger and Intervention (23:10) i. Violence in August Assemblies ii. Tearing Apart iii. Calling for Soldiers 7. Paul Escapes Jerusalem in Roman Custody (23:11–35) a. Jesus’s Assurance and Direction (23:11) b. The Plot to Assassinate Paul (23:12–15) i. The Conspiracy (23:12–13) (1) “The Jews’” Conspiracy (23:12) (2) The Oath (23:12) (3) The Plot’s Participants (23:13) ii. Aristocratic Complicity (23:14–15) (1) Chief Priests and Assassins (23:14) (2) Further Interrogation (23:15) c. Paul’s Nephew Leaks Word of the Plot (23:16–22) i. Leaking Word of the Plot to Paul (23:16) (1) Paul’s Nephew (2) The Leak (3) Access to Paul ii. Sending the Informant to Lysias (23:17–18) (1) Trusting the Tribune (2) The Need for Discretion (3) The Centurion’s Compliance iii. The Tribune’s Gentle Inquiry (23:19) iv. The Nephew’s Warning (23:20–22) d. Lysias Sends Paul to Felix (23:23–30) i. A Sufficient Protective Force (23:23–24) (1) Lysias’s Rationale (2) Debating the Force’s Size (3) Did Luke Estimate High? (23:23) (4) Could Lysias Afford the Troop Reduction? (5) The Danger (6) Would Paul Seem Worth It? (7) Caesarea (23:23) (8) Paul’s Mounts (23:24)

xii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 12

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Contents



ii. Felix the Governor (23:24) (1) Felix’s Powerful Brother (2) Felix’s Name (3) Felix’s Date iii. Lysias’s Letter (23:25–30) (1) Luke’s Use of the Letter (23:25) (2) Conventional Greetings (23:26) (3) Lysias’s “Rescue” and Investigation (23:27–29) (4) Reasons for Referring Paul (23:30)



e. Roman Soldiers Bring Paul to Felix (23:31–35) i. By Night to Antipatris (23:31) (1) Night Marches (2) Plausibility (3) The Route and Antipatris ii. Daylight Travel (23:32–33) iii. Felix’s Initial Decision (23:34–35) (1) Learning Paul’s Province (23:34) (2) Detained in the Praetorium (23:35)

The working bibliography for the entire commentary and indexes for the first three volumes may be found on the enclosed CD-ROM.

xiii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 13

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Ancient Sources

Note: Works are listed under their traditional authors for the sake of locating them, not to stake a position regarding authorship claims.

General abs. absoluti, acquitted ambusti, undecided amb. ap. apud, in (quoted in) Bk. Book damn. damnati, condemned DSS Dead Sea Scrolls ed. princ. editio princeps epil. epilogue ext. external frg(s). fragment(s) intro. introduction LCL Loeb Classical Library lxx Septuagint ms(s) manuscript(s) mt Masoretic Text Muratorian Canon Murat. Canon nt New Testament Or. Orations (except in Sib. Or.) ot Old Testament par. parallel pr. principium praef. praefatio pref. preface prol. prologue Q Quelle (hypothetical common source for Matthew and Luke) rec. recension Sp. Spell Sup. Supplement(s) v./vv. verse/verses

Old Testament Gen Genesis Exod Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Deut Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges Ruth Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chr 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah Esth Esther Job Job Ps(s) Psalm(s) Prov Proverbs Eccl Ecclesiastes Song Song of Songs/Song of Solomon Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Lam Lamentations Ezek Ezekiel Dan Daniel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Obad Obadiah Jonah Jonah Mic Micah Nah Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zeph Zephaniah Hag Haggai Zech Zechariah Mal Malachi

xiv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 14

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations

New Testament Matt Matthew Mark Mark Luke Luke John John Acts Acts Rom Romans 1–2 Cor 1–2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Phil Philippians Col Colossians 1–2 Thess 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy 1–2 Tim Titus Titus Phlm Philemon Heb Hebrews Jas James 1–2 Pet 1–2 Peter 1–3 John 1–3 John Jude Jude Rev Revelation

Septuagint (lxx) 1–4 Kgdms 1–4 Kingdoms Ode(s) Ode(s)

Old Testament Apocrypha Add Esth Additions to Esther Bar Baruch Bel Bel and the Dragon Ep Jer Epistle of Jeremiah 1–2 Esd 1–2 Esdras Jdt Judith 1–4 Maccabees 1–4 Macc Pr Man Prayer of Manasseh Song of the Three Young Men Sg Three Sir Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Sus Susanna Tob Tobit Wis Wisdom of Solomon

Joseph and Aseneth1 Jos. Asen. Jub. Jubilees L.A.B. Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities L.A.E. Life of Adam and Eve Ladder of Jacob Lad. Jac. Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas Liv. Pr. Lives of the Prophets2 Mart. Is. Martyrdom of Isaiah Odes Sol. Odes of Solomon Pr. Jac. Prayer of Jacob Prayer of Joseph Pr. Jos. Ps.-Eup. Pseudo-Eupolemus Ps.-Phoc. Pseudo-Phocylides Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon Sent. Syr. Men. Sentences of the Syriac Menander Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Sim. Similitudes of Enoch Syr. Men. Epit. Epitome of the Syriac Menander Test. Testament of Ab. Abraham (recensions A and B) Adam Adam Ash. Asher Benj. Benjamin Dan Dan Gad Gad Iss. Issachar Jac. Jacob Job Job3 Jos. Joseph Jud. Judah Levi Levi Mos. Moses Naph. Naphtali Reub. Reuben Sim. Simeon Sol. Solomon Zeb. Zebulun Tr. Shem Treatise of Shem

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts DJD

DSSNT

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha OTP

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85. Ahiq. Ahiqar Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. Adam Apocalypse of Adam Apoc. Elij. Apocalypse of Elijah Apoc. Ezek. Apocalypse of Ezekiel Apoc. Mos. Apocalypse of Moses Apoc. Sed. Apocalypse of Sedrach Apoc. Zeph. Apocalypse of Zephaniah As. Mos. Assumption of Moses Asc. Is. Ascension of Isaiah 2–4 Bar. 2–4 Baruch 1–3 En. 1–3 Enoch (2 En. has recensions A and J) Gr. Ezra Greek Apocalypse of Ezra Hist. Rech. History of the Rechabites Jan. Jam. Jannes and Jambres

1Qap Genar 1QHa 1QpHab 1QM 1QS 1QSa 4Q285 11QT CD

Les grottes de Murabba‘ât. Edited by P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. 2 vols. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. By Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Genesis Apocryphon Hodayot or Thanksgiving Hymns Pesher Habakkuk Milḥamah or War Scroll Serek Hayaḥad or Rule of the Community or Manual of Discipline Rule of the Congregation (App. A to 1QS) Sefer ha-Milḥamah Temple Scroll Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document

1. The citations give double enumerations where the OTP translation (listed first) and the standard Greek text differ. 2. The citations first give the OTP reference, then the enumeration in Schermann’s Greek text. 3. Where editions diverge, I cite the enumeration in both Spittler (in OTP) and Kraft.

xv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 15

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations

Josephus and Philo Jos. Josephus Ag. Ap. Against Apion Ant. Antiquities of the Jews Life Life War Jewish War Philo Abr. On Abraham Agr. On Husbandry/Agriculture Alleg. Interp. Allegorical Interpretation (1–3) Cher. On the Cherubim Conf. On the Confusion of Languages Contempl. On the Contemplative Life Creation On the Creation Decal. The Decalogue Dreams On Dreams, That They Are God-Sent (1–2) Drunkenness On Drunkenness Embassy to Gaius Embassy On the Eternity of the World Eternity Flacc. Flaccus Flight On Flight and Finding Giants On the Giants Good Person Every Good Person Is Free Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? Heir Hypoth. Hypothetica Jos. Joseph Migr. The Migration of Abraham Mos. Life of Moses (1–2) Names On the Change of Names Plant. Concerning Noah’s Work as a Planter Posterity On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile Prelim. St. Preliminary Studies Prov. On Providence (1–2) QE Questions and Answers on Exodus (1–2) QG Questions and Answers on Genesis (1–4) Rewards On Rewards and Punishments Sacr. On the Birth of Abel and the Sacrifices Offered by Him and His Brother Cain Sobr. De sobrietate/On the Prayers and Curses Uttered by Noah When He Became Sober Spec. Laws Special Laws (1–4) Studies On Mating with the Preliminary Studies Unchangeable Unchangeableness of God On Virtues Virt. Worse That the Worse Is Wont to Attack the Better

Targumic Texts Tg. Targum (+ biblical book) Tg. Jon. Targum Jonathan Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Tg. Rishon Targum Rishon Tg. Šeni Targum Šeni

Mishnah, Talmud, and Related Literature Soncino b.

The Babylonian Talmud. Edited by Isidore Epstein. 35 vols. London: Soncino, 1935–52. Babylonian Talmud

bar. baraita (with rabbinic text) m. Mishnah t. Tosefta Jerusalem (Yerushalmi, Palestinian) y. Talmud ʾAb. ʾAbot ʿAbod. Zar. ʿAbodah Zarah ʿArak. ʿArakin Baba Batra B. Bat. B. Meṣiʿa Baba Meṣiʿa B. Qam. Baba Qamma Bek. Bekorot Ber. Berakot Beṣah Beṣah (= Yom Ṭob [in the Tosefta]) Bik. Bikkurim Demai Demai ʿEd. ʿEduyoth ʿErub. ʿErubin Giṭ. Giṭṭin Ḥag. Ḥagigah Ḥal. Ḥallah Hor. Horayot Ḥul. Ḥullin Kelim Kelim Ker. Kerithot Ketub. Ketubbot Kil. Kilʾayim Kip. Kippurim Maʿaś. Maʿaśerot Maʿaś. Š. Maʿaśer Šeni Mak. Makkot Makš. Makširin Meg. Megillah Meʿil. Meʿilah Menaḥ. Menaḥot Mid. Middot Miqw. Miqwaʾot Moʾed Qaṭ. Moʾed Qaṭan Naz. Nazir Ned. Nedarim Neg. Negaʿim Nid. Niddah ʾOhal. ʾOhalot (Ahilot in the Tosefta) ʿOr. ʿOrlah Parah Parah Peʾah Peʾah Pesaḥ. Pesaḥim Qidd. Qiddušin Roš Haš. Roš Haššanah Šabb. Šabbat Sanh. Sanhedrin Šeb. Šebiʿit Šebu. Šebuʿot Šeqal. Šeqalim Soṭah Soṭah Sukkah Sukkah Taʿan. Taʿanit Tamid Tamid Ṭehar. Ṭeharot Tem. Temurah Ter. Terumot Yad. Yadayim Yebam. Yebamot Yoma Yoma Zabim Zabim Zebaḥ. Zebaḥim

xvi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 16

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations

Other Rabbinic Works ʾAbot R. Nat.

ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan (recensions A and B) Der. Er. Rab. Derek Ereṣ Rabbah Der. Er. Zuṭ. Derek Ereṣ Zuṭa Deut. Rab. Deuteronomy Rabbah Eccl. Rab. Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) Rabbah Esth. Rab. Esther Rabbah Exod. Rab. Exodus Rabbah Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah Jer. Tg. Jerusalem Targum Lam. Rab. Lamentations Rabbah Lev. Rab. Leviticus Rabbah Mek. Mekilta (ed. Lauterbach) Am. Amalek Bah. Bahodesh Besh. Beshallah Kaspa Kaspa Nez. Nezikin Pisha Pisha Shab. Shabbata Shir. Shirata Vay. Vayassa Midr. Pss. Midrash on Psalms (Tehillim) Num. Rab. Numbers Rabbah Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Ruth Rab. Ruth Rabbah S. Eli. Rab. Seder Eliyahu Rabbah S. Eli. Zut. Seder Eliyahu Zuta Sem. Semaḥot Sipra A.M. ʾAḥarê Mot Behuq. Behuqotai Emor Emor Mes. Mesora Neg. Negʿaim par. parashah pq. pereq Qed. Qedošim Sav Sav Sav M.d. Sav Mekhilta deMiluim Sh. Shemini Sh. M.d. Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim Taz. Tazria VDDeho. Vayyiqra Dibura Dehobah VDDen. Vayyiqra Dibura Denedabah Sipre Deut. Sipre on Deuteronomy Sipre Num. Sipre on Numbers Song Rab. Song of Solomon Rabbah Sop. Soperim Tanḥ. Midrash Tanḥuma Yalquṭ Isa. Yalquṭ on Isaiah Yalquṭ Pss. Yalquṭ Psalms

Apostolic Fathers AF

Barn.

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer. Edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Epistle of Barnabas

1–2 Clement 1–2 Clem. Did. Didache Diogn. Epistle to Diognetus Shepherd of Hermas Herm. Mand. Mandates Sim. Similitudes Vis. Visions Ignatius of Antioch Ign. Eph. Epistle to the Ephesians Magn. Epistle to the Magnesians Phld. Epistle to the Philadelphians Epistle to Polycarp Pol. Rom. Epistle to the Romans Smyrn. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Trall. Epistle to the Trallians Mart. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp Poly. Phil. Polycarp Letter to the Philippians

Patristic and Other Early Christian Sources ANF

FC NPNF

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Revised by A. Cleveland Coxe. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Fathers of the Church Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Philip Schaff. 14 vols. 1886–89. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.

Ambrosiaster   Comm. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles Aphrahat Dem. Aphrahat Demonstrations Arator Acts Arator On the Acts of the Apostles Aristides the Philosopher Apology to Aristides Apol. Hadrian Athanas. Athanasius Festal Letters Fest. Let. On the Incarnation Inc. Vita Antonii/On the Life of Anthony Vit. Ant. Athenag. Plea Athenagoras A Plea for Christians Aug. Augustine Bapt. De baptismo contra Donatistas Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum/ C. du. ep. Pelag. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians City City of God Conf. Confessions Ep. Epistles Harm. G. Harmony of the Gospels Retract. Retractations Serm. Sermons Tract. Jn. Tractates on John Basil Basil of Caesarea (the Great) On the Holy Spirit Holy Sp. Hom. Hex. Homilies on the Hexaemeron John Chrysostom Chrys. Homilies on Acts Hom. Acts Homilies on the First Epistle of Paul to the Hom. 1 Cor. Corinthians Hom. 2 Cor. Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians Hom. Gen. Homilies on Genesis Hom. Jn. Homilies on John

xvii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 17

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Hom. Matt. Homilies on Matthew Hom. Rom. Homilies on Romans Pan. Ign. Panegyrics of Saint Ignatius Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria Instr. Instructor Misc. Miscellanies Protr. Protrepticus Strom. Stromata Cyprian Ep. Cyprian Epistles Cyril Jer. Cat. Lect. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures Ephrem Syr. Hom. Ephrem the Syrian Homily on Our Lord Epiph. Epiphanius De mens. De mensuris et ponderibus Her. Refutation of All Heresies/Panarion Euseb. Eusebius Chron. Chronicle/Chronicon Comm. Is. Commentary on Isaiah H.E. Historia ecclesiastica/Ecclesiastical History P.E. Praeparatio evangelica/Preparation for the Gospel Firm. Matern.   Math. Firmicus Maternus Matheseos libri VIII Greg. Naz. Or. Gregory of Nazianzus Orations Greg. Nyssa Greg.  Thaum. Gregory of Nyssa Vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi Hippol. Ref. Hippolytus Refutation of Heresies Iren. Her. Irenaeus Against Heresies Jerome Comm. Gal. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians Dial. Pelag. Dialogues against the Pelagians Ep. Epistles Ruf. Adversus Rufinum Vigil. Adversus Vigilantium Vir. ill. De viris illustribus/On Famous Men Vit. Hil. Vita S. Hilarionis eremitae/Life of St. Hilarion Justin Martyr 1–2 Apol. 1–2 Apology Dial. Dialogue with Trypho Exhort. Exhortation to the Greeks Lact. Div. Inst. Lactantius Divine Institutes Mac. Magn.   Apocrit. Macarius Magnes Apocriticus Malalas Chronogr. John Malalas Chronographia Mart. Just. Martyrdom of Justin Mart. Pion. Martyrdom of Pionius Origen Cels. Against Celsus Comm. 1 Cor. Commentary on 1 Corinthians Comm. Matt. Commentary on Matthew Comm. Rom. Commentary on Romans Hom. Exod. Homilies on Exodus Homilies on Luke Hom. Luke Orosius Hist. Paulus Orosius Historiarae adversus paganos Pass. Perp. Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas Pelagius Commentary on 2 Corinthians Comm. 2 Cor. Comm. Rom. Commentary on Romans Photius Bibl. Photius Bibliotheca Ps.-Clem. Pseudo-Clementines Hom. Homilies Rec. Recognitions

Ps.-Const. Rom. Pseudo-Constantius The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans Sulp. Sev. Chron. Sulpicius Severus Chronica Tatian Or. Gks. Tatian Oration to the Greeks Tert. Tertullian Adv. Jud. Adversus Judaeos Apol. Apology Bapt. On Baptism De corona militis Cor. Fasting On Fasting, against the Psychics Fug. De fuga in persecutione/On Flight in Persecution Marc. Adversus Marcionem Mart. Ad martyras/To the Martyrs Nat. Ad nationes/To the Heathen Pall. De pallio Pat. De patientia Praescr. De praescriptione haereticorum/Prescription against Heretics Scap. Ad Scapulam Scorp. Scorpiace De spectaculis/The Shows Spec. Test. an. De testimonio animae/The Soul’s Testimony Wife To His Wife Theodoret Theodoret of Cyrrhus Comm. 1 Cor. Commentary on 1 Corinthians Commentary on 2 Corinthians Comm. 2 Cor. Hist. Rel. Historia religiosa Interp. Rom. Interpretation of Romans Theoph. Theophilus of Antioch To Autolycus

Nag Hammadi Texts NHL

The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by J. M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977. Hypostasis of the Archons Hyp. Arch. Origin of the World Orig. World Sent. Sext. Sentences of Sextus Zost. Zostrianos

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts John Acts Paul Acts Pet. Acts Phil. Acts Thom. Ap. John Apoc. Paul Apoc. Pet. Apost. Const. G. Eb. G. Nic. G. Pet. G. Thom. G. Jms. Paul Thec. Prot. Jas.

Acts of John Acts of Paul Acts of Peter Acts of Philip Acts of Thomas Apocryphon of John Apocalypse of Paul Apocalypse of Peter Apostolic Constitutions Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of Nicodemus Gospel of Peter Gospel of Thomas Gospel of James Acts of Paul and Thecla Protevangelium of James

xviii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 18

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations

Other Greek and Latin Works and Authors Achilles Tatius Leucippe and Clitophon Ael. Arist. Aelius Aristides Def. Or. Defense of Oratory Leuctrian Orations Leuct. Or. Or. Orations Panath. Panathenaic Oration Sacr. Sacred Tales Aelian (Claudius Aelianus) Farmers Letters of Farmers Nat. An. Nature of Animals Var. hist. Varia historia Aeschines Ctes. Ctesiphon Embassy False Embassy Tim. Timarchus Aeschylus Ag. Agamemnon Eum. Eumenides Lib. Libation-Bearers (Choephori) Pers. Persians Prometheus Bound Prom. Seven Seven against Thebes Suppliant Women Suppl. Alciph. Alciphron Court. Courtesans Ep. Epistulae/Letters Farm. Farmers Fish. Fishermen Paras. Parasites Ammianus Marcellinus Res gestae Amm. Marc. Anacharsis Ep. [Ps.]-Anacharsis Epistles Andocides Myst. Andocides De mysteriis Ant. Diog. Thule Antonius Diogenes Wonders beyond Thule Antiph. Her. Antiphon Murder of Herodes Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica Ap. Rhod. Aphth. Progymn. Aphthonius Progymnasmata Apollonius King of Tyre Apoll. K. Tyre Apollod. Apollodorus Bib. Bibliotheca/Library Epit. Epitome Appian Bell. civ. Bella civilia/Civil Wars Hist. rom. Historia romana/Roman History Apul. Apuleius Apol. Apology De deo Socr. De deo Socratis Metam. Metamorphoses Aratus Phaen. Aratus Phaenomena Arist. Aristotle On Breath Breath Const. Ath. Constitution of Athens/Athēnaiōn politeia Eudemian Ethics E.E. Generation of Animals Gen. Anim. Heav. On the Heavens History of Animals Hist. An. Concerning Memory and Recollection Mem. Mete. Meteorology De mirabilibus auscultationibus Mir. ausc. Nicomachean Ethics N.E. Parv. Parva naturalia Poet. Poetics Ach. Tat.

Pol. Politics Art of Rhetoric Rhet. Soul On the Soul V.V. Virtues and Vices Aristob. Aristobulus Fragments (in Eusebius H.E.) Aristoph. Aristophanes Acharn. Acharnians Birds Birds Ecclesiazusae Ec. Frogs Frogs Lys. Lysistrata Plut. Plutus/Rich Man Thesm. Thesmophoriazusae Wasps Wasps Arius Did. Epit. Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics Arrian Alex. Anabasis of Alexander Ind. Indica Periplus maris Euxini Peripl. Artem. Oneir. Artemidorus Daldianus Oneirocritica Athen. Deipn. Athenaeus Deipnosophists Aulus Gellius Attic Nights Aul. Gel. Aur. Vict. Epit.  Caes. Aurelius Victor Epitome de Caesaribus Babr. Babrius Fables Caesar Julius Caesar African War Afr. W. Alex. W. Alexandrian War C.W. Civil War Gall. W. Gallic War Sp. W. Spanish War Callim. Epig. Callimachus Epigrammata Callistr. Callistratus Descr. Descriptions Dig. In Digest of Justinian Cato Dionysius Cato Coll. Dist. Collection of Distichs Distichs Distichs Cato the Elder Cato E. Agr. De agricultura (De re rustica) Catull. Carm. Catullus Carmina Char. Chaer. Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe Cic. Cicero Acad. Academica Ag. Caec. Against Caecilius Agr. De lege agraria Amic. De amicitia Arch. Pro Archia Att. Letters to Atticus Balb. Pro Balbo Brut. Brutus, or De claris oratoribus Caecin. Pro Caecina Cael. Pro Caelio In Catilinam Cat. Clu. Pro Cluentio De or. De oratore Deiot. Pro rege Deiotaro De divinatione Div. Fam. Epistulae ad familiares/Letters to Friends Fat. De fato De finibus Fin. Pro Flacco Flacc. Pro Fonteio Font. Handbook of Electioneering Handb. Elec. Inv. De inventione Invective against Sallust Invect. Sall.

xix

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 19

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Leg. De legibus Leg. man. Pro lege manilia Lig. Pro Ligario Marcell. Pro Marcello Mil. Pro Milone Mur. Pro Murena Nat. d. De natura deorum Off. De officiis Opt. gen. De optimo genere oratorum Or. Brut. Orator ad M. Brutum Parad. Paradoxa Stoicorum Part. or. De partitione oratoria Phil. Orationes philippicae Pis. In Pisonem Prov. cons. De provinciis consularibus Quinct. Pro Quinctio Quint. fratr. Epistulae ad Quintum fratrum Rab. Perd. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Rab. Post. Pro Rabirio Postumo Resp. De re publica Rosc. Amer. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino Rosc. com. Pro Roscio comoedo Scaur. Pro Scauro Senect. De senectute Sest. Pro Sestio Sull. Pro Sulla Top. Topica Tull. Pro Tullio Tusc. Tusculan Disputations In Vatinium Vat. Verr. In Verrem Colum. Columella Arb. De arboribus/On Trees Rust. De re rustica/On Agriculture Corn. Nep. Cornelius Nepos Generals Cornutus Summ. Cornutus Summary of Greek Theology Crates Ep. Pseudo-Crates Epistles Demet. Style Demetrius Phalereus On Style/De elocutione Demosth. Demosthenes Andr. Against Androtion Aphob. 1–3 Against Aphobus Aristocr. Against Aristocrates Aristog. 1–2 Against Aristogeiton Boeot. 1–2 Mantitheus against Boeotus Chers. On the Chersonese Con. Against Conon Cor. De corona/On the Crown Ep. Epistulae/Letters Ep. Philip Epistula Philippi/Letter of Philip Epitaph. Epitaphius/Funeral Speech Eub. Euxitheus against Eubulides Exord. Exordia (Prooemia) Fals. leg. De falsa legatione/False Embassy Lacr. Against Lacritus Leoch. Against Leochares Against Leptines Lept. Mid. In Midiam/Against Meidias Navy On the Navy-Boards Neaer. Against Neaera Against Olympiodorus Olymp. Olynth. 1–3 Olynthiaca 1–3 Pant. Against Pantaenetus Philip. 1–3, [4] Philippic Orations 1–3, 4 Steph. 1[–2] Against Stephanus 1–2 Against Theocrines Theocr. Tim. Against Timotheus

Against Timocrates Timocr. Zenoth. Against Zenothemis Dig. Digest of Justinian Dio Cass. Dio Cassius Roman History Dio Chrys. Or. Dio Chrysostom Orations Diodorus Siculus Library of History Diod. Sic. Diogenes Ep. [Ps.-]Diogenes Epistle Diog. Laert. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers Dion. Hal. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1–2 Amm. 1–2 Epistle to Ammaeus Anc. Or. On Ancient Orators Antiquitates romanae/Roman Antiquities Ant. rom. Demosth. Demosthenes Din. Dinarchus Epid. On Epideictic Speeches Isaeus Isaeus Isoc. Isocrates Literary Composition Lit. Comp. Lysias Lysias Pomp. Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius Thuc. Thucydides Epictetus Epict. Diatr. Diatribai Encheir. Encheiridion Epicurus Let. Men. Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus Euhemerus Sacr.  Hist. Euhemerus Sacred History Eunapius Lives Eunapius Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists Eurip. Euripides Alc. Alcestis Andr. Andromache Bacch. Bacchanals Cycl. Cyclops Dict. Dictys El. Electra Hec. Hecuba Hel. Helen Heracl. Children of Heracles Herc. fur. Hercules furens/Madness of Heracles Hipp. Hippolytus Hyps. Hypsipyle Iph. Aul. Iphigeneia at Aulis Iph. Taur. Iphigeneia at Tauris Med. Medea Oed. Oedipus Orest. Orestes Phoen. Phoenician Maidens Rhes. Rhesus Suppl. Suppliants Tro. Troades/Daughters of Troy Ezek. Trag. Exag. Ezekiel the Tragedian Exagōgē Florus Carm. Florus Carmina Frontin. Str. Frontinus Strategemata Fronto Marcus Cornelius Fronto Ad amicos Ad am. Ad Antoninum imperatorem Ad Ant. imp. Ad Antoninum Pium Ad Ant. Pium Ad M. Caes. Ad Marcum Caesarem Ad verum imperatorem Ad verum imp. Bell. parth. De bello parthico Eloq. Eloquence Ep. graec. Epistulae graecae De feriis alsiensibus Fer. als. Nep. am. De nepote amisso Pr. Hist. Preamble to History

xx

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 20

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Gaius Dig. In Digest of Justinian Inst. Institutes Galen N.F. Galen On the Natural Faculties Gorg. Hel. Gorgias Encomium of Helen Gr. Anth. Greek Anthology Grattius Cyneg. Grattius Cynegeticon Hdn. Herodian History Hdt. Herodotus Histories Heliod. Eth. Heliodorus Ethiopian Story Heracl. Ep. Heraclitus Epistles Heracl. Hom. Prob. Heraclitus Homeric Problems Hermog. Hermogenes Inv. Invention Issues Issues Method Method in Forceful Speaking Progymn. Progymnasmata Hesiod Astron. Astronomy Cat. W. E. Catalogues of Women and Eoiae Sh. Her. Shield of Heracles Theog. Theogony W.D. Works and Days Hierocles Hierocles (the Stoic) Fatherland On Duties: How to Conduct Oneself toward One’s Fatherland Gods On Duties: How to Conduct Oneself toward the Gods On Duties: On Fraternal Love Love Marr. On Duties: On Marriage Parents On Duties: How to Conduct Oneself toward One’s Parents Hippocrates Hippocr. Aff. Affections Airs Airs, Waters, Places Aph. Aphorisms Barr. Wom. On Barren Women Dis. Diseases Ep. Epistles Epid. Epidemics Fleshes Fleshes Glands Glands Nat. Man Nature of Man Pl. Man Places in Man Progn. Prognostic Prorr. Prorrhetic Reg. Ac. Dis. Regimen in Acute Diseases Superf. On Superfetation Hom. Homer Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey Hom. Hymns Homeric Hymns Hor. Horace Ars poetica Ars Carm. saec. Carmen saeculare Ep. Epistles Epodes Epodes Odes Odes Sat. Satires Iambl. Iamblichus Chalcidensis Myst. Mysteries V.P. De vita pythagorica/On the Pythagorean Life/Life of Pythagoras Iambl. (nov.)   Bab. St. Iamblichus (novelist) Babylonian Story Isaeus Apollod. Estate of Apollodorus

Aristarch. Aristarchus Astyph. Astyphilus Ciron Ciron Cleon. Cleonymus Demes. Against the Demesmen Estate of Dicaeogenes Dicaeog. Eumath. On Behalf of Eumathes Euphil. On Behalf of Euphiletus Hagnias Hagnias Hagnoth. Against Hagnotheus Menec. Menecles Nicost. Nicostratus Philoct. Philoctemon Pyrr. Pyrrhus Isoc. Isocrates Ad Nic. Ad Nicoclem/To Nicocles (Or. 2) Antid. Antidosis (Or. 15) Areop. Areopagiticus (Or. 7) Demon. To Demonicus (Or. 1) Ep. Epistles Nic. Nicocles/Cyprians (Or. 3) Panath. Panathenaicus (Or. 12) Paneg. Panegyricus (Or. 4) On the Peace (Or. 8) Peace Soph. Against Sophists (Or. 17) Julian Ap. Julian the Apostate Let. Letters Or. Orations Justin. Justinian Cod. Codex Dig. Digest Inst. Institutes Juv. Sat. Juvenal Satires Libanius Anecdote Anecdote Comp. Comparison Declam. Declamations Descr. Description Encomium Encomium Invect. Invective Maxim Maxim Or. Orations Refutation Refutation Speech in Character Speech in Character Thesis Thesis Topics Common Topics Livy Livy Ab urbe condita Longin. Subl. Longinus On the Sublime Longus Longus Daphnis and Chloe Lucan C.W. Lucan Civil War Lucian Affairs Affairs of the Heart/Amores Alex. Alexander the False Prophet Amber Amber, or The Swans Anach. Anacharsis, or Athletics Astr. Astrology Book-Coll. The Ignorant Book-Collector Career The Dream, or Lucian’s Career Carousal The Carousal (Symposium), or The Lapiths Charid. Charidemus Charon, or The Inspectors Charon The Dream, or The Cock Cock Critic The Mistaken Critic The Cynic Cynic The Dance Dance Dem. Demonax Demosth. In Praise of Demosthenes

xxi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 21

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Dial. C. Dialogues of Courtesans Dial. D. Dialogues of the Dead Dial. G. Dialogues of the Gods Dial. S-G. Dialogues of Sea-Gods Dipsads The Dipsads Dion. Dionysus Disowned Disowned Downward Journey Downward Journey Eunuch The Eunuch Fisherman The Dead Come to Life, or The Fisherman Fly The Fly Fun. Funerals Hall The Hall Harm. Harmonides Hermot. Hermotimus, or Sects Hipp. Hippias, or The Bath Hist. How to Write History Icar. Icaromenippus, or The Sky-Man Indictment Double Indictment Judg. G. Judgment of the Goddesses Lex. Lexiphanes Lover of Lies The Lover of Lies Lucius Lucius, or The Ass Men. Menippus, or Descent into Hades Nero Nero Nigr. Nigrinus Oct. Octogenarians Par. The Parasite: Parasitic an Art Parl. G. Parliament of the Gods The Patriot (Philopatris) Patriot Peregr. The Passing of Peregrinus Phal. Phalaris Phil. Sale Philosophies for Sale Portr. Essays in Portraiture Portr. D. Essays in Portraiture Defended Posts Salaried Posts in Great Houses Prof. P.S. A Professor of Public Speaking Prom. Prometheus Prom. in Words To One Who Said “You’re a Prometheus in Words” Runaways The Runaways Sacr. Sacrifices Sat. Saturnalia/Conversation with Cronus Ship The Ship, or The Wishes Slander Slander Slip A Slip of the Tongue in Greeting Soph. The Sham Sophist, or The Solecist Syr. G. Syrian Goddess Tim. Timon, or The Misanthrope Tox. Toxaris, or Friendship True Story A True Story Tyr. The Tyrannicide Z. Cat. Zeus Catechized Z. Rants Zeus Rants Lucret. Nat. Lucretius De rerum natura Lycophron Alex. Lycophron of Chalcis Alexandra Lysias Or. Lysias Orationes Macrob. Macrobius Comm. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio Sat. Saturnalia Manetho Aeg. Manetho Aegyptiaca Marc. Aur. Marcus Aurelius Meditations Mart. Epig. Martial Epigrams Max. Tyre Maximus of Tyre Orationes Men. Rhet. Menander Rhetor (of Laodicea) Treatises Minucius Felix Octavius Min. Fel. Oct.

Herennius Modestinus in Digest of Justinian Mus. Ruf. Musonius Rufus Musaeus Hero Musaeus Hero and Leander Nicolaus Progymn. Nicolaus the Sophist Progymnasmata Nin. Rom. Ninus Romance Orph. H. Orphic Hymns Ovid Am. Amores Ars Ars amatoria Con. Liv. Consolatio ad Liviam Her. Heroides Metam. Metamorphoses Pont. Epistulae ex Ponto Parth. L.R. Parthenius Love Romance Paulus Julius Paulus Dig. In Digest of Justinian Sent. Sententiae/Opinions Paus. Pausanias Description of Greece Pers. Sat. Persius Satires Petron. Sat. Petronius Satyricon Perv. Ven. Pervigilium Veneris Phaedrus Phaedrus Fables Philod. Philodemus Crit. On Frank Criticism Household On Household Management Piety On Piety Philost. Flavius Philostratus (the Athenian) Ep. Epistulae/Love Letters Ep. Apoll. Epistles of Apollonius Hrk. Heroikos Vit. Apoll. Vita Apollonii/Life of Apollonius Vit. soph. Vitae sophistarum/Lives of the Sophists Philost. Elder   Imag. Philostratus the Elder Imagines Philost. Younger   Imag. Philostratus the Younger Imagines Pindar Dith. Dithyrambs Isthm. Isthmian Odes Nem. Nemean Odes Ol. Olympian Odes Pyth. Pythian Odes Plato Alcib. Alcibiades (1–2) Apol. Apology Charm. Charmides Clitophon Clitophon Cratyl. Cratylus Ep. Epistles Epin. Epinomis Gorg. Gorgias Hipp. maj. Hippias major Hipp. min. Hippias minor Hipparch. Hipparchus Lach. Laches Laws Laws Menex. Menexenus Parm. Parmenides Phaedo Phaedo Phaedr. Phaedrus Phileb. Philebus Pol. Politicus/Statesman Prot. Protagoras Rep. Republic Soph. Sophist Symp. Symposium Modestinus Dig.

xxii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 22

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Theaet. Theaetetus Theag. Theages Tim. Timaeus Plaut. Plautus Bacch. Bacchides Cas. Casina Men. Menaechmi Miles glor. Miles gloriosus Most. Mostellaria Rud. Rudens Truc. Truculentus Pliny Pliny the Younger Ep. Epistles Panegyr. Panegyricus Pliny E. N.H. Pliny the Elder Natural History Plot. Enn. Plotinus Ennead Plut. Plutarch Adv. K. Well Advice about Keeping Well Aem. Paul. Aemilius Paulus Ag. Pleasure Against Pleasure (frgs.) Ages. Agesilaus Alc. Alcibiades Alex. Alexander Apoll. Letter of Consolation to Apollonius Arist. Aristides Borr. On Borrowing (That We Ought Not to Borrow) Br. Love On Brotherly Love Br. Wom. Bravery of Women Bride Advice to Bride and Groom Brut. Brutus Busybody On Being a Busybody C. Mar. Caius Marius Caes. Caesar Cam. Camillus Cat. Min. Cato Minor Chance Chance Cic. Cicero Cim. Cimon Cleverness Cleverness of Animals Cleom. Cleomenes Comm. Conc. Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions Comp. Alc. Cor. Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus Comp. Arist. Cato Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato Comp. Lys. Sull. Comparison of Lysander and Sulla Comp. Thes. Rom. Comparison of Theseus and Romulus Compliancy On Compliancy Consol. Consolation to Wife Contr. A. On the Control of Anger Coriol. Coriolanus Crass. Crassus Demetr. Demetrius Demosth. Demosthenes Dial. L. Dialogue on Love Dinner Dinner of Seven Wise Men Div. V. Delays of Divine Vengeance E Delph. E at Delphi Eating Fl. Eating of Flesh Educ. On the Education of Children Envy On Envy and Hate Eum. Eumenes Exile On Exile Face M. Face on the Moon Fame Ath. Fame of the Athenians Fate On Fate How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend Flatt. Fort. Alex. On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander

Fortune of Romans Fort. Rom. Galba Galba Gen. of Soul Generation of the Soul in the “Timaeus” Gk. Q. Greek Questions Isis Isis and Osiris L. Wealth Love of Wealth Lect. On Lectures Love St. Love Stories Luc. Lucullus Lyc. Lycurgus Lys. Lysander M. Ant. Marc Antony M. Cato Marcus Cato Mal. Hdt. Malice of Herodotus On Having Many Friends Many Friends Marc. Marcellus Mor. Moralia Nat. Phen. Causes of Natural Phenomena Nic. Nicias Numa Numa Obsol. Obsolescence of Oracles Old Men Old Men in Public Affairs Or. Delphi Oracles at Delphi No Longer Given in Verse Otho Otho Par. St. Greek and Roman Parallel Stories Pel. Pelopidas Per. Pericles Phil. Power That a Philosopher Ought to Converse Especially with Men in Power Phoc. Phocion Plat. Q. Platonic Questions Pleas. L. Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible Poetry How the Young Man Should Study Poetry Pomp. Pompey Praising Praising Oneself Inoffensively Profit by Enemies How to Profit by One’s Enemies Progr. Virt. How One May Become Aware of One’s Progress in Virtue Publ. Publicola Pyrr. Pyrrhus R. Col. Reply to Colotes Rom. Romulus Rom. Q. Roman Questions S. Kings Sayings of Kings and Commanders S. Rom. Sayings of Romans S. Sp. Sayings of Spartans S. Sp. Wom. Sayings of Spartan Women Sert. Sertorius Sign Soc. Sign of Socrates Solon Solon St. Poets Stories and Poets Statecraft Precepts of Statecraft Stoic Cont. Stoic Self-Contradictions Sulla Sulla Superst. Superstition Table Table Talk Ten Or. Ten Orators Themist. Themistocles Thes. Theseus Tiberius Gracchus Tib. Gracc. Tim. Timoleon To an Uneducated Ruler Uned. R. Virt. Virtue and Vice W.V.S.C.U. Whether Vice Is Sufficient to Cause Unhappiness

xxiii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 23

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Polyb. Polybius History of the Roman Republic Porph. Porphyry Abst. De abstinentia Antr. nymph. De antro nympharum Ar. Cat. On Aristotle’s Categories Isag. Isagoge sive quinque voces Marc. To Marcella Porphyry’s Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1994. V.P. Vita Pythagorae/Life of Pythagoras Prop. Eleg. Propertius Elegies Ps.-Callisth. Alex. Pseudo-Callisthenes Alexander Romance Ps.-Chion Ep. Pseudo-Chion of Heraclea Epistulae Ptolemy Geog. Geography Tetrab. Tetrabiblos Publ. Syr. Publilius Syrus Sentences Pyth. Sent. Pythagorean Sentences Quint. Quintilian Decl. Declamations Inst. Institutes of Oratory Quint. Curt. Quintus Curtius Rufus History of Alexander Res gest. Res gestae divi Augusti Rhet. Alex. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Rhet. Her. Rhetorica ad Herennium Sall. Sallust War with Catiline Catil. Ep. Caes. Epistulae ad Caesarem/Letters to Caesar Invect. M. Tull. Invective against Marcus Tullius Hist. Historiae Jug. War with Jugurtha Mith. Mithridates Philip. Speech of Philippus Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius Pomp. Sp. Caes. Speech to Caesar Sp. G. Cotta Speech of Gaius Cotta Sallustius Gods Sallustius On the Gods and the Universe Sen. E. Seneca the Elder Controv. Controversiae Suas. Suasoriae Sen. Y. Seneca the Younger Ag. Agamemnon Apocol. Apocolocyntosis Ben. On Benefits Clem. De clementia Consol. Consolation to Marcia Const. De constantia Dial. Dialogues Ep. Lucil. Epistles to Lucilius Herc. fur. Hercules furens Herc. Ot. Hercules Otaeus Ira De ira Med. Medea Natural Questions Nat. Q. Phaed. Phaedra Phoen. Phoenician Women Prov. De providentia Tranq. De tranquillitate animi Troj. Trojan Women Vit. beat. De vita beata

Servius Comm.   in Verg. Aen.

Maurius Servius Honoratus Commentarius in Vergilii Aeneida Sext. Emp. Sextus Empiricus Eth. Against the Ethicists Math. Adversus mathematicos/Against the Professors Outlines of Pyrrhonism Pyr. Sil. It. Silius Italicus Punica Soph. Sophocles Ajax Ajax Antig. Antigone El. Electra Oed. Col. Oedipus at Colonus Oed. tyr. Oedipus the King Philoc. Philoctetes Wom. Tr. Women of Trachis Soranus Gynec. Soranus Gynecology Stad. Stadiasmus maris magni Statius Ach. Achilleid Silv. Silvae Theb. Thebaid Stob. Stobaeus Anth. Anthology Ecl. Eclogae Flor. Florilegium Strabo Strabo Geography Suet. Suetonius Aug. Augustus Calig. Caligula Claud. Claudius Dom. Domitian Galba Galba Gramm. Grammarians Jul. Julius Nero Nero Rhet. Rhetoricians Tib. Tiberius Tit. Titus Vergil Vergil Vesp. Vespasian Vit. Vitellius Tac. Tacitus Agr. Agricola Ann. Annals Dial. Dialogus de oratoribus Germ. Germania Hist. History Terence Andr. Lady of Andros Brothers The Brothers Eun. Eunuch Moth. The Mother-in-Law Phorm. Phormio Self-T. Self-Tormentor Themistius Or. Themistius Orationes Theod. Theodotion Theon Progymn. Aelius Theon Progymnasmata (citing the Butts edition except where otherwise noted) Theon of Smyrna   Exp. Rer. Math. Expositio rerum mathematicarum Theophr. Theophrastus Caus. plant. De causis plantarum Char. On Characters

xxiv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 24

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations Thucyd. Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War Ulp. Dig. Ulpian in Digest of Justinian Val. Flacc. Valerius Flaccus Argonautica Val. Max. Valerius Maximus Memorable Deeds and Sayings Varro L.L. On the Latin Language Rust. De re rustica Veg. Mil. Vegetius De re militari Vell. Paterc. Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History Vettius Valens Anthology Vett. Val. Virg. Virgil Aen. Aeneid Catal. Catalepton Ecl. Eclogues Georg. Georgics Priap. Priapea Vit. Aes. Vita Aesopi/Life of Aesop/Aesop Romance Vitruv. Arch. Vitruvius On Architecture Xen. Xenophon Ages. Agesilaus Anab. Anabasis Apol. Apologia Socratis Cav. Com. Cavalry Commander Cyr. Cyropaedia Hell. Hellenica Lac. Constitution of Lacedemonians Mem. Memorabilia Oec. Oeconomicus Symp. Symposium Xen. Eph. Anthia Xenophon of Ephesus Anthia and Habrocomes

Other Ancient and Medieval Sources ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. ARMT Archives royales de Mari: Transcriptions et traductions ARS Ancient Roman Statutes. Translated by Allan Chester Johnson, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton, and Frank Card Bourne. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bede Comm. Acts Venerable Bede Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin, 1895–1983. Book of Dead Book of the Dead (Egyptian) Bray, Corinthians 1–2 Corinthians. Edited by Gerald Bray. ACCS: New Testament 7. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. Bray, Romans Romans. Edited by Gerald Bray. ACCS: New Testament 6. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998. CAGN Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Edited by B. P. Reardon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Catena in Acta ss. apostolorum. Edited by J. A. Cramer. Oxford: E Typographeo Academico, 1838 (Martin, Acts: Catena on the Acts of the Apostles). Cat. Cor. Catenae in sancti Pauli epistolas ad Corinthios. Edited by J. A. Cramer. Oxford: E Typographeo Academico, 1841 (Bray, Corinthians: Catenae on Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians). CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series latina. Turnhout, 1935–. CER Origen. Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos. Edited by T. Heither. 5 vols. New York: Herder, 1990–95. CMG Corpus medicorum graecorum CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Cod. theod. Codex theodosianus Confuc. Anal. Confucius Analects4 Corp. herm. Corpus hermeticum CTH Catalogue des textes hittites. By Emmanuel Laroche. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition. Edited Cyn. Ep. by Abraham J. Malherbe. SBLSBS 12. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Diehl Anthologia lyrica graeca. Edited by E. Diehl. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1925. Chion of Heraclea: A Novel in Letters. Düring Edited by Ingemar Düring. Göteborg, Sweden: Wettergren & Kerber, 1951. ENPK Ein neuer Paulustext und Kommentar. Edited by H. J. Frede. 2 vols. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1973–74. Epicurea Epicurea. Edited by H. Usener. Leipzig: Teubner, 1887. Laws of Eshnunna Eshn. Eustath. Com. Il. Eustathius of Thessalonica Commentary on Iliad Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani. Edited FIRA by S. Riccobono et al. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Florence: Barbèra, 1940–43. The Greek Bucolic Poets. Translated by J. M. GBP Edmonds. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1912. GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte Geographi graeci minores. Edited by GGM C. Müller. 3 vols. Paris: Didot, 1855–61. Epic of Gilgamesh Gilg. Gnom. Vat. Gnomologium Vaticanum GVSGM Geographiae veteris scriptores graeci minores. Edited by John Hudson. 4 vols. Oxford: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698–1712. Hamm. Code of Hammurabi Incant. Text Incantation text from Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls. By Charles D. Isbell. SBLDS 17. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Just, Luke Luke. Edited by Arthur A. Just Jr. ACCS: New Testament 3. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. Cat. Act.

4. Chai’s enumeration followed parenthetically by the original enumeration.

xxv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 25

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations KBo KUB LKA LSAM LSCG MAMA

Martin, Acts MOT Oden and Hall,   Mark

Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Leipzig and Berlin, 1916–. Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, ed. Erich Ebeling. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953. Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure. By Franciszek Sokolowski. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955. Lois sacrées des cités grecques. By Franciszek Sokolowski. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1969. Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua. Edited by William M. Calder et al. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press; London: Longmans, Green, 1928–. Acts. Edited by Francis Martin, with Evan Smith. ACCS: New Testament 5. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006. The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia. Edited by Ronald E. Heine. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1989.

Mark. Edited by Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall. ACCS: New Testament 2. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998. Pauluskommentare Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Edited by K. Staab. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 15. Münster: Aschendorff, 1933 (Bray, Corinthians, and Bray, Romans: Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church). Petav. Synesius. Opera quae extant omnia. Edited by Dionysius Petavius (Denis Pétau). 2nd ed. Paris: D. Bechet, 1640. PG Patrologia graeca. [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 166 vols. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857–86. Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus PL completus: Series latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–46. Pleket H. W. Pleket, ed. Texts on the Social History of the Greek World. Vol. 2 of Epigraphica. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Rev. Laws Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Edited by B. P. Grenfell. Oxford: Clarendon, 1896 (cited in SPap). RG Rhetores graeci. Edited by Leonhard von Spengel. 3 vols. Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1853–56. Rhet. Gr. Rhetores graeci. Edited by Christian Walz. 9 vols. in 10. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1832–36. SB Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Edited by F. Preisigke et al. Strassburg, 1915–. SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae SSGF The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Translated and edited by M. F. Toal. 4 vols. Swedesboro, N.J.: Preservation, 1996. George Syncellus Ecloga chronographica Syncellus “Temple Program” “Temple Program for the New Year’s Festivals at Babylon” TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

UPZ UT Zonaras

Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde). Edited by U. Wilcken. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927–57. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook I–III (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965) John Zonaras Epitome historiarum

Papyri, Inscriptions, and Fragment Collections AE CIG CIJ

CIL CIS CMRDM CPJ

Diels-Kranz

Eph. Ep.

Epid. inscr. FGH GEF

I. Eph.

I. Ital. IC IG IGBulg IGLS

L’année épigraphique Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. Edited by A. Boeckh et al. 4 vols. Berlin: Riemer, 1828–77. Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Frey. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Christiana, 1936–52. Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Berlin: Riemer, 1862–. Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum. Paris, 1881–. Corpus monumentorum religionis dei Menis. Edited by Eugene Lane. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971–78. Corpus papyrorum judaicarum. Edited by Victor A. Tcherikover, Alexander Fuks, and Menahem Stern. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press for Magnes Press, 1957–64. Hermann Diels. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch. Edited by Walther Kranz. 3 vols. 9th ed. Berlin: Weidmann, 1959–60. Ephemeris epigraphica: Corporis inscriptionum latinarum supplementum. Edited by Wilhelm Henzen et al. 9 vols. Rome: Institutum Archaeologicum Romanum; Berlin: Riemer, 1872–1913. Epidaurus inscription Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Edited by F. Jacoby. 3 vols. in 15. Leiden: Brill, 1954–64. Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Translated by Martin L. West. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Die Inschriften von Ephesos. Edited by Hermann Wankel. 8 vols. in 10. Inschriften griechisher Städte aus Keinasien 11–17. Bonn: Rudolph Habelt, 1979–84. Inscriptiones Italiae. Edited by V. Bracco et al. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1931–. Inscriptiones creticae. Edited by M. Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1935–50. Inscriptiones graecae. Berlin, 1873–. Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Edited by G. Mikhailov. Sofia: Academia Litterarum Bulgarica, 1956–. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie. Edited by L. Jalabert et al. Paris: Geuthner, 1929–.

xxvi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 26

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations IGRR

Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. Edited by R. Cagnat et al. Paris: Leroux, I, 1911; III, 1906; IV, 1927. ILS Inscriptiones latinae selectae. Edited by H. Dessau. 3 vols. in 5. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892–1916. KSB Koptisches Sammelbuch. Edited by M. R. M. Hasitzka. Vienna: Brüder Hollinek, 1993–. Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Edited Nauck by A. Nauck. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889. OGIS Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–5. P.Amh. The Amherst Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London, 1900–1901. P.Beatty Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. Edited by F. G. Kenyon. London, 1933–41. P.Bour. Les Papyrus Bouriant. Edited by P. Collart. Paris, 1926. P.Cair. Die demotischen Denkmäler. Edited by W. Spiegelberg. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Leipzig, etc., 1904–32. P.Cair.Masp. Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine. Edited by J. Maspero. 3 vols. in 6. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1911–16. P.Cair.Zen. Zenon Papyri. Edited by C. C. Edgar, O. Guéraud, and P. Jouguet. 5 vols. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925–40. P.Col. Columbia Papyri. New York: Columbia University Press; Missoula, Mont.; and Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1929–. Collectanea papyrologica. Edited by A. E. P.Coll.Youtie Hanson et al. Bonn, 1976. P.Duk. Duke University papyrus collection Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and P.Egerton Other Early Christian Papyri. Edited by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat. London, 1935. P.Eleph. Elephantine-Papyri. Edited by O. Rubersohn. Berlin: Weidmann, 1907. P.Enteux. ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ: Requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. Edited by O. Guéraud. Cairo, 1931–32. A Family Archive from Thebes. Edited by P.Fam.Theb. M. El-Amir. Cairo, 1959. P.Fay. Fayum Towns and Their Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Ho­ garth. London, 1900. P.Flor. Papyri greco-egizii, Papiri Fiorentini. Edited by G. Vitelli and D. Comparetti. Milan, 1906–15. P.Fouad Les Papyrus Fouad I. Edited by A. Bataille et al. Cairo, 1939. Griechische Papyri im Museum des OberP.Giss. hessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Edited by E. Kornemann, O. Eger, and P. M. Meyer. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1910–. P.Giss.Univ. Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Giessener Universitätsbibliothek. Edited by

P.Grad. P.Graux

P.Grenf.

P.Gur. P.Hal.

P.Hamb. P.Heid. P.Hib. P.Köln P.Lips.

P.Lond. P.Meyer P.Mich. P.Mil.Vogl.

P.Murabbaʿât

P.Oslo P.Oxy. P.Panop.Beatty P.Paris

H. King et al. 6 vols. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924–39. Griechische Papyri der Sammlung Gradenwitz. Edited by G. Plaumann. Heidelberg, 1914. Nos. 1–8: Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten. Vol. 4, nos. 7461–68. Edited by H. Henne. Heidelberg, 1931. Nos. 9–31: Papyrus Graux. Edited by S. Kambitsis. Geneva: Droz, 1995–2004. Greek Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903. Greek Papyri from Gurob. Edited by J. G. Smyly. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, 1921. Dikaiomata: Auszüge aus alexandrischen Gesetzen und Verordnungen in einem Papyrus des Philologischen Seminars der Universität Halle (Pap.Hal. 1) mit einem Anhang weiterer Papyri derselben Sammlung. Edited by the Graeca Halensis. Berlin: Weidman, 1913. Griechische Papyruskunden der Hamburger Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek. Leipzig, etc., 1911–98. Veröffentlichungen aus der Heidelberger Papyrussammlung. Edited by E. Siegmann et al. Heidelberg, 1956–. The Hibeh Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell et al. London, 1906–55. Kölner Papyri. Edited by B. Kramer et al. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1976–. Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussamm­ lung zu Leipzig. Vol. 1: Edited by L. Mitteis. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906. Vol. 2: Edited by R. Duttenhöfer. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete, Beiheft 10. Munich: Saur, 2002. Greek Papyri in the British Museum. Edited by F. G. Kenyon et al. London: Printed by Order of the Trustees, 1893–. Griechische Texte aus Aegypten. Edited by P. M. Meyer. Berlin, 1916. Michigan Papyri. 19 vols. in 20. Ann Arbor, etc., 1931–99. Papiri della R. Universitá di Milano; Papiri della Universitá degli Studi di Milano. Edited by A. Vogliano et al. 8 vols. in 9. Milan, 1937–2001. Les grottes de Murabbaʿât. Edited by P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 2. Oxford, 1961. Papyri Osloenses. Edited by S. Eitrem and L. Amundsen. Oslo, 1925–36. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: British Exploration Fund; Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–. Papyri from Panopolis in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Edited by T. C. Skeat. Dublin, 1964. Notices et textes des papyrus grecs (p. par.) du Musée du Louvre et de la Bibliotheque impériale. Edited by M. (A.-J.) Letronne, W. Brunet de Presle, and E. Egger. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1865.

xxvii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 27

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations P.Petr. P.Rein. P.Ryl.

P.Sakaon P.Stras. P.Tebt. P.Thead. P.Turner P.Yale P.Wash.Univ.

P.Wisc. PDM

The Flinders Petrie Papyri. Edited by J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly. Dublin, 1891–1905. Les Papyrus Théodore Reinach. Edited by P. Collart. Cairo, 1940. Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Edited by A. S. Hunt, J. de M. Johnson, and V. Martin. 4 vols. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1911–52. The Archive of Aurelius Sakaon. Edited by G. M. Parássoglou. Bonn, 1978. Griechische Papyrus der Kaiserlichen Universitäts- und Landes-bibliothek zu Strassburg. Edited by F. Priesigke. Leipzig, 1912–. The Tebtunis Papyri. Edited by B. P. Grenfell et al. London: H. Frowde, etc., 1902–. Papyrus de Théadelphie. Edited by P. Jouguet. Paris: Fontemoing, 1911. Papyri Greek and Egyptian. Edited by P. J. Parsons et al. London, 1981. Yale Papyri in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Edited by J. F. Oates. New Haven, etc., 1967–. Washington University Papyri. Edited by V. B. Schuman, K. Maresch, and Z. M. Packman. Missoula, Mont.; Oplanden, Ger., 1980–90. The Wisconsin Papyri. Edited by P. J. Sijpesteijn. Leiden; Zutphen, Neth.,1967–77. Papyri demoticae magicae. Demotic texts in the PGM corpus as collated in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992–.

Pearson PGM

PSI RECAM SEG SPap

SIG2 SIG3 SVF TrGF von Arnim W.Chrest.

The Fragments of Sophocles. Edited by A. C. Pearson. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by K. Preisendanz et al. 2 vols. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1928–31. Papiri della Società Italiana. Edited by G. Vitelli et al. Florence, Felice le Monnier, etc., 1912–. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Amsterdam, etc., 1923–. Select Papyri. Edited by A. S. Hunt, C. C. Edgar, and D. L. Page. 5 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932–41. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1898–1901. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. Edited by W. Dittenberger. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1915–24. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. Edited by H. von Arnim. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–24. Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Edited by Bruno Snell et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971–. Hierokles: Ethische Elementarlehre (Papyrus 9780). Edited by H. von Arnim with W. Schubart. Berlin: Weidman, 1906. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Edited by U. Wilcken and L. Mitteis. 2 vols. in 4. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1912.

xxviii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 28

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Modern Sources

General ad loc. ad locum, at the place discussed b.c.e. before the Common Era c.e. Common Era ca. circa ch(s). chapter(s) col. column e.g. exempli gratia, for example ed(s). edition, editor(s), edited by enl. enlarged esp. especially ET English translation fig. figure ft. foot/feet Gk. Greek Heb. Hebrew i.e. id est, that is impv. imperative in. inch(es) inv. inventory number kg. kilogram(s) km. kilometer(s) lit. literally m. meter(s) mi. mile(s) n(n). note(s) n.d. no date n.p. no place/no publisher/no pages n.s. new series no(s). number(s) p(p). page(s) par. parallel pl. plural R. Rabbi rev. revised s.v. sub verbo, under the word sect. section ser. series sing. singular sq. square trans. translator(s), translated by vs. versus

Bible Translations gnb Goodspeed jb Moffatt nasb neb niv nkjv nlt nrsv rsv rv Twentieth  Century

Good News Bible E. J. Goodspeed, The Complete Bible: An American Translation Jerusalem Bible James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation New American Standard Bible New English Bible New International Version New King James Version New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version Revised Standard Version Revised Version Twentieth Century New Testament

Journals, Series, and Other Reference Works AAAH AAAM

Acta Academiae Aboensis, Humaniora American Anthropological Association Monographs AAAPSS Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science AARAS American Academy of Religion Academy Series American Academy of Religion Teaching AARTRSS Religious Studies Series AASF Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Anchor Bible AB ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David N. Freeman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ABIG Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte ABPRSSS Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series Australian Biblical Review ABR ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AbrN Abr-Nahrain Archaeology in the Biblical World ABW

xxix

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 29

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations ACCS

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture ACl Acta Classica ACQ American Church Quarterly ACR Australasian Catholic Record ADPV Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Advance Advance Aeg Aegyptus AfCrit Affirmation & Critique AfCS African Christian Studies AfET Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology (=EAfrJET) Africa Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, London AfSR African Studies Review AfSt African Studies AfThJ Africa Theological Journal AGP Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie AGSU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Urchristentums AHB Ancient History Bulletin AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity American Journal of Philology AJP AJPS Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies AJPSS Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Series AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review AJT Asia Journal of Theology Alfinge Alfinge ALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistichen Judentums Altertum Das Altertum ALUOS Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society ALW Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft AmAnth American Anthropologist AmAntiq American Antiquity AmBenRev American Benedictine Review AMECR AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church Review AmEthn American Ethnologist AMEZQR A.M.E. Zion (African Methodist Episcopal Zion) Quarterly Review AmJPsyc American Journal of Psychiatry AmJSocPsyc American Journal of Social Psychiatry AmPsyc American Psychologist AmSocMissMonS American Society of Missiology Monograph Series AmSocMissS American Society of Missiology Series AmSocRev American Sociological Review Anám Anámnesis Analecta Biblica AnBib AnBrux Analecta Bruxellensia AnCrac Analecta cracoviensia AncSoc Ancient Society Ancient Near Eastern Studies ANES Angelicum Angelicum Annala Annala Annales Annales ANQ Andover Newton Quarterly Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: ANRW Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der

neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1972–. AnSt Anatolian Studies ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries AnthConsc Anthropology of Consciousness AnthHum Anthropology and Humanism Anthrop Anthropos AnthrQ Anthropological Quarterly Antiquity Antiquity Antonianum Antonianum ANZJPsyc Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ANZSTR Australian and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament APAP Analytic Psychotherapy and Psychopathology APB Acta Patristica et Byzantina Apeiron Apeiron APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. APsPSAL Acta Psiquiatrica y Psicologica de America Latina Apuntes Apuntes AramSt Aramaic Studies ARAnth Annual Review of Anthropology ArbInt Arbeiten zur Interkulturalität Archaeology Archaeology ArchOd Archaeology Odyssey ArchRep Archaeological Reports Arethusa Arethusa ArIntHI Archives Internationales d’histoire des idées ARJ Annual of Rabbinic Judaism ASAMS Association of Social Anthropologists Monograph Series ASDE Annali di storia dell’ esegesi AsEthn Asian Ethnology AshTJ Ashland Theological Journal ASNU Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis ASocR American Sociological Review ASP American Studies in Papyrology AsSeign Assemblées du Seigneur ASSR Archives de sciences sociales des religions ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute AsTJ Asbury Theological Journal ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATDan Acta Theologica Danica AThR Anglican Theological Review ‘Atiqot ‘Atiqot American Theological Library Association ATLABS Bibliography Series ATSSWCRMPCS Asbury Theological Seminary Series in World Christian Revitalization Movements in Pentecostal/Charismatic Studies AugCNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament AuOr Aula Orientalis AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AUSt American University Studies AYBRL Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library Biblical Archaeologist BA BAGB Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé

xxx

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 30

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations BAIAS

Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society BangTF Bangalore Theological Forum BapRT Baptist Review of Theology/Revue baptiste de théologie BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASP Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BCompAW Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World BCompRel Blackwell Companions to Religion BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. BDV Bulletin Dei Verbum BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome BegChr The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. 5 vols. London: Macmillan, 1920–33; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. BehBrSc Behavioural and Brain Sciences BeO Bibbia e Oriente BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BETS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (later = JETS) BEURU Bibliotheca Ekmaniana Universitatis Regiae Upsaliensis BHMTSNABR The Bishop Henry McNeal Turner Studies in North American Black Religion BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie BI Biblical Illustrator Bib Biblica BiBh Bible Bhashyam (Biblebhashyam) BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibLeb Bibel und Leben BIBMS BIBAL Monograph Series BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BibRev Biblia Revuo BibSham Bibliotheca Shamanistica BibSp Bible and Spade BibT The Bible Today BibTh Biblical Theology BibUnt Biblische Untersuchungen Bijdr Bijdragen BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BJGS Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies BJPhilSc British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Bulletin of the John Rylands University BJRL Library Brown Judaic Studies BJS BJSoc British Journal of Sociology BK Bibel und Kirche Bibel und Liturgie BL BLE Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique

BK BMedJ BMik BN BNTC BO BollS BPN BR BRev BrillPauly

BSac BSClinPsyc BSGA BSL BTB BTCB BTr BTZ BullCorrHell BurH BWANT ByF BZ BZNW BZNWK CaÉ CAH CahJos CahRB CanJBehSc Cathedra CathW CBC CBET CBQ CBQMS CBR CBull C&C CC CCER CCl CCRMS CCSS CCWJCW CE CEC CGB CH

Bibel und Kirche British Medical Journal Beth Mikra Biblische Notizen Black’s New Testament Commentaries Bibliotheca orientalis Bollingen Series Bibliotheca Psychiatrica et Neurologica Biblical Research Bible Review Brill’s New Pauly, Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World: Antiquity. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Helmuth Schneider, and Christine F. Salazar. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002–. Bibliotheca Sacra British School of Clinical Psychology Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology Biblical Studies Library Biblical Theology Bulletin Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Bible Translator Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique Buried History Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblia y Fe Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Cahiers Évangile Cambridge Ancient History Cahiers de Joséphologie Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science Cathedra Catholic World Cambridge Bible Commentary Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Currents in Biblical Research Classical Bulletin Cross & Crown Continental Commentaries Cahiers du Cercle Ernest-Renan Civiltà Cattolica Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 Coptic Encyclopedia. Edited by Aziz S. Atiya. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1991. The Context of Early Christianity Church Growth Bulletin Church History

xxxi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 31

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations CHB

Christian History & Biography (formerly Christian History) ChH Christian History (continued as Christian History & Biography) ChicSt Chicago Studies Chm Churchman ChongTJ Chongshin Theological Journal ChrÉg Chronique d’Égypte Christus Christus CHSC Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia CHSP Center for Hermeneutical Studies Protocol ChuenKLS Chuen King Lecture Series CJ Classical Journal CJP Canadian Journal of Philosophy CJT Canadian Journal of Theology ClAnt Classical Antiquity ClassO Classical Outlook CMPsy Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry CNS Cristianesimo nella Storia CNT Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coll Collationes CollLat Collection Latomus Colloq Colloquium ColT Collectanea Theologica CommCog Communication and Cognition Commentary Commentary Communio Communio ComPsy Comprehensive Psychiatry ConBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Concilium Concilium ConcJ Concordia Journal ConnCMon Connecticut College Monographs ConsJud Conservative Judaism CP Classical Philology CQ Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review CRBR Critical Review of Books in Religion CrisTR Criswell Theological Review Criterion Criterion CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism CSHSMC Comparative Studies of Health Systems and Medical Care CSSH Comparative Studies in Society and History CT Christianity Today CTAfS Christian Theology in African Scholarship CTJ Calvin Theological Journal CTM Concordia Theological Monthly CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly CTSR Chicago Theological Seminary Register CuadTeol Cuadernos de Teología CulRel Culture and Religion CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CurTM Currents in Theology and Mission Communio Viatorum CV CW Classical World DACB Dictionary of African Christian Biography. New Haven: Overseas Ministries Study Center. Online: http://www.dacb.org. Dados Dados DaughSar Daughters of Sarah DavLog Davar Logos DBM Deltion Biblikon Meleton The Development of Christian Doctrine DCDBCN Before the Council of Nicaea

Décrets hellénistiques DécHell DeutsArcIns Deutsches Archäologisches Institut DeuUn Deutsche Universitätszeitung DiabMed Diabetic Medicine Diakonia Diakonia Dial Dialog Didaskalia Didaskalia Diogenes Diogenes Discovery Discovery Divinitas Divinitas DivThom Divus Thomas Diwa Diwa: Studies in Philosophy and Theology DLNTD Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. Dor le Dor Dor le Dor DOTHB Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005. DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. DPCM Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Edited by Stanley M. Burgess, Gary B. McGee, and Patrick H. Alexander. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993. DRev The Downside Review DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DSt Dutch Studies DTT Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift DVerb Dei Verbum EAfrJET East African Journal of Evangelical Theology EAfSt Eastern African Studies East Asian PastRev East Asian Pastoral Review ÉcBib École biblique EcRev Ecumenical Review EdF Erträge der Forschung EfMex Efemerides Mexicana ÉgT Église et Théologie EHPR Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses EHRel Études d’Histoire des Religions EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EkkPhar Ekklesiastikos Pharos ELKZ Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung EMC Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views Emmanuel Emmanuel Enc Encounter EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972. Enrichment Enr EphLit Ephemerides Liturgicae EphMar Ephemerides Mariologicae ÉPROER Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain

xxxii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 32

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations EpwRev Epworth Review Eranos Eranos ErAuf Erbe und Auftrag ErIsr Eretz-Israel (Erets-Yisrael) ERT Evangelical Review of Theology ESEC Emory Studies in Early Christianity EspV Esprit et Vie EstAg Estudio Agustiniano EstBib Estudios Bíblicos EstEcl Estudios Eclesiásticos EtBib Études Bibliques Ethnology Ethnology Ethos Ethos EthRacSt Ethnic and Racial Studies ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses ETR Études Théologiques et Religieuses ÉtudClass Les Études Classiques Études Études EunDoc Euntes Docete EurH Europäische Hochschulschriften EurSCO European Studies on Christian Origins EUSTS European University Studies, Theology Series EvJ Evangelical Journal EvQ Evangelical Quarterly EvT Evangelische Theologie Exp Expositor ExpBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Explor Explorations ExpT Expository Times FaithFreed Faith and Freedom FCNTECW Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian World FemTheol Feminist Theology FF Foundations and Facets FIAEC Fédération Internationale des Associations d’Études Classiques FidHist Fides et Historia FilNeot Filología Neotestamentaria F&M Faith & Mission FO Folia Orientalia FoiVie Foi et Vie ForKathTheol Forum Katholische Theologie Forum Forum FourR The Fourth R FPhil Faith and Philosophy FreiRund Freiburger Rundbrief FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FSCS Faith and Scholarship Colloquies Series FZPhTh Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie GBWW Great Books of the Western World GCAJS Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies GDT Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church. Edited by William A. Dyrness et al. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008. GNC Good News Commentaries GNS Good News Studies Greek Orthodox Theological Review GOTR GR Greece & Rome GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Greg Gregorianum GTJ Grace Theological Journal Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und HABES epigraphische Studien

Horizons in Biblical Theology HBT HCPsy Hospital and Community Psychiatry HDBull Harvard Divinity Bulletin HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion HekRev Hekima Review Helios Helios Hen Henoch Herm Hermathena Hermeneia Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible Hermenêutica Hermenêutica Hesperia Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Hesperia Sup Hesperia Supplements HeyJ Heythrop Journal HibJ Hibbert Journal HisJBehSc Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences Historia Historia HistTh History and Theory HistW History Workshop HMFT Health/Medicine and the Faith Traditions HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries Hok Hokhma HolNTC Holman New Testament Commentary HR History of Religions HS Hebrew Studies HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HT History Today HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies HTS/TS HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HumDev Human Development HvTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IBMR International Bulletin of Missionary Research IBRB Institute for Biblical Research Bibliographies IBS Irish Biblical Studies IBT Interpreting Biblical Texts IC Inscriptiones creticae 1-4, ed. M. Guarducci (Rome, 1939–50) ICC International Critical Commentaries ICS Illinois Classical Studies IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IGSK Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien IgViv Iglesia viva IJAC International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling IJAHS International Journal of African Historical Studies IJComSoc International Journal of Comparative Sociology IJSocLang International Journal of the Sociology of Language International Journal of Social Psychiatry IJSocPsyc IKaZ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift ImBSt Immersion Bible Studies Imm Immanuel IndCHR Indian Church History Review

xxxiii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 33

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations InnTStud Interchange

Innsbrucker theologische Studien Interchange: Papers on Biblical and Current Questions Interpretation Interpretation IntRevMiss International Review of Mission ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88. IsLN Israel—Land and Nature IsNumJ Israel Numismatic Journal IsNumR Israel Numismatic Research ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly ITS Indian Theological Studies IVPNTC InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAAS Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary JAbnPsy Journal of Abnormal Psychology JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum JAfrHist Journal of African History JAM Journal of Asian Mission JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association JAmFolk Journal of American Folklore JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAnthRes Journal of Anthropological Research JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JapRel Japanese Religions Journal for the Aramaic Bible (now = AraJAramB maic Studies) JAS Journal of Asian Studies JASA Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series JBPRes Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research JBPsi Jornal Brasileiro de Psiquiatria JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JCounsDev Journal of Counseling and Development JDharm Journal of Dharma JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jeev Jeevadhara JerPersp Jerusalem Perspective JerSJT Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JEthS Journal of Ethiopian Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JEurPentTA Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association JExpPsyc Journal of Experimental Psychology Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion JFSR JGES Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society JGPSSS Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences JGPsyc Journal of General Psychology JGRCJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JHC Journal of Higher Criticism JHI Journal of the History of Ideas Journal of the History of Philosophy JHistPhil JHistS Journal of Historical Studies

JHistSex JHLT JHom JHS Jian Dao Jian Dao DS JIHist JITC JJS JJTP JLH JLR JMBeh JMenSc JMFam JMS JNES JNSL JÖAI JPastCare JPFC

JPJ JPOS JPsycHist JPsyChr JPsyTE JPsyTh JPT JPTSup JQR JR JRA JRASS JRefJud JRelAf JRelHealth JRelS JRH JRS JRT JSAlc JSCE JSHJ JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSocI JSOT JSOTSup JSP

Journal of the History of Sexuality Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology Journal of Homosexuality Journal of Hellenic Studies Jian Dao Jian Dao Dissertation Series Journal of Interdisciplinary History Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie Journal of Law and Religion Journal of Mind and Behavior Journal of Mental Science Journal of Marriage and Family Journal of Mithraic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts Journal of Pastoral Care The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography; Political History; Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern with D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik. 2 vols. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 1. Vol. 1: Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974; vol. 2: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Journal of Progressive Judaism Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal of Psychohistory Journal of Psychology and Christianity Journal of Psychiatric Treatment and Evaluation Journal of Psychology and Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal of Reform Judaism Journal of Religion in Africa Journal of Religion and Health Journal of Religious Studies Journal of Religious History Journal of Roman Studies Journal of Religious Thought Journal of Studies on Alcohol Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Social Issues Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

xxxiv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 34

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations JSPSup

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion JStRel Journal for the Study of Religion JS/TS Journal for Semitics/Tydskrif vir Semitistiek JTC Journal for Theology and Church JTheol Journal of Theology JTS Journal of Theological Studies JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Judaism Judaism JValInq Journal of Value Inquiry Kairos Kairos Kairós Kairós KathKomNT Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament KBANT Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament KEKNT Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, begründet von H. A. W. Meyer Kerux Kerux Klio Klio KuI Kirche und Israel LangSc Language Sciences LangSoc Language in Society Laós Laós Latomus Latomus Laur Laurentianum LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation LCL Loeb Classical Library LCQ Lutheran Church Quarterly LCR Lutheran Church Review LD Lectio Divina LebSeel Lebendige Seelsorge LEC Library of Early Christianity Leš Lešonénu Levant Levant Ling Linguistics List Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture Listener The Listener LivL Living Light LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LOS London Oriental Series LouvS Louvain Studies LPSt Library of Pauline Studies LQ Lutheran Quarterly LRB Library of Religious Biography LSEMSA London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology LSJ Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal LTP Laval Théologique et Philosophique LTPM Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly LumVie Lumière et Vie LUOSM Leeds University Oriental Society Monograph LVit Lumen Vitae Memoirs of the American Academy in MAAR Rome

Maarav Maarav MaisD Maison Dieu Man Man Manresa Manresa MAP Monographs on Ancient Philosophy Marianum Marianum Mayéutica Mayéutica MBPS Mellen Biblical Press Series McMJT McMaster Journal of Theology MCom Miscelánea Comillas Le monde de la Bible MdB MedQ Mediterranean Quarterly MelT Melita Theologica Meroitica Meroitica Message of the Fathers of the Church MFC MHR Mediterranean Historical Review MHRC Mental Health, Religion and Culture Midstream Midstream MilS Milltown Studies Mishkan Mishkan Missiology Missiology: An International Review Missionalia Missionalia MissSt Mission Studies MissT Mission Today MJCSL Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning MM Moulton and Milligan Mnemosyne Mnemosyne MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary Moment Moment Monist Monist Moralia Moralia MounM Mountain Movers MScRel Mélanges de Science Religieuse MSJ The Master’s Seminary Journal MTZ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift Mus Muséon: Revue d’études orientales NABPRSS National Association of the Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series NAC New American Commentary NBf New Blackfriars NCamBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NCCS New Covenant Commentary Series NCS Noyes Classical Studies NDST Notre Dame Studies in Theology NEA Near Eastern Archaeology NEAEHL New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by M. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. NEASB Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin NedTT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Neot Neotestamentica NESTTR Near East School of Theology Theological Review NFTL New Foundations Theological Library NHL The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James M. Robinson. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977. NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004. New International Biblical Commentary NIBCNT on the New Testament

xxxv

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 35

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–9. NIDNTT The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIVAC NIV Application Commentary NortCE Norton Critical Edition NotesT Notes on Translation NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NRTh La Nouvelle Revue Théologique NTA New Testament Abstracts NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch NTG New Testament Guides NTIC New Testament in Context NTL New Testament Library NTM New Testament Message: A BiblicalTheological Commentary NTMon New Testament Monographs NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testament Studies Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift NTT NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies NumC Numismatic Chronicle Numen Numen: International Review for the History of Religions NV Nova et Vetera OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OCD3 Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Oceania Oceania OEANE Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. One in Christ OiC OJRS Ohio Journal of Religious Studies ÖKTNT Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OLA OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary. Edited by P. G. W. Glare. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Or Orientalia OrChr Oriens Christianus OrChrAn Orientalia Christiana Analecta Orientierung Orientierung Orpheus Orpheus OTP The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85. PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Pacifica Pacifica Parab Parabola PAST Pauline Studies (Brill) PastPsy Pastoral Psychology PastRev Pastoral Review

Paternoster Biblical Monographs Papers of the British School at Rome Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PentEv Pentecostal Evangel PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PerMS Perceptual and Motor Skills Personalist The Personalist PerTeol Perspectiva Teológica Publications of the Finnish Exegetical PFES Society Phil Philologus Philosophia Antiqua PhilAnt Philosophy Philosophy PhilPA Philosophy and Public Affairs Phoenix Phoenix PHR Problèmes d’Histoire des Religions Phronesis Phronesis PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PillNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary PJBR Polish Journal of Biblical Research PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Pneuma Pneuma PolSt Political Studies Pom Pomegranate Population Studies PopSt Pittsburgh Original Texts and Translations POTTS Series Priests & People P&P Past & Present P&Pres Prism Prism ProcArisSoc Proceedings of the Aristotle Society Proclamation Commentaries ProcC Pro Ecclesia ProEccl ProtMon Protestantische Monatshefte PrRR Princeton Readings in Religions PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies PrTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series Prudentia Prudentia PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin PSCC Protocol Series of the Colloquies of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies Psychosomatics Psychosomatics PsycRep Psychological Reports PsycRes Psychiatry Research PsycTRPT Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series PWS Pietist and Wesleyan Studies Supplement to Realencyclopädie der clasPWSup sischen Altertumswissenschaft. Edited by Georg Wissowa, Kurt Witte, and Wilhelm Kroll. 15 vols. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1903–80. PzB Protokolle zur Bibel Qad Qadmoniot QC Qumran Chronicle QDisp Quaestiones Disputatae QF Quatres Fleuves Ramus Ramus RB Revue Biblique Review of Biblical Literature RBL RBPH Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire RCB Revista de Cultura Biblica PBMon PBSR PCNT

xxxvi

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 36

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations RCT Revista Catalana de Teología RdT Rassegna di teologia REA Revue des Études Anciennes Readings Readings: A New Biblical Commentary REAug Revue des Études Augustiniennes REB Revista Eclesiástica Brasileira RechBib Recherches bibliques Reconstructionist Reconstructionist RefR Reformed Review REG Revue des Études Grecques REJ Revue des Études Juives RelBiog Religion und Biographie RelHHeal Religion, Health and Healing Religion Religion RelIntL Religion and Intellectual Life RelS Religious Studies RelSRev Religious Studies Review RelT Religious Traditions RésCon Résister et Construire ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevAg Revista Agustiniana RevAgEsp Revista Agustiniana de Espiritualidad (= RevAg) RevExp Review and Expositor ReVision ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation RevistB Revista Biblica RevMet Review of Metaphysics RevPhil Revue de Philologie RevQ Revue de Qumran RevRel Review for Religious RevScRel Revue des Sciences Religieuses RevThéol Revue de Théologie RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Rhetorica Rhetorica RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RivB Rivista Biblica RivSAnt Rivista storica dell’Antichita RMPhil Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RNT Regensburger Neues Testament RocT Roczniki Teologiczne RocTK Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne (= RocT) RomPhil Romance Philology RQ Römische Quartalschrift RR Review of Religion RRéf Revue Réformée RRJ Review of Rabbinic Judaism RSLR Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa RSPT Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques RSR Recherches de Science Religieuse RSSSR Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion RStMiss Regnum Studies in Mission R&T Religion and Theology RThom Revue Thomiste RTL Revue Théologique de Louvain RTP Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie RTR Reformed Theological Review Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny RuBL SacEr Sacris Erudiri SAJPsyc South African Journal of Psychology Salm Salmanticensis SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Studies in Anthropological Method SAnthM

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus Society of Biblical Literature SBL Academia Biblica Society of Biblical Literature The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters SBLBSNA Society of Biblical Literature Biblical Scholarship in North America SBLCP Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study SBLSBL Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSemS Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies SBLSemSup Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Supplements SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SBLWGRW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World SBLWGRWSup Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology ScC La Scuola Cattolica ScEs Science et Esprit SCEthn Series in Contemporary Ethnography SCHNT Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti SChrJud Studies in Christianity and Judaism SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal SCR Studies in Comparative Religion ScrB Scripture Bulletin Scriptura Scriptura Scripture Scripture ScrJudCr Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia ScrTh Scripta Theologica ScSoc Science and Society SE Studia Evangelica SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok SEAJT South East Asia Journal of Theology SecCent Second Century Sefarad Sefarad SEHT Studies in Evangelical History and Thought Sem Semitica SAOC SBB SBEC SBET SBFLA SBL SBLABib SBLBMI

xxxvii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 37

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations SémBib Sémiotique et Bible Semeia Semeia SGRR Studies in Greek and Roman Religion Shamanism Shamanism SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SHCM Studies in the History of Christian Mission SHR Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) SICHC Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity SIFC Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica Signs Signs SJFWJ Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SJTOP Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers SK Skrif en Kerk SkI Skeptical Inquirer SLJT Saint Luke’s Journal of Theology SMedJ Southern Medical Journal SNTA Studiorum Novi Testamenti auxilia SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNTSU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt SO Symbolae Osloenses SocAnal Sociological Analysis SocG Sociologische Gids SocRes Social Research Sophia Sophia SP Sacra Pagina SpCh The Spirit & Church SPCI Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues SPhilA Studia Philonica Annual (Studia Philonica) SPhilMon Studia Philonica Monographs Spiritus Spiritus SPNT Studies on Personalities of the New Testament SR/SR Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses SSAMD Sage Series on African Modernization and Development SSCS SUNY Series in Classical Studies SSMed Social Science & Medicine ST Studia Theologica StanHR Stanford Humanities Review StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature (Lang) StBibSlov Studia Biblica Slovaca STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StHistMiss Studies in the History of Missions STJ Stulos Theological Journal Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift STK StMkRev St Mark’s Review StOv Studium Ovetense StPat Studia patavina Studia Post-Biblica StPB STRev Sewanee Theological Review StSpir Studies in Spirituality StTheolInt Studies in Theological Interpretation StThSt Stellenbosch Theological Studies Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review Studies SubBi Subsidia Biblica

SUNT

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Supplément Supplément SUSIA Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet I Athen SvMT Svensk Missionstidskrift Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly SVTQ Southwestern Journal of Anthropology SWJA SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology SyllClass Syllecta Classica TA Tel Aviv TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association Tarbiz Tarbiz TBC Torch Bible Commentaries TBei Theologische Beiträge TD Theology Digest Theological Dictionary of the New TestaTDNT ment. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Telema Telema Teresianum Teresianum Teubner Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum teubneriana Textus Textus TGl Theologie und Glaube Them Themelios Theo Theologika Theof Theoforum TheolEv Theologia Evangelica Théologiques Théologiques Theology Theology THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Thought Thought ThQ Theologische Quartalschrift ThTo Theology Today TijSW Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen TJ Trinity Journal TJT Toronto Journal of Theology T&K Texte & Kontexte TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae. Online: http:// www.tlg.uci.edu. TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TP Theologie und Philosophie TPAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association (later = TAPA) TPQ Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift Tradition Tradition Transcultural Psychiatry TranscPsyc TranscPsycRR Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review Transversalités Transversalités TRu Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies TS TSAJ Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Texts and Studies in the History of TSHP Philosophy TSJTSA Texts and Studies of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies TTCABS

xxxviii

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 38

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Abbreviations TTEd TTKi TTZ TynBul TZ UCPLA

Teaching and Teacher Education Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Unidade Científico-Pedagógica de Letras e Artes UCPP University of California Publications in Philosophy UJT Understanding Jesus Today UltRM Ultimate Reality and Meaning UNDCSJCA University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity UnS Una Sancta USFISFCJ University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review VC Vigiliae Christianae VD Verbum Domini VE Vox Evangelica VerbEc Verbum et Ecclesia VFVRUL Veröffentlichungen des Forschungsinstituts für vergleichende Religionsgeschichte an der Universität Leipzig Vid Vidyajyoti VidJTR Vidyajyoti Journal of Theological Reflection VitIndRel Vitality of Indigenous Religions VR Vox Reformata VS Vox Scripturae VSpir Vie Spirituelle VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WAfJES West African Journal of Ecclesial Studies WArch World Archaeology WBC Word Biblical Commentary WD Wort und Dienst WestBC Westminster Bible Companion WJBlSt Western Journal of Black Studies WLQ Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WMQ WomSt Worship WPJ WPR WSCM

William & Mary Quarterly Women’s Studies Worship World Policy Journal World Press Review World Studies of Churches in Mission (World Council of Churches) WSPL Warwick Studies in Philosophy and Language WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen sum Neuen Testament WW Word and World YCS Yale Classical Studies YJS Yale Judaica Series YonsJT Yonsei Journal of Theology YonsRTC Yonsei Review of Theology & Culture YPR Yale Publications in Religion YSMT York Studies in Medieval Theology ZAC/JAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Zion Zion ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte ZKT Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie ZKWKL Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben ZNT Zeitschrift für Neues Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik ZRGG Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte ZSNT Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche Zyg Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science ZZ Der Zeichen der Zeit

xxxix

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 39

6/18/14 10:14 AM

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 40

6/18/14 10:14 AM

P A R T

5

Paul’ s Diaspor a M issions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

2193

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 41

6/18/14 10:14 AM

R atifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

H

istorians recounting the origins of peoples often reported not only the stories of their founders but also major changes in their constitutions after the founders’ deaths.1 A work documenting the earliest history of the Gentile mission would need to include the theological watershed for that mission that occurred at the Jerusalem Council (a decision the leaders seemed to uphold even when dissent was widespread, Acts 21:25). In this section,2 the church, led by God’s Spirit, ratifies the Gentile mission without the requirement of circumcision. The Jerusalem church previously affirmed the ministry to Cornelius’s household but now has to reckon both with the Gentile ministry’s dramatic spread (and perhaps some Jerusalemite complaints; cf. Gal 5:11; 6:12) and with miracle accounts suggesting that God is with this mission. That circumcisionists after this meeting continued to cause Paul trouble, as attested in his letters, is less relevant for Luke’s narrative, which focuses on the Pauline mission and its continuity with the apostolic leadership of the Jerusalem church. In any case, by Luke’s day, the Gentile mission was too widespread and the remnants of the Jerusalem church too scattered for the circumcisionists to remain a primary potent threat for Luke’s Diaspora audience.3 Luke thus reports a theological battle important in the historical development of the Gentile church of his day, but it was no longer a major battle in his day. Continuity with the church’s heritage, however, remained an important theological issue, making the events of the council a matter of continuing interest. The council’s decree can hardly be Luke’s fiction; it is a compromise solution that pacifies the circumcision party (by treating Gentile converts as God-fearers) rather than ratifies Gentile converts’ full status as members of God’s people. Nevertheless, it was a compromise that saved the day and prevented a major schism from forming.

1. Introduction Historians of early Christianity are interested not only in Luke’s theological point but in the historical events that stand behind his report. How has Luke adapted his 1. See esp. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 146n23 (citing, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.41–85; Jos. Ant. 6.31–67). Writers sought to show the excellence of their constitutions; thus, e.g., Cicero portrays Rome’s as better than Plato’s ideal (Asmis, “Model”), though technically Rome lacked the sort of constitution found in the Greek city-states ( Judge, First Christians, 111). 2. For reception history, specifically medieval and especially Luther’s readings of Acts 15, see Brockmann, “Apostelkonzil.” For sample applications, see, e.g., the application to the Indian church in Kariamadam, “Council”; an emphasis on the productivity of dialogue in Malcolm, “Conversion.” 3. The issue had not completely receded even in Ign. Phld. 6.1 (cf. Magn. 8.1; 10.3), but docetic and other problems were far more significant than some Jewish Christians seeking to impose circumcision. For the circumcisionist faction’s persistence, see also sources in Talbert, Romans, 98.

2194

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 42

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

sources? Many historical questions involve the relevance of Gal 2:1–10. If that passage also reports the Jerusalem Council, we have a primary (albeit polemical) source reporting the same events from another vantage point and hence an opportunity to test Luke’s historiographic approach on points addressed by both sources. Where some points appear only in one source (particularly the decrees of Acts 15:20, 29), however, we should be cautious about inferring negative conclusions from silence. Even had Luke had Galatians in front of him (which is highly unlikely), he was under no obligation as a historian to include every point that appeared in all his sources. That is, given the undoubtedly much broader range of events that either writer could have reported, we should compare what our sources include, not what they omit. a. The Relevance of Galatians 2:1–10 Scholars are divided as to whether Paul mentions this council in Gal 2:1–10; the majority view is that he does so. C. S. C. Williams, noting that this question represents the most difficult item to reconcile between Acts and Paul, summarizes five basic views (of which the first two are treated most fully here), to which we will add a sixth category:4 1. Galatians 2:1–10 corresponds instead to the meeting in Acts 11:30 and 12:25 (W. M. Ramsay, W. L. Knox, and others).5 2. The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 corresponds to the meeting in Gal 2:1–10 ( J. B. Lightfoot and others).6 3. Galatians 2:1–10 appears in both Acts 11 and 15, a Jerusalem source and an Antioch source reproducing it differently.7 4. Some reject the historicity of Acts altogether, hence denying that Gal 2:1–10 corresponds to either occasion. 5. Other, more imaginative reconstructions. 6. Many affirm that the Jerusalem Council corresponds to Gal 2:1–10 (the second view above) but believe that Luke has added other elements, either creating or borrowing from a later occasion when Paul was not present. i. A  rguments Favoring Galatians 2:1–10 as the Famine Visit of Acts 11:30

The second view on the list is the majority view (when some form of the sixth view is included), and it is also my own view. But I begin by discussing instead the first view, held by a respectable minority of scholars (including Williams himself)—namely, that Gal 2:1–10 corresponds to the earlier famine visit in Acts.8 Arguments for this view include the following: 4. C. Williams, Acts, 24–30. I have switched the sequence of his first and second views to avoid confusion, since I will take up his second view first. 5. Bunine, “Réception,” suggests that Luke even moved the Jerusalem Council from Acts 11:30 to Acts 15. 6. Skarsaune, Shadow, 169, notes a mediating position held by some—namely, that Luke “telescoped into one meeting in Acts 15 decisions really taken at two meetings, the second after the writing of Galatians.” 7. In this case, the famine and circumcision issues must have coincided chronologically; this is possible, but in view of Luke’s having better access to the original traditions than we do, Luke’s distinction between the two events seems likelier. Cf. Schoeps, Paul, 65 (with Acts 11 representing a somewhat confused doublet). After the “pillars” requested that Paul remember the poor (Gal 2:10), Paul and Barnabas may have returned from Antioch with the offering (the return trip to Antioch perhaps also explaining how Silas returned there); in this case Luke may have simply not known the precise chronology except that the trip occurred during Claudius’s reign (Acts 11:28). 8. Knox, Acts, 40–53; C. Williams, Acts, 30; Longenecker, Acts, 236–38; idem, Ministry and Message, 39; Faw, Acts, 170; Larkin, Acts, 218; Trebilco, “Itineraries,” 453–55; Witherington, Acts, 90–97, 375, 440–43;

2195

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 43

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

1. Paul would not have omitted the famine visit (Acts 11:30; 12:25) in Galatians. 2. That Galatians would mention the council but not the decrees, which would have silenced his opponents, is “inconceivable.”9 3. Discrepancies between Gal 2:1–10 and Acts 15 are too many for them to be the same account.10 4. Paul says that he went to Jerusalem because of a “revelation” (Gal 2:2), which fits nicely with the prophetic basis for the famine visit in Acts (Acts 11:28–30). 5. If, for other reasons, one supports an earlier date for Galatians, this view allows for that position.11 6. Responses to counterarguments; for example, responding to the correspondence of issues in Acts 15 by arguing that the decision of Gal 2:1–10, if identified with Acts 11:30 and 12:25, may not yet be secure, and thus requiring the revisiting of the question in Acts 15. 7. Luke need not mention the details reported by Gal 2:1–10 in Acts 11 because they led to no decisive result.12 8. If Paul wrote Galatians after the visit to Galatia depicted in Acts 16:1–5, he would have mentioned Timothy, who was from that region, whereas, if he wrote before that visit, he may have also written before the Jerusalem Council of 15:4–29. Many supporters of this position argue that Paul wrote Galatians in the heat of the conflict described in Acts 15:1–2 (hence the close correspondence of ideas) but before the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (hence without appealing to its decrees).13 ii. A  gainst Arguments That Galatians 2:1–10 Is the Famine Visit

I will respond briefly to each of the arguments offered for the famine visit (cf. also my briefer discussion of some related points at Acts 11:30). First, Paul had no reason to record the famine visit in Galatians.14 He is concisely surveying a large amount of time, and his point involves his independence from Jerusalem’s apostles.15 If he Hoerber, “Galatians and Acts”; Morgado, “Paul in Jerusalem”; Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:4–5 (in this case, based on his understanding of Paul, not Anatolian archaeology); Bock, Acts, 487–90 (very tentatively); Peterson, Acts, 420; see especially the detailed cases of Schnabel, Mission, 988–92; Wenham, “Corpus,” 234–43 (having summarized [228–34] arguments for the other view); cf. Emmet, “Tradition,” 281–82. Rainer Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 20, attributes this view to a “growing number of exegetes.” See further comment at Acts 11:30. 9. Longenecker, Acts, 236 (the decrees would supply Paul’s “coup de grâce”). 10. E.g., Schnabel, Mission, 987. 11. Witherington, Acts, 449, also argues that Paul in Galatians points to recent events as in 1 Thessalonians. But Gal 1–2 is narratio for the issue at hand, starting with his conversion (some fourteen to seventeen years earlier); the events need not be “recent.” For an early date for Galatians (perhaps ca. 48 c.e.), see, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 270; Witherington, Acts, 449, 817–20; Longenecker, Paul, 258; Ramsay, Teaching, 383–403. Others, including me, date it later (perhaps ca. 57 c.e.), e.g., Fee, Presence, xxii; Lightfoot, Galatians, 36–56; Ridderbos, Galatia, 78–80; Bligh, Galatians, 1, 3; Ropes, Galatians, 46. Some others survey the various positions and doubt that the matter can be decided conclusively (Tenney, Galatians, 59–63). On the destination of Galatians, see “The Province of Galatia” in this commentary’s introduction to Acts 14:1–23 (Keener, Acts, 2:2115–19). 12. Knox, Acts, 44. 13. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 298; Bauckham, “James,” 468–69. 14. This would especially be true if the famine visit is Luke’s adaptation of Paul’s later collection, as some argue, which would date it after the Jerusalem Council; but Barnabas would not have been with him then (unless we collapse it into the Acts 15 trip, making the famine and circumcision issues coincide chronologically), and I believe that this takes Luke’s historiographic freedom further than his typical use of historical data elsewhere warrants (see comment on Acts 11:30). Cf. further Robinson, Redating, 40. 15. Further, that details sometimes slipped Paul’s memory elsewhere (1 Cor 1:14–16) allows that he need not have recalled every detail, relevant or not; some of his epistles (especially Galatians) were probably written more on the spur of the moment and with less forethought than was Acts.

2196

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 44

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

delivered famine relief to the elders but did not meet with the apostles (who might have even been in hiding; cf. Acts 12:2–3, 17) or if any meeting was in passing and concerned only the famine relief, he has no reason to record this in Gal 2:1.16 Second, it is true that Paul nowhere mentions the decrees, but this is true not only in Galatians (whenever one dates it) but also in Romans and the Corinthian correspondence, which surely postdate the Jerusalem Council and where mention would also be helpful. If Paul must mention the decrees because he writes after them, the question to be asked is not the date of Galatians but the authenticity of Acts’ account (addressed below); or one must restrict the application of the decrees, in which case Galatia, too, is excluded: Acts specifies the decrees’ application only to Syria-Cilicia. Far away from Jerusalem and in churches started by the Antioch mission, an appeal to first principles would be more helpful than an appeal to Jerusalem’s authority—especially if the latter could appear to undermine Paul’s own vis-à-vis that of his opponents.17 (Greeks’ democratic traditions would also diminish the appeal of foreign ecclesiastical authority.) Third, discrepancies between Acts 11:30 and 12:25, on the one hand, and Gal 2:1–10, on the other, are greater, all told, than those between Acts 15 and the Galatians passage.18 Acts 15 matches Gal 2 on numerous details whereas Luke’s descriptions of events in Acts 11:30 and 12:25 are so brief that arguments for parallels can be made only from silence, nothing in common being stated except that both occur in Jerusalem and that Barnabas was present (Gal 2:9)—correspondences that also appear with Acts 15. Further, a visit to bring famine relief seems an odd time for the Jerusalem leaders to ask Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor (Gal 2:10). By contrast, this detail could be omitted from the narrative in Acts 15 for the same reasons that Luke virtually omits mention of Paul’s collection (only 24:17 after 12:25). Fourth, Paul’s revelation in Gal 2:2 need not refer to a prophetic word to the Antioch church by another prophet (though these certainly occurred; see Acts 13:1–2). In Gal 2:2 it seems closely related to Paul’s own gospel, and 1:12 and 16 confirm that he refers to his reception of Christ and his gospel as a revelation. Granted, this is not Paul’s only use of the terms “revelation” and “reveal” (1 Cor 2:10; 14:6, 26, 30; 2 Cor 12:1, 7), but it is his only usage in Galatians (cf. Gal 3:23). Fifth, a date for Galatians before the Jerusalem Council is not likely;19 it may be earlier than Romans (where the lines of thought seem more developed and less polemically driven), but it addresses the same sorts of issues and may derive from the same period in Paul’s life.20 One could keep Galatians fairly early while allowing that it refers to the Jerusalem Council, if Paul wrote it during the time in Syrian 16. Lester, “Galatians 2:1–10,” 238, further points out that little is known of the famine visit and hence those who defend its correspondence with Gal 2:1–10 ought to provide better evidence for the connection. 17. Paul’s treatment of Jerusalem in his letters suggests that he, though interested in the church’s unity and respectful of Jerusalem’s priority, probably preferred local control. Even Rome in this period delegated many local matters to local cities, provided they paid taxes and observed laws; Paul supported the Roman system (Rom 13:1–7) but was aware of its potential for abuse (1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:4). 18. With, e.g., Chance, Acts, 250. 19. Some may find it appealing for apologetic purposes to claim that Paul’s basic gospel was the same during his entire career; but the difference in time between earlier and later datings of the letter is less than a decade, in any case, and most elements of his gospel are spread throughout his letters. 20. With, e.g., Fee, Presence, xxii. This is not to claim that Paul never taught justification by faith before circumstances forced this emphasis; the essential lines of thought are implicit as early as 1 Thessalonians (see comment on Acts 13:38–39; further Kim, New Perspective, 85–99). Galatians may also address the period of Paul’s Jerusalem collection and hence the time of 1–2 Corinthians and Romans, but this surmise depends on the interpretation of Gal 2:10 (some would add 6:10; cf. Hurtado, “Collection,” 53–56), which can be understood differently.

2197

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 45

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Antioch after the council in 15:35; this remains as a genuine possibility, although it requires Paul’s circumcisionist detractors to follow his route into Phrygia almost immediately after they lost ground in Antioch.21 Any date earlier than this, however, is in my opinion very unlikely. Immediately before the council in Jerusalem, Paul knew of the conflict in Antioch (Acts 14:26–15:1), but it had not yet had time to reach the Galatian churches that he had recently founded. Paul speaks in Galatians as if the circumcisionist teachers have already followed his itinerary and swayed the Galatians (Gal 1:7–9; 4:17; 5:7–8, 12; 6:12–13), yet Luke sounds as if Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem for the council when the issue came to a debate even in Antioch. Dating Galatians early creates more problems for connecting Luke’s record with Paul’s letters, not less.22 If Luke was composing freely, it would have served his purposes to make the council cover areas evangelized in Acts 13–15, but Acts 15 reports decrees sent only as far as Syria-Cilicia—that is, Antioch’s (and Tarsus’s) province (15:23, 41).23 This limitation suggests that Luke accurately reports a period in which the “Judaizers” who are opposed in Paul’s letter to the Galatians have not yet reached Galatia. Thus the Jerusalem Council must precede, not follow, Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Sixth, the suggestion that Acts 15 may revisit an arrangement made earlier in Acts 11, although it is a possible response to the shared theme in Acts 15 and Gal 2, is not the simplest (Occam’s razor) solution. Acts 11:30 and 12:25 mention nothing of the discussion, a discussion that would suit Luke’s purposes well (he prefigures the council’s decision elsewhere, e.g., 11:1–18). The discussion is read into these passages by means of Galatians, yet (on the famine-visit view) the passage in Acts that actually bears the closest similarity to the discussion in Gal 2 is counted a “revisiting” of the issue. Seventh, it is conceivable that Luke would omit details reported by Gal 2:1–10 because they were not relevant to his narrative, but how plausible is it that this visit in Acts addresses an entirely different issue (the famine visit) yet the same issue that Galatians addresses is settled in a later but unrelated meeting in Acts (i.e., Acts 15)? Surely the content of the meeting should carry more weight than Paul’s summary mention of visits to Jerusalem’s apostles (which are not even numbered).24 Eighth, the argument that Paul must mention Timothy if he writes later is an argument from silence. The harsh tone of the letter may explain why Paul names no other coauthors (especially local ones). Paul also names no other coauthors in Romans (Rom 1:1), which we date to the same period in his ministry, and he adds no greetings from anyone in Galatians. Even if Paul’s failure to mention Timothy necessarily suggests that the latter was not yet his coworker, Timothy joined Paul sometime after the close of the council. If Paul writes after the circumcision controversy has become an issue in Antioch (Acts 15:1–2), which it apparently reached before Galatia, he could write the letter during the period that he “stayed” in Antioch 21. They could have targeted areas mentioned in Paul’s testimonies (15:3-4, 12) and hoped to secure favor with Jewish communities Paul had allegedly alienated on the way (13:45-51; 14:2-5, 19). 22. Paul’s “first” visit (πρότερον, Gal 4:13) may be contrasted with the later visit of 1 Cor 16:1 (Acts 18:23; cf. 19:1), which would be after the Jerusalem Council, but one defending the early date could make a good case for a second visit in Acts 14:21. The converse argument, that “first” must mean the first of only two times (hence Paul has not yet undertaken the visit of 1 Cor 16:1; Acts 18:23; Ramsay, Galatians, 405), would falter if Paul wrote from Antioch in the period of Acts 15:30–36, even if we press the sense of “former,” which we probably should not in Koine (cf. comment on πρῶτον in Acts 1:1; it can simply mean “earlier”). 23. Although the decree was reported in southern Galatia orally (Acts 16:4), that region was not specified in the decree. 24. D. Williams, Acts, 259, also notes that the apparent conflict over whether it was Paul’s second or third visit constitutes “a problem only if we accept the premise that Paul was enumerating his visits,” which he does not explicitly do.

2198

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 46

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

for “a number of days”25 after the council (15:35–36), just as easily as before going up to the council (15:2).26 The decrees are treated more fully below and also at Acts 15:20. In addition to my responses to arguments supporting the famine visit, Paul’s mention of Titus as someone known to the Galatians further weakens the possibility that the famine visit is in view.27 Indeed, if the famine visit preceded Paul’s missionary journeys as Luke suggests (11:30; 12:25), it cannot be the event of Gal 2:1–10, if Titus (2:1–3) was a convert from Paul’s missionary journeys. Against this, Titus may be from Antioch rather than a Galatian convert; even in my view of the visit, some Antiochene Christians accompanied Paul for this occasion (Acts 15:2). But if he was from Antioch, why are the Galatians familiar with him (especially on the view that Paul has finished at most one missionary journey)? We have three options: Paul discussed Titus of Antioch with them during his visit; Titus was one of Paul’s (unmentioned)28 traveling companions on the first journey; or he was from Galatia and returned with the apostles to Antioch. The first view is unlikely; in contrast to Paul’s having discussed James, Cephas, and John (Gal 1:18–19; 2:8–9, 11–12), who were part of the gospel story, Titus was not a figure in Jesus’s story. It is not impossible, since Paul apparently did recount stories of traveling companions to later churches that did not know them (1 Cor 9:6), but if Titus was a traveling companion, this brings us to the second option.29 The second option concerning Titus is possible, and it allows for identification of the famine visit with Gal 2, since Titus could have been part of the Jerusalem visit as well as the Phrygian mission. Luke’s silence about Titus on the first journey is not a decisive argument against his participation (although it is a likely one), since Luke elsewhere assumes others not part of the main action (Timothy, in Acts 17:14, is not mentioned in Philippi but must have been there [cf. Phil 1:1]) and for some reason never mentions Titus’s name even later in the work despite his closeness to Paul (2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13–14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; cf. 2 Tim 4:10; Titus 1:4). This is not, however, the simplest solution.30 Luke specifies that other believers traveled with Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2), yet he is silent about anyone helping Paul and Barnabas on the first Galatian mission once Mark has departed (13:13).31 The greatest potential weakness of the third view lies in the question of why Paul would bring a convert from his missionary journey back with him; we do, however, know that Paul took some intimate converts on missionary journeys (16:3). If we accept the third view, which I regard as most likely, it might still allow Galatians to 25. Luke’s similarly ambiguous “many days” could span significant periods of time, as in Acts 9:23 (see comment there). 26. Luke presents the council as expecting its agents to accompany the letter (Acts 15:25–27) as far as Cilicia (15:23); but disseminating a circular letter from Antioch, the center of the northern mission, clearly did not require all the agents to circulate beyond Antioch (15:32–33), and Paul becomes explicit about plans to visit Phrygia-Galatia only in 15:36. 27. It does not decisively refute it, as I wrongly assumed in Keener, Background Commentary, 517–18. 28. Unless, as has been argued, Titus and Timothy are the same person; but this would place the visit to Jerusalem after Acts 15, not before, confusing the chronology of our sources further. 29. Unless Titus left after Cyprus, but then we would expect some rancor as with John Mark (Acts 13:13); by 2 Corinthians, the epistolary Paul was fond of Titus. 30. We should keep in mind that the period of Paul’s ministry where Titus is prominent is summarized by Luke in only a few verses (Acts 20:1–2); though we would expect his name in the list of 20:4, it might be omitted because, unlike that of the others listed, his commission is translocal. Otherwise, Luke and Titus might have been on bad terms (they would have surely known of each other in Macedonia, 2 Cor 2:13); Titus may have had another name in Acts (but what? Gaius of Derbe?); or Titus might have turned out badly (cf. 2 Tim 4:10, but if the passage meant this, it is surprising that an entire pastoral letter should be devoted to him). 31. See Kistemaker, Acts, 534.

2199

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 47

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

be written before the council (though I believe a later date likelier); it would not, however, allow an easy identification of the famine visit with Gal 2:1–10. The connection between the famine visit and Gal 2:1–10 is not impossible, but it requires more hypothetical assumptions lacking clear textual basis (as, e.g., the attribution of some Pauline letters to an “Ephesian imprisonment”) than does the more straightforward view that Paul’s and Luke’s accounts of a Jerusalem meeting addressing circumcision are two versions of the same event. (Some scholars also object that the famine visit does not chronologically fit the fourteen years of Gal 2:1,32 especially if these are added to the three years of 1:18. But the status of this question depends on a number of antecedent questions not easily resolved.)33 iii. O  ther Arguments for Galatians 2:1–10 as the Jerusalem Council

Some of the arguments I have used above against the likelihood of identifying Gal 2:1–10 with Acts 11:27–30 support the identification of Gal 2:1–10 with Acts 15, but they are here supplemented with additional arguments. That Gal 2:1–10 refers to the same meeting as Acts 15 seems to many scholars, including me, to be obvious.34 Both meetings share the same basic object (Acts 15:5; Gal 2:4) and outcome (Acts 15:19–21, 28–29; Gal 2:5–6). In both, Paul’s mission is recognized (Acts 15:12; Gal 2:2), and leaders agree that Gentiles need not be circumcised (Acts 15:19–20; Gal 2:7–9).35 The same primary leaders are involved (Peter and James appear in both whereas at least Peter may have been missing during the earlier famine visit [Acts 12:17, 25] and Luke mentions then only elders [11:30]).36 Commonalities The same basic object The same basic outcome Paul’s mission is recognized Leaders agree that Gentiles need not be circumcised Peter was involved James was involved

Acts 15:6–22 Acts 15:5 Acts 15:19–21, 28–29 Acts 15:12 Acts 15:19–20 Acts 15:7–11 Acts 15:13–21

Gal 2:1–10 Gal 2:4 Gal 2:5–6 Gal 2:2 Gal 2:7–9 Gal 2:9 Gal 2:9

The issue raised in Gal 2:1–5 was hardly resolved prior to Acts 15:1–2. That Paul was involved in two such meetings, the second repeating the first, is unlikely. That Paul reports only one of these meetings and Luke the other strains plausibility even further. 32. Ibid. 33. Because I date Paul’s conversion earlier than many do, I could accept either date, depending on whether entire years are meant (part of a given year counting as a whole), the exact year of Paul’s conversion (probably not in, yet not long after, 30 c.e.), and whether Paul intends his chronology in Gal 1:18–2:1 to be complete. 34. E.g., Rackham, Acts, 238–43; Knox, “Evidence of Acts,” 44; Stagg, Acts, 154–59, 267–73; Stein, “Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15:1–35”; Lester, “Galatians 2:1–10,” 238; Betz, Galatia, 81–83; Finegan, Apostles, 40 (probably); Hansen, Galatians, 17–22 (probably); Lüdemann, Christianity, 171; D. Williams, Acts, 256–61; Ridderbos, Galatia, 78–80; Kistemaker, Acts, 533–36; Barrett, Acts, 2: xxxviii–xxxix; Fitzmyer, Acts, 540; Rolin, “Pierre”; Hill, Hellenists, 111–13; Dunn, Acts, 196; idem, Beginning, 446–50; Krieger, “Abendmahlsgemeinschaft”; Pervo, Dating Acts, 79–96; idem, Acts, 369 (though viewing Acts as dependent on Galatians); Nepper-Christensen, “Apostelmodet” (similarly); Meeks and Fitzgerald, Writings, xxiv; see the comparison in Tatum, “Galatians 2,” highlighting differences and the distinct agendas of Luke and Paul. Earlier, see, e.g., Bede Comm. Acts 15.2. 35. The contrast that some offer on details—such as Acts 15 addressing table fellowship conditions (15:20) and Gal 2 dividing the mission between Peter and Paul (2:7–8) and Paul committing to raise a collection (2:10; Johnson, Acts, 270)—is forced-choice logic; why, then, not contrast the agendas of comity (Gal 2:7–8) and collection (2:10) in Gal 2:1–10? Acts 15 and Gal 2 address the same basic issue, but there is no more reason to assume that only one issue was raised during the visit than to insist that each later church council could include only a single order of business on its agenda. 36. Kistemaker, Acts, 534.

2200

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 48

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Luke does omit some details that Paul includes, such as agreement for Paul to care for the poor (presumably in Jerusalem, Gal 2:10).37 But as noted above, he also omits Paul’s collection (except in Acts 24:17), about which he certainly knew. What is important, however, is that Luke’s focus in Acts 15 is also the main focus of the council in Gal 2:1–10, and he does not digress from it. Paul’s “private” meeting with the leaders in Gal 2:2 may correspond to the gathering of “apostles and elders” in Acts 15:6 (cf. 15:23; contrast the larger gathering in 15:4–5), though Luke does not demarcate the closing boundaries between the private and the public meetings as explicitly as we might like (the community apparently assents after the closed meeting, in 15:22; but cf. 15:23, the elders apparently representing the people).38 Acts 15 also does not emphasize the affirmation of Paul found in Gal 2:7–9, though Luke implies approval (Acts 15:25). Perhaps it would be counterproductive for Luke to raise the issue that at that time Paul needed approval, whereas Paul, defending his gospel to the Galatians, has reason to mention it. Luke is more generous to speak of “Judeans” (Acts 15:1) or “Pharisees” (15:5), as compared with Paul’s “false brothers” (Gal 2:4); writing later, he can write somewhat more dispassionately than Paul, but this is hardly an argument against Luke’s historicity. Acts also omits mention of Titus or John (Gal 2:1, 3, 9), but it probably assumes John’s presence. Presenting James as reconciler (Acts 15:13–21) differs from presenting him as provocateur (cf. Gal 2:12), as some note,39 but it is, first, not clear that James himself is the cause of the conflict in Galatians (the letter seems clear that James himself was not present, though his messengers or partisans were), and more important, Luke and Paul probably viewed his influence differently at this point because of their differing emphases and rhetorical agendas (especially the question of whether the compromise of Acts 15:20 was positive or negative). Moreover, Gal 2:12 probably belongs to a period after the council of 2:1–10 and certainly (given the different venue) cannot be simultaneous with it. Even in Acts, despite Luke’s emphasis, the Jerusalem church grew more conservative; though not dishonoring a previous agreement about Gentiles, the leaders might well seek to avoid alienating the large right wing of their movement (Acts 21:20–24). Some other proposed differences stem from reading Gal 2:11–14 as if it is a chronological, rather than simply topical, continuation of the same incident; if it is chronologically distinct (which its different venue demands), Luke’s silence about it in Acts 15 requires no explanation. Some scholars offer such contrasts—for example, Paul and Barnabas’s opposing Pharisees (15:1, 5) differs from Paul’s opposing Cephas and Barnabas (Gal 2:11–13).40 Some go beyond the text, in any case; presenting Paul’s splitting from Barnabas over John Mark (Acts 15:36–40) as a conflict with Galatians’ portrayal of a theological dispute (Gal 2:13) presses too much into the details incidentally preserved, since Galatians does not, in fact, mention any long-term split.41 37. The famine visit does address Jerusalem believers’ poverty—but addresses it before the putative conversation. 38. Luke is less interested in staging and more in the narrative’s content; cf. his relative disinterest in the transition between the upper room and apparent preaching in temple courts in Acts 1–2. I read the “multitude” (15:12) as that of the apostles and elders, rather than the entire assembly, which would prove even more confusing. 39. Johnson, Acts, 269. 40. See esp. ibid. Johnson also contrasts the amicable conclusion of Acts 15:22–29 with continuing conflict in Gal 2:11–14; but Gal 2 does not relate the meeting’s outcome (even if it were the same meeting; if it is an earlier meeting in Acts 15:1–2, it remained unresolved at that point even in Acts). 41. The theological incident probably would have contributed to the strain that affected the split over Mark (or vice versa), but Paul does not present it as decisive: “even” Barnabas followed their hypocrisy, leaving Paul

2201

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 49

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Both these conflicts between Paul and Barnabas occur in Antioch (in my view, on different occasions), not Jerusalem. The main differences between the accounts stem from their independence and the writers’ differing agendas: although both note what is at stake, Paul emphasizes the concluding agreement and Luke the “role of Peter and James,” who must have been vital there, as Paul himself hints (Gal 2:6, 9).42 Though agreeing on basic points, Acts emphasizes continuity with the law whereas Paul, responding polemically to the critics that scholars often call Judaizers, emphasizes that circumcision was not enforced and that his collection would symbolize the church’s unity.43 (The most significant specific difference is Paul’s omission of the decree, which is addressed below; but we should note here that this is an omission, not a contradiction.) The many agreements, by contrast, challenge an argument from omissions; given the selective nature of all historiography and certainly the condensed character of Acts, arguments from omissions are arguments from silence. As Fitzmyer notes, none of the differences “is significant enough to undermine the substantial agreement of the two reports,” which in multiple ways attests the basic contours of the historical event.44 The differences demonstrate that the sources are clearly independent; as Johnson, after highlighting potential differences, notes, “The divergence of sources on so many important details makes their agreement on other points the more impressive.”45 Comparison of the two independent accounts reveals that Luke is an accurate reporter by the standards of ancient historiography for events of recent decades. That he is tendentious, reporting what fits his emphasis, is not in dispute, but this was true of all ancient historians (including those who, like Polybius, denied it), and it is also true of Paul’s own report in Galatians.46 Both early Christian accounts, in fact, reveal that Paul’s agenda differed from that of others; hence he may be fairly regarded as a partisan source on the matter.47 (Although Plutarch is a tendentious biographer, we would not arbitrarily dismiss his reports about Cicero on the basis of the latter’s writings; Cicero is, as Plutarch points out, himself tendentious.) b. The Decrees of Acts 15:20, 28–29 The most significant difference between Acts 15 and Gal 2:1–10 is Paul’s omission of the decrees of Acts 15:20, 28–29. Noting the usefulness of such decrees for Paul’s later letters (cf. even 16:4) and the consequent strangeness of their absence, some scholars who accept the historical event of the council doubt that the council issued such decrees.48 One possible explanation is that Luke has conflated two events; although this proposal cannot be proven, it is among the plausible solutions. completely (from his rhetorical standpoint) isolated. But “even” suggests something unexpected; the Galatians had no reason to expect Paul and Barnabas to differ on the principles involved. 42. Dunn, Acts, 196. Gal 2 may also report the more “confidential conferences with the leading people behind the scenes” whereas Luke focuses on the public assembly and its conclusions (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 66; cf. Emmet, “Tradition,” 275–76). 43. Stendahl, Paul, 67–68. 44. Fitzmyer, Acts, 540; cf. Rackham, Acts, 239. 45. Johnson, Acts, 270. The range of approaches may be illustrated by Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 375, who supports a middle way regarding Acts 15 between the skepticism of M. Dibelius and E. Haenchen, on the one hand, and the confidence of W. Dietrich and R. Pesch, on the other. 46. Like Acts, Galatians uses “history to make theological points” (Hall, “Inference,” 320), against those who insist that Galatians is a far more accurate source (e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 132–33; Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 100–101). On Paul’s narrative self-defense in Galatians, see Lyons, Autobiography. 47. Cf., e.g., Krieger, “Abendmahlsgemeinschaft” (for Luke’s account being compressed and Paul’s being partisan). 48. E.g., Esler, Community, 97; Barrett, Acts, 2:xxxviii–xxxix.

2202

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 50

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

i. No Decrees in Paul’s Letters

Skepticism about the decrees demands too much information from very limited sources, however. Various proposals for Paul’s silence are offered (apart from the view that Paul in fact did presuppose the decree in one or more letters).49 Some scholars doubt that Paul considered the decree as binding for himself.50 That is, whereas some argue that Paul would never have accepted such strictures about foods as 15:20 reports,51 he may have felt that the compromise was acceptable for maintaining peace in Jerusalem but that he could generally ignore it on the field. Because the decree probably concerned conditions not for salvation but for table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, it may play less of a role for Paul’s teaching than for Luke’s need for a narrative climax to the agreement.52 (Even Luke, who reports the promotion of the decree in 16:4 in Galatia, where Paul later had conflicts with the churches, does not report its promulgation after that point; apparently it became less useful at further remove of time or distance from the Jerusalem Council.) Some have also suggested that the decrees were binding only for Syria (where the issues were at a head at that point, Acts 15:1–2; Gal 2:11), not Achaia.53 The decrees explicitly address only this geographic area (Acts 15:23). It is also possible that by the time Paul writes these letters, the agreement was no longer considered relevant for various reasons (though cf. 21:25, at least concerning the Jerusalem leaders). In Galatians, where Paul’s focus is circumcision and not immorality, it may be that he reports as much of the settlements as necessary;54 further, appealing to a potentially ambiguous Jerusalem decree (on some matters of the law) might have undercut his own case if his opponents, who probably celebrated their ties to Jerusalem (2 Cor 11:22; cf. Gal 2:4), cited a conflicting version of sentiments at the council. (In some cultures that emphasize authorities’ honor, one best maintains peace and keeps all parties satisfied by reinterpreting or ignoring official decrees at a safe distance rather than by contesting them.) Some scholars date Galatians before the council, but on the likelier view (given my reading of Gal 2:1–10) that Paul wrote sometime afterward, he may have had no need to mention the decrees if he had delivered them to this region previously (cf. Acts 16:4). If the churches already knew of this decree (16:4) yet it had not stopped his opponents, Paul must instead offer a stronger argument based on first principles. Paul might choose not to appeal again to Jerusalem’s teaching, which had not prevented Galatia’s believers from succumbing to circumcisionists earlier (and seemed still less effective now), preferring to argue from the gospel that they had affirmed when they became (and with which they had to agree to remain) Christians (cf. Gal 3:2). It is also possible (though I think it less likely) that Paul did not appeal to the decrees because subsequent events (some reported in Gal 2:11–14) suggested that the Jerusalem leaders were interpreting the compromise differently from how Paul had 49. So Nanos, Mystery, 83–84, 166–238 (though note “for example,” 246). 50. Jervell, Theology, 4. 51. Hill, Hellenists, 112; cf. Catchpole, “Paul, James, and Decree,” who thinks that Paul reacted strongly against the decree. This argument seems the opposite of the argument that Paul would have felt compelled to cite the decree in his support had he known of it. Some of the passage’s strictures Paul in fact already accepted even before the council (such as opposition to sexual immorality), and he does argue against idol food later (see comment above). 52. Cf. Jørgensen, “ACTA 15:22–29.” 53. Johnson, Acts, 270 (reporting the question). 54. Though Paul has been construed as claiming that the Jerusalem leaders added no further requirements to him in Gal 2:6, προσανατίθημι need not carry this sense; cf. 1:16.

2203

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 51

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

originally construed it.55 Luke could report it as a theological step forward even if the Jerusalem church viewed it as merely one among several discussions; if Luke writes after 66 c.e., the Jerusalem church no longer has a strong, continuing, audible voice. Paul’s letter addresses circumcision’s not being required (Gal 2:3) and his own mission to those who remain “uncircumcised” (2:7–9). Of the larger decision, this is the part with which he is occupied, and he is interested in citing the agreement of the top authorities recognizable to Diaspora hearers (who know the Jesus tradition) rather than just the church as a whole. It serves Paul’s purpose much less to appeal to a church decision focused on food laws and basic morality (Acts 15:20) when he is about to challenge the abuse of the law to require segregated eating (Gal 2:11–14). ii. Why Not in 1 Corinthians?

It seems more difficult to account for Paul’s silence in 1 Cor 8–10.56 But Paul may have simply feared that Jerusalem’s decrees would alienate the Corinthian Christians, who valued their independence;57 accepting Judaism’s Messiah and Bible did not mean that all were prepared to accept what they could well have viewed as foreign ecclesiastical domination.58 Given the Corinthians’ eventual distrust even of himself, he may have been right to doubt that they would have appreciated an appeal to Jerusalem.59 (Paul clearly wants to build positive relations with Jerusalem [1 Cor 16:1, 3; 2 Cor 8–9], but the Corinthians may be more apt to respond to his appeals because of their relationship with him than because of loyalty to Jerusalem [cf. 2 Cor 9:3–4].) Paul opposed sexual immorality and idol food for other reasons that he could readily communicate to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5–10);60 in the final analysis, he opposes even food offered to idols for spiritual, not just ecclesiastical, reasons (10:4–22). Another reason not to cite the decree was that the full decree would have been unsatisfying to either faction of the debate in Corinth (though perhaps no more than his synthesis proved to be). He appeals to sensitivity to Jewish or other Christians’ food customs (Rom 14:2–3, 6, 14–15, 21; 1 Cor 8:7–13), and if Paul did not believe that food choices were matters to fight about, he probably could have accommodated a decree if he could have construed it as a way of not offending more conservative cultural tastes. (Luke, after all, presents the decree as a way of regulating fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, not as a salvific necessity, though he presents the salvation question as having been raised in Acts 15:1.) Elsewhere Paul cites the custom of other churches fairly sparsely (and only where fairly unanimous even in the Diaspora, 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33). To argue that the decree did not exist because Paul does not cite it is to argue from silence; although some 55. Certainly Acts 15:20, 29 represents a compromise position that allows for a minimal, practical acceptance of Gentile adherents as God-fearers without needing to resolve the theological question of whether they are now members of God’s people (as Paul’s letters maintain). But Paul would have understood this situation from the start. That the Jerusalem leaders simply went back on their word is less likely, requiring a diminution of their honor. 56. Esler, Community, 97, cites Phil 3:2–3; but this passage is much too short to sustain an argument based on omission, and if there was a decree at all, Paul certainly would know about it by the time of his Roman imprisonment (the likeliest setting for Philippians). Rakocy, “Problem datacji,” dates the council after 1 Corinthians, but this makes it hard to explain both Luke’s different chronology and Gal 2:1. 57.  Compare, for example, the miscalculated conservative rhetoric that alienated Israel in 1 Kgs 12:9–16. 58. The difficulties that Rome and Constantinople experienced during the initial centuries in securing compliance in their respective dominions suggest that such compliance does not always come naturally. 59. Though we cannot know whether Paul’s opponents in 2 Cor 11 may have mentioned it. Galatians 2:2 suggests Paul’s recognition that Jerusalem was at least perceived to have some jurisdiction over other churches, but this is not a matter that he seems eager to emphasize. 60. Cf. also his opposition to idolatry in Rom 1:18–23 and 1 Thess 1:9 and his opposition to sexual relations outside marriage in Rom 1:24–27 and 1 Thess 4:3–8.

2204

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 52

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

arguments from silence are more plausible than others (the less expected silence is, the more it may communicate), it does not appear compelling in this instance. (See further comment on Acts 15:20.) iii. Does Luke Conflate Two Events?

One of the most common proposals, however (view six in our opening summary of views), is that Luke has conflated two different real events—an original agreement with no explicit conditions and then a later decree (after Paul had left Jerusalem) stipulating conditions for full table fellowship.61 Fitzmyer, usually a model of scholarly caution, offers some arguments here that appear as tenuous as most examples of the older radical versions of source criticism.62 He begins first with the composite nature of the chapter, claiming that Acts 15:1–2 is a suture and that 15:34 is a textual addition; yet the suture is unclear, and elsewhere textual variants do not typically invite conflation theories for their contexts. Second, Fitzmyer argues that because “Simeon” (15:14) is not Peter’s actual name in Acts, it reflects a different speaker in the source. Yet the mention of Simeon directly recalls the preceding speech, which in turn specifically recalls events in which only Peter was involved; Luke’s semitizing flourish for James’s speech does not recall a prior source and certainly does not reflect a source about a different Simeon.63 Fitzmyer also maintains that Peter’s speech addresses circumcision and the law (15:7–11), but this does not fit the summary in James’s speech (15:14–21); yet both speeches do address the same issue for Luke—namely, the incorporation of Gentiles into God’s people. A more compelling argument, however, would be that the compromise solution in 15:20, 28–29 seems less than what the rest of James’s speech leads us to expect. In response to this argument, however, I should point out that Luke offers only speeches supporting Paul; assuming that the opposition spoke more than the line given it in 15:5, a compromise of some sort may have been necessary to achieve at least a working consensus, at least on paper. From the standpoint of the Jerusalem church, these rules are quite minor compared with the major concession this church is offering the Gentiles. Thus, if Jerusalem believers are fully accepting Gentiles even as members of God’s people without circumcision (i.e., if James’s speech presents them as proselytes and not God-fearers), a few prohibitions that resemble standard Jewish expectations for righteous Gentiles (see comment on Acts 15:20) are a small behavioral matter to prevent undue criticism from Jerusalem society. If they are not all endorsing them as members of God’s people but (as I think likelier) merely soliciting their practice of customs expected for God-fearers to pacify the circumcisionists, they have still failed to require circumcision or impose major obstacles to the new converts. Nor (so far as any extant sources suggest) are they regulating what Paul on the mission field will teach the Gentiles about their status. (Circumcision would not need to be 61. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 119; Fitzmyer, Acts, 552–53; Hill, Hellenists, 113; Crowe, Acts, 113; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 105. This approach resembles the conflation of two events often proposed for 1 Kgs 18 (esp. Bright, History, 287, 298–309; but cf. Yamauchi, Stones, 77–78); though possible, such solutions may simplify some questions by complicating others. 62. Fitzmyer, Acts, 552–53. Admittedly, even ancient commentators (the third-century c.e. Didascalia apostolorum), in matters such as the abruptness of Acts 15:3–4, noted some disarray (Taylor, “Texts and Critics”), but in modern terms, this could simply mean that Luke needed a good copyeditor at such points. 63. Apart from a mention of one of Israel’s tribes in Rev 7:7, Luke is the only nt writer to use the name (Luke 2:25, 34; 3:30; Acts 13:1), which he may think is equivalent to “Simon” (Luke 5:8; 6:14; cf. 2 Pet 1:1), which Luke conjoins with “Peter” in Acts only in regard to the Cornelius account (Acts 10:5, 18, 32; 11:13), as here (15:7–9), perhaps because Peter was then staying with a different “Simon” (9:43; 10:6, 32). (See further comment at Acts 15:14.)

2205

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 53

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

mentioned in the decrees, even if it were an initial issue in 15:1, 5, if the circumcision party could agree to accept Gentile believers as God-fearers.) The proposal of conflation is certainly possible, even if it is not overwhelmingly demonstrable. Texts such as Acts 9:23 (cf. Gal 1:18) and 17:14–16 (cf. 1 Thess 3:1–2) reveal that Luke could conflate and skip intervening material (if in these instances he had this material); he was willing occasionally to even rearrange material for major scenes such as Luke 4:16–30 (cf. Mark 6:1–6), and Acts 15 is certainly a major scene. It is possible that James and his colleagues, in accepting Gentiles without circumcision, took for granted basic “traditional ground rules for association between Jews and Gentiles” (cf. Gal 2:12–13), which some of these Jerusalem leaders assumed would be followed but which were formalized only at a later date. Luke might then compress these two events together as he sometimes compresses events elsewhere.64 It should be emphasized, however, that the linking of events by omitting the duration between them is simply one hypothesis; the narrative of Acts 15 can stand apart from it. In logic, Occam’s razor invites the simplest solution; although some will feel (I myself not among them) that treating a historical decree as part of the council’s events creates such dissonance that this solution is less than 50 percent probable, the same complaint may be offered for each of the alternatives taken by itself. (If it is the best solution of a bad lot, this simply means that we do not have a better solution, not that other solutions are better.) Further, most who resort to this hypothesis do so to explain Paul’s silence about the decree, but if (on this view) Paul did not know about the decree even when he wrote Galatians and 1 Corinthians,65 Luke appears to have connected events more distant and disparate than we find him doing anywhere else where we can evaluate him. Moreover, Paul would have known of the decree no later than the end of his final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21–26), a visit that he recognized beforehand might not play well with the saints there (Rom 15:31). His final visit is not long after the Corinthian correspondence and Paul’s letter to the believers in Rome. Simply relocating the problem to a later point in Paul’s ministry does not eliminate it. If the decree happened historically after the conference of Gal 2:1–10, it may have happened when Paul and his colleagues were in Antioch, and the decree could have been delivered by those who came from James in 2:11–14 (that he reports no response to his challenge does not mean that none was offered). In that case, Paul might not mention the Jerusalem church’s decree because it would weaken his own argument against the “Judaizers,” in contrast to the earlier agreement in 2:7–9. But again, even such a relatively brief span between the council and the decree is purely hypothetical, considering the few lines with which Paul addresses the council. Paul has mentioned what he needed to and has no need to repeat his opponents’ supporting arguments. That Luke knew the decree accurately is likely; we should not think that Gentile Christians in the Diaspora invented the prohibition against consuming blood. Further, historians regularly did find and cite documents; if it was circulated widely (cf. Acts 16:4), there is every reason to believe that the letter (15:23–29) is the part of the chapter that Luke reports with the greatest accuracy (though whether it is verbatim is a matter of dispute; see comment on Acts 15:23).66 64. Dunn, Acts, 197. 65. E.g., Hill, Hellenists, 113. 66. Jefford, “Acts 15 and Didache 6,” suggests that Did. 6.1–3 and Acts 15:23–29 drew from common sources but that Luke has adapted the decree for his purposes. Certainly Luke is stylistically capable of composing a periodic sentence (Acts 15:24–28; cf. Luke 1:1–4). Possibly the decree drew from common Jewish traditions (see comment on Acts 15:20), but if both Luke and the author of the Didache depend on the decree (which

2206

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 54

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

c. The Significance of Acts 15 Acts 15 is significant to Luke’s overall picture; he presents it in a way useful for his audience, but this does not mean that he fabricated the council’s outcome. As scholars frequently emphasize, Luke is both historian and theologian. i. Significance for Luke

Acts 15 appears close to the center of Acts in the book’s design67 and also in the development of the book’s theology; most scholars view it as the turning point, though they naturally differ over what it turns to, on the basis of their respective appraisals of Luke’s theology.68 Some others demur, arguing that Cornelius’s conversion settled the issue of welcoming Gentiles and so it is excessive to call this council a turning point;69 we might also note that the transition to primary focus on the Pauline mission occurred in 12:25 (although Peter surfaces again here, and James both here and in 21:18–25). In a more important sense, the true literary division in the book lies between Peter/ Jerusalem and Paul/the Gentile mission (Acts 1–12; 13–28); despite a long transition between the sections (Acts 6–12, esp. 9–12), the texture changes there, not in Acts 15. In any case, this passage considerably advances the case for the uncircumcised Gentile mission, establishing a fuller theological framework for it. Here the original Jerusalem church officially ratifies the direction of the Gentile mission, stipulating only a few prohibitions that, for the most part, the Pauline movement would have observed anyway. In histories of peoples, cultural mixing was often an early problem,70 and founders who were portrayed honorably typically emphasized the welcoming of foreigners.71 Chronologically, Acts 15 is past the center of Acts, but it is probably less than 60 percent of the way through the time spanned and probably just more than halfway from Paul’s conversion. If this passage represents the meeting of Gal 2:1–10 (and it is argued above that it very likely does), fourteen years have passed since Paul’s first Jerusalem visit of Acts 9:26–30 (the fifteen days of Gal 1:18).72 Allowing for the events of Acts 1–8 before Paul’s conversion (including time for the church to grow and reach Damascus and for Paul’s persecution activity to become significant), Paul was not likely converted as early as 30 c.e. The chronology is somewhat loose, but it is easily enough consistent with the occurrence of the Jerusalem Council (of Acts 15 and Gal 2:1) around 48 c.e., allowing Paul to be in Corinth by 51–52 c.e.73 The book closes is possible), the historical genre of Acts leads us to expect a closer preservation of a quoted document than mere theological dependence such as appears in the Didache. 67. Often emphasized (Fitzmyer, Acts, 538; Conzelmann, Acts, 115; cf. Barrett, Acts, 709; Butticaz, Identité, 463; esp. Eisen, Poetik, 187–202). More than 500 verses of Greek text appear before it, and more than 440 verses after it; the count in words is even closer. Since it is doubtful that Luke counted the words, this represents a reasonable proximity to the center. 68. It is “the transition from the primitive church to the ‘contemporary’ church” (Conzelmann, Acts, 115); the move away from dependence on Jerusalem (Haenchen, Acts, 461). Others see more continuity: it shows not that Christianity is a new Gentile religion, superseding Judaism, but that it remains rooted in Israel’s history, uniting Jewish and Gentile believers (Dunn, Acts, 202; cf. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 19); Luke apparently saw the Davidic promises of Luke 1–2 fulfilled in Acts 15 (Acts 15:16; Turner, Gifts, 56). 69. Gaventa, Acts, 211. 70. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 167 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.89.3–4). 71. Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 173. 72. Gal 2:1 suggests fourteen years after the first visit, three years after Paul’s conversion. Because the number of years in neither the fourteen nor the three needs to represent complete years, this could be as short as thirteen to fourteen altogether or as long as seventeen (cf. also Witherington, Acts, 88–89). 73. Rakocy, “Problem datacji,” dates the council to 51 c.e., i.e., after Paul’s stay in Corinth; although this solution would explain why 1 Corinthians does not discuss the decrees, it is harder to make it fit with Gal 2:1 or to explain Luke’s narrative sequence.

2207

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 55

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

twelve to fourteen years later, in 60–62 c.e. The council follows a pattern familiar from elsewhere in Acts (e.g., in Acts 6:1–7): a problem (6:1), a solution (6:2–6), and an ultimate advancement of the gospel beyond its previous state (6:7).74 ii. Did Luke Invent Consensus?

That Luke focuses his summary more on the church’s final consensus than on the undoubtedly harsh debates that preceded it is to be expected. That he simply fantasized that the church achieved at least a temporary measure of consensus, however, evokes the old Tübingen hypothesis. Though Luke lacked reason to emphasize long-settled (or dead) disagreements among figures he respected, neither did he simply eliminate all of them, as illustrated by the conflict that separates Paul and Barnabas later in the chapter (15:37–39). Ancient historians report division after some ancient debates, but on other occasions they report consensus.75 F. C. Baur’s Tübingen hypothesis originally focused on a second-century division in Christendom, but scholars shifted it back into the nt period.76 Lightfoot and Zahn demonstrated that Baur’s Hegelian approach to the Clementine and Ignatian literature was inaccurate, which certainly rendered this approach’s value all the more vacuous for first-century sources.77 Unfortunately, Baur’s views of the sharp division between Jewish and Gentile Christianity have persisted in nt scholarship.78 I have argued elsewhere that at least some significant Christian movements by the end of the first century continued to view themselves as Jewish while welcoming (probably uncircumcised) Gentiles and that many Gentile Christians still saw themselves as converts to a Jewish faith.79 Baur’s hypothesis, however, reflected the anti-Judaism of his contemporaries in the continental Christian scholarship of his era.80 Far from simply playing down differences, Luke does report serious conflict (15:5); indeed, the claim that circumcision was necessary for salvation (15:1) may be harsher than that of Paul’s actual rivals in Galatia. Luke mentions the Christian Pharisees (15:5) more respectfully than does Paul (for whom the critics were not genuinely brothers but simply unconverted infiltrators in disguise, Gal 2:4). Naturally Luke cannot match the tone of suspense offered by an affected participant about the council’s outcome (Gal 2:2), but Paul’s emotion in Gal 2:1–10 should hardly be assumed to make him more objective. Unlike Paul, Luke was not an eyewitness, and so he would hear and celebrate the outcome more than the process (though he reports speeches by two of the three characters Paul mentions, Gal 2:9).81 If Luke mentions a compromise (Acts 15:20),82 so does Paul (Gal 2:9–10); some scholars suppose that Paul would not endure the compromise reported by Luke, but it seems more likely (given Paul’s opposition to idol food, immorality, etc.) that he simply would not appeal to such a compromise in Galatians, where it might have made his case more ambiguous. 74. Barrett, Acts, 709. 75. E.g., the consensus after one speech and debate after another in Tac. Hist. 4.43; consensus with a few exceptions in Ann. 14.49; temporary acceptance in Hist. 1.85; consensus the effect of which was afterward limited by the emperor, Ann. 11.6–7; a defeated motion in Ann. 3.35. 76. Barrett, “History.” 77. Longenecker, Acts, 5. 78. Barrett, “History.” Many still hold that Acts is a consensus document reconciling earlier competing strands of Christian thought (Tyson, “Legacy”) and think that Luke plays down serious conflict in Acts 15 (Tyson, “Themes”). 79. Keener, Matthew, 45–51; idem, John, 171–85, 194–228. 80. See Tyson, Luke, Judaism, and Scholars, 12–29. 81. The outcome is also reported in Acts 21:25, an occasion for which the “we” author (in my view, the author of Acts) was present (21:18). 82. Most scholars do recognize this as a compromise solution (noted by Wood, “Ethics,” 256).

2208

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 56

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Nevertheless, Baur’s hypothesis was not entirely constructed from thin air. From the start, there was serious tension over the status of Gentile converts, reflected in both Paul (most sharply, but not at all exclusively, in Galatians) and Acts (emphasizing the church’s progress but not minimizing initial resistance, e.g., Acts 10:28). Baur also was correct that Acts revolves around the personalities of Peter and Paul; Luke’s narrative strategy in highlighting parallels between them is continuity, probably between the original apostolic mission and the Gentile mission (cf. a similar parallel in Gal 2:7–9).83 If some human personalities tend to react against other perspectives and other personalities are more prone to synthesize them, Luke certainly synthesized various elements of Christian thought in his day, whether we describe this in terms of Hegelian dialectic or not.84 In contrast to the usual approach, Luke probably believed that Paul would have appreciated his synthesis; but perhaps only a student of Paul who had not himself battled in the volatile debates of preceding decades could have objectively synthesized the common elements that at least the movement’s leaders had been able to agree on.85 Josephus, as an apologetic historian, stressed Judaism’s “harmony” where possible, from Moses forward, without denying divisions; Luke has reason to do the same.86 The same primary texts that reveal division in the mainstream early church also show that it maintained unity, even if Luke has condensed a description of the difficult road to unity as he has condensed nearly all his other narrative material apart from “we” material surrounding Paul’s custody. Paul, who disagreed with the Jerusalem apostles and recognized their distinctive missions, still affirmed the validity of both missions (Gal 2:6–9); he attributed the demand for circumcision not to the Jerusalem leaders but to “false brethren” (2:4). Although Paul was uncertain beforehand of how he would be received (2:2),87 he emphasized that the “pillars” agreed with him; no circumcision was imposed (2:3).88 Paul also affirmed that all preached the same gospel on the essentials of the Jesus story and its biblical basis (1 Cor 15:3–11, esp. 15:11). However strongly Paul portrays his challenge to Peter or (indirectly) Barnabas in a polemical context (Gal 2:11–14), he elsewhere uses them as models of ministry (1 Cor 9:5–6; Gal 2:7–9; cf. 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:1; Col 4:10).89 Paul even consults with them regarding his gospel (Gal 2:2) and accepts and speaks of their right hand of fellowship (2:9).90 The meeting did not abolish a vocal group demanding that Gentiles be circumcised, nor did it 83. After noting Peter-Paul parallels (Zwiep, Community, 166–67), Zwiep argues (170) that Luke regularly aligns Paul with and even subordinates him to the Twelve, thus undercutting Paul’s detractors who preferred the Jerusalem leaders (cf. also 174). 84. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 14: Acts “presents an accommodation, not to say fusion, of Pauline Christianity and various forms of non-Pauline Christianity.” 85. Some argue that Acts 15 presents Paul in a way more amenable to those who mistrusted him (Walker, “Acts and Corpus Revisited,” 85). Tyson, Marcion, 73 (who dates Acts to the second century), thinks that Luke rewrote the events of Gal 2 in such a way as to “counter” its Marcionite interpretation. 86. See Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 202–3. 87. Hill, Hellenists, 114, notes that although Galatians reveals that the Jerusalem church apparently agreed with Paul in the end, Jerusalem’s prerogative to decide the matter appeared to Paul as if his call were at stake. 88. Emphasizing Paul’s independence, Galatians sounds as if Paul took the lead by himself (Gal 2:5–6); but he is also clear that Peter, James, and John agreed with him (2:7–9). 89. Disagreement did not keep them from acknowledging each other’s apostleship (cf. Gal 2:9; Lohse, “Apostleship”). 90. Johnson, Romans, 227, complaining that theories about “a sustained animosity” between Paul and Jerusalem apostles “need to yield to the actual evidence of the text.” The “fifteen days” of Gal 1:18 were more than a “courtesy visit,” for which half a day would have been sufficient even in that culture; such a lengthy time together would produce serious bonding (Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 144–50, esp. 146; cf. the analogy with Goethe, 150).

2209

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 57

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ban them from the Jerusalem church and from influencing it; but this group did not win the debate led by the Jerusalem church leaders, who wanted unity among the factions but did not belong to this faction. iii. Shifting Consensus?

The sort of debate that occurs in Acts 15 reflects broader questions, reported in other Hellenistic Jewish historians, about the status of Gentiles in early Judaism.91 By the mid-40s, in the wake of Caligula’s policies and Agrippa’s attempts to accommodate nationalism, Judea experienced a revival of nationalistic militancy.92 Under such circumstances, we need not expect that all members of the church always concurred with the consensus established at one significant meeting (thus, e.g., James may stand by his word while recognizing the need to accommodate certain contrary tendencies dominant among Jerusalem’s believers in 21:20–25). That the Jerusalem church may have grown increasingly conservative93 during such national currents is what history leads us to expect from any religious movement whose members feel that they belong to a larger culture moving in such a direction.94 In subsequent history, believers have sometimes focused on the conclusions of Nicaea or some other church council despite the contentious debates that characterized the eras of those councils. Similarly, Luke and Paul may, in different ways, focus on one meeting in which Paul participated, whereas, for the local Jerusalem church, it was one important discussion session among others. That the church’s leaders later stood by their compromise agreement (21:25) we need not doubt, but at that same time, Paul himself, in Luke’s own account, seemed to recognize that the political situation in Jerusalem had changed and that it invited a “compromise” accommodation on his own part (21:24, 26).

2. Conflict over Circumcising Gentiles (15:1–5) The opening verses of this section continue the geographic locale of the preceding context (the church in Antioch, in 14:26–15:3a), but they introduce a new question: the necessity of circumcision (15:1, 5) and the keeping of the law of Moses (15:5; cf. 15:20, 29). This sets the stage for the Jerusalem Council that follows (15:6–29). a. Conflict at Antioch (15:1–2) Antioch, the very center of the Gentile mission, is now troubled by the overflow of conservative politics from Judea. If circumcision is necessary (and presumably, most of Luke’s Diaspora Christian audience after 70 hopes that it is not), the Antioch Gentile mission in general and Paul’s Diaspora mission program in particular are in question. i. Shifting Politics Affects the Church (15:1)

Because of its special cultural sensitivity, the Antioch church had pioneered the Gentile mission (11:20–21; 13:1–4), as Luke has recently reminded his audience 91. See Balch, “Ἀκριβῶς,” 244–48. 92. Cf. Jos. Ant. 20.102 (see Bruce, Peter, 35; Riesner, Early Period, 280). Some scholars believe that help from foreigners (Helena and Izates) relieved some pressure from those with Hellenist ties (Reicke, Era, 212–13), but royal proselytes differed from uncircumcised sectarians. 93. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 23, sees the church’s attitudes toward Gentiles as harder than in Acts 11:1–18, as exemplified by James’s decree (15:13–21), noting that Peter accepted but did not propose it. 94. Hill, Hellenists, 115, doubts that the hard-line conservatives later came to control the church, but he also acknowledges the diversity of opinion.

2210

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 58

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

(14:26). The Jerusalem church had approved of their mission (11:22–23) especially because the Antioch church had continued to demonstrate faithfulness for the poor in Jerusalem (11:27–29; cf. Gal 2:10).95 Growing cultural conservatism in Judea has now made this earlier agreement more difficult to observe (15:1). The large and influential Jewish population of Antioch, with which even Gentile Christians maintained contact in this era, made such problems in Judea pressing in Antioch as well.96 Now, as Barnabas once came from Jerusalem to evaluate Antioch’s new crosscultural expansion (11:22), Antioch sends Barnabas and Paul back to Jerusalem for a reaffirmation of their previously accepted mission (15:2). The Antioch church clearly favors the side that Paul is sent to support (15:31; cf. Gal 2:12).97 Nevertheless, approval from Jerusalem seems both uncertain and crucial. One gathers from Galatians that Paul felt his entire mission was at stake (Gal 2:2). ii. Galatians and the Antioch Conflict

It is possible that the conflict reported in Acts 15:1–2 corresponds to the conflict in Antioch reported in Gal 2:11–14.98 On my view, this would reverse chronologically the sequence for Gal 2:1–10 and 2:11–14,99 but such a reversal is not necessarily objectionable. It is more likely, however, that 2:11–14 does follow 2:1–10 and that Peter’s act undermines an agreement he has already accepted, in response to conservatives in the Jerusalem church gaining the upper hand (Paul’s position sounds more secure here than in Gal 2:2). In this case, the incident in Gal 2:11–14 would have occurred during the period reported in Acts 15:35–36a (Luke’s “certain days” in 15:36 can refer to a long period of time; cf. his “considerable days” in 9:23). As the home of the Gentile mission and as the Christian movement’s second—and notably successful—home, Antioch probably invited more dialogue with Jerusalem on the issue than did any other site. Even if we lacked Acts 15 when reading Gal 2:1–10, we would infer that Paul must have heard about the debate outside Jerusalem, since he planned to discuss the matter before he arrived (Gal 2:2), and travel from his home base in Antioch would be a reasonable guess. Who were the “certain people” who came to Antioch? Although they could be agents of James (Gal 2:12) if we date 2:11–14 before 2:1–10,100 they were more likely the “false brothers” of 2:4101 or simply were among the sort of false teachers condemned in Galatians. The teachers were from Jerusalem (Acts 15:24)102 but were not authorized by the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church (15:24), at least not for the matters 95. Jervell, Unknown Paul, 18–19, suggests that the Jerusalem church exercised authority over the other churches; this was probably Jerusalem’s perception and was perhaps felt in Antioch, though probably not in Paul’s churches. 96. In the early second century, Ignatius of Antioch opposed Christians practicing Judaism (a practice with which he appeared familiar; Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 19–20), and Jews and Christians continued in active contact there (21–24) into the fourth century (35–36). 97. A matter praised in a central location (e.g., Rome, Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.26) could not be presumed to elicit the same response everywhere. Some have argued that Paul experienced conflict with circumcisionists in Antioch like a thorn in the flesh (Deehan, “Thorn”). 98. Bauckham, “James,” 468–69. 99. Johnson, Acts, 269, thinks that Luke has reversed the sequence. 100. Bruce, Commentary, 303. 101. Bruce, Peter, 37, revising his earlier position. For false apostles elsewhere, see 2 Cor 11:4, 13; Rev 2:2. 102. Haenchen, Acts, 442–43, thinks that Luke changes this to Judea in Acts 15:1 to weaken the danger of assuming a connection with the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Even for Luke, everything circles back to Jerusalem ( Johnson, Acts, 11). To Diaspora Christians, emissaries coming from Jerusalem would bear the status of those assumed (rightly or wrongly) to have the best training in the faith, somewhat like Arab Muslims tutoring recent Muslim converts, or Western Christian missionaries tutoring recent Christian converts in West Africa in the early twentieth century.

2211

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 59

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

they were now teaching. They might have claimed otherwise, but the outcome of the council in both Galatians and Acts suggests that they never spoke officially for the Jerusalem church’s leadership. After their initial arrival in Antioch, however, they may have used their Jerusalemite provenance to good effect (cf. 2 Cor 11:22), and Paul may have had reason for concern (Gal 2:2). The Jerusalem church had sent agents before (Acts 8:14; 11:22),103 as had Antioch (13:3), and so the implicit indication that they acted on the Jerusalem church’s official authority would seem plausible. Further, other authorities in Jerusalem could send agents to challenge the authority of Jewish leaders elsewhere who also had claimed their authorization (see Jos. Life 198). (That the church was networked in different regions should not surprise us, given what we read in Paul about such contacts.)104 Paul’s letters reveal that his later opponents were also mobile and following his efforts (Gal 4:17; 5:10–12; 6:12–13; cf. probably different opponents in 2 Cor 11:4–6, 12–15); this fits the general mobility of ancient urban society (cf. 2 John 10; 3 John 7).105 To some degree, such itinerancy might reflect patterns established in Jesus’s ministry, both for Paul and for his opponents.106 iii. Circumcision for Salvation? (15:1)

These Judeans insisted on circumcision “according to the custom of Moses”—that is, the law (Luke 1:9; 2:42; Acts 6:14; 21:21)—as a condition of salvation (contrast salvation through grace in Acts 15:11). Did some really believe that circumcision was necessary for “salvation” (15:1; refuted in 15:11), and did most of the Jerusalem church once doubt that Gentiles could be saved without it (11:18)? Extant sources suggest that most Jews allowed that righteous Gentiles could be saved without full conversion to Judaism.107 This tolerant position probably included most Pharisees, though their later, extant views on the matter may reflect only the more liberal Hillelites, the minority school in the pre-70 period. According to this manner of thinking, proselytism was necessary for full blessing as a member of Israel but not for salvation. That some Tannaitic sources preserve the stricter view (salvation only for proselytes) suggests that some other Pharisees held this narrower view, plausibly more often among the Shammaites.108 The rise of nationalism in this period, however, may have brought more conservative elements to the fore, obscuring moderate views more popular in other periods. Revolutionary sentiment had solidified considerably by the late 40s.109 Thus, for example, some Judeans insisted on circumcising Gentile refugees as a condition for living among them ( Jos. Life 113). Some Jerusalemite Christians, as members of a growing minority that had once been marginalized, may have also been inclined to 103. Cf. Munck, Acts, 232. 104. E.g., Rom 16:21–23; 1 Cor 1:11; 16:19; Col 4:7–16; in a later period, Christians in Asia and Palestine are connected in Lucian Peregr. 13. For travelers carrying news, see, e.g., Eurip. El. 361–62; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 47.1; P.Oxy. 32; see further comment in Keener, Acts, 1:187. 105. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 65. See comment on Acts 11:27. 106. Theissen, Setting, 28–35, roots itinerancy in socioeconomic factors and (35–40) contrasts this with Paul, who established organization. I believe that this distinction is inaccurate (see Keener, Matthew, 57; see comment on Acts 11:27); one reason is that itinerancy characterized Paul no less than his opponents. 107. See esp. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 60–65; comment on Acts 10:2. In view of Isaiah, they could hardly deny Gentiles conversion, but they could debate the appropriate approach (Skarsaune, Shadow, 165–66). 108. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275 (citing t. Sanh. 13:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Yebam. 24b); Falk, Jesus, 75–76; Flusser, Sage, 50. Donaldson suggests the possibility (also entertained by others; see discussion at Acts 22:3) that Paul was a Shammaite (Paul and Gentiles, 278), a view that fits the characterization of pre-Christian Paul as a zealot (284–92; cf. Wright, Founder, 26). 109. See Riesner, Early Period, 280.

2212

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 60

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

express exceptional rigor to identify with the most nationalistic elements among their people (cf. Acts 21:20; Rom 15:31). Perhaps some less theologically nuanced or stricter Jerusalemites brought their teachings to Antioch110 and, in the course of escalating argument, insisted that circumcision was necessary even for salvation. After the Jerusalem Council, advocates of circumcision may have advanced their case in Galatia in a more nuanced form.111 It is also possible that Luke has put the debate in his own words, serving the purpose of narrative cohesion but at the expense of later historical theologians’ attempts to reconcile his brief summary with more nuanced pictures in Paul and other early Jewish sources (see also comment on Acts 11:18). Luke trusts that salvation is by faith (Acts 15:11; 16:31; cf. 13:39),112 leaving no room for other means (though cf. other elements in, e.g., Luke 3:10–11, 14; Acts 2:38). From my work in Matthew I think that Luke, though the more accurate historian in Greco-Roman terms, was sometimes less nuanced than Matthew in interpreting Jesus’s sayings because he lacked the more sophisticated knowledge of sages and other Palestinian Jewish tradition that Matthew possessed.113 He may also present the conflict here in a more graphic and less nuanced way than one would gather from Galatians. In fact, Luke may report how the debate was experienced (and hence often reported) among early Christians, most of whom perceived positions in less nuanced terms than did their most careful expositors. Thus, for some, anyone who did not impose circumcision was against it (Acts 21:21); likewise, Gentile Christians may have heard Jewish Christians who demanded circumcision for joining Israel as if they were demanding circumcision for salvation, and it is possible that some unduly zealous proponents of circumcision mingled the categories as well. Their numbers cannot, on any reading, have matched their long-range influence; ultimately both Luke and Paul portray these objectors as on the losing side on this occasion, Paul relegating them to a contingent of “false brothers” (Gal 2:4). Those who find Gnosticism everywhere have suggested gnostic tendencies among Galatians’ Judaizers,114 but the lack of distinctively gnostic traits in Paul’s depiction of his challengers has resulted in few adherents to this position.115 Some scholars view the opponents as non-Christian Jews, such as in the form of pressure from the local synagogue communities; but while such pressure may have existed, it does not fit the opposition that Paul depicts—people who distort the gospel (Gal 1:6–9), fear external persecution (6:12), and simply want to add circumcision, not denounce Christ (cf. 4:17; 5:2–3, 11).116 110. Proselytes were instructed (Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 276, citing Tac. Hist. 5.5.2; Juv. Sat. 14.101–2; Jos. Ant. 20.34–35, 41; b. Šabb. 31a). 111. Paul reacted to even this nuanced position harshly (e.g., Gal 1:7–9; 3:1; 5:12), doubting that it reckoned adequately with the sufficiency of Christ’s salvific work; his reaction makes all the more sense if he associated this position with the more extreme position of Acts 15:1, to which it might lead. 112. Johnson, Acts, 259, points to hints of saving faith for Gentiles in the preceding context (Acts 14:9, 22, 23, 27) that dictate the wording here. 113. E.g., Keener, Matthew, 552–53 (though Luke 11:44 might come closer to Jesus’s original point than Matt 23:27); cf. p. 205 (which could go either way). This is not to say that Luke necessarily obscured the basic point of such sayings or misapplied their principles (Matthew was more apt to engage in midrashic adaptation), but it is possible that he sometimes missed more of the nuances available to Jesus’s first hearers. 114. Schmithals, “Abfassung”; idem, Paul and Gnostics, 13–64; cf. Wilson, Gnosis and New Testament, 43. Ropes, Galatians, 9–10, 43–44, argues that Paul faced both Judaizers and their libertine opponents; Jewett, “Agitators,” 212, that they were charismatic and libertine, but not gnostic. For the Valentinian reading of Galatians, cf. Pagels, Paul, 101. 115. See, e.g., the summary in Campbell, “Judaizers,” 515. 116. Cf. Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 31 (they viewed law-works as compatible with faith in Christ, completing it). Proposals vary widely, however; cf., e.g., Martyn, “Mission” (arguing that they emphasize the law over

2213

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 61

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Most scholars think that Paul’s opponents are not local Jews but rather Jewish Christian missionaries, like Paul.117 They were likely not spokespersons for Jerusalem’s apostolic leaders but acting on their own.118 Probably Paul’s primary opponents here are not the persecutors of Gal 4:29 but those who, unlike Paul, fear offending them (6:12; cf. 5:11)—namely, missionaries more beholden to their sending culture than to the needs of the converts (a temptation not limited to any single sending culture). Paul’s “Judaizers” as read in Galatians may be a “straw,” reductio ad absurdum construct for the purpose of his polemic rather than how his opponents would have presented themselves.119 They need not be the same opponents as other Jewish opponents elsewhere—for example, in Corinth, where circumcision is not raised as an issue (2 Cor 11:22).120 After all, most early Christian missionaries on both sides of the conflict were Jewish. Many scholars plausibly argue that not even Paul’s opponents in Galatia made circumcision a requirement for salvation; the issue may instead be membership in the covenant (i.e., ecclesiology rather than soteriology).121 For most Jews, righteous Gentiles could be saved, in any case, but to go further and become part of the people of God, a person needed to enter the covenant as Abraham did.122 Yet once one concluded, as Paul did, that all who were saved were also children of Abraham (Gal 3:29), it was to be expected that the categories of salvation and status in Israel would be linked (and perhaps confused) as aspects of justification. Although Paul recognized the technical physical distinction imposed by circumcision, he rejected its soteriological significance (Rom 2:25–29; 3:30; 4:9–12). He was doubtless only one of those who addressed the issue,123 but circumcision (Rom 2:25–29; 3:1; 4:9–12; 1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 2:3, 12; 5:2–3, 6, 11; 6:12–15; Phil 3:2–3; Col 2:11; Titus 1:10) and the Gentile mission (e.g., Rom 1:5, 13–16; 10:12; 11:13; 15:9–18; 16:4; Gal 1:16; 2:8–9; 3:8, 14, 26–29; Eph 2:11–3:8; Col 1:27; 3:11; 1 Thess 2:16) were defining issues of his ministry; he often emphasizes his special call to the nations (Rom 1:5; 15:14; Gal 2:7–9; Eph 3:1–3). He was also known for this mission to outsiders, though it was Christ); Brinsmead, Galatians, 200 (they could accept Jesus as a new lawgiver like Moses). The opponents could have believed that Paul, in fact, shared their opinions (Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 9), although, given our dating of the letter after the Jerusalem Council (which I take as historical), this is unlikely. 117. E.g., Meeks, Urban Christians, 115; Cousar, Galatians, 4. Paul thus argues not against Judaism per se here but against a competing faction within the Jewish Jesus movement (Sanders, Law and People, 19–20). Some have proposed that the Judaizers were Gentiles (Ropes, Galatians, 25). For a useful historical survey of views about Paul’s opponents, see Brinsmead, Galatians, 9–22 (for a survey of methodological approaches for reconstructing them, 23–33). 118. E.g., Cousar, Galatians, 5; Carson, Triumphalism, 23. The opponents probably misunderstood the teaching of the Jerusalem apostles (Tyson, “Opponents,” 253). Munck, Salvation, 130, thinks that their position was a misinterpretation of the ot and Paul. 119. Cf. Agnew, “Adversary”; Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 31. Reconstructing Paul’s opponents solely from his answers (as in Tyson, “Opponents,” 249), then, misunderstands the nature of Paul’s rhetoric (see Lyons, Autobiography, 82–121; see warnings against mirror-reading in Sumney, Opponents; Aune, Environment, 207; cautions in Porter, “Introduction to Opponents,” esp. 2–4). For a survey of proposals about who opponents were (in various letters), as well as evaluation and critique and emphasis on methodology, see Sumney, “Studying Opponents.” In a society emphasizing honor rivalry (Pliny Ep. 2.9.2, 5–6), polemic against adversaries was standard. 120. With Witherington, Corinthians, 346; Sumney, Opponents, 85. The Judaizing opponents in Phil 3:2, not necessarily yet arrived in Philippi, probably do represent the same perspectives as the opponents in Galatians. 121. Cf., e.g., Johnson, Acts, 259; Sanders, Law and People, 18, 20; idem, Jesus and Judaism, 276; Nanos, “Spies.” Some strict Jews did, however, apparently require full conversion (Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275). 122. Sanders, Law and People, 18; cf. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 60–65. 123. Many other early Christians whose works remain extant (e.g., 1 Pet 2:9–10; Rev 5:9–10) shared Paul’s embrace of Gentiles in God’s people, though we cannot be sure to what extent this may have been true in the 40s. Paul’s voice as a theologically articulate practitioner undoubtedly proved influential (and Diaspora churches probably viewed him as their major advocate).

2214

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 62

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

probably often misrepresented (Acts 21:21; cf. Rom 3:8). See further discussion of early Jewish soteriology and Pauline soteriology in the excursus at Acts 13:39.124

Excursus: Circumcision Given the importance and centrality of circumcision and the price many Jews had paid and continued to pay to maintain it in the Gentile world, any compromise of this sign would readily be perceived as betrayal and apostasy. To welcome God-fearers without circumcision was to affirm Gentile interest in Judaism; this welcome did not, however, make them members of the covenant for which Israel had long suffered.125 From both Luke’s and Paul’s perspectives, however, the God who revealed himself to Abraham had continued to reveal himself and had confirmed the eschatological welcome of Gentiles into God’s community by their reception of the Spirit.126 Though not wishing to scandalize his people, Paul was more concerned about following what he was convinced was God’s plan and leading into the covenant all the Gentiles whom God’s Spirit would embrace. The compromise solution of Acts 15:20, 29 does not resolve the theological difference between Paul and some of his detractors as to whether Gentile adherents now belong to God’s people; it does provide a practical, working basis for table fellowship by accepting them as at the least analogous to God-fearers attending Diaspora synagogues.

1. The Importance of Circumcision Circumcision was one of Judaism’s most important practices, central to Jewish identity.127 Other covenants had different signs (e.g., the bow in the sky, Gen 9:12–13, 17), but circumcision placed the mark of the covenant in one’s very flesh (17:11, 13).128 Its centrality in regular Jewish life before Hadrian may be exemplified in the gathering of guests on the nights between a boy’s birth and his circumcision on the eighth day.129 One pre-Christian work opined that the failure of some Jews—“children of Beliar”—to circumcise their children would bring wrath on all Israel for apostasy (Jub. 15:33–34). Later rabbis praised circumcision, proclaiming, “Great is circumcision!”130 They also had tales of heroes of history who were born circumcised.131 Righteous Abraham became complete only when circumcised (t. Ned. 2:5);132 circumcision equaled all other 124. Keener, Acts, 2:2079–90. 125. As Ferguson, Backgrounds, 434, points out, circumcision’s very centrality (revealed in revolts against Antiochus IV and Hadrian) explains the level of hostility that Paul’s teaching could have engendered. 126. Cf. Hays, Conversion, 140, on the influx of Gentiles as an eschatological “sign” in Pauline theology. 127. See Moore, Judaism, 2:16ff.; Dunn, Beginning, 439–41; cf. later, e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 23:4. 128. Cf. also Sir 44:20; Jub. 15:13; t. Ber. 7:13. 129. Safrai, “Home,” 767; cf. Luke 1:59. 130. E.g., m. Ned. 3:11; t. Ned. 2:5–7; b. Ned. 32a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 11:6; Exod. Rab. 5:8. Uncircumcision, conversely, became a reproach (Gen. Rab. 80:8). 131. E.g., Gen. Rab. 26:3; 84:6; but see esp. Kalimi, “Born Circumcised”; idem, “Geboren.” When occasionally a child was born without a foreskin, however, he would still be made to bleed (b. Šabb. 135a; Gen. Rab. 46:12). 132. Cf. CD XVI, 4–6. God supposedly withheld circumcision till Abraham’s time because it was so important (Gen. Rab. 46:3). The three angels came to Abraham only when he was circumcised (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 18:1).

2215

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 63

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

commandments (2:6); and the universe could not continue without circumcision (2:7; presumably meaning that the universe depended on the merit accrued by circumcision).133 The price Israel paid for maintaining circumcision would make the Jewish people all the more loyal to it. Israel faced ridicule for this mark,134 for which reason some individual Jews had sought to efface it.135 Some women had faced death to circumcise their children; one oppressor had them thrown from the city wall.136 Because circumcision was the sign of Abraham’s covenant, it could be related to redemption by juxtaposing Exod 4:22–23 with 4:24–26. Later rabbis thus naturally spoke of the merit involved in circumcision.137 As suggested above, failing to circumcise one’s children (Jub. 15:33) invited God’s wrath (15:34).138 Although some other peoples practiced circumcision (most notably, many Egyptians)139 and they may have originally influenced the Hebrew practice,140 it provided an important boundary marker between Jew and Gentile,141 long since recognized by both. While denouncing Jewish people’s “hatred of humanity,” Tacitus notes that they practiced circumcision to separate themselves from all other peoples (Hist. 5.5).142 One should not allow a Gentile to perform a Jewish infant’s circumcision, at 133. On creation’s continuance depending on the blood of circumcision, see also t. Ber. 6:13, ed. princ. 134. E.g., Pesiq. Rab. 13:8 (later but representative). Scholars (e.g., Moore, Judaism, 1:49) often opine that the conspicuousness of circumcision in a Greek gymnasium was a major problem (1 Macc 1:14–15; cf. a pagan preferring death to entering a gymnasium castrated in Epict. Diatr. 1.2.25). It is possible that in some settings, however, Jews had their own gymnasia where they could exercise nude yet circumcised (see Kerkeslager, “Identity,” on CPJ 3.519). Circumcision was considered characteristic of Jews just as bored ears were for Arabians (Petron. Sat. 102). 135. 1 Macc 1:15; Jos. Ant. 12.241; cf. Hall, “Circumcision in Reverse”; idem, “Epispasm and Dating.” Later rabbis regarded this sin as unforgivable (y. Sanh. 10:1, §1; Šebu. 1:6, §5) or the cause of exile (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 5:2) and could apply it to a biblical sinner such as Achan (b. Sanh. 44a) or Jehoiakim (one rabbi in Lev. Rab. 19:6). Test. Mos. 8:3 may speak of forced surgical uncircumcision of children in the final tribulation. 136. 2 Macc 6:10; 4 Macc 4:25; cf. 1 Macc 1:60–61; Jos. Ant. 12.256. 137. E.g., Mek. Pisha 16.169–70; Exod. Rab. 17:3; 19:5; 38:8; Lev. Rab. 21:6; 31:4; Ruth Rab. 6:1; Pesiq. Rab. 52:4; Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 4:25; cf. Pesiq. Rab. 15:17. They were set apart for God partly through this means (Pesiq. Rab. 29/30A:3); Jacob feared that the Shekinah would abandon his bier if an uncircumcised person helped carry it (Gen. Rab. 100:2). 138. In later rabbinic developments, circumcision related to personal salvation so thoroughly that extremely wicked Israelites’ circumcision would be obscured or effaced to prevent Abraham from saving them (b. ʿErub. 19a; Gen. Rab. 48:8; Exod. Rab. 19:4; cf. Herford, Christianity, 191–92). Those who rejected circumcision were among the certainly damned (b. Šebu. 13a). 139. E.g., ANET 326 (though references are rare); Hdt. 2.104; Diod. Sic. 1.28.3; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.169; specifically their priests (P.Tebt. 293.11–22; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.141; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 199n4, citing P.Wash. Univ. inv. 138; Lewis, Life, 92); King, “Circumcision” (also noting West Semites); Hess, “Joshua,” 8–29; cf. Diop, “Origin,” 48, suggesting archaeological corroboration for Hdt. 2.104. Unlike Hebrews, Egyptians did not circumcise infants (perhaps they employed it in coming-of-age ceremonies) and did not remove the entire foreskin (Sasson, “Circumcision,” 474). In various traditional cultures today, see Eliade, Rites, 21–25; Nadal, “Descent,” 348; Beidelman, “Incest,” 185, 196; Mbiti, Religions, 160, 165; under Islamic influence, see Mbiti, Religions, 329. 140. So, e.g., Hdt. 2.104; Diod. Sic. 1.28.3. Artapanus (in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.10) claims that Egyptians and Ethiopians learned it from Moses instead of (as in Herodotus) the other way around. Sasson, “Circumcision,” 476, thinks that north Syria practiced it in the third millennium b.c.e., influencing Egyptian custom. 141. As often noted (e.g., Jayakumar, “Circumcision”; Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 126; an emphasis in many of Dunn’s works). It achieved the function of the chief boundary marker during the Maccabean era (Cohen, Maccabees, 52). Whereas various peoples in the East practiced circumcision, it appeared distinctively Jewish in Rome (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 438). 142. Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 80–85, cites many sources regarding circumcision as distinguishing Jews (or sometimes revealing their Egyptian origin): Strabo 16.2.37; Diod. Sic. 1.55; Hor. Sat. 1.9.68–70; Pers. Sat. 5.184; Petron. Sat. 68.8; 102.14; frg. 371; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.13.137; Mart. Epig. 7.30.5; 11.94; Juv. Sat. 5.14.96–106; Tac. Hist. 5.5.8–9; Celsus in Origen Cels. 1.22; 5.43; Suet. Dom. 12; SHA, Hadrian 14.2; Dig. 48.8.11.1. Circumcision constituted the decisive mark of Judaism in Roman satirists (Gager, Anti-Semitism, 56–57). For negative pagan teaching toward Jewish circumcision, see Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 132–36.

2216

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 64

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

least without proper Israelite supervision.143 Naturally, the de-emphasis on circumcision in much of the Jesus movement’s Diaspora mission, partly under Paul’s influence, would appear threatening to Israel’s historic identity.144 Circumcision had long been part of conversion, since the act welcomed foreigners into Israel’s covenant.145 Donaldson notes some Tannaitic texts—probably reflecting one view held by some Pharisees, possibly especially Shammaites—in which the only Gentiles to share the coming world would be those who converted to Judaism in this one.146 A minority of Jews, when they had the power, were even ready to impose circumcision on Gentiles.147

2. Circumcision in a Missionary Setting The issue of circumcision for Gentiles was bound to become a major issue in a missionary setting.148 Diaspora Jews interested in building good relations with the Gentile community dared not be too strict in imposing circumcision on interested Gentiles, lest they alienate sympathizers.149 Thus a range of views existed, though it was probably especially in the Diaspora that more liberal views (the need only to abandon idols and immorality) prevailed.150 One may compare Josephus’s account of two Jews with divergent perspectives courting the faith of a prominent ruler of Gentiles. After a Jewish merchant and another Jew brought both King Izates and his mother Helena to believe the truth of Judaism ( Jos. Ant. 20.34–35), the king prepared to be circumcised (20.38). His mother and his tutor in Jewish faith urged him to avoid this, fearing the political fallout (20.39–42). Thus the Jewish merchant Ananias was happy to win people’s adherence to Judaism without making an issue of circumcision where this could prove problematic or risk provoking an anti-Jewish backlash.151 True worship mattered more than circumcision, and God would understand if the king needed to forgo it.152 A more conservative Jew, however, insisted that the king be circumcised if he wished to profess following the Jewish law (20.43–45). The king did accept it (20.46), and God protected him (20.48). Some scholars suggest that some Jews may have regarded the king as a convert before circumcision;153 most, however, would have accepted him only as a righteous 143. So t. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:12. Samaritans are also prohibited (in y. Yebam. 8:1, §10). 144. With Hellerman, “Purity.” 145. E.g., Exod 12:48; Jdt 14:10. On its necessity for proselytes, see also t. Ber. 6:13, ed. princ.; b. Ber. 47b; Šabb. 135a; 137b; Yebam. 46ab; 71a; ʿAbod. Zar. 59a; Exod. Rab. 30:12. The Testament of Levi affirms that it was not wrong to kill the wicked Shechemites, but to circumcise them and then kill them was wrong (Test. Levi 6:3, 6–7). 146. Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 275 (citing t. Sanh. 13:2; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Yebam. 24b; Pesiq. Rab. 161a). He suggests that Paul held such a view before his conversion (284–92). Circumcision appears as the means of salvation in the Kabbalah (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 132), but the text is from the thirteenth century. 147. Jos. Life 113, 149; cf. Ant. 13.257–58, 319. 148. The views portrayed in Acts 15 fit the range of known first-century Jewish views (Segal, “Acts 15”; Le Cornu, Acts, 818; Balch, “Ἀκριβῶς,” 244–48). 149. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 71–73 (on the large numbers of sympathizers, see 61–70). 150.  Barreto, Negotiations, 99–101, following Collins, “Symbol,” 163–86. Barreto also notes that a majority of outsiders’ descriptions of Jews omit mention of circumcision (Negotiations, 104). 151. Jos. Ant. 20.34–35, 38–40. 152. Jos. Ant. 20.41–42. Later rabbis debated particular, usually temporary, exceptions to circumcision (t. Šabb. 15:9; b. Pesaḥ. 69a; Song Rab. 7:2, §3; cf. b. Šabb. 135a). 153. So Gilbert, “Convert.” If so, this was probably a minority and individual perspective rather than an official one. Watson, Gentiles, 75–78, supplements Josephus’s story with Philo QE 2.2, but because exceptions

2217

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 65

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

God-fearer, not a member of God’s people.154 On the other extreme, some nationalistic Jews wanted to forcibly circumcise foreigners among them; Josephus forbade this, emphasizing that circumcision must be a person’s choice.155 Probably most Judean students of Torah would have insisted on circumcision for full converts; Diaspora Jews dealing more regularly with interested Gentiles may have often proved more lax, preferring to gain a little ground rather than risk a lot.156 Josephus’s moral in the story of King Izates may be that God rewards those who fulfill his commandments, but Josephus has the luxury of writing apologetic history after the fact; backlash against circumcisions in the Gentile world was a genuine danger. Jewish success at winning converts proved to be one of the chief Gentile complaints about Jewish people,157 and some viewed circumcision as a form of castration.158 Moreover, as the abundance of God-fearers proved, circumcision proved a barrier to the full participation of many; a form of Judaism that, like Paul’s movement, welcomed Gentiles into service to the one God without circumcision was bound to become eminently successful. Uncircumcised Gentile adherents were common throughout the synagogues of the Diaspora (see comment on God-fearers at Acts 10:2). Acts suggests that this tolerance was greater in much of the Diaspora Jesus movement: perhaps utilizing the case of Cornelius as a precedent (Acts 11:3, 18), believers in Antioch began reaching Greeks (11:20). Because circumcision is not mentioned, it was presumably not an issue at that point; Gentiles were welcome as God-fearers, in any case. Whether they were considered full members of the covenant community is another question. In Galatians and Romans Paul offers a resounding affirmative. The Antiochene church seems to have preferred Paul’s view, even if it was less prepared to stand up to Jerusalem than was Paul (Gal 2:11–12). Yet was it acceptable to abolish this biblical, divinely given requirement simply for the sake of missions strategy? A morally stringent monotheism would appeal to many Gentiles if stripped of its specifically ethnic component, but even Paul (who was no Marcionite) would not brook schism with Israel’s history and Scriptures. Still, neither was Paul merely welcoming Gentiles as God-fearers; without requiring them to change ethnically to join the Jewish people, he nevertheless treated his converts as full spiritual members of the covenant community. To many observers, Paul’s approach must have seemed an unstable blending of the treatment for God-fearers and that for proselytes;159 to many Jews, welcoming Gentiles as members of the covenant abandoned a basic pillar of Jewish religion—namely, might be made for a king, Philo (who could be eccentric in this case) constitutes the primary basis for the argument. 154. See Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 58–59; most Jews accepted “natural law” proselytes without viewing them as members of Israel (60–65). Nevertheless, Philo’s usage was sometimes ambiguous (see 63–64). Cf. Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 32. For strategic reasons, God-fearer status was sometimes preferable, but full conversion remained the ideal (Segal, Convert, 99–101). 155. Jos. Life 113, 149–50. Naturally, we would expect Josephus to emphasize his objection. Part of Life 113 is quoted below. 156. Some have suggested that some Galatian Christians may have sought circumcision to belong to a legal religion and hence escape persecution (Winter, Welfare, 133–43), but Paul’s polemic sounds directed more against those who sought it to join the covenant. 157. Best attested in Rome; see, e.g., Parkes, Conflict, 25–26; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 59–61. 158. Plut. Cic. 7.5; a view reported in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3:6. Hadrian’s treatment of circumcision as castration provoked the revolt of 132–35 c.e. (Herr, “Sybwtyw”; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 52). (Cordier, “Circoncision,” doubts that Romans viewed it as castration before the late second century.) 159. As Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 229, observes, “What marked off his [Paul’s] position as distinctive was the insistence that the Gentiles need not become proselytes to Judaism”; Paul, James, Peter, and John agreed on the rest. Paul denied that circumcision and food laws were necessary to join God’s people (276). Dunn,

2218

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 66

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Israel’s distinctiveness and covenant status with God. (Paul managed to preserve the distinctiveness of Israel’s covenant status but argued that it applied to the nation’s witness rather than to individual Jews’ salvation [cf. Rom 3:1–2; 9:4–8].) Although Paul’s approach would make it easier to produce converts, the converts (and those who made them) could face other complications. In Galatians, Paul claims that “preaching circumcision” would prevent him from being persecuted (Gal 5:11), and he notes that the Jewish Christians seeking to circumcise his converts are doing so to avoid persecution (6:12).160 Accommodating the expectations of other Jews would reduce the perception that Christians were lax and competing unethically with less sectarian Jewish approaches for Gentile converts. Given nationalistic sentiments rising in Jerusalem, it would reduce the pressure on the church there, and on Paul when he visited (Rom 15:31). Circumcision would also ensure that the Gentile converts continued to be viewed as Jewish by the Romans, securing their status as an ethnic religion and reducing threats of persecution from the imperial authorities. Circumcisionist teaching continued to threaten some Diaspora churches in the Aegean (Phil 3:2; Titus 1:10–11, 14; 3:9; likely less relevantly, cf. 2 Cor 11:22). A significant problem, however, was that it also would reduce the range of potential converts, not all of whom cared for embracing a painful ritual or for becoming “Judeans.” Such ethnic conversion meant joining a group typically perceived as resident aliens, yet even when circumcised Christ-believers might not be welcome at some synagogues, in any event.161 Circumcision would probably be far less likely to reduce persecution from the Roman side, and hence be less of a temptation for Gentile Christians, after 70 c.e. Perhaps it became a temptation again when Christians needed cover from the imperial cult in Asia Minor in the 90s (especially when expelled from some synagogues),162 but it does not appear in our sources from that period. Luke’s interest in this issue is less pervasive in Acts (esp. in Acts 15:1, 5; not even mentioned in 15:6–29) than is Paul’s in his letters that most address it,163 and the period in which he writes (as well as his audience) provides a plausible reason. If Luke writes to Diaspora churches with significant numbers of ethnic Gentiles after 70, circumcision is undoubtedly mainly a past issue; nevertheless, they will probably be willing to appreciate the price Paul and some others paid to maintain their freedom as Gentile converts to a messianic Jewish movement. This portrait of Paul (though historically confirmed in Galatians) would also appeal to Gentile readers in this period, as Josephus’s apologetic autobiography would have: “The Jews would have compelled them to be circumcised [τούτους περιτέμνεσθαι τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀναγκαζόντων; cf. Gal 2:3; 6:12] as a condition of residence among them,” but Josephus insisted that they be welcomed without this requirement (Life 113 [LCL, 1:42, 44]). New Perspective, 38, suspects that believers in Jerusalem considered Gentile converts as merely God-fearers until their numbers became a concern. 160. The specific claim is probably influenced by polemical considerations, since Paul (Gal 1:13, 23) and others (1 Thess 2:14–16) had persecuted Christians earlier, presumably before circumcision had reason to become an issue. But their numbers had probably made Jerusalem’s Christians more mainstream as a Jewish sect by this period, and relations to Gentiles were increasingly an issue. 161. For a sample of the social alienation that circumcision would cause: Cicero could mock a Judaizing Gentile regarding castration and pigs (Plut. Cic. 7.5). Some associated circumcision with despising gods, country, and family (Tac. Hist. 5.5). In general, “exposing the glans was considered vulgarly humorous, indecent or both” (Smith, “Translation,” 332); for Greeks and Romans, it was like becoming a “barbarian” (331). 162. On Rev 2:9 and 3:9, see Keener, Revelation, 115–16; for the Sitz im Leben of John, see idem, John, 176–79. 163. E.g., Rom 2:25–29; 4:9–12; Gal 2:3; 5:2–3, 6, 11; 6:12–15; cf. also 1 Cor 7:18–19; Phil 3:2–3; Eph 2:11; Col 2:11.

2219

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 67

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

3. Biblical Concerns Several passages in Paul’s letters, notably Galatians, provide something of an outline concerning how Paul addressed circumcision theologically. It was a distinctive mark of the covenant for Jewish identity; but the blessings of Abraham, promised before his circumcision, were available to Gentiles who accepted Israel’s king ( Jesus) and God, with or without circumcision (e.g., Rom 4:9–12; Gal 3:14). Some others shared Paul’s understanding that circumcision’s value was primarily symbolic, sometimes going further than Paul (who did not object to circumcision for Jewish people, 1 Cor 7:18). Philo concurs that circumcision symbolizes removal of the passions,164 but warns that we should not therefore neglect the physical ordinance (Migr. 92)—attesting that some of his more radical contemporaries did so (Migr. 90). Like Paul, the merchant Ananias (albeit for political reasons with a king), as already noted, argued that inward worship was more important than circumcision ( Jos. Ant. 20.41; though there is no guarantee that he would have viewed such worship as joining Israel’s covenant). Most Jews, however, would have regarded views such as Paul’s as a threat to the preservation of Jewish identity’s uniqueness.165 For proselytes and their status in Judaism, see comment on proselytes at Acts 6:5. One can readily understand the logic of the circumcisionist faction;166 Gen 17:10, 12–14, a foundational passage for the covenant, insisted that new members of Abraham’s household be circumcised.167 It does not specify Gentile converts per se, but this seems to be assumed (34:14–17, 22) and becomes explicit under the law for sojourners (Exod 12:48) and later Jewish practice (Esth 8:17 lxx).168 Although Gentiles could (according to most views) be saved without circumcision (see comment on Acts 10:2), they could not join Israel without undertaking it.169 Against this “old revelation, confirmed by centuries of history,” was “a new insight, given not through Jesus himself but in the course of an expanding, developing mission.”170 Readers from religious traditions that stress unfolding tradition or progressive charismatic revelation might sympathize with those opposed to circumcision, but those from particularly bibliocentric traditions must sympathize with the difficulties faced by the circumcisionists here. What are the limits or standards for evaluating new revelation? And did not Jesus challenge more recent human traditions that had obscured the biblical message? Paul’s epistles provide a sophisticated response to this position (esp. Rom 4; 9; Gal 3–4), but his opponents undoubtedly mounted their case from texts such as those above.171 164. See also Philo Spec. Laws 1.8–11; 1.304–5 ( Johnson, Acts, 259). Philo’s perspective provided fodder for church fathers (Niehoff, “Circumcision,” arguing that Genesis Rabbah responded to early Christian polemics). 165. Cf., e.g., Hellerman, “Purity.” Strong, “Jerusalem Council,” 206, notes that even today contextualization often raises conflict because it can challenge deep “levels of cultural identity.” 166. A logic strong enough, in fact, that the conflict apparently persisted into the next century, although outside what had become the mainstream Christian position (e.g., Ign. Phld. 6.1). 167. With Sanders, Law and People, 18; Dunn, Acts, 198. Literal circumcision appears in far fewer biblical texts than one would expect from its later emphasis (although it is crucial in most of these, esp. Gen 17; Exod 4:26; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2–8); spiritual circumcision appears in Lev 26:41; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25; cf. Ezek 44:7, 9. 168. That it was symbolic identification rather than ontologically efficacious is clear from where it had been omitted ( Josh 5:2–8; cf. Exod 4:25). Without the Israelite writers rejecting physical circumcision, spiritual circumcision (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; 9:25–26; cf. Ezek 44:7, 9) was, however, necessary and more crucial than the physical covenant “sign.” See fuller comment on Acts 7:51. 169. See Donaldson, Paul and Gentiles, 55–60; this is probably true even for the views of Ananias in Ant. 20.41 (see 58–59). 170. Dunn, Acts, 198–99. 171. From Paul’s letters we may also glean that they probably used Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5; Gal 3:12), which Paul countered with Deuteronomy’s understanding of covenant grace (Rom 10:6–10, from Deut 30:11–14);

2220

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 68

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Paul ultimately opposed not circumcision (which remained appropriate for Jewish believers) but the imposition of circumcision on Gentile believers;172 for Paul, the gift of the Spirit confirmed God’s acceptance of Gentiles into his covenant, obviating the need for a mere symbol of the covenant.173 Paul’s experience of God giving Gentiles the Holy Spirit at their conversion (Gal 3:2) undoubtedly informed his reading of Scripture (here, cf. Acts 15:12). Paul’s opponents could counter Paul’s point without disagreeing with his experience; might not God offer this gift to encourage Gentile conversion, yet require them to be circumcised afterward to fulfill their conversion? For Paul, receiving God’s own Spirit was far more important than outward circumcision, a comparison no one could have questioned theologically; but as already noted, for Paul, the experience of the greater work of the Spirit, an inner circumcision (Rom 2:25–29; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11), obviates the need for that which merely symbolizes this goal (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15).174 God had promised his people to set them apart by his Spirit in the end time;175 that Paul’s Gentiles had received the Spirit without circumcision verified that they had already become part of God’s people. The issue was probably small when Luke was writing after 70, but it certainly loomed large in earlier decades, and Luke’s own account gives us some insight into the depth of feelings on these issues. Circumcision was also the dividing point between Jew and Gentile in the controversy in Acts 11:2–3. Even Stephen accepted circumcision as the mark of the covenant (7:8), though it was invalid if the heart was uncircumcised (7:51) and the law disobeyed (7:53). How would Jesus’s teaching come to bear on Gentiles being saved without circumcision? That the Jesus tradition nowhere expressly addresses the issue is one mark of the tradition’s careful preservation.176 When Jesus spoke of the impossibility for a particular group to be saved, he spoke not of ethnic outsiders but of the economic elite (Luke 18:24–27). Yet without any gospel teaching to the contrary, most early Christians would probably assume that Jesus took the necessity of circumcision for granted, as did other Jews. (As already noted, however, affirming circumcision is not the same as mandating it for salvation.) Jesus upheld the law’s permanent validity (Luke 16:17; cf. Matt 5:18). Paul did not attack the law (he obeyed it, contrary to false charges; Acts 21:24, 28), but he denied that it made one righteous before God (13:39), claiming that salvation came through the message of Christ (13:26). Jesus also taught that forgiveness depended and they almost certainly used the contrast between Ishmael’s and Isaac’s attachment to the covenant (countered in Gal 4:21–31; cf. Rom 9:6–7), though both were circumcised. 172. See Howard, Crisis in Galatia, 52–53, 61–62; cf. Gal 2:8–9; 5:6; 6:15 (cf. the similar formula in 1 Cor 7:19). Maccoby, “Rejoinder,” contends that Paul portrays circumcision as mutilation (cf. the wordplay in Gal 5:12, but this does not identify the two and is limited to the polemical situation). But Paul specifically avoids the Gentile portrayal of the act as unaesthetic (Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 151) and fails to make castration part of his rhetorical arsenal in general (despite the possible one-time association of Galli with Galatia in Gal 5:12, noted above; cf. Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 135). 173. Rom 2:29; 7:6; 8:2; 14:17; 2 Cor 3:6–8, 17–18; Gal 3:2–5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16–22, 25; 6:8; Phil 3:3; Titus 3:5; cf. also Gal 6:15. On the centrality of the Spirit to Paul’s argument in Galatians, see also, e.g., Fee, Paul, Spirit, and People, 102–3. For Paul as a change agent, see Halcomb, “Agent.” 174. He did preserve baptism, an outward sign of conversion in Judaism that carried over into Christian practice, but even here may have been less insistent in practice than many assume (1 Cor 1:14–17). 175. Isa 32:15; 42:1; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28–29. Paul echoes Ezek 36:26–27 in 2 Cor 3:3 (and probably Rom 7:6) as well as a parallel text in Jer 31:31 in 2 Cor 3:6; he probably echoes Joel 2:28–29 (mt 3:1–2; or possibly Zech 12:10) in Rom 5:5. 176. On this tradition’s missing many features of later controversies, see, e.g., Stein, “‘Criteria,’” 225–28; Wright, People of God, 421; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 60–61; Keener, Historical Jesus, 143–44.

2221

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 69

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

on repentance through his name (Luke 24:47) and that people must receive the kingdom as a child would (18:17; cf. Mark 10:15). iv. Seeking Resolution from Jerusalem (15:2)

The account of controversy here would not surprise an ancient audience, but neither would the audience necessarily envision the strife as mild. Factions were an inevitable feature of public life, as is obvious, for example, in Cicero’s letters (e.g., Fam. 1.8.1–2). The followers of sages also competed in ancient cities, a competition often expressed in invective.177 Greek and Roman urban society had long been litigious178 and used judicial means to express personal enmity.179 What makes the conflict significant here is not its character but its subject. Earlier in Luke-Acts, some conflicts arose for immature reasons (Luke 9:46, 49–50; 22:24); in this case, however, the gospel made conflict with the new teachers inevitable (cf. 12:51). The decision to send Paul and Barnabas could have been influenced by prophecy, as is likely in Acts 13:2–3, but scholars who propose the influence of prophecy in the historical event behind 15:2 generally do so because of the “revelation” in Gal 2:2. There, however, Paul probably refers to the revelation of Christ to him resulting in his gospel (1:12, 16). More likely, the Antioch church sends Paul and Barnabas because they are former leaders of the Antioch church (Acts 13:1), have been at the forefront of the mission (Acts 13–14), and have shown themselves intellectually capable in the debate in 15:2. Others undoubtedly shared Paul’s concern for a circumcision-free mission, but Paul articulated its theology most forcefully.180 Even in Luke’s portrayal, the uncircumcision gospel may have been practiced in Antioch before his arrival (11:20), and it had already received approval from the Jerusalem church, at least in the isolated case of Cornelius (11:3, 18). Presumably, the “others” who accompanied Paul included, historically, Titus (Gal 2:1, 3), whether he was a Gentile convert from Paul’s travels or a long-term Antiochene (who had probably accompanied him on such travels). According to Paul, some of the Jerusalem church’s conservative faction (presumably those mentioned by Luke in Acts 15:5) wanted to circumcise Titus (Gal 2:1, 3). Historically, Paul and Barnabas together defended Paul’s gospel in Jerusalem (2:1, 9), with Paul as the dominant voice (2:2, 7). Who were the “elders”? Some scholars propose that they replaced members of the Twelve as they left Jerusalem;181 whatever the possible merit of such an idea on the historical level, Luke is emphatic in pairing the “apostles” and the “elders” here, probably as two distinct forms of leadership coexisting in the Jerusalem church.182 It 177. See Winter, Left Corinth, 37–38 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; cf. Philo Names 10; Heir 246; Flacc. 41; Worse 45; Prelim. Studies 129; Bowersock, Sophists in Empire, ch. 7). 178. E.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9; Plut. Demosth. 15.1–2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22; Winter, Left Corinth, 38; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66. 179. See Winter, Left Corinth, 64–66 (citing esp. Epstein, Enmity, 34). 180. Cf. Horn, “Verzicht”; Skarsaune, Shadow, 168; according Paul a particularly prominent role (see, e.g., Turner, “Paul and Globalisation”). 181. See Campbell, “Elders of Church” (emphasizing a shift toward Rome). 182. Note that the Didache (11.3–6) independently corroborates the wider usage of “apostles” in Paul; the narrower usage of other church fathers differs from Luke in including Paul (e.g., 1 Clem. 5.3–5; 47.1, 4; Ign. Rom. 4.3; Poly. Phil. 9.1), whereas Luke does so only in one passage (the title does apply to the Twelve in the Didache’s title; 1 Clem. 42.1–2; but these uses do not exclude their acceptance of Pauline or, in the case of the Didache, other apostleship elsewhere). Luke reflects not simply second-century usage but a stream of tradition (or perhaps, in his Gospel, a source) of much second-century usage (probably also reflected in Papias frg. 3.5; 5.2). Luke probably reflects a terminology earlier than his own writing, but the difference between

2222

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 70

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

is plausible that the elders replaced the Seven when they were scattered (see comment on the elders at Acts 11:30 and esp. at 14:23). It is possible that the elders exercise local leadership (like elders in other locations) and the apostles exercise broader authority (cf. also “rulers and elders” in Acts 4:5, 8). The church knew that national and local leaders coexisted in Jerusalem in earlier times (2 Kgs 23:1; 2 Chr 34:8, 29) and in their own day (Luke 20:1; 22:52, 66). For reasons the leaders were called “elders,” see comment on Acts 14:23. Whatever the specific relationship between the apostles and elders, the apostles did not exercise sole authority in the church; as in 6:2–6, 13:1, and 14:23, we see leadership spread out rather than limited to one group. One may compare the Dead Sea Scrolls, where priests ruled some matters, “overseers” ruled others, a council of twelve (or fifteen) leaders exercised authority, and the entire membership of the community could approve public decisions.183 From a literary perspective, it is also significant that 15:2 follows 14:23 so closely; that Paul must answer to the elders in Jerusalem is ironic in that Paul has just been appointing elders for new localities in 14:23. That is, despite the opinions of some in the Jerusalem church, Paul was no less an authority (an “apostle,” 14:4, 14) than the Twelve. This passage illustrates that until the Judean-Roman war,184 Diaspora churches continued to respect the Jerusalem church as the mother church; this was clear in Paul’s appeals to the Jerusalem apostles (e.g., 1 Cor 9:5; 15:5, 7), the wide circulation of letters attributed to James and Jude, and Paul’s need to nuance the respect given them (Gal 2:2, 9, 11–14). Like Diaspora synagogues, the churches of the Diaspora would have been formally independent of any direct or hierarchical control from Jerusalem; nevertheless, the opinions of the leaders there mattered to the Diaspora churches.185 Jesus had commanded his “witnesses”—certainly including the Twelve, those whom Luke usually calls the “apostles”—to testify to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:2, 8; Luke 24:33, 47–48). That most of these apostles remain in Jerusalem in 48 c.e. may reflect their devotion to establishing Jerusalem first (cf. Acts 3:26). Luke does not denigrate this devotion but may envision a measure of misunderstanding on their part (see comment on Acts 1:8). Though Gerhardsson’s original presentation of the apostles as heads of a rabbinic school in Jerusalem is too rigid,186 the apostles were guarantors of the Jesus tradition (cf. 1:8, 21–22), and their remaining at a centralized location made sense. After 70 c.e., however, Luke’s decentralizing message (cf. Acts 7) had the clear retrospective advantage. his usage and Paul’s is a semantic issue, not one of substance. Even if Luke writes for some who are reticent about Paul holding the title (perhaps related to the Pauline apologetic for which I argue in this commentary, on a first-century date; also in Keener, “Apologetic”), Luke clearly parallels Paul with Peter and the Jerusalem apostles, with obvious implications. 183. Longenecker, Acts, 245. 184. After that war, such loyalties could become more problematic politically; for a somewhat analogous historical situation, American Methodism flourished after severing direct hierarchical links with British Methodists, in the context of the colonies’ revolt (Cracknell and White, Methodism, 46–47). After the JudeanRoman war, of course, no Jerusalem church remained in Jerusalem in any case, but questions might arise as to the extent to which the Diaspora churches would wish to appeal to earlier Jerusalem connections. 185. Certainly before 70, Jerusalem retained special prestige, influence, and in some spheres, authority in Galilee; see, e.g., Jos. Life 62, 310, 315, 341, 393 (though the authority here probably represents a power vacuum, not relevant, e.g., to when Antipas was tetrarch). 186. See Gerhardsson, Memory, passim. His model is not, however, exclusively rabbinic; cf. Egyptian priests and scriptoria from the pharaonic period through the fourth century c.e. (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 239–41, citing Rufinus Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica 2.26; Clem. Strom. 6.4.35.3–37.3).

2223

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 71

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

b. Received by the Churches (15:3–4) The delegates journey to Jerusalem; they are received joyfully among the other Diaspora churches and also received in Jerusalem. In both cases, they testify of what God has done, just as Peter did to persuade the Jerusalem church earlier (11:4–17) and as all of them will do more fully soon afterward (15:7–9, 12). i. Reporting in Phoenicia and Samaria (15:3) That the delegates were “sent forth” (προπεμφθέντες) by the church undoubtedly means that it provided for them on their journey. The term προπέμπω can refer to

conducting on their way in some sense those departing (Acts 20:38; 21:5; cf. 1 Esd 4:47; 1 Macc 12:4), but often the term includes the component of financial support as well (Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16; Titus 3:13; 3 John 6),187 which makes more sense here. Given a journey of 250 miles ahead of the envoys, such a provision made good sense.188 The Antioch church probably had done the same for Paul and Barnabas’s journey to Cyprus, though this is not explicitly stated (cf. Acts 13:3). Phoenicia was on the way to Jerusalem, and Samaria could be as well if one chose to travel inland from Caesarea rather than along the coastal route followed in 8:40; 9:32–43 (from which one could journey southeast to Jerusalem at Joppa).189 Jewish churches had been established in Phoenicia during the same wave of Hellenist emigration that founded the church in Antioch (11:19); by now, however, the churches in these cosmopolitan areas had undoubtedly evangelized Gentiles as well. Samaria, too, was evangelized very early (8:1, 5–25; 9:31) and included a mixed Samaritan and Gentile population, and Samaritans, once embraced by Jerusalem, may have felt concerned about rising ethnic tensions and increasing nationalism in the Jerusalem church. They would be happy to hear of the conversion ( ἐπιστροφήν, 15:3) of the Gentiles—that is, the report of them “turning” (ἐπιστρέφειν, 14:15) to the Lord (cf. 9:35; 11:21; 15:19; 26:18–20), as Israel ought to (3:19). Traveling through Samaria would require accepting hospitality there, though Jews and Samaritans normally did not share free hospitality with one another (though lodging could be available; cf. Luke 9:56). Faith in Jesus had, however, created a common bond; the situation had moved a long way beyond the resistance and resentment reported in Luke 9:52–55. Recounting God’s works is important within the narrative world of Luke-Acts and provides the model for Luke’s own recounting.190 Storytelling—for example, of heroic exploits (Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1)—was a major form of informal traditioning; historically, such recounting of Paul’s mission probably provides much of Luke’s source for Paul’s ministry. Luke’s use of ἐκδιηγέομαι, which occurs nowhere else in Luke-Acts (or in the nt or the Apostolic Fathers) except in Acts 13:41,191 may offer an allusion to 13:41 by 187. Cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68. It might evoke this sense more figuratively in 2 Macc 6:23; Wis 19:2; cf. the idea in Pliny Ep. 5.19.9. To host, or show a favor toward, a person prestigious in one’s circle was normally deemed an honor, as in, e.g., Eurip. Alc. 1039–41; Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 5.19.7–8; 6.14.1–2; 6.28.2; 7.16.5; Lucian Dem. 63; Affairs 9; Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4. 188. Witherington, Acts, 452 (noting here esp. Peterman, “Giving,” 104ff.). 189. For the route from Caesarea into Samaria, see Zangenberg, “Samaria,” 401–2. 190. Okoronkwo, Compromise, 83, notes Luke’s frequent use of summaries in this section (15:3, 4, 12, 14, 32, 35) as “word economy.” 191. Wall, “Function,” emphasizes the allusion back to Acts 13:41. Wall, “Intertextuality,” 549–51, finds an allusion to Hab 1:5 in Acts 15:3. The term appears in the lxx primarily in Sirach (Sir 1:24; 18:5; 31:11; 34:9; 36:7; 39:12; 42:15, 17; 43:31; 44:8), but one of its other four uses is in Hab 1:5, which Acts 13:41 is quoting. The term is not rare per se; it appears in Philo (Heir 206; Mos. 1.58, 235) and more often in Josephus (Ant. 1.4; 3.198; 5.279; 6.40; 17.345; 18.75; War 1.281, 619; 4.624; 5.567; 7.404).

2224

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 72

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

way of contrast: unbelievers did not believe when truth was narrated to them (13:41), but Paul’s audience (and Luke’s own ideal audience) would (15:3).192 Whether or not Luke intends a stark contrast with 13:41, he clearly values the practice of recounting; note the cognate verb in Acts 9:27; 12:17; Luke 8:39; 9:10. The responses to the reports portray the Diaspora churches as supportive of Paul and his mission193 (though the support in Phoenicia and Samaria might not impress believers in Jerusalem); some intellectual members of Luke’s audience might also recall the Greek dictum that the unity of friendship offers happiness.194 Luke often reports similar responses to God’s activity—namely, rejoicing or praising God (e.g., Luke 2:20; 5:25–26; 10:17, 21; 13:17; 18:43; 19:37; 24:52; Acts 8:8)—including to reports of his works (Acts 11:18; 21:20).195 An emphatic phrase such as “rejoice greatly” or “great joy” is common enough,196 but Luke uses it in describing the response to noteworthy divine activity (Luke 2:10; 24:52; cf. 10:21). Paul and Barnabas receive the same opportunity to share in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4), though there Luke can only report that they were greeted with (apparently respectful) silence (15:12) and an objection (15:5; though cf. earlier Gal 1:24). ii. Reporting in Jerusalem (15:4)

Paul and Barnabas report what God has done through them, as they have in Antioch (14:27) and en route (15:3). Whereas Luke recounts a joyful response to their testimonies in Phoenicia and Samaria (15:3), however, his only specific narration of a response in Jerusalem to the report of God’s acts is some individuals’ vocal complaint (15:5; cf. better 15:12). In both 15:4 and 15:12 Luke emphasizes that they report about God’s confirming works, which can cast the objection of 15:5 as missing the point. Paul recounts stories in the general assembly (15:4),197 but a meeting with leaders alone may come afterward (15:6), where they will again report, perhaps with different examples or more fully (or perhaps to some who did not hear them in this venue earlier). According to Gal 2:2, Paul met with the apostles and perhaps elders (perhaps corresponding to the smaller session in Acts 15:6; his goal even in Acts 15:2) and was uncertain what the outcome would be. Galatians 2 does not mention the participation of the entire church but seems to presuppose it at some point in addition to the private meeting of Gal 2:2; the apostles may be viewed as those merely with reputation (2:6 with 2:9), but they are certainly not the “false brothers” of 2:4.198 192. Although the term is not rare, Luke elsewhere prefers the verb without this prefix (Luke 8:39; 9:10; Acts 8:33; 9:27; 12:17; elsewhere, e.g., Mark 5:16; 9:9; Heb 11:32; 1 Clem. 16.8; 27.7; 35.7; Diogn. 11.2; forty-one times in Josephus; twenty-five times in Philo). 193. Cf., e.g., the public thanksgivings decreed when the senate learned of Caesar’s exploits (reported by Caesar himself in Gall. W. 2.35; 4.38; a consummate politician, he was by no means excessive in modesty). On the correct perspective in Luke’s geography here, see Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 69. Talbert, Acts, 128, argues that the positive reception in Acts 15:3 lies at the heart of a chiasmus in 15:1–5 (circumcision in 15:1, 5; Paul’s journey to Jerusalem in 15:2, 4). 194. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74, summarizing Arist. N.E. 8–9 (one-fifth of the work). 195. Cf. also the common practice in antiquity of showing approval to speeches (e.g., Jos. Ant. 6.22; Hom. Il. 23.539; Appian Bell. civ. 2.8.52; Plut. Caes. 30; Tac. Hist. 2.90; Suet. Vit. 11). 196. P.Oxy. 1676.4–5; Sib. Or. 3.583 (μέγα χάρμα); Matt 2:10; 28:8; Phil 4:10; 1 Pet 1:6, 8; 3 John 4. 197. Gerhardsson, Memory, 245–61, compares rabbinic general sessions (he compares Qumran [251], but he finds later rabbinic parallels closer). Useful though this is, the background is likely wider; for example, Greek cities also had general assemblies. 198. Paul acknowledges Peter’s call and effectiveness (Gal 2:7–8) and cites the welcome finally of James, Peter, and John and the agreement that Paul go to the Gentiles; he also claims that they agreed on central matters (Gal 2:9–10).

2225

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 73

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Acts is not quite clear when the session becomes private; perhaps the “private” session of Gal 2 occurs as part of their reception in Acts 15:4, providing Paul the assurance of the leaders’ support before the public meeting begins. Luke’s abbreviating technique makes it unclear where the transition takes place (or if the assembly is present, but not active in the discussion, throughout—assuming one place could hold them; cf. 15:12).199 But 15:6 seems the likeliest point, since the church leaders gather there. The session of the leaders then may have been opened again to the entire assembly (15:22). We need not in any case postulate conflicting sources to explain the confusion; this would not be the only passage in which Luke sacrifices clarity for conciseness. What is most important in the narrative’s structure is that the missionaries’ testimonies (15:4, 12) frame the debate and Peter’s speech (15:7–11). Because Peter’s speech depends on God’s direct acts in the Cornelius narrative (15:7–9), the supplementing of these new miracles attesting God’s favor on the Gentile mission drives home a common point: God has taken salvation history to a new level in Jesus and is confirming his acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles through signs and wonders. This might be difficult to accept for those with biblical convictions about circumcising Gentiles;200 but the same Bible taught them that God acts in history, and these testimonies came from the same Spirit they experienced, and from one of their chief leaders (Peter). The scriptural foundation will come afterward and clinch the case (15:15–20). c. Insistence on Circumcision (15:5) The stark terms in which Luke presents the Pharisaic believers’ insistence (δεῖ) may suggest an “escalation of tension” in the narrative201 or at least escalation of a sense of what is at stake. That early members of the Christian movement had freedom to debate the issue need not surprise us. Neither the Sanhedrin (cf. 23:7) nor scribal schools (cf., e.g., rabbinic pericopes about the houses of Shammai and Hillel) achieved consensus on all points. Seneca the Younger often disagrees with fellow Stoics on minor issues (Ep. Lucil. 117.6), and another Stoic warns that students must examine what they are taught lest they inadvertently admit error (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 36.6–7). Even some earlier Greek military sessions allowed all to express their views (though some, by planting supporters to speak out, might sway the outcome; Xen. Anab. 1.3.13).202 At the same time, Luke’s portrayal of the orderly conduct of the meeting (there is no explicit mention of interruption here; contrast comment on Acts 2:37) gives it at least the semblance of the more restrained of ancient meetings. Readers of ancient orators will contrast the political rivalry, positioning, and mutual recriminations in the public assembly of classical Athens or the courts of Rome (or even other assemblies in Acts).203 199. Perhaps “multitude” in Acts 15:12 refers to the leaders; otherwise, the crowd may be envisaged as present the entire time. One would normally expect “multitude” to refer to the entire assembly (as in 4:32; 5:14; 6:2, 5; 15:30), but Acts employs the term other ways as well (2:6; 5:16; 14:1, 4), though usually for “the people” (excepting 28:3). The elders could meet privately in 15:6 and the multitude be addressed again in 15:7, or the elders might convene again after 15:12. The letter is officially only from the apostles and elders (15:23), but is also approved by the entire assembly (15:22), so Luke does not specify a private time separate from it. 200. Later rabbis, and perhaps their tradition-sensitive Pharisaic predecessors, ranked rabbinic tradition and consensus above miracles (e.g., t. Yebam. 14:6; cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; Dibelius, Tradition, 149–50). (On rabbinic “rule miracles,” see, e.g., Theissen, Miracle Stories, 106–12; cf. Guttmann, “Miracles.”) 201. Shiell, Reading Acts, 175, suggesting “a harsher tone” and presumably “the gesture for refutation and argumentation.” 202. There were then, as today, also people who would pick apart points on which there was no real disagreement; see Theophr. Char. 13.3. 203. Sometimes conflicts between aristocrats and democrats in early Rome could even turn violent (Plut. Coriol. 17.1–4). On rivalry as a way of life in Greek culture, see Instone and Spawforth, “Agōnes.”

2226

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 74

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Luke displays an intra-Jewish theological debate in which Pharisees offer “dominant Jewish culture rhetoric” while Luke counters with “Jewish contraculture rhetoric,” which claims to uphold Jewish values while challenging the dominant culture.204 Rhetoricians were trained to be able to argue either side of an issue (e.g., Cic. Or. Brut. 14.46), and it is noteworthy that historians often provided opposing speeches to display their rhetorical skill. That rhetorical display is not, however, Luke’s primary concern is evident from the brief line afforded the opposition here. i. Pharisaic Believers

Describing the Pharisees as a “sect” (αἵρεσις) need not be pejorative (as in Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1); it was an appropriate term for a philosophic school or movement (Epict. Diatr. 2.19.20; Macrob. Comm. 2.14.6; Hierocles p. 37.8, 10),205 including Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, and a revolutionary movement.206 “Sect” might be closer in sense to a political party than to a modern denomination.207 See further comment on Acts 5:17; 24:5. Their interest in the law of Moses, echoed here, was renowned.208 The inclusion of Pharisees in the movement indicates that the Jerusalem church had bridged a sociological hurdle, although the Pharisees remained a minority within the church (which, in Luke’s view of the movement’s size, outnumbered Josephus’s estimate of Pharisees, in any case). Aside from the different geographical bases of Pharisaism and the Nazarenes, the Pharisees seem to have been primarily an urban movement209 whereas the Jesus movement started as a primarily rural movement that began to become urbanized shortly after the resurrection210 and only later penetrated into the rural areas of the Diaspora.211 The Pharisees were centered in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee;212 their successors settled in Yavneh, which was also in Judea. Luke is not denouncing Pharisees wholesale. In the common world of intra-Jewish polemic, many Jewish sources condemned the Pharisees,213 and so, even apart from traditions of conflicts between Jesus and rival teachers, we should not be surprised 204. Robbins, “Test Case,” 192–93, who is applying this description to the regular depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospel. 205. Van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226; idem, “Hierocles,” 157. 206. See Acts 5:17; 26:5; Jos. Life 10, 12 (comparing Greek philosophic “sects”), 191, 197; Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199; War 2.118, 122, 137, 142, 162. Cf. also Reicke, Era, 152. 207. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 171. 208. For their interest in the law, see, e.g., Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; in ancestral tradition, Ant. 13.297, 408. The phrase “law of Moses,” employed here (and in Acts 13:39; 28:23), is pervasive, e.g., Josh 8:31–32; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 23:25; 2 Chr 23:18; 30:16; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 8:1; Dan 9:11, 13; Tob 1:8; 7:13; Bar 2:2; 1 Esd 8:3; 9:39; 1QS V, 8; VIII, 22; CD XV, 2, 9, 12; XVI, 2, 5; 4Q266 8 I, 3; 11 6; 4Q269 16 4; 4Q270 6 II, 5, 18; 7 I, 20; 4Q271 4 I, 12; 4 II, 4, 6; 4Q513 3–4 5; Jos. Ant. 10.63; 13.74, 297; 20.44; Test. Zeb. 3:4; Ign. Smyrn. 5.1. 209. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 101, cite Jos. Ant. 18.15. 210. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus appears to the disciples in Galilee; omitting this, Luke reports the establishment of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. Contrast Goulder, Matthew, 141, who speculates that Peter, James, and John remained in Jerusalem when the others returned to Galilee, providing two independent traditions. 211. Cf. Judge, Pattern, 60–61. 212. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 56–57; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 292; Neusner, Crisis, 38. This does not mean that no Pharisees may have been Galilean; see Horsley, Galilee, 150–52, 256; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 66; perhaps Eleazar in Jos. Ant. 20.43. 213. For Pharisaic conflicts with Sadducees, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.17; m. Yad. 4:7; t. Ḥag. 3:35; Nid. 5:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; 10 B; b. Nid. 33b; Sukkah 48b; some scholars also think that Qumran texts condemn Pharisees as “speakers of smooth things” (Roth, “Subject Matter of Exegesis,” 65; cf. Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 79; contrast Meier, “Halaka”; the arguments are not compelling on either side). Even later rabbis condemned many kinds of Pharisees (m. Soṭah 3:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A; 45, §124 B; b. Soṭah 22b, bar.; y. Soṭah 5:5, §2; see further Moore, Judaism, 2:193; Sandmel, Judaism, 160–61).

2227

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 75

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to find such condemnations in many first-century Jewish Christian works.214 Luke, however, has a far more nuanced portrayal of the Pharisees, with both positive and negative qualities. (Perhaps because he is removed from the world of Judean politics, they do not constitute a threat to his primary audience.) If the Christian Pharisees here are negative, Luke includes a much more positive Christian Pharisee in Acts 23:6 (even if this is the only place in Acts where Paul, who in most other texts is preaching in the Diaspora, embraces the title). The distinctive Christian belief in the resurrection comported well with Pharisaic eschatology; but whereas, for Paul, messianic Pharisaism invited a belief that a new era had dawned, with a new way of bringing in Gentiles, not all Christian Pharisees embraced the same full implications.215 Luke’s portrayal of Pharisees in the Jerusalem church may be indirectly supported by Josephus’s probable portrait of Pharisaic sympathizers of James, the scrupulous leader of the Jerusalem church (21:18–20). When James was executed by the (Sadducean) high priest Ananus, it was those “meticulous in the laws” who protested ( Jos. Ant. 20.200–201); Josephus elsewhere applies this description to the Pharisees (War 2.162; Life 191) and to scribes who were probably Pharisees (War 1.648; Ant. 19.332; 20.43).216 Josephus does not directly testify to the existence of Christian Pharisees, but his reports do suggest that the barrier between the Christian and the Pharisaic movements was probably less serious under James than it had been in the accounts about Jesus preserved in gospel tradition.217 The Pharisees were not objecting to the content of the missionaries’ testimony (Acts 15:4), though there is no explicit report of joy in 15:4 as there was among Diaspora churches in 15:3 (possibly, though not certainly, suggesting some discomfort already with Paul’s work; cf. 21:21).218 They had no problem acknowledging that God had brought Gentiles to the light, but they felt, on the basis of Scripture, that God now expected them to make these Christian “God-fearers” into full proselytes219 (whether for salvation, as in 15:1, or simply to be full members of God’s people).220 The Pharisees may have accepted Cornelius as an exception clearly marked by the Holy Spirit (11:15–17); perhaps God made an exception for a centurion the way many allowed for foreign rulers (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.17–95, esp. 20.18). But allowing an exception was not meant to create a precedent, much less a model (contrast Acts 15:7–9).221 They may have considered themselves moderates, accepting a divine sign 214. Cf. Keener, Matthew, 535–37; cf. Johnson, “Slander”; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:260–67. 215. For Paul as a fairly consistent Pharisee who believed that the new era had arrived in Jesus, see Davies, Paul, 216; cf. idem, Introduction, 27–28; earlier, Ramsay, Other Studies, 89; for Pharisees becoming “Christians without relinquishing their distinctive beliefs,” see Bruce, Commentary, 305. Some perushim may have been minim (Rivkin, Revolution, 165), but it is possible that not all the rabbis’ perushim were “Pharisees” (Rivkin, Revolution, 165, 175) and not all minim were Christians (e.g., m. Ber. 9:5; t. Ber. 6:21; b. Ber. 29a; Sanh. 90b; see Moore, “Canon,” 106–8; Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 290; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 103; Keener, John, 198; cf. Basser, “Practices”). 216. Theissen, Gospels, 230. 217. For the plausibility of the Gospels’ conflict narratives, against many scholars, see esp. Holmén, Covenant Thinking, esp. 88–332, on Jesus and traditional covenant markers. 218. Given the pervasive agonistic tone of ancient rhetoric, we should not press the idea of conflict too far (cf. Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 151n13), especially given the claim for consensus at the end (Acts 15:19–29; 21:25), even if it did not ultimately hold. 219. Cf. Seccombe, “People,” 365 (the issue is whether they need circumcision to enter the covenant). 220. The statement in Acts 15:5 is closer to the typical Pharisaic position than is 15:1. (The teachers in 15:1 may belong to the sect in 15:5, but they do not encompass all of it.) Paul’s “false brothers” (Gal 2:4) could refer to the speakers of Acts 15:1 or 15:5 or both, but neither Luke (23:6) nor Paul (Phil 3:5) was anti-Pharisaic per se. 221. Dunn, Beginning, 446, suggests that uncircumcised God-fearers had long been welcomed in the Jesus movement, but when what had been exceptions began to outnumber circumcised Jewish believers, the issue became a theological and missiological crisis.

2228

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 76

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

in Cornelius’s case (which their non-Christian colleagues would have rejected) but not willing to suspend biblical requirements in other cases.222 These Pharisees in the church have adopted some of the same attitudes as the Pharisees often showed in the Gospel—ambiguously open to Jesus (more so, certainly, than in Matthew or John) but often imperceptive with regard to God’s truth.223 ii. Arguments and Power

The insistence of these Pharisees highlights the problem of centralization (cf. 7:2–3, 9–10, 33); to what degree should the vote of the local church in Jerusalem, influenced by local concerns, shape the future of other local churches struggling with different, often conflicting concerns? Did the mother church define the basis for unity? For Luke’s emphasis on continuity, the approval of the mother church is important.224 In God’s sovereign plan,225 however, the consensus of the Jerusalem church also proved pleasing to the Spirit (15:28), preserving the basic unity and continuity of the church (from Luke’s perspective on the final consensus) until Jerusalem’s destruction. Conservative rhetoric has an advantage where nationalism is emphasized as a virtue (as liberal rhetoric has an advantage where the prime virtue is tolerance). This was normally the situation during international hostilities; for example, revolting mercenaries claimed that anyone failing to take a hard line against Carthage was not an ally, and they portrayed those favoring a different position as traitors (Polyb. 1.80.3–4).226 Under these circumstances, those who pleaded that the Carthaginian prisoners be spared were themselves stoned to death as traitors (1.80.9–10). Such conservatism was growing in Jerusalem under corrupt Roman administrations (as well as exploitation by Rome’s aristocratic mediators). Luke’s addition to the circumcision requirement, “command them to obey the Mosaic law,” was probably implicit in the acceptance of circumcision but is also spelled out in some of the ancient Jewish sources regarding proselytism.227 Shammaites in particular may have been expected to stress law keeping for proselytes up front (later tradition, at least, claims that Hillel allowed a more indirect and gradual approach to winning proselytes).228 222. Later rabbis rejected the validity of miracles for establishing halakah (cf. Bauckham, “James,” 452; t. Yebam. 14:6; further, Keener, Acts, 1:548, under “Rabbinic Mistrust of Miracles”) and exalted halakists above miracle workers (see Dibelius, Tradition, 149–50). But behavioral precedents of the pious (cf. Acts 15:7) did function as legal precedent in later halakah (t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Dem. 1:4; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8). 223. Cf. Grassi, Laugh, 29; Darr, Character Building, 85–126; see further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:471– 72. In Acts, they appear more as positive legitimators (Gowler, Host, Guest, 301–5, esp. on their acceptance of the consensus in Acts 15:22; cf. Carroll, “Portrayal of Pharisees”; but contrast Kingsbury, “Pharisees in Luke-Acts”). 224. As Johnson, Acts, 11, notes, “Each movement of the Gospel away from Jerusalem also circles back to it (see 8:14; 11:1–18, 29–30; 12:25; 15:2; 18:22; 19:21; 20:16; 21:13; 25:1).” 225. Cf. decisions of others unintentionally supporting God’s plan in foundational biblical tradition (Gen 13:9–12; 36:6–8). 226. Cf. Diod. Sic. 19.66.6, where citizens killed any fellow citizens who had befriended the conquerors. Internal conflicts over mixing with other cultures was common in ancient societies (see Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 167–70; not to mention many modern societies). 227. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.210; t. Demai 2:5; Sipre Num. 71.2.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:20; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 64b; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.41, 44; Philo Virt. 219; b. Šabb. 145b–146a; Gal 5:3; less relevant is CD XVI, 4–5 (on converts to the Essene sect); b. Bek. 30b, bar. (becoming a haber). Efficacious baptism required repentance (1QS V, 13–14; b. Taʿan. 16a; Pesiq. Rab. 44:1). Nevertheless, keeping all of a people’s regulations and customs was naturally easier for those who grew up with them (Plut. Lect. 2, Mor. 37EF). 228. Esp. b. Šabb. 31a (“while standing on one foot” may be idiomatic for doing something with ease; cf. Hor. Sat. 1.4.10), though the evidence for this story is much later than Hillel and Shammai (Sanders, Judaism,

2229

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 77

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

3. Peter and the Missionaries Invoke God’s Acts (15:6–12) After the apostles and the elders have debated the question of circumcising Gentiles (Acts 15:6–7a), Peter recounts the incident with Cornelius, where God welcomed Gentiles without circumcision (15:7–11). Paul and Barnabas follow this reminder by demonstrating that God is continuing to welcome Gentiles, confirming this welcome, as he did in the case of Cornelius, with signs and wonders (15:12).229 a. Leaders’ Discussion (15:6–7a) Although we have placed 15:6 with the following context (15:7–11) because it belongs to that scene, it is also part of the setting of the discussion proper (and hence related to 15:1–5). Whether or not others could listen in (cf. Gal 2:2), the level of debate moved from the church as a whole to its leadership in Acts 15:6. The Pharisees’ question in 15:5 went beyond the testimonies and addressed the root of the debate that had brought the Antiochene delegation to begin with (15:1–2). The public question required public resolution.230 Questions were addressed differently in antiquity according to the constitution followed (e.g., monarchy or oligarchy). In Hellenistic cities that followed the Athenian democratic model, such conflicts had to be addressed by a gathering of the ἐκκλησία, the civic assembly. Speakers would then argue the case from their various perspectives, employing deliberative speeches to persuade the audience, ideally in the end silencing στάσις (discord) with concord or harmony (see comment on Acts 15:25).231 Such assemblies would hear witnesses and official documents, as here. Luke thus portrays the church “as a self-governing entity, a subculture in the Roman Empire”232—that is, acting as one would expect for a community of resident aliens (such as a synagogue community) with permission to follow their own laws so long as they did not conflict with Roman law. Luke’s apologetic here is positive: the church follows their own customs, but their “procedures [are] not unlike those recognized in the larger culture to be proper.”233 In the Greek and sometimes Roman ideal, everyone should be allowed to be heard; when someone liked by the crowds was forcibly thrust aside rather than allowed to speak, this could anger the crowds (Livy 3.45.5–6). Whatever time for speaking belonged to the entire assembly (Acts 15:4–5, 23), however, the leaders play the primary role in 15:6, perhaps corresponding to Paul’s private meeting of Gal 2:2. The “apostles” and the “elders” function together as leaders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22–23; 16:4), probably with different but complementary forms of authority (see comment on Acts 15:2).234 Here they 258); cf. Theissen, Sociology, 83; more speculatively, Falk, Jesus, 49–53, 75. For these Pharisees’ insistence on law keeping as well as circumcision, cf. also the perspective in Knox, Jerusalem, 224–25. 229. This is not an appeal simply to “experience” in a general sense, then used to provoke a new reading of Scripture. The appeal is to dramatic and clear signs of God’s activity, such as undisputed miracles. 230. For questions of how public, see comment on Acts 15:4. North, “IDEIN PERI,” suggests that the expression “see concerning” is grammatically a Latinism. (About one-third of the uses of περί and ὁράω in the nt are in Luke-Acts, but this is their only link there in this form.) 231. Witherington, Acts, 450. See also Welborn, “Discord,” on Paul’s approach in 1 Cor 1–4; for “concord” as the opposite of στάσις, see, e.g., Jos. War 6.215; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.18–19 (in different words); 38.8; 40.26; Lucian Hermot. 22; for στάσις as a terrible evil, Dio Chrys. Or. 1.82; 38.15; 39.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38; Ep. Apoll. 76. 232. Witherington, Acts, 451. 233. Ibid. 234. Unity between the groups would be important: when such different leadership groups came to different conclusions instead of acting in harmony, it made a group look disorganized (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.16).

2230

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 78

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

probably function as the decision-making body of the larger assembly (the church, apostles, and elders of 15:4, 23).235 The “apostles” need not appear after this passage (15:6, 22–23; except in a retrospective note in 16:4), because they have fulfilled their primary literary function for Luke’s narrative; “their role in securing the new movement’s link to the past was more or less complete.”236 Although Luke emphasizes the “apostles” here, it is not necessary to assume that all the Twelve remained in Jerusalem at this point. Paul mentions only Peter, James, and John (Gal 2:9), but we have precisely the same difference of focus in the meeting depicted in Gal 1:18–19 and Acts 9:27. Paul probably focused on the primary leaders whereas Luke generalized to the entire body for which the same leaders stood. b. Peter Invokes God’s Example (15:7b–11) Like James (15:13), Peter was a speaker whose character was known and trusted by the Jerusalem assembly.237 Citizen assemblies were predisposed to hear speakers who would uphold the citizen body’s common concerns (τὰ κοινά, Aeschines Tim. 29). Paul, conversely, offers more eyewitness testimony than argument in this passage (though, historically, he was probably forced to do more than this, Gal 2:5–6); first-time speakers before an assembly (and those who spoke too frequently) could stir prejudice against their own positions (Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437a.35–38), requiring defensive explanations (1437b.11–13). Various leaders in an assembly could step forward to offer opinions (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 30.2–3), though recognizing one in supreme command prevented confusion (30.3). A speech summary as brief as this one defies complete rhetorical analysis, but the requisite components remain. Peter begins by establishing his ēthos, or credibility; rhetors could use this approach as a reminder even to a favorably disposed audience. In Acts 15:7–9 we find mixed narrative (narratio) and proofs (probatio).238 In 15:10 Peter resorts to comparison, also a standard rhetorical technique. Rhetorical critics recognize the speech to be deliberative,239 as expected for a “town assembly.” Peter’s advocacy would have been particularly helpful at the council, considering his historical association with the Israel mission (Gal 2:8) and Lukan association with the Twelve, whose base had remained in Jerusalem.240 It was good rhetorical technique to emphasize the support of unexpected voices, which carried more weight because they were considered more objective.241 The support of Peter and James would thus carry weight both with the Jerusalem church and with Luke’s audience.242 Some ancients also wrote of notable reconciliations between famous men as a rhetorical topic (Aul. Gel. 12.8). Thus in Acts the leader of the Jerusalem apostles 235. In classical Athens and late republican Rome, an assembly of free male adult citizens made most decisions (see, e.g., Gizewski, “Comitia,” 621–22); in some other states, property owners did so (see discussion at Acts 6:5). 236. Dunn, Acts, 200. 237. On Peter’s speech generally, see, e.g., discussion in Neubrand, Völker, 92–107. 238. This was acceptable (see comment on Acts 10:36–42). On the narratio in 15:7–9, see also Okoronkwo, Compromise, 175–77. For rhetorically emphatic repetition of vocabulary throughout the chapter, see ibid., 89. 239. Soards, Acts, 90; Witherington, Acts, 453; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 174, 201. 240. For historical evidence from Galatians, see Theissen, Gospels, 222–23 (he also contends that the comity agreement was violated by the mid-50s, and thinks that the tradition is therefore earlier [224]). The agreement was, however, probably never exclusive (see Watson, Gentiles, 72–73; the introduction to Acts 10). 241. Heath, “Invention,” 91–92; see comment on Acts 11:17. See also, e.g., Soranus Gynec. 1.2.5. 242. Zwiep, Community, 172, rightly notes that Luke emphasizes the role of Peter and James rather than Paul in resolving the question of circumcising Gentiles. Paul’s account in Galatians offers a different emphasis.

2231

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 79

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

goes to the Gentiles before Paul does (Acts 10–11), and 15:7–11 displays elements known to cohere with Pauline theology.243 Peter’s speech here is also consistent with Luke’s description of his defense of the “uncircumcised” earlier (11:3); anything that could undermine the decision of 11:18 would challenge Peter’s testimony and honor (though probably few would have wished to charge this explicitly). “Cleansing” (15:9) does allude back to Peter’s vision within the story world (10:15). His portrayal is thus useful to Luke theologically.244 i. Tradition?

Granted that Peter’s advocacy proves useful theologically, would Peter historically have taken a stand for the Gentiles? On one historical occasion reported by Paul, Peter plainly supported the Gentiles personally but was unwilling to stand for them publicly (Gal 2:12).245 At the council, too, Paul probably had to carry more of the argument than one would guess merely from Luke’s emphasis (cf. 2:6), though ultimately both Peter and James did affirm Paul and Barnabas’s Gentile mission (2:9). But Paul regarded Peter’s later compliance with the conservative faction as a hypocritical reversal of his earlier commitment (2:9–12), suggesting that Peter had made such a commitment and that Paul had counted on it. If the Antioch Gentiles were not observing the food customs agreed on in Acts 15:20 or if those who came from James held themselves to a more rigorous personal standard of culinary “holiness,”246 the breech over table fellowship in Gal 2:12 is understandable, as is Peter’s attempt to keep peace with the Jerusalem church. Paul had what he believed was a higher agenda (and in this case, history turned out on Paul’s side in terms of the future direction of the church). In this passage, Peter’s soteriology sounds like Paul’s letters in speaking of salvation by faith,247 though it also bears resemblance to another public advocate of peace.248 Proper prosopopoeia demanded representing each writer’s own style,249 and we might have expected Luke to conform this speech more to earlier Petrine speeches (cf. Acts 2:38) than to Paul (13:38–39).250 Our only external source for Petrine theology, however, also mentions faith fairly frequently (1 Pet 1:5, 7, 8, 9, 21; 2:6, 7; 5:9; cf. 2 Pet 1:1, 5), including for salvation (1 Pet 1:9) and in a text also used by Paul (1 Pet 2:6; Rom 9:33; 10:11).251 Some themes may have been more common in early Christianity than scholarly tradition typically recognizes. Historians commonly repeated speeches at major events, often fleshing out themes known or believed to have been treated on those occasions.252 Luke has certainly not fleshed out this speech for his 243. See, e.g., Refoulé, “Discours de Pierre”; Hanson, Acts, 38. Again, against some interpreters, I do not believe that Luke’s emphasis or selection of data means that he fabricates the data he presents. 244. Those wishing to praise founders sometimes portrayed them as welcoming foreigners (Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 173, comparing Romulus). 245. Both Acts and Galatians present Peter, James, and Paul as moderates compared with the more stringent options (Acts 15:5; Gal 2:4), but with James more conservative than Peter, and Peter than Paul (Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 162, including n. 343; Hengel, Peter, 52). 246. Perhaps like Pharisees refusing to eat with am haaretz, or perhaps (with Hill, Hellenists, 134, 141–42) Jewish Christians relaxing their own standard when eating with Gentiles. 247. Unless one reads “the faith” here in its usual sense in the Pastorals and in Acts 6:5, 7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5 (with Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 173); but the articular use in Acts need not mean this (3:16) and, when speaking of salvation (15:11), likely does not (13:39, 48). The context (πιστεῦσαι in 15:7) clinches the usage here. Walker, “Paulinization,” contends that Peter is too “Pauline” here. 248. Gamaliel in Acts 5:35–39; Pervo, Story, 51. 249. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:284–86. 250. See Witherington, Acts, 456. 251. One Petrine text (2 Pet 3:15) speaks favorably of Paul; less disputedly, Paul speaks respectfully of Peter (1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18) despite their conflict in Gal 2:11–14. 252. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:258–319.

2232

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 80

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

one-volume monograph; it is quite short by ancient standards for influential speeches given in assemblies.253 Whatever his precise historical sources, Luke’s portrayal is strategic from a literary and theological perspective. ii. Recalling the Cornelius Incident (15:7–9)

On “men,” see comment on Acts 2:14; on “brothers,” see comment on Acts 9:17. In Acts 15:7–9, Peter alludes back to the Cornelius story,254 just as Jewish and Gentile teachers and lawyers often made arguments based on precedent.255 They could make arguments from their own example,256 though here Peter argues from God’s works rather than his own; appeals to eyewitness testimony were also effective rhetorically (1:8). For “you know,” cf. also 10:38. Peter’s use of ἀρχαίων need not mean the movement’s very beginning (which Cornelius’s version was not) but simply years earlier (though, historically, probably less than ten years, potentially as recent as four) than the present speech.257 Peter appeals to God’s having made a choice among them (15:7); such choices (likewise 1:2, 24) stemmed not from the called person’s personal merit.258 Peter emphasizes this choice because being the chosen agent makes him a reliable and firsthand witness to the events he has already defended (11:4–17). “By my mouth” is idiomatic (with the Semitic emphasis on identifying the body part),259 but it may allude specifically to Luke’s wording in 10:34, where Peter began his speech by “opening his mouth.” God speaking “through” one’s mouth placed one among the prophets (1:16; 3:18, 21; 4:25). The tradition, referred to here (15:8), that the Holy Spirit’s involvement revealed the inclusion of Gentiles in Christ’s family also appears elsewhere in early Christian theology, though sometimes with a different emphasis.260 The particular incident in view here, however, is the Gentiles receiving the gift of the Spirit (10:44). That God gave some Gentiles the Holy Spirit “just as with us” (15:8) implies that Peter alludes to their experience accompanied by praise in unknown languages (2:4), as in earlier comparisons (10:45–47; 11:15).261 253. Luke has already served notice in early speeches in his Gospel (Luke 3:18) and Acts (2:40) that speakers offered “other words”; he does not need to repeat that warning here. 254. For the value of functional redundancy here, see Witherup, “Cornelius Over Again”; for sensitivity to the internal narrator in depictions of retellings, see Kurz, “Effects of Variant Narrators.” For Luke’s usual schema of retellings, see Maloney, Narration of Works, 137–72. The one activity for which the angel preserved Peter (12:7–11) that is explicitly narrated by Luke is this defense of the Gentile mission (15:7–11, his only appearance after ch. 12), though of course Luke does not claim to offer more than samples of God’s activity (cf. 2:17–18). For Cornelius as a positive character in Acts, see esp. Flessen, Man. 255. E.g., t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11, §1; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8. 256. See, e.g., Xen. Cyr. 8.6.10; Epict. Diatr. 4.8.31; Diogenes Ep. 14; 4 Macc 9:23; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; John 13:35; cf. Cic. Fam. 9.14.6; though Malherbe, Philosophers, 57, notes that most philosophers were hesitant to use themselves as examples (see, e.g., the disclaimer in Sen. Y. Dial. 7.18.1). 257. Le Cornu, Acts, 820. The Greek term can mean “beginning” but also simply “a long time ago” (BDAG). 258. Similarly, David’s role did not exalt David but fulfilled God’s purpose (13:36); likewise, power to share the Spirit was a divine gift that could not be purchased (8:19, 24) or earned. Peter knew from the point of his calling that his calling to be a fisher of people (Luke 5:10) depended not on his merit (5:8) but on the one who multiplied the fish accessible to human labor (5:4–6). Nevertheless, God’s determination of a person’s heart plays a role (Acts 1:24; here applicable, however, to Cornelius’s household, 15:8). Parsons, Acts, 211, rightly observes that “God is the subject of most of the verbs” in this speech. 259. E.g., Acts 1:16; 3:18, 21; 4:25; Luke 1:70; also Matt 18:16; 2 Chr 36:21–22; 1 Esd 1:57; 2:1; Ezra 1:1; Prov 11:11; Jer 44:26; 1 En. 108:6; cf. 3 Bar. 6:16; for the exact phrase, cf. Barn. 11.8. 260. Cf., e.g., Eph 3:5–6 (probably referring to the Spirit’s prophetic sort of revelation about Gentiles to God’s agents); perhaps presupposed in Gal 3:2–3, 5, 14. 261. Emphasized by others, e.g., Nunnally, Acts, 270. Menzies, Empowered, 215–18, suggests that Luke here identifies the gift of the Spirit with prophetic inspiration, not with salvation, because the sign on which

2233

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 81

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

That God alone knew human hearts (15:8) was a commonplace (see comment on Acts 1:24, another occasion of divine choice). From this follows the conviction that God alone can arbitrate hidden matters (1 Sam 16:7; Philo Spec. Laws 3.52); God could “testify” to people’s hearts (as in Acts 13:22). This meant that God could testify that the Gentile converts had faith and that he had cleansed their “hearts” (15:9); the gift of the Holy Spirit conclusively demonstrated this (11:15–18). They received the Spirit the same way that the Jewish believers had (10:46–47; cf. 2:4). The “cleansing” and lack of distinction (15:9) provide an allusion to unclean foods in Peter’s vision (10:14–15); as grounds for “clean” table fellowship proved an issue in that setting (11:3), they do so here as well (cf. 15:20). If God had scuttled Leviticus’s distinctions regarding food in Peter’s vision, God had thereby also abolished the distinction between ethnically clean and unclean peoples that those lines were meant to uphold (Lev 11:44–45; 20:26).262 The new means of cleansing was by faith (Acts 15:9; cf. 26:18; for moral cleanness, also 18:6; 20:26), which had come through Peter’s message (15:7).263 Concepts of ritual purity were widespread in the ancient Mediterranean world (see comment on Acts 2:38), but teaching about spiritual purification would not have been unintelligible (see comment on Acts 10:15–16).264 Educated members of Luke’s audience would have appreciated the idea of spiritual cleansing (though not everyone who affirmed spiritual cleansing saw it as entailing a denial of ritual purification). Greek philosophers used similar expressions for moral purity or purification265 (also for the purity of the heavenly deities and the soul).266 People’s souls are “purified” (ἐκκεκαθαρμένοις) by philosophy (Xen. Symp. 1.4). One could “purify” oneself from moral faults.267 Greeks who practiced cultic purity sometimes also acknowledged links with moral purity of a sort.268 The idea of purifying the heart is implied already in Israel’s Scriptures (note the “pure heart” in Ps 51:10 [lxx 50:12]; cf. Ezek 36:25–26); sometimes it appears in exhortation (Sir 38:10; cf. 2 Cor 7:1; Jas 4:8), but at other times only God could accomplish it (cf. Ps 51:10; Prov 20:9; Heb 9:14).269 In Jewish circles, martyrs who served as a “propitiation” for Israel helped “purify” the holy land (4 Macc 17:21–22).270 Luke focuses is tongues-speech. He contends that the “cleansing” of Acts 15:9 constitutes the prerequisite for, rather than a synonymous or necessarily simultaneous experience with, the gift of the Spirit (217; cf. also Haya-Prats, Believers, 141–42). The question cannot be decided grammatically here but can be decided only by recourse to the fuller narrative in Acts 10 (see discussion there). 262. DeSilva, Honor, 287; cf. Wenham, Leviticus, 180–82. 263. Although Jesus performed physical “cleansing” of lepers (Luke 5:13–14; 7:22; 17:14; cf. 4:27) and others and cast out “unclean” spirits (e.g., 4:36; 6:18; 9:42), he emphasized moral purity (11:39–41) and did not feel constrained by traditional interpretations of cultic purity regulations (5:13; 7:14; 8:45–48, 54; but cf. 2:24). 264. Josephus finds both sorts of purification in the ministry of John the Baptist; see Ant. 18.116–17. 265. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17, 28; 4, p. 44.25; 16, p. 104.35; 18B, p. 118.4–5; Epict. Encheir. 33.6, 8; Iamblichus Letter 4.5–6 (Stob. Anth. 3.3.26); 13, frg. 2.7 (Anth. 2.2.7); 16, frg. 2.1–2 (Anth. 3.1.49); cf. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.7–8; cf. 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Tim 2:21; Heb 9:14; 10:22; 2 Pet 1:9; 1 John 1:7, 9. 266. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 4.11.3, 5; Iambl. V.P. 16.70; Philost. Hrk. 7.3; Iamblichus Letter 16, frg. 4 (Stob. Anth. 4.39.23); Proclus Poet. 5, K49.30; Porph. Marc. 11.204; 15.255–56 (cf. also 23.368; 24.374–76; 26.402–3). 267. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.25; Sir 38:10; 2 Cor 7:1; Jas 4:8; 2 Pet 1:9. 268. E.g., one who prostituted himself could not become a priest because his body was unclean (Aeschines Tim. 19). 269. One may debate whether the perfect participle ῥεραντισμένοι in Heb 10:22 is middle or passive, but passive seems likelier (as also with the body’s λελουσμένοι in the same verse); for something one does to oneself, cf. the hitpael verb for consecration in 4Q393 3 5. The description “pure heart” is also fairly common; see Gen 20:5–6; Ps 24:4 (lxx 23:4); Matt 5:8 (cf. Mark 7:19); 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Tim 2:22; variant in 1 Pet 1:22. 270. The image could involve judgment, sometimes eschatological; early Jewish texts also could describe the flood as a “cleansing” of the earth (1 En. 106:17) or speak of the Messiah purging (καθαριεῖ) Jerusalem to restore it in holiness (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, Pss. Sol. 17:30).

2234

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 82

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Appealing to an audience with a good Hellenistic education, Josephus includes in the Essene initiation oath the promise to keep one’s soul pure (ψυχήν . . . καθαράν) from desiring unholy gain (War 2.141); the Qumran scrolls themselves271 expect purification from sin by the eschatological holy spirit, compared to purifying water (1QS IV, 20–22). For some Jewish thinkers, spiritual, inward purity mattered more than the physical variety (Ps.-Phoc. 228). Peter might contrast here the mere external purification involved in traditional Jewish proselyte baptism (on which see comment on Acts 2:38). That “faith” is the cause of the Gentiles’ cleansing fits some other early Christian theology; as in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom 1:5; 3:9, 29; 9:30; Gal 2:15–17; 3:8, 14; Eph 2:8–11; possibly 1 Pet 2:6–10), justification by faith appears especially in the context of Gentiles’ access to Israel’s God (Acts 15:7–8; cf. 13:46–48). iii. Testing God by Yoking Gentiles (15:10)

Since God has revealed his own view toward Gentiles being converted without circumcision (Acts 15:7–9), God’s people ought to embrace these converted Gentiles as well. Because Jewish law recognized the category of concessions to sinfulness,272 it was understood that God had accommodated human weakness even in the law, and often settled for less than the ideal. Thus, for example, a well-known second-century sage declared that people ought to forgo meat and wine, in view of the temple’s destruction, “but we must not impose decrees on the congregation, or even on ourselves, which the majority could not endure.”273 “Testing” a deity (15:10) expressed unbelief (Xen. Cyr. 7.2.17).274 God refused to discriminate spiritually between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:9), and if Jewish Christians rebelled against God’s revealed will, they would be “testing” God as their ancestors in the wilderness had. In the lxx, testing God is no small crime but involves unbelief and rebellion.275 In Acts 15, it also implies a dramatic sin, recalling the behavior of Ananias and Sapphira; by falsely claiming wholehearted commitment, they tested God to see if he really knew human hearts (5:9). Here, too, Jerusalem believers test God by false commitment because they themselves broke the law (cf. their ancestors in the generation of the law, 7:39, 41–43, 53). This was the charge of hypocrisy (cf. Gal 2:13), of laying on others a burden one cannot or will not lift by oneself (Luke 11:46).276 The infinitive ἐπιθεῖναι is epexegetic, showing that their placing a yoke on Gentiles is how they are putting God to the test.277 If, by pouring out his Spirit on Cornelius’s household (Acts 15:7–9; and perhaps also by other signs; cf. 15:4, 12), God has already revealed his plan to embrace the Gentiles, the believers rebel against his will by hindering this purpose.278 Peter thus addresses believers here the way Jesus in the Gospel addressed the law teachers: some weighed others down with burdens they could not bear themselves 271. Which a majority of scholars still associate especially with Essenes. The extant scrolls and fragments contain more than two hundred references to purity and purification. 272. See Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness”; cf. Mark 10:5; 1 Cor 7:6. 273. Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness,” 8 (citing b. B. Bat. 60b; cf. t. Soṭah 15:10). 274. Secular Greek uses πειράζω, “test,” for seeking to evaluate or prove character (Gibson, “Testing,” 1207–11; for a wide range of meaning, see further BDAG), which was acceptable behavior from a deity toward mortals but certainly not the reverse. See also comment on Acts testing at Acts 5:7–10. 275. Exod 15:24–25; 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Deut 6:16; Ps 77:18, 41, 56 (78:18, 41, 56 ET); Isa 7:12; Wis 1:2; Fitzmyer, Acts, 547; Gaventa, Acts, 216. 276. Later rabbis emphasized being as lenient or strict with others as one was with oneself (ʾAbot R. Nat. 23, §46 B); but we need not suppose that everyone thought that law teachers always achieved this ethical ideal. 277. With Bruce, Acts1, 293. 278. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 173; Barrett, Acts, 717.

2235

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 83

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Luke 11:46).279 When two oxen pulled a plow, the normal plowbeam was extended by another pole linked to their yoke.280 Sometimes people bore yokes,281 though yokes are more commonly associated with animals. A yoke around the neck282 symbolizes servitude,283 often in the political sense,284 following the metaphor of an animal’s labor.285 When defeated Roman soldiers were forced to pass under a yoke, some regarded this humiliation as more severe than death (Appian Hist. rom. 3.4.6).286 Sometimes the image applied to Israel’s subjugation to the nations (1 En. 103:11), which would be relevant if some in Jerusalem interpret Gentiles’ conversion through the grid of their subjugation (Isaiah includes both sorts of images). Although much of our Jewish evidence postdates Luke’s era, its coherence in those sources (and with Luke’s usage) suggests that it reflects widespread earlier opinion. Jewish texts often speak of the divine yoke,287 including the “yoke of the law” or “of the commandments,”288 of God’s yoke (his discipline and rule, Pss. Sol. 7:9), and of the yoke of his kingdom, often in relation to the commandments.289 (Perhaps relevant here, later rabbis spoke of Gentile converts accepting the yoke of the commandments.)290 Although yokes could represent difficult burdens (e.g., Sir 40:1), they could also be a positive image: Jewish people embraced the law as God’s gift (see comment on Acts 2:38), and the “yoke” of Torah was generally viewed as a pleasant exemption from worldly cares rather than as a burden.291 By itself, “yoke” is not negative; Peter’s mention of an “unbearable burden,” however, is.292 A Gentile would, of course, normally 279. Luke did not, however, invent the saying in Luke 11:46 (cf. Matt 23:4). 280. See Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 651, and sources there. For plows as early as the fourth millennium b.c.e. in Egypt and Mesopotamia, see Hruska, “Plough,” 405; for the design of Mediterranean plows, see Ruffing, “Plough” (and for various kinds of plows, 407, following Pliny N.H. 18.171–72). 281. A person who carried a yoke to pull other loads would lay it on his neck and shoulders, with his hands grasping chains or rope attached to each end of the yoke ( Jeremias, Parables, 194). One would normally expect to find such a burden only on the shoulders of the poor (compare Test. Job 7:1 with Jastrow, Dictionary, 1:94). 282. Here the lector would likely gesture toward the neck (Shiell, Reading Acts, 176, suggesting also that the lector’s inflection could have guided early hearers’ understanding of the now-debated meaning of the law as a yoke). 283. Cf. a “millstone around the neck” as an encumbrance (b. Qidd. 29b, bar.; Vermes, Religion, 84). 284. E.g., Gen 27:40; 1 Kgs 12:9–14; 2 Chr 10:4–14; Isa 10:27; 14:25; Jer 27:8–12; 28:12, 14; 1 En. 103:11; Sib. Or. 3.391–92, 448, 508, 537, 567; cf. López Fernández, “Yugo.” God had lifted the yoke of literal slavery from his people (Hos 11:4) and promised to do so again at the new exodus (Isa 10:27; 14:25); the eschatological community dare not impose such yokes. 285. Babr. 37.1–2, 10–12. “Yoking” together in partnership or marriage was a quite different application of the metaphor (2 Cor 6:14; Phil 4:3; Val. Max. 2.9.6a). 286. On this humiliation, see also Tac. Ann. 15.15. 287. E.g., b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 16b (the yoke of repentance); y. Qidd. 1:2, §24; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:18; Gen. Rab. 67:7; Lam. Rab. 3:27, §9; Pesiq. Rab. 21:16; cf. also Maher, “Yoke,” 98–100; Urbach, Sages, 1:400–419. 288. See Jer 5:5; 2 Bar. 41:3; m. ʾAb. 3:5; Sipra Sh. pq. 12.121.2.5; Sipre Deut. 344.4.2; in later sources, b. Ber. 12b; 13a; 14b; Pesiq. Rab. 21:16; Exod. Rab. 15:11; Num. Rab. 19:26. It contrasts with the yoke of subjugation to Rome (m. ʾAb. 3:5) and to the four kingdoms (Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:18). See the yoke of Wisdom’s teaching in Sir 51:26. 289. M. Ber. 2:2, 5; Sipra Behar par. 5.255.1.9, 11; b. Ber. 13a; 14b–15a; y. Ber. 2:2, §2. It contrasts with the yoke of mortals in t. B. Qam. 7:5; y. Qidd. 1:2, §24; cf. the yoke of Babylon’s kingdom (b. Sanh. 89a, based on eisegesis). 290. B. Yebam. 47b. Later rabbis might also apply this language to Gentiles being unable to follow the law (Le Cornu, Acts, 823, cites Lev. Rab. 13:2). 291. So rightly many commentators (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 174; Fitzmyer, Acts, 548). Some teachers spoke figuratively of a “load” of one’s teaching that a disciple carried (Diog. Laert. 7.170; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 84; cf. Luke 11:46). 292. Some later sages did warn against overburdening proselytes once they had converted (Le Cornu, Acts, 824, cites b. Yebam. 47ab), and the rabbis regarded as invalid any ordinance impossible for the people to keep (835, citing b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a).

2236

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 84

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

be welcome to take on more commandments than were required;293 but a Gentile convert might find the array of Jewish laws more difficult than someone who had grown up with them.294 Given Acts 15’s evocation of themes that also figure heavily in Galatians, it may be that both 15:10 and Gal 5:1 refer to the law when applied as a legalistic standard; it is possible that a contrast with this abuse of the law also applies to Matt 11:29–30.295 Christians of following generations spoke of the yoke of Christ’s grace (1 Clem. 16.7) and of bearing as much as possible of the Lord’s yoke (Did. 6.2) as well as of the new law of Christ freeing one from compulsion (Barn. 2.6). Perhaps the problem was human inability to keep law (as in the “unbearable burden” for Gentiles here) until written in their hearts ( Jer 31:32–33; cf. Rom 8:2–4). For Luke, this new covenant written on the heart has undoubtedly begun in Christ (Luke 22:20), but as for Paul, a new covenant written on the heart may be expressed differently than its predecessor (2 Cor 3:3) without abrogating God’s covenant with Israel (Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25). When used figuratively, slavery usually entailed subjection to negative elements.296 Subjection to tyrants297 or other peoples constituted political “slavery.”298 Greek thinkers quite often warned against being enslaved by false ideologies299 or passions.300 Those who submit to human rather than divine law are under a yoke of slavery (Dio Chrys. Or. 80.7). Jewish writers influenced by Hellenism repeated the demand that people avoid slavery to passions;301 other Jewish thinkers also recognized that one should not be enslaved to sin or the evil impulse.302 Readers of Paul’s letters are familiar with 293. Le Cornu, Acts, 835. 294. E.g., most new Gentile converts who had to work daily (including slaves) would find the Sabbath, though a genuinely universal biblical principle (Gen 2:2), an impossible conflict with their originating culture, especially since they could not simply work as part of the Jewish community if they were not welcome there. 295. Note especially the contrast between Jesus’s rest in Matt 11:29 and the Sabbath controversy in 12:1–14; see Keener, Matthew, 348, 350. 296. See, at much greater length, Keener, John, 749–52, from which I have excerpted comments in this paragraph. 297. Lucan C.W. 7.445; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.5; Cic. Att. 14.14; Phil. 3.5.12; 3.11.29; 3.13.33; 6.7.19; 14.14.37; Sen. E. Historical Frg. 1; Pliny Ep. 3.5.5; 8.14.2–3; Tac. Agr. 2–3; Ann. 1.7; Iambl. V.P. 32.220; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.15.498; 1.486; Jos. Ant. 19.227. 298. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.21, §192; Demosth. Philip. 3.36; 4.25; Isoc. Peace 105; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.20; Diod. Sic. 33.25.1; Sall. Jug. 102.6; Mith. 10; Vell. Paterc. 2.27.2; Appian Hist. rom. 8.9.56; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 5.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.27; 64.18; Tac. Hist. 4.64; Ann. 4.72; Hdn. 3.2.8; 1 Macc 2:11; Jos. Ant. 18.4; Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.8; in Jos. Ant. 6.238–350, see Lavan, “Slaves.” 299. E.g., Arrian Alex. 3.11.2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 8.7; 27.4; Plut. Lect. 1, Mor. 37E; Superst. 5, Mor. 167B (Plutarch includes Judaism among superstitions, Superst. 8, Mor. 169C). One is also a slave of goals that one serves (Philost. Hrk. 53.2). One should seek freedom from fearing death (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 80.4–6, esp. 80.6). 300. A pervasive topic, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 42; Xen. Oec. 1.22–23; Hell. 4.8.22; Apol. 16; Mem. 1.3.8, 11; 1.5.1, 5; 4.5.3, 5; Soph. Antig. 756; Wom. Tr. 488–89; Plato Phaedr. 238E; Isoc. Demon. 21; Nic. 39 (Or. 3.34); Arrian Alex. 4.9.1; Diod. Sic. 10.9.4; 32.10.9; Sall. Catil. 2.8; Speech to Caesar 8.2; Cic. Amic. 22.82; Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18; Senect. 14.47; Prov. cons. 1.2; Hor. Sat. 2.7.83–87; Tibullus 2.4.1–3; Appian Bell. civ. 5.1.8–9; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.19; Sen. Y. Ben. 3.28.4; Ep. Lucil. 14.1; 39.6; 47.17; 110.9–10; 116.1; Nat. Q. 1.16.1; Epict. Diatr. 3.24.70–71, 75; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.6, 60; 18.9; 32.90; Plut. Bride 33, Mor. 142E; Pliny Ep. 7.26.2; Max. Tyre 36.6; Porph. Marc. 34.523–25; Ach. Tat. 1.7.2–3; 5.25.6; Longin. Subl. 44.6; Diog. Laert. 2.75; 6.2.66; Diogenes Ep. 12; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Socratics Ep. 14; Pyth. Sent. 21, 23; Apul. Metam. 11.15; Libanius Comp. 1.7; 5.8; Speech in Character 16.2; Invect. 7.7; Descr. 30.18–19; Sir 47:19. In Stoicism, see further Erskine, Stoa, 44–46; Klauck, Context, 372–77; Bobzien, “Freedom.” 301. E.g., 4 Macc 3:2; 13:1–2; Test. Ash. 3:2; 6:5; Test. Jos. 7:8; Test. Jud. 18:6; Jos. Ant. 1.74; 4.133; 15.88; War 1.243; Philo Abr. 241; Alleg. Interp. 2.49; Creation 165; Good Person 17; Heir 269; Unchangeable 111; cf. Decharneux, “Interdits”; Let. Aris. 211, 221–23; Test. Jud. 15:2, 5; Test. Sim. 3:4; John 8:33; Rom 6:6–23; 16:18; 1 Cor 6:12; Phil 3:19. See also Hezser, “Impact,” 420. 302. Odeberg, Gospel, 297–301; idem, Pharisaism, 50–52, 56; cf. Gen. Rab. 94:8; Wis 1:4. Cf. freedom from the hostile angel in CD XVI, 4–6; from the angel of death in late material in Exod. Rab. 41:7; 51:8; Num. Rab. 16:24; Song Rab. 8:6, §1; from astrological powers in t. Sukkah 2:6; b. Ned. 32a.

2237

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 85

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

his teaching of freedom from sin (Rom 6:18, 22) and from the law’s condemnation (7:3; 8:2; Gal 4:30–5:1; 5:13).303 iv. Saved the Same Way (15:11)

Peter appears to argue that since Jewish believers could not carry the full yoke, why should they expect Gentile believers to do so (Acts 15:10)? Comparison was a standard rhetorical technique.304 One could use such comparisons to place one’s jurors on the same moral level as oneself (Rhet. Alex. 4, 1427a.37–40, esp. 39) or to invite hearers to examine their own hearts vis-à-vis those they thought most wicked.305 The question also functions like a rhetorical objection,306 a common form in oral and even written argument.307 Johnson reads χάριτος as “gift,” and the following genitive as epexegetic, hence, the “gift that is the Lord Jesus.”308 Although it is pointless to quibble over grammatical nuances that Koine speakers may not have distinguished, Luke does know the use of the term “grace” most familiar to modern readers from the Pauline epistles (Acts 13:43; 14:3; 18:27; especially in Paul’s teaching in 20:24, 32);309 it also appears in non-Pauline literature (Heb 2:9; 4:16; 12:15; 13:9; Jude 4; probably John 1:14, 16–17), including 1 Peter (1:10, 13).310 That Luke shared much of Paul’s perspective about grace is clear in some of the special Lukan parables (Luke 15:21–24; 18:9–14) and probably implicit in some material he also borrows from the common tradition (18:17; Mark 10:15). In secular classical and Hellenistic Greek, χάρις frequently or even especially involves benefactions in relationships311 and hence benefactors’ “generosity”;312 indeed, “by the first century AD χάρις had become the central motif of the Hellenistic reciprocity system.”313 Philo’s use of the term also reflects Hellenistic benefaction language,314 as does Josephus’s.315 Here salvation is by God’s generosity or gift (cf. 303. For discussions of freedom in Pauline thought, see, e.g., Chamblin, “Freedom”; Longenecker, Paul, 156–60, 170–208; Ridderbos, Paul: Outline, 288–93. 304. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 5.6.44; Hermog. Progymn. 8, “On Syncrisis,” 18–20; Keener, John, 916–17, 966–69, 1183–84 and notes, at length. For “how much more” arguments, see Keener, John, 716–17, 742, 829, 931, 939, 1184. For the argumentative force of Peter’s interrogatio in Acts 15:10, see Okoronkwo, Compromise, 176–77. 305. E.g., Mus. Ruf. frg. 23; Amos 1:3–2:6; Rom 1:18–2:29. 306. Soards, Speeches, 90, 92. 307. E.g., Demosth. Philip. 3.15; Dion. Hal. Demosth. 54; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.25–27; Jos. Life 340; Ag. Ap. 1.314–15. Most often these are (frequently imaginary) interlocutors’ objections to be refuted, e.g., Lysias Or. 10.22–23, §118; Cic. Rosc. Amer. 18.52; Sull. 21.60; Scaur. 11.24; Lig. 5.12; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.40; 92.14; 94.32; 102.8–10, 18; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.13; 12, p. 86.20; 15, p. 98.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 50.9; Pliny Ep. 7.17.5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; Max. Tyre 3.5; 25.4; 27.8. On answering one’s own rhetorical questions, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 14, 51. 308. Johnson, Acts, 263. For one example of the semantic range, inscriptions support the translation “gift” in patronal settings (deSilva, “Patronage,” 768; also 2 Cor 8:19). 309. Salvation is associated specifically with grace in Eph 2:5, 8 and probably in 2 Tim 1:9; frequently in undisputed Pauline texts, e.g., Rom 3:24; 4:16; 5:2, 8–9, 15–21. Luke’s use of “grace” for power (Acts 4:33; 6:8) is also familiar from Paul (Rom 1:5; 12:3, 6; 15:15; Eph 3:2, 7–8; 4:7). If one reads, “through grace we believe,” the phrase in Acts 18:27 may be parallel, but in 15:11 most read “through grace” with “are saved.” 310. Probably also 1 Pet 3:7; 2 Pet 3:18. In the sense of power, cf. 1 Pet 4:10. 311. See deSilva, “Patronage,” 768. For other senses of the term, see comment on Acts 6:8. 312. Cf. Danker, Corinthians, 117–18; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815. 313. Harrison, Grace, 2 (also very closely, 63); see more fully 50–53; in the papyri, 72–84; in philosophers, 166–209. It also applied to deities (85–87, 183–91, 349–50) and emperors (2–3, 87–90). It could refer to unmerited favor even when it was unjust favoritism (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.8–9, 15; see comment on Acts 24:27; 25:9). 314. Harrison, Grace, 114–33, including reciprocity (128–30); but he critiques the transaction view of benefaction characteristic of the inscriptions (130–32), especially showing that God’s χάρις differs (131). 315. Ibid., 133–35, 138–40, 145–46 (for the reciprocity ethic, see 140–45).

2238

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 86

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

also Acts 13:43; 18:27; 20:24, 32). Perhaps more relevant than the epigraphic use by itself is the lxx use, generally to translate the Hebrew ‫חן‬.316 If early Christian writers thought of the cognate verb χαρίζομαι,317 its nuances of giving something as a gracious favor, or forgiving a debt or a wrong, would also be relevant. The language here sounds Pauline, but it was likely used more broadly in the early church.318 Whatever Luke’s source for the precise words, Paul does presuppose Peter’s knowledge and approval of his view (Gal 2:7, 9, 14; and, if spoken on the occasion, perhaps 2:15–16). It is only shared table fellowship (which Paul regards as a consistent implication of the teaching), when such a practice could cause others to stumble (a Pauline concern on other issues, Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9), where they explicitly differed (and we know even this only for a single occasion, not necessarily on a regular basis; Gal 2:12–14). c. Paul and Barnabas Recount Signs (15:12) That Paul would have appealed to signs in his ministry to validate the Gentile mission, as here, fits what we know from Paul’s own letters (Gal 3:5; esp. Rom 15:18–19).319 Paul’s own account of the Jerusalem Council suggests that he had to carry the brunt of the debate on his side (Gal 2:5–6), but his wording there also suits his emphasis (i.e., that the gospel dare not be compromised, 1:8–10). Acts 15 emphasizes more the role of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (providing continuity and affirmation from the less-expected quarter), but even in Acts 15 we read of Paul’s fierce debating in Antioch (15:2) and that Peter and James spoke up sometime after him (15:4–21), and it is possible that he also participated in the debate mentioned briefly in 15:7a. 316. Robinson, Ephesians, 221 (treating χάρις more broadly in 221–28). In the first century, Philo and Paul often replace ἔλεος with χάρις (Harrison, Grace, 108–9). Judaism widely recognized the need to depend on God’s mercy and grace (Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 90, §237; Flusser, Judaism, 35). 317. Winger, “Grace,” argues that Paul weights this and other abstract nouns with the semantic content of cognate verbs. 318. Cf. Heb 2:9; 4:16; 13:9; 1 Pet 1:10, 13; Jude 4; 1 Clem. 7.4; 8.1; Ign. Eph. 11.1; Magn. 8.1; Philad. 8.1; 11.1. 319. It might be significant that Luke’s final and perhaps climactic use of the term σημεῖον is connected with testimony to the Gentile mission (as Matthew Sleeman has kindly brought to my attention). I do not believe, however, that Luke would restrict use of the term to events leading up to this point. By analogy, Scripture citations do not appear often after ch. 15, but Luke hardly believes that they are no longer useful in appropriate settings. Sometimes variations in style explain the presence of a term in some places but not in others; for example, the phrase τί σοι καὶ ἡμῖν is more dominant in particular sections of Epictetus than in others. Before 10.419, the Odyssey often prefers διοτρεφές, “fostered by Zeus” (e.g., Hom. Od. 4.26, 44, 63, 138, 156, 235, 291, 316, 391, 561; 5.378; 10.266, 419), but in books 10 through 14 διογενές, “born from Zeus,” becomes the preferred term regardless of the speaker (e.g., Hom. Od. 10.443, 456, 488, 504; 11.60, 92, 405, 473, 617; 13.375; 14.486). More specifically: σημεῖον is not always employed even in the sections that use the term elsewhere—thus, for example, it does not appear in Peter’s ministry to Aeneas or Tabitha, which brought Lydda, Sharon, and much of Joppa to faith. The sorts of miracles described as “signs” in other places, such as healing through contact with Peter in Acts 5:12–16, appear without that label elsewhere, such as healing through contact with Paul in Acts 19:11–12. By comparison, δυνάμεις, the term often translated “miracles,” appears only three times in Acts, two before this point and one afterward (2:22; 8:13; 19:11). Signs attested the message of grace (14:3); since Luke anticipates both that message and the Gentile mission continuing until the consummation, he presumably anticipates the same for the signs attesting it. Luke’s description of events with the same content as late as Acts 28:8–9, in fact, suggests that these works continue. Luke has attached the signs label to the same sorts of events frequently enough that he can no doubt expect his hearers to understand such events in this way even where he omits the label. Similarly, although he does not report baptism with most conversions, he presumably expects hearers to infer it from the earlier occasions in the work where it is narrated. Luke is not obligated to employ terms in the same way as Paul, but for what it is worth, Paul in Rom 15:18–19 seems to associate signs and wonders with his ministry from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and his ministry to Illyricum came after Acts 15.

2239

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 87

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul also reports that the leading apostles at the council recognized the “grace” (perhaps including signs, as here) given him and Barnabas and affirmed their ministry (Gal 2:9). For Luke, signs confirm the truth of God’s message (Acts 14:3);320 although not all signs did so (8:11; 13:8), true apostolic signs would.321 If later rabbinic traditions are relevant here, the Pharisees (15:5) might not accept evidence from miracles against their halakic position;322 the following exegetical argument by James (15:13–18) will eliminate this difficulty.323 Luke’s Diaspora audience will also appreciate the cumulative effect of a variety of arguments (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–16).324 Luke’s brief mention of the subject of Paul and Barnabas’s speech fits his pattern of summary statements of speeches elsewhere (cf. Acts 2:40; 28:23; Luke 24:27).325 Although ἐξηγέομαι can refer to any sort of exposition or narration in detail,326 Luke always applies it to recounting firsthand testimony of God’s works (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12, 14; 21:19);327 that the verb applies also to Peter’s account in this context (Acts 15:14) shows how much of the argument against imposing circumcision hinges on clear indications of God’s favor on this new approach.328 Just as the behavior of sages could sometimes be used to justify halakah,329 James may afterward draw a halakic “inference” from the Cornelius incident.330 Barnabas is here mentioned first, in contrast to Luke’s usual arrangement (except in 14:12, 14, and in all cases of Barnabas and “Saul,” 11:30; 12:25; 13:1–2, 7).331 Bar­ na­bas may have taken the lead here for strategic reasons in Jerusalem, where he was better known personally and more respected. Their recounting of miracles follows the pattern they established in Antioch (14:27), Phoenicia, and Samaria (15:3); missionary testimonies were probably significant in the missionaries’ reports to churches (perhaps 20:7). Even in Acts 21, where the situation is more difficult, the Jerusalem elders respond well to Paul’s reports (21:19–20). The term πλῆθος carries different senses in different passages (cf., e.g., 14:1, 4). If it refers to the “apostles and elders” of 15:6 (probably a sizable group), Luke’s narrative makes sense as referring to a smaller session in 15:6–21, with the church’s 320. See Keener, Acts, 1:538, 546–49. 321. Luke never uses “signs” for the false activity, even when reporting genuine signs in the context (e.g., Acts 8:6, 13). Interestingly, although Luke retains false messianic claimants from Mark 13:6 (Luke 21:8), he omits the false prophets’ “signs” (Mark 13:11). 322. Bauckham, “James,” 452; t. Yebam. 14:6 (see further the section “Rabbinic Mistrust of Miracles,” Keener, Acts, 1:548–49). 323. With Bauckham, “James,” 452. 324. By contrast, Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.5–17, insists (probably against a common practice) that there is no need to give multiple proofs, just strong ones. 325. For the use of this literary device in ancient texts, see Aune, Environment, 127–28 (citing various sources, including Jos. War 1.638; 2.33; 3.383). 326. See BDAG and sources there; used in Lucian Peregr. 11 with reference to Christian writings, though not as a technical term. 327. Luke’s use (five of six nt uses) is not unique, but it is consistent and distinctive. The verb appears eight times in the lxx, only sometimes ( Judg 7:13; 2 Kgs 8:5; cf. 1 Macc 3:26; 2 Macc 2:13) in the sense that Luke uses consistently; cf. perhaps Herm. 23.5. It appears nineteen times in Josephus, not regularly in this sense; twice in Philo, not in this sense. 328. On the experience-informed hermeneutic, see, e.g., Alexander, “This Is That.” Neither institutional authority, nor Scripture alone (Shelton, “Epistemology”), nor experience alone produced the solution. 329. E.g., t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1. 330. Le Cornu, Acts, 831. 331. Naming Barnabas first probably fits the Jerusalem perspective (Acts 15:25; Dunn, Acts, 203), but it probably also indicates that Barnabas takes the lead somehow (though this is not the impression that a reader gets in Galatians). Apart from 14:14, Paul is normally named first after 13:9 except here and 15:25 (mentioned in the not-yet-published observations of J. B. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 4, shared with me by Ben Witherington III, May 10, 2013).

2240

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 88

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

participation or ratification welcomed again in 15:22. If it refers to the entire assembly,332 then the assembly was present while the leaders debated (15:6), or 15:6 mentions only the leaders but does not exclude the assembly, or Luke’s condensing technique has obscured the point at which the multitude is reintroduced.333 That the multitude kept quiet may not be as promising as clear signs of joy (15:3), but it is favorable.334 Often hearers interrupted speeches with questions or heckling;335 here they listen respectfully. Silence can display attentiveness (12:17); here they are at least not objecting.336 Falling silent was sometimes a sign of respect (e.g., Pliny Ep. 2.18.2); those who were shamed in a public assembly might also remain silent (Neh 5:8). A philosopher impatient with mere applause argues that those who truly admire a message will be silent (Mus. Ruf. frg. 49, p. 142.19–21).337 (For further discussion of silence, see comment on Acts 11:18.)

4. James’s Biblical Proposal (15:13–21) After God’s obvious recent activity has garnered sufficient attention, James offers an answer to the biblical objections (Acts 15:5).338 In an honor-shame culture, making proposals in public assemblies was risky business; such proposals could bring praise, blame, or a mixture of the two on those who advanced them, depending on the proposals’ reception (Pliny Ep. 3.20.1). James, however, has sufficient stature and diplomatic skill to offer a successful proposal. a. The Speech and the Historical James Apart from his mention in Acts 12:17 and the passing mention of Jesus’s brothers in 1:13, James appears in only two passages in Acts, here and in 21:18. Both passages that focus extensively on James emphasize his leadership role in the Jerusalem church and his approval of Paul and his message. James holds special rank in the assembly (15:19), perhaps in part because of Peter’s lengthy absence (12:17). (This fits Paul’s description of the meeting, where he names James first among the pillars; Gal 2:9).339 Because Luke’s audience already knows of James (without which Acts 12:17 would be insufficient to introduce him), they understand that this is a conservative Jewish Christian leader affirming the Gentile mission; thus he provides another link of continuity for the Gentile churches with the heritage of Israel. 332. Cf. “the many” in the Qumran scrolls (Driver, Scrolls, 521; cf. 2 Cor 2:6). But again, Luke employs the term in a variety of ways. 333. Ancient rhetorical critics appreciated conciseness, but they condemned it when it made one’s writing obscure (Dion. Hal. 2 Amm. 2). 334. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 548, who takes silence as consent. Cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 49, p. 142.19–28 (in van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309). Perhaps they were speaking (imperfect) once the multitude became quiet (aorist; or perhaps the multitude “fell silent” as they were speaking; though Robertson, Grammar, 18.2.b.γ, pp. 837–40, expects the distinction between aorist and imperfect to be significant, he acknowledges that the reasons for the distinction are not always obvious). 335. See comment on Acts 2:13. Holding the attention of an ancient public assembly took considerable skill (Plut. Demosth. 7.1–3). Heckling was, undoubtedly, disallowed here, though this assembly would be less strict than Qumran’s (cf. the danger of interrupting a fellow, 1QS VI, 10; VII, 9–10). 336. An analogous situation today might be when churches of dominant cultures (earlier sending cultures) hear reports from other cultures that challenge their presuppositions about the ways that God works (cf. González, Acts, 179–80). 337. Mus. Ruf. frg. 49, p. 142.21–28, adds an illustration from Hom. Od. 18.1–2. 338. For one recent and extensive discussion of James’s speech, see Neubrand, Völker, 108–249. For the characterization of God in the speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 164–68. 339. With Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 252.

2241

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 89

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

He also provides a link with Jesus; though Luke does not state that James is Jesus’s brother,340 his audience presumably knows this already (Gal 1:19; Jude 1; cf. Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55). Offices or occupations were often passed on within a family (cf., e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.19.599). People often appointed relatives341 or those in their clan—that is, those whom they could trust most on account of blood ties. Others, however, feared that this practice raised the shadow of nepotism, against which one might need to provide apologetic ( Jos. Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58). (Luke simply does not make the kinship connection explicit.) James was known for his devout attention to the law;342 the frequent contention that he was “legalistic,” however, rests too heavily on Hegesippus, whose material probably reflects inauthentic Ebionite exaggerations.343 On the death of James, see discussion at Acts 21:18–20. Paul calls James an apostle and brother of the Lord (Gal 1:19).344 He claims that James received a personal resurrection appearance (1 Cor 15:7), just like Peter (15:5; cf. Luke 24:34) and, in a different way, Paul (1 Cor 15:8). Such an encounter helps explain why he suddenly appeared as a follower of Jesus after the resurrection (Acts 1:14), though he had not been following him before (Luke 8:19–21). He was one of the top three leaders of the Jerusalem church with Peter and John in the period after Acts 15 (Gal 2:9). Paul wrote of him as either very conservative or one who wished to conciliate the conservative faction and retain their support, at least on the matter of table fellowship with the uncircumcised (2:12). Perhaps precisely because James had not been fraternizing with Gentiles as Peter had (cf. Acts 10:23, 48; 11:3) and would (Gal 2:12; and because the latter had spent more time away from Jerusalem;345 Acts 9:32–11:2; 12:17; cf. Gal 2:11), “it was James, rather than Peter, who could now carry the rank and file with him.”346 James was apparently known to particularly appreciate and support the conservative faction in general. The epistle attributed to James in the nt uses δικαιόω ( Jas 2:21, 24–25) in a manner that recalls Pauline use but likely either polemicizes against Paul (or Pauline Christianity) or (more likely) against a caricature or abuse of Paul’s position (already suggested in Rom 3:8). Some scholars argue that this speech “shows striking similarities” to the epistle attributed to James in the nt;347 although both are too short (and at least the Acts passage too secondhand) for significant stylistic criticism, both reflect the undisputed authority of a teacher (or his tradition) focused on his mission to Israel ( Jas 1:1; 2:2) and able to use Hellenistic Jewish traditions and quote the lxx (note the lxx quote in Acts 15:16–18).348 Although Luke in particular among early Christian writers 340. Despite Acts 1:14. Like others, James would remain a brother of the Jerusalem church (12:17; 15:13), but Luke does not specify his kinship to Jesus. 341. For appointing relatives, see, e.g., Xen. Hell. 3.4.29; 1 Chr 2:16; 27:34 (though cf. 11:6); Neh 7:2. See comment on Acts 12:17. 342. Euseb. H.E. 2.23; Reicke, Era, 215. 343. Davids, James, 19. 344. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 196–99, thinks that Luke’s audience is Jewish Christian and respects James but that Luke liberalizes him in support of Paul, whom it trusts less. Although I question this reconstruction of Luke’s audience (who may have already respected Paul), this was the appropriate technique for rhetorical invention: if, e.g., a cautious old man takes a hard line, it “carries more weight” than if it were “a younger, more impetuous speaker” (Heath, “Invention,” 91). Paul’s orthodoxy (Acts 18:18; 21:26) functions the same way. 345. Just as Caesar, being away from Rome, could not build his constituency, leaving him vulnerable to his critics (e.g., Suet. Jul. 28), though Caesar had more deliberate allies in Rome (e.g., Jul. 26–29). 346. Bruce, Peter, 91–92. Nevertheless, the speeches of Peter and James here reinforce one another; for a comparison, cf. Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 602. 347. Robertson, Luke, 225. 348. Cf. Bruce, Acts1, 298. On lxx quotations and influence in the Epistle of James, see Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 40; Davids, James, 58–59, 103, 113, 150 (though noting that James does not follow the lxx slavishly and our evidence is limited, 10–11); this may be due to James’s Diaspora audience (Longenecker, Exegesis,

2242

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 90

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

employs ἐπικαλέω for calling on the Lord’s name (2:21; 9:14, 21; 22:16; elsewhere, Rom 10:13; 1 Cor 1:2), echoing Joel (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13), this verb appears for those called by the Lord’s name in the nt only here and in Jas 2:7.349 If the epistle reflects some genuine tradition from the church’s most prominent “James,” it may be noteworthy that James could offer as an example not only Abraham ( Jas 2:21–28) but the Gentile adherent Rahab (2:25).350 At the same time, not all arguments sometimes offered for the speech’s basic authenticity are persuasive. In favor of the position that Acts 15:18–29 reflects the views of the Jerusalem church’s leadership, some argue that the text reveals a skillful Jewish exegetical argument uncharacteristic of Luke, expresses a pre-Lukan notion of the Christian community as an eschatological temple, and upholds the law of Moses.351 But the eschatological temple (see comment below) and upholding the law of Moses are concepts more familiar to Luke than this argument allows (though the latter is admittedly associated especially with the Jerusalem church, 21:20). Luke would not have had a verbatim transcript of the speech, but he likely would have had access to the letter he quotes (15:23–29, though there remains some debate on whether it stems from precisely this occasion) and probably a summary of James’s point and exegesis (see comment below).352 After all, Paul was present at the meeting, and the basic content of such speeches would not be quickly forgotten (though sympathetic hearers would probably remember the parts they found most agreeable). The role of a public speaker urging concord was an ancient and honorable one (see esp. comment on Acts 15:25). Gamaliel brought peaceful resolution in an assembly earlier (5:34–40), and James accomplishes an even more agreeable resolution here (though it should be noted that the sides were much further apart in Acts 5). Some figures were so respected that others would not express disagreements among themselves around them (Philost. Hrk. 35.4; cf. Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46–47; 22:24); creating concord was a suitable role for a great philosopher (Iambl. V.P. 7.34) or an ideal ruler (Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.13). b. James’s Introduction (15:13–14) Stressing the orderly process, Luke indicates that James begins after the speakers of Acts 15:12 become silent,353 just as they were speaking once the multitude became silent (note the repetition of σιγάω in 15:12–13). As with 15:7, for “men,” see comment on 2:14; for “brothers,” see comment on Acts 9:17.354 188–89; Painter, James, 24). Ropes, James, 25, calculates that of 570 words in James, only 25 (i.e., less than 5 percent) are missing from the lxx. James’s Greek is generally more sophisticated than that of the lxx (Sloyan, “James,” 29), not less. 349. Noted by Carter and Earle, Acts, 215. 350. My point is not that Jewish sources avoided citing Rahab as an example (they did not; cf. prophets descended from her in Sipre Deut. 357.2.1; Ruth Rab. 2:1; cf. further Jos. Ant. 5.8–30; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Manns, “Jacques 2, 24–26”; Bamberger, Proselytism, 193–95; Johnson, Genealogies, 162) but that what little evidence we do have could suggest that James was not against receiving Gentiles (i.e., he did not follow the strictest approach toward Gentiles in Donaldson’s typology). 351. Bauckham, “James,” 462–63. 352. For a lengthy defense, see Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 154–84. 353. He may speak last as the church’s “senior” voice, settling the issue (Tanner, “Quotation,” 65). Cf. the rabbinic tradition that the younger members of the Sanhedrin would speak first lest the views of their elders intimidate and so restrict the expression of their opinions (cf. m. Sanh. 4:2; Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 126; Blinzler, Trial, 135), though this may project rabbinic values back onto a largely Sadducean body. 354. Speakers in Acts occasionally use “Men, brothers,” as opposed to geographic or ethnic indicators (such as “Men of Jerusalem,” “men of Athens,” “Men, Israelites”), for believers (Acts 1:16; 15:7, 13); but the address is by no means primarily restricted to them (2:29, 37; 7:2; 13:15, 26; 22:1; 23:6; 28:17).

2243

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 91

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Luke reports only the briefest exordium in 15:13 and, at not much greater length, the narratio in 15:14. These are so brief that either Luke desires us to think that James defies traditional rules of rhetoric (not the view of James one gets from the speech’s sophisticated content or from the epistle circulated in his name [Jas 1:1]) or Luke expects us to recognize that he has condensed this speech—like most other speeches in the book (cf. Acts 2:40). In this case, he has no interruption at the end of Peter’s speech (as in 2:37; 10:44) but “has edited his material so that James’s speech picks up where Peter left off.”355 Thus Peter’s speech is primarily narrative; James provides the proofs. As a matter of halakah, the question at hand would need to be decided especially by Scripture.356 God’s “first” taking Gentiles alludes to Peter’s claim in the immediate context about Cornelius’s household hearing in “the early days” (15:7). It refers not to a sequence in salvation history but to the first public occasion on which Gentiles were converted without circumcision (the Jerusalem church may not know of 8:26–40).357 Though “visited” (ἐπεσκέψατο) undoubtedly alludes to its frequent divine sense (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; 19:44; Acts 7:23),358 it might also connote “choice” (Acts 6:3), hence possibly alluding again to Peter’s speech in 15:7, where God made a choice.359 Scripture normally applied the term to God visiting Israel; its application here to the Gentiles is noteworthy.360 The “people for his name” is attested in Scripture; hence “the prophets’ words concur” in 15:15. Israel (Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14; Jer 13:11 lxx) or the righteous elect within Israel (Isa 43:7; 4Q275 3 2) could be those “called by the Name,” as the hearers would normally expect,361 but James depends on the passage he is about to quote (Acts 15:17).362 As scholars often note,363 the term Luke uses for “people” here he reserves in most cases elsewhere for Israel;364 thus “a people from among the Gentiles” may be “consciously paradoxical,” including uncircumcised Gentiles in God’s people.365 This seems especially the case when he speaks of God “taking” a “people,” 355. Witherington, Acts, 456. For the theological unity of the speeches, see Okoronkwo, Compromise, 193–94 (less persuasively, for structural unity, 190–93). 356. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 154. 357. So Fuller, Gospel, 179. This refutes the traditional dispensational schema in which taking the Gentiles must precede rebuilding David’s tent (Acts 15:16; Strombeck, Rapture, 62, whose argument would be fallacious, in any case, because, even in his view, the Gentiles should come in during the final tribulation with Israel’s conversion at the end); “after these things” does not refer to what James has said but is midrashic explanation of Amos’s “in that day” (Amos 9:11), like Peter’s “in the last days” for “afterward” (Acts 2:17). Kaiser (“Inclusion of Gentiles”; cf. esp. 107) sees the promise theme expanded in the ot and the nt, as an alternative to traditional forms of dispensational or covenant options. 358. As at the exodus (Exod 3:16; 4:31; Acts 7:23; see Tannehill, Acts, 187). 359. Conzelmann, Acts, 117. 360. With Kistemaker, Acts, 551. 361. Fitzmyer, Acts, 554, also cites the application to Israel in the Palestinian Targum to Exod 6:7. 362. With, e.g., Jervell, Luke and People of God, 190; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103. The exact expression appears in Amos 9:12 lxx, but “God’s name called on” his people appears in the mt of Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14. 363. E.g., Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 60, noting Acts 15:14 as the only exception (and that Luke’s first four uses appear in different cases, a rhetorical device for emphasizing a term); also Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 6 (from Witherington). 364. For Israel or Jewish people (following the usual lxx usage; occasionally specifically in contradistinction to Gentiles), see Luke 1:10, 17, 77; 2:10, 32; 3:15, 18, 21; 7:1, 16, 29; 8:47; 9:13; 18:43; 19:47–48; 20:1, 6, 9, 19, 26, 45; 21:23, 38; 22:2, 66; 23:5, 13–14, 27, 35; 24:19; Acts 2:47; 3:9, 11–12, 23; 4:1–2, 8, 10, 17, 21; 5:12–13, 20, 25–26, 34, 37; 6:8, 12; 7:17, 34; 10:2, 41–42; 12:4, 11; 13:15, 17, 24, 31; 19:4; 21:28, 30, 36, 39–40; 23:5; 26:17, 23; 28:17, 26–27; for both Jews and Gentiles in Luke 2:31 (in light of 2:32); 6:17. Even Acts 4:25 refers to Israel (see 4:27). Acts 18:10 might apply to God’s “people” in a sense that includes Gentiles (see comment there). 365. Conzelmann, Acts, 117 (contrasting Deut 26:18–19); similarly, Cerfaux, Church, 20; Dupont, “Peuple d’entre les nations”; Bruce, Acts1, 297; Tannehill, Acts, 187. For the transformation of the content of the “people of God” concept in Luke-Acts, while emphasizing continuity, see Seccombe, “People,” 349–72, esp. 370–72.

2244

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 92

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

which language alludes to Exod 6:7 lxx: “I will ‘take’ you for a people, and be your God.”366 But James will demonstrate from Scripture that God has always planned to bring some of the Gentiles into his people. The Hebrew name “Simeon” (“Yah has heard”) was always popular, and Greekspeaking areas often assimilated it to Σίμων (“snub-nosed”), by far the most common male name in first-century Palestine.367 Josephus names Simeon ben Gamaliel both Simon (Life 190, 309) and Simeon (War 4.159). That James uses a Semitic form for a fellow Aramaic-speaking Galilean reinforces the portrait of James’s solidarity with the cultural conservatives, and it reminds them that Peter, who has spoken on behalf of the Gentiles, shares his cultural affinities.368 Nowhere else attributed to Simon Peter in the nt except in 2 Pet 1:1, “Simeon” may represent James’s deliberate semitizing of Peter’s name for rhetorical effect, with the common knowledge that “Simeon” was the Hebrew equivalent behind “Simon.”369 (A father combating Hellenism in fact called his son “Simeon,”370 even though other references to this son in the same book are “Simon.”)371 “The testimony of Peter,” he is saying, “is not to be doubted, since he is one of us.”372 Some scholars have suggested a literary connection with Luke’s earlier “Simeon” in Luke 2:25, 34 or even that Luke may refer to that Simeon, who announced salvation for Gentiles (2:32).373 Granted, if any early Christian leader would be privy to information from Jesus’s early childhood, it would be James.374 But it is easier to presuppose what his audience in the narrative world has just heard than that James has informed them of infancy stories without Luke narrating the conveyance of that information. In the narrative world, James must refer to Simon Peter. On the level of Luke’s audience, however, a narrative allusion to the Simeon of Luke 2 is more plausible. But once one begins considering such connections, why not, then, also the nearer Simeon in Acts 13:1, where Simeon’s “dark” complexion could imply multiethnicity (fitting the point, though admittedly he has no speaking role in the text)? These suggestions about literary allusions are possible but fairly speculative. c. Amos’s Prophecy (15:15–18) After the church’s discovery that God welcomed Gentiles (Acts 10:28, 45–48; 11:18), the task may have fallen especially to some particularly concerned missionaries 366. See Tannehill, Acts, 187. 367. Williams, “Names,” 93; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 554; Brown, Death, 915. A patriarchal name, it remained common in rabbinic literature. Greeks already used “Simon” (e.g., Lysias Or. 3.1, §96). 368. Witherington, Acts, 458, thinks that it also fits Luke’s interest as an ethnographic historian. 369. Since his name “Kephas” was known in Pauline churches (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14; cf. John 1:42), it is not impossible that Luke’s audience would also understand Peter’s original name “Simon” to reflect a Semitic original, i.e., the biblical “Simeon.” 370. 1 Macc 2:65; perhaps so named for the father’s grandfather (1 Macc 2:1). With Gaventa, Acts, 218. 371. 1 Macc 5:17, 20–21, 55; 9:19, 33, 37, 62, 65, 67; 10:74, 82; 11:59, 64–65; 12:38; etc. If the bulk of the material in the book was originally composed in Hebrew (Rost, Judaism, 76), the Greek name could come from the translation, but the Greek form was in any case the form in which the work was known in the first century c.e. 372. Cf. also Gaventa, Acts, 218. 373. Wall, “Comment(ary)ing”; also Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (also noted in Gaventa, Acts, 218). Riesner, “Hymn,” 278, thinks the matter worthy of consideration (though not certain); Green, “Acts,” 754, also allows for the possibility. Wall, “Acts,” 213n518, acknowledges the possibility but also thinks (213, 217) that this is an Aramaic name for Peter (so that Wall may make the connection with Luke 2 on the level of Luke’s audience). More surprising is the allusion to the third-century b.c.e. priest Simeon the Just, via Sirach (Read-Heimerdinger, “Simeon”); this Simeon is blended with others in rabbinic sources (Amitay, “Shim‘on”). 374. Who might represent the at least putative source of Luke’s infancy traditions; cf. Acts 21:18, in the “we” narrative, though Luke has no private interview with James there.

2245

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 93

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

such as Paul to lay out the theological groundwork. But the text in Acts 15:15–18 is not Pauline or interpreted in a typically Pauline way, and it is not unlikely that if Luke had access to the substance of the events that transpired at the council, he would be aware of a clinching Scripture text.375 At the least, Luke, who spent time in Jerusalem during James’s tenure (though he may have met him only briefly, 21:18), would know a text that James and the leaders of the Jerusalem church used to justify God’s activity among the Gentiles through Christian missionaries. This was an issue the Jerusalem church could not well have avoided (Gal 5:11; 6:12), and they would have undoubtedly appealed to Scripture in their arguments.376 i. James’s Words

For “it has been written” (Acts 15:15), see comment on Acts 1:20. In rhetorical terms, citation of an authority was an “inartificial proof.” Scripture here foretells the existence of a church including Gentiles, so that the promise theme of Luke-Acts legitimates not only Jesus’s coming but also the Gentile mission, and in the mouth of James the Lord’s brother in Jerusalem no less.377 “The prophets” here refers to the book of the Twelve Prophets (as in 7:42; 13:40),378 though Luke also uses the term in global citations of themes. It is possible that Luke’s source (unless the midrashic conflation is his own) also intends something of a global citation here; some scholars argue that other texts are linked by means of similar wording.379 Some find allusions here to Hos 3:5; Jer 12:15; Isa 45:21;380 one scholar even finds an allusion to Deut 4:29–35.381 “From of old” (Acts 15:18; cf. the global citation in Luke 1:70) may allude to Isa 45:21, as many think.382 Other texts mention “of old” (e.g., Isa 46:9; 63:16; esp. 64:3); the lxx idiom is so common that it may simply be an idiomatic way of saying that God had revealed these matters far in advance.383 But “revealed from of old,” referring to God revealing his mind far in advance, probably specifically echoes Isaiah. The lxx of Amos 9:11 has αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος (omitted in James’s quote), which may have served as a basis for an implicit midrashic connection (or unconscious mnemonic link) here. The other proposed allusions are, however, more likely on the level of anticipated midrashic exposition than in the Amos quotation itself that Luke preserves for us, 375. Historians had some freedom to fill in a scene if their hard information was limited. Yet if not from Paul, then from Judeans Luke spoke with during his Judean visit, Luke should have heard some details about this dramatic decision of the church. 376. That the more conservative Jerusalem church, like its culture, would have valued Scripture no less than did Paul should go without saying (cf. Acts 21:20; Gal 2:9, 12). 377. Cf. Jervell, Theology, 74–75; Howard, Amos, 118. Braun, “Use of Amos,” 121, thinks that “James preserves Amos’s dichotomy” between Jews and Gentiles while inviting Gentiles into fellowship. 378. Bruce, Acts1, 297. (The Twelve came to be called the Minor Prophets only later, in Latin patristic sources; see Sweeney, “Twelve,” 788; Schart, “Twelve,” 806.) Others prefer a reference to “Davidic covenant narratives” in Samuel and Chronicles (Glenny, “Septuagint,” 20). 379. On gezerah shevah, see Longenecker, Exegesis, 34; Keener, John, 305, 1184. 380. Bauckham, “James,” 453–54; see Glenny, “Septuagint,” 21–22, on Jer 12:16 and lxx Zech 2:14–15 (noting Bauckham). These allusions would fit the later reference to Lev 17–18 that many find behind the apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29). 381. See van de Sandt, “Acts 15.6–21” (who finds various echoes to Deut 4 throughout the backdrop of Acts 15). This passage (esp. Deut 4:29–30) might well be called on in midrashic exposition of Amos 9:11–12 lxx, for “seeking” the Lord; if it is specifically echoed, however, this is more due to the lxx translators of Amos than to Luke. But Meek, Mission, 93, reasonably questions whether clear evidence for any conflation appears in James’s Amos quotation. 382. E.g., Moessner, “Script,” 241–42; Fitzmyer, Acts, 555. 383. The lxx phrase ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος (often with an article) is common (e.g., Gen 6:4; 1 Chr 16:36; 29:10; Neh 9:5; Pss 24:6; 40:14; 89:2; 92:2; 102:17; 105:48; Jer 2:20; 25:5; 35:8; Joel 2:2; Dan 8:11; Tob 4:12; 6:18; Sir 14:17; 39:20; 44:2; 51:8; 3 Macc 5:11; cf. Pss 54:20; 73:12).

2246

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 94

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

which does not depart significantly from Amos. Jeremiah 12:16 speaks of God’s building Gentiles into the midst of his people; the language is close enough to have invited midrashic consideration, but specific evidence for the connection in James’s wording is more difficult to produce. Israel’s restoration “afterward” could allude to other texts as well (e.g., Joel 2:28); Hos 3:5 is closer in this regard. Μετὰ ταῦτα (Acts 15:16) is an extremely common phrase (nearly one hundred times in the lxx, and more than twenty in the nt, including seven in Luke-Acts)384 and is not even an exact match with Jer 12:15–16. Although hard evidence for these allusions in the text is missing, first-century interpreters would have appealed to all these analogous texts (or as many as the interpreter remembered) in explaining the meaning of the quoted text. Luke himself is likely amenable to the notion of Israel’s eventual repentance and restoration implied in the conclusion of Amos and in other passages (see comment on Acts 1:6–7; 3:21). ii. Use of the Septuagint

Would James quote the lxx? Some doubt the possibility and regard the quotation as inauthentic.385 Certainly Luke condenses or fills out speech reports in his own words, and it was the lxx that Luke would have quoted, because this was the version known to himself and his audience. If the summary of this speech was provided, in writing or orally, as supporting documentation for the decree to the churches of urban Syria and Cilicia, James’s speech would be reported to them in Greek.386 This is not “we” material and may reflect Paul’s or the Gentile churches’ summary of a report.387 At the same time, it is far more plausible that James himself would likewise have employed the lxx than scholarship has traditionally allowed. The issue is one involving the Diaspora, and the arguments would need to make sense for a Diaspora audience, especially if circulated along with the letter, which was certainly in Greek (Acts 15:23–29). Even though the Jerusalem church lost most of its Hellenists in 8:1 and 11:19–20 and we cannot know if it regained many of them,388 life in Jerusalem would have demanded significant use of Greek;389 although in rural Galilee most Jews used Aramaic as a first language,390 most were likely bilingual, using Greek as a larger trade language.391 Members of the Antioch contingent such as Titus, if present at this point, 384. As a chronological structuring device, see, e.g., Judg 1:9; 16:4; 2 Sam 3:28; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18; 1 Chr 20:4; 2 Chr 20:1; 1 Esd 1:14; 5:1, 51; Tob 10:14; 1 Macc 1:5; 11:54; 13:20; 14:24; Let. Aris. 179; Xen. Anab. 6.4.12; cf. 1 En. 89:30; Jos. Life 427. 385. Haenchen, Acts, 448. 386. Some letters to the Diaspora might be in Hebrew (Le Cornu, Acts, 465, based on quotations in rabbinic literature; but this simply means that the quotations are Tannaitic; Rost, Judaism, 81, suggests that the correspondence in 2 Macc 1:1–2:18 was, if authentic, originally in Hebrew), but this would not be usual, certainly not to Gentiles (1 Macc 12:5) or to mixed congregations. The alliteration of an- sounds (helpfully noted in Parsons, Acts, 214) already appears in the lxx. 387. That Luke uses Amos quotations that appear in the Damascus Document (CD) must be more than coincidence; this probably reflects early Jewish tradition, though Luke himself works from the lxx and not a Hebrew Vorlage (Steyn, “Vorlage of Quotations,” 78–79). Luke could then change these readings on the basis of his knowledge of lxx terminology (79–80). But James could know the interpretive tradition without quoting the Hebrew. 388. Some have offered arguments for the pre-war replenishment of the Hellenist community (Mosser, “City,” 172–76). 389. Interaction with Pharisees probably would have demanded at least some Greek as well, though they were not usually as wealthy and do not appear as hellenized as the Sadducean aristocracy. Even if none of the scattered Hellenists of Acts 8:1 returned, others would have been converted, since non-Christian Hellenists did not leave Jerusalem; and even in 8:1, it is probable that not all those scattered were Hellenists. 390. See Horsley, Galilee, 247–49, for Jesus’s Lower Galilee; this was probably even more the case in Upper Galilee (cf. Meyers, “Judaism and Christianity,” 74). 391. On bilingualism in Palestine, cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:255–68; comment on Acts 6:1.

2247

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 95

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

probably would be able to listen only in Greek,392 and I have elsewhere argued that speeches to mixed crowds in Jerusalem may have been commonly in Greek.393 (When Paul preaches in a Semitic tongue, it is noteworthy enough to require mention and is undertaken to emphasize his solidarity with his nationalistic hearers [Acts 22:2–3, 12].)394 James would have known Greek, even if it was not his first language, and was in a position to have improved his command of the language in a Jerusalem setting where Greek may have been the common language of the church, at least for a time. Certainly his use of Greek would not have surprised early Christians despite their knowledge of his role in the Jerusalem church; the letter attributed to him displays, in fact, a high quality of Greek (higher than that attributed to him here).395 (One might expect this for a circular letter sent to many Jewish believers in the Diaspora [ Jas 1:1].)396 Ancient auditors who knew that James was from Palestine (cf. Gal 1:19; Mark 6:3) apparently expressed no qualms about this situation. Further, Palestinian Jewish interpreters regularly practiced text criticism based on the readings useful to their points; this is true at Qumran as in the rabbis.397 Some also find elements of exegesis of the Hebrew text alongside that of the Septuagint behind Luke’s description.398 iii. The Sense in Amos

Before examining the sense in Amos, it may be valuable to establish whether scholars may use the rest of Amos to interpret this passage, which many interpreters find too optimistic for the rest of the work. (For both Luke’s narrative and his real audiences, however, the point would be moot: they accepted the unity of Amos.) A few scholars reject the authenticity even of Amos 9:8b–10.399 Yet 9:7–10, as a whole, clearly repeats much of the message of the book, undercutting the theology of “national privilege” as in 1:3–2:6; 3:2; 6:2,400 in accordance with Deuteronomic tradition.401 The rhetorical question picks up where 3:1 left off.402 Amos 9:7 is connected with 1:3–8,403 especially “Kir” in 1:5 (9:7d). Amos 9:8 also relates to the preceding context,404 as does 9:9.405 392. Witherington, Acts, 457; Bock, Acts, 491 (noting that James’s use of Greek would have offered a conciliatory gesture consistent with the speech’s content); Blaiklock, Acts, 117. 393. Keener, Acts, 1:865; 2:1256–57; cf. idem, Matthew, 502–3. 394. That speech may also deliberately exclude his Greek-speaking accusers from Ephesus. 395. Cf. Davids, James, 10. Deriving from an artisan household (Matt 13:55), leading the church in urban Jerusalem for perhaps two decades after Acts 12:17 (nearly one decade before the putative date of this scene; for acquiring Greek, cf., e.g., Josephus in Rajak, Josephus, 46–64), and having access to the secretarial assistance such a role would provide him could account for the level of Greek (cf. Davids, James, 10–13, though he ultimately sees a redactional layer as well; cf. also deSilva, Teachers, 47–49). 396. Cf. Sevenster, Greek, 191: Josephus shows that those who desired to improve their written Greek or needed help for literary composition could acquire it. Sevenster adds that this would surely apply to prominent leaders in a major Jewish movement in contact with the Diaspora. Some Palestinian contributions to the Pseudepigrapha that were composed in excellent Greek, and Bar Kokhba’s letters in Greek as well as Hebrew or Aramaic, refute the idea that Palestinian Jews would not use Greek (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and New Testament, 86). 397. Here, Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 161; idem, “James,” 455–56. 398. See, e.g., Glenny, “Septuagint,” 23, and discussion below. 399. McKeating, Amos, 70. 400. Cf. Ellison, Mystery, 44. 401. Deut 2:5, 12, 22–23; cf. 7:7–8; 9:4–5; 26:5; similarly, 2 Chr 6:32–33. 402. Cf. Cripps, Amos, 263. “Families of the earth” in Amos 3:2 probably plays on responsibility to the nations in Gen 12:3. 403. Coote, Amos, 120 (attributing Amos 9:7 to his “C stage” of redaction). 404. God’s “eyes” were against them (Amos 9:3–4, 8); the “face of the earth” may recall God’s sovereignty over earth in 9:6. 405. The pi’el participle for commanding judgment in Amos 9:9 alludes to God’s commands of judgment in 9:3–4 (employing a different form of the same verb). The “shaking” might also recall the earthquake of 9:1, 5 but probably is confined to the image of the sieve.

2248

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 96

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Thus it is 9:11–15 that is most often considered to be secondary redaction.406 Some complain that these verses are “wholly devoid of moral earnestness” because they do not demand repentance;407 others describe them as a redactional appeal to repentance in line with Deuteronomic theology.408 Yet hope for a remnant’s restoration is no more incompatible with hyperbolic warnings of annihilation here than in other prophets.409 Some regard the text as authentic with amplification410 or as an addition by Amos himself after prophesying in the north;411 others accept it as an integral part of Amos as originally composed.412 More recent commentators, skeptical of traditional redaction-critical speculations, accept the passage as original more often than it was accepted in the past.413 This passage does indeed relate to the rest of the book. In 9:11, “walling up” the breaches answers the judgment of 4:3; “building” or “rebuilding”414 the house may recall YHWH building in 9:6. “Overtake” in 9:13 contrasts with the overtaking of judgment in 9:10; the melting of the hills in 9:13 likewise contrasts with YHWH melting lands in judgment in 9:5.415 The restoration from captivity in 9:14 reverses the captivity of 9:4.416 Nor is the promise of hope completely new, even in this context (see esp. 9:8c), unless one makes its prior occurrences likewise redactional (as many are willing to do).417 Amos admittedly has an “anti-remnant” tradition, seeking to undermine Israel’s religious complacency and false sense of security.418 Some texts in Amos that some scholars have suggested as supporting Israel’s restoration do not likely offer as much support as advocates hope; thus 3:12 simply follows ancient legal conventions;419 the case for 4:4–13 as a liturgy of covenant renewal420 is weak;421 the allegedly “confident prayer” of 7:1–5422 seems, in fact, to decline in confidence 406. E.g., Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 49; Coote, Amos, 122; Ringgren, Religion, 10, 266; cf. Edghill, Amos, 93; Harper, Amos, 198. Sandmel, Scriptures, 55–56, concedes that the claim for redaction is subjective, yet doubts that the same prophet “could reasonably have uttered both statements.” For a survey of redactional approaches to Amos and their critics, see Möller, “Amos,” 10–13. 407. Ward, Amos, 87–88. 408. Clements, Prophecy, 44. 409. E.g., 2 Chr 34:24–25 with 36:21; and Hos 9:16–17; 10:7–8, 14–15 with Hos 2:14–23; 14:4–7; also Jer 16:13–15; cf. 2 Kgs 21:13; 24:20 with 25:27–30; among eighth-century prophets who include hope with judgment, McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 354–55, cite Isa 3:1–4:1 with 4:2–6; 8:16–22 with 9:1–7; Mic 2:1–11 with 2:12–13; 5:1 with 5:2–4; later Lam 3. For compatibility, see, e.g., Veldkamp, Farmer, 231. As in other prophets, God’s wrath is “redemptive,” not simply “vindictive” (Francisco, “Amos,” 425). 410. Soggin, Introduction, 244. 411. Ellison, Prophets, 70. 412. Schedl, History, 167; Harrison, Introduction, 892. 413. For a list of more recent scholars favoring authenticity, see, e.g., Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, 411–12; and esp. Hasel, Amos, 116–20 (cited in Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, 411). 414. It also connects with the people’s rebuilding their cities, as a sign of restoration (Amos 9:14); in other texts, God promised to “build” his people (see comment on Acts 9:31). 415. The “mountains” of Amos 9:13 might, but need not, evoke God’s sovereignty over the mountains in 9:3. 416. The positive use of “my people” in Amos 9:14 also contrasts with the negative use in 9:10; their positive “dwelling” in the cities may contrast with the mournful “dwelling” of 9:5, again with a reversal of conditions. 417. Sandmel, Scriptures, 56, doubts that the prophet would retract his statement later in the same verse. The differentiation appears highly subjective to me, since most other prophets include both judgment and hope, though Amos focuses more on the former (cf. most obviously Jer 46:28, again in successive lines). 418. Hasel, Remnant, 393; Craghan, “Amos,” 260. 419. Hasel, Remnant, 180–81; Lewis, Prophets, 20. 420. Bruggemann, “Amos IV 4–13.” 421. For examples of different positions, cf. Ramsey, “Amos 4 12,” 191; Youngblood, “Amos 4:12.” Even Amos 4:11 refers only to a supposed remnant already left before the judgment to come. 422. Bruggemann, “Intercessory Formula”; Williams, “Theology of Amos,” 401.

2249

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 97

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

gradually in 7:6–9.423 By contrast, however, 5:4–6 and 14–15 do appear to support the possibility of a remnant424 and are woven inseparably into the fabric of the book as an integral part of a third judgment oracle. If these lines are authentic, there is no reason to dismiss 9:8c or 9:11–15.425 James’s exegesis concerning the nations could derive some support from the context. The mention of Ethiopians in 9:7 may be due to their distance,426 and that of the Philistines and Aram due to their proximity and rivalry.427 “Caphtor” likely refers to Crete or at least to an Aegean area once under Minoan influence,428 the “Sea Peoples” of Egyptian texts. That YHWH is God of all nations and of all history was a possible logical corollary of monotheism.429 A logical conclusion to the rejection of national privilege (9:7), however, is judgment (9:8). Whether the sieve of 9:9 involves destruction or a remnant’s salvation depends on the sieve’s function: either solid grains are being kept back to be preserved (the remnant of 9:8c)430 or pebbles are kept back to be destroyed, with no explicit mention of a remnant.431 Because the term can mean “pebble” but does not clearly mean “solid grain” in its other extant instances, the destruction interpretation is likelier: not a pebble will escape. Thus 9:9 probably repeats the thought of 9:8b while 9:8c is repeated and expanded in 9:11–15. Some scholars object that the fallen house of David requires the prophecy to be late,432 but this conclusion is not necessary, since Amos’s contemporary Isaiah offers a similar image of David’s household’s restoration (Isa 11:1).433 The term for “tabernacle” or “hut” here denotes a rude structure such as the temporary shelters at the Feast of Sukkoth.434 But how has David’s mighty “house” become a tent? Some suggest a reference to the location Succot, where David won victories;435 others, a “counterfeit” feast of Jeroboam I;436 still others, Jerusalem.437 One could use the Feast of Tabernacles to imply a new exodus with David as a new Moses (cf. Neh 8:14; Zech 14:16–19), but this is not the most adequate reading of the text. The term probably 423. Jeremiah later learned not to even begin praying for God to withhold judgment ( Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; cf. 29:7), though Jeremiah’s oracles contained hope as well as judgment. 424. Williams, “Theology of Amos,” 402; Hasel, Remnant, 393; McComiskey and Longman, “Amos,” 354–55, 417; on Amos 5:15, see Asen, “Amos’ Faith,” 69–70. Cf. Rad, Theology, 2:138. In Amos 4:6–11, God sent judgments to turn Israel’s people (i.e., God desires their repentance), and in 5:14, God invites them to repent and be spared (the possibility may be more tentative in 5:15). Amos himself wished judgment to be avoided (7:1–6), albeit unsuccessfully (7:7–9). 425. Whether or not Amos would have personally given the latter the climactic location in the book, the book’s careful arrangement helps explain why the brief message of hope appears where it does. 426. McKeating, Amos, 67; Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 49; Cripps, Amos, 263; but cf. differently Crenshaw, Affirmation, 136. 427. With Crenshaw, Affirmation, 136–37. 428. McKeating, Amos, 67; Harper, Amos, 192. 429. Cf. Sandmel, Scriptures, 67; Rom 3:29–30. 430. Driver, Amos, 221; Harper, Amos, 197. 431. Mays, Amos, 161–62; Cripps, Amos, 266–67; Waard and Smalley, Handbook, 182; Snaith, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 50 (going too far in making Judah the new Israel). 432. McKeating, Amos, 70, dates it to the time of Zerubbabel. 433. Ellison, Prophets, 93, shows that the concepts are less developed than even in Isaiah (e.g., Isa 11:1). Even in a dating to Josiah’s reign, Deuteronomy’s emphasis on the covenant and grace allows a return from exile (Deut 4:30–31); one might delete as redactional all preexilic promises of restoration (including in Jeremiah), but this is a highly subjective approach. 434. Driver, Amos, 221–22; Cripps, Amos, 270–71. 435. Richardson, “SKT.” 436. Mentioned in Motyer, Lion, 202. 437. Wolff, Amos, 353. Cf. “breaches,” “ruins”; but this view necessarily presupposes a later date.

2250

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 98

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

emphasizes the dilapidated state of the house438 and refers to the house of David, celebrated in the Jerusalem temple cult.439 Even if “hut” did not portray the house as dilapidated, the participle ‫ הנפלת‬nevertheless would leave no question that it was. The question, however, is the time of dilapidation.440 Some scholars suggest that the falling occurred (at least insofar as the northern kingdom was concerned) when the kingdoms were divided,441 but the participial form could suggest a characteristic state or the present time,442 hence threatening a tottering hut’s impending fall. This could refer to the kingdom’s division, but because we lack contextual specification, this is probably too narrow a reading; the participle probably refers, rather, to the entire state of deterioration of the once-great Davidic empire (as in “days of old,” Amos 9:11d),443 perhaps because most kings did not walk in the way of David (cf. 1 Kgs 11:33; 15:3; 2 Kgs 16:2). Thus the fullness of the Davidic promise of 2 Sam 7:12–16,444 celebrated in Judah’s cult, had been deferred to a future restoration. “In that day” often characterizes the impending day of God’s reckoning (e.g., Amos 2:16; Mic 4:6), but here it connects the restoration with the preceding time of judgment. The “raising”445 of the house contrasts with its present fallenness; “walling up” the breaches446 answers the judgment of Amos 4:3.447 The result448 of this restoration of David’s kingdom in Amos 9:11 follows in 9:12. The closest Israel had ever come to the promised boundaries of Gen 15:18 was under David (2 Sam 8:1–3, 10);449 although Edom was originally denied to Israel’s territory (Deut 2:5), David subdued it (1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:14; 1 Kgs 11:15–16), as did a later king (2 Kgs 14:7). After this time, Edom tended to revolt under problematic kings (1 Kgs 11:14; 2 Kgs 8:20, 22; 2 Chr 21:10). Edom thus provides a suitable leading representative for the nations being subdued under the restored Davidic 438. Cf. Isa 1:8; Jonah 4:5; in the festival, Lev 23:34, 42–43; Deut 16:13, 16; 31:10; 2 Chr 8:13; Ezra 3:4; Neh 8:14–17; Zech 14:16, 18, 19; in war, 2 Sam 11:11; 1 Kgs 20:12, 16. As in the festival, it remained compatible with restoration imagery (as in Isa 4:6). Amos 5:26 is not relevant without emendation; if it were pressed into service, we would probably expect the new-exodus motif to overshadow dilapidation in 9:11. 439. Cripps, Amos, 270–71; Driver, Amos, 222; Veldkamp, Farmer, 233; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101; Ellis, Message, 301; Lewis, Prophets, 22; Feinberg, Prophets, 123; Calvin, Prophets, 2:404; Henderson, Prophets, 181; Tanner, “Quotation,” 67–68. Cf. Mauchline, “Persistent Belief,” 290, suggesting a royal “canopy” or “pavilion,” hence the Davidic house. In view of 2 Sam 7 and Ps 89, presumably both the Davidic dynasty and the Davidic empire are implicit in the “house,” and this is a more seminal form of the idea in Isa 11:1. 440. The term appears in the qal in Amos 3:5, 14; 5:2; 7:17; 8:14; and 9:9, none participial; it usually signifies judgment. 441. Bailey, Prophets, 125; cf. Hasel, Remnant, 211. 442. Laetsch, Prophets, 190 (on the characteristic state); Hasel, Remnant, 208n301; LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Survey, 250; Kaiser, Theology, 195; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101. 443. Mays, Amos, 164, notes that mention of the “days of old” often prefigures the time of salvation (Pss 77:5; 143:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9, 11; Lam 1:7; 5:21; Mic 7:14, 20; Mal 3:4). 444. The passage plays on various senses of David’s “house” (2 Sam 7:5, 7, 13, 27). 445. The verb appears in the qal in Amos 5:2; 7:2, 5; 8:14; in the hiph’il in 2:11; (participial) 5:2; 6:14. Some of these texts (5:2; 8:14) sound like irrevocable judgment, in contrast with the present passage, but 2:11 and 6:14 are closer to the usage in 9:11. 446. Cf. Cripps, Amos, 271. Kaiser, Theology, 195; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 101, connects the feminine plural suffix “their” with the two houses of Israel; it could, however, imply “cities” or other Greek feminine nouns. The rebuilding of “her” refers to the fallen booth; the raising of “his” ruins probably alludes to David himself. 447. Isa 58:12 may allude to this statement. 448. Based on ‫למען‬, “so that, in order that,” with the imperfect, in Amos 9:12 (cf. also Driver, Amos, 222). 449. Kitchen, World, 94, suggests that even Toi became David’s subject, since unreciprocated gifts are tribute (Bright, History, 204n45, views this as probable but uncertain; cf. Gordon, Near East, 178; Aharoni, Archaeology, 192).

2251

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 99

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

kingdom.450 God would possess the nations (Ps 82:8), but Edom in particular was promised (Num 24:18;451 Isa 11:13–14;452 Obad 17). Edom was not the only nation but the primary example, one nation among many.453 Does Amos refer only to the nations’ subjugation in Amos 9:12 or also to their blessing? Depending on how literally one presses the text, it could even suggest that just as annihilation is not Israel’s ultimate fate, neither is it the ultimate fate of the other nations,454 which also face the Assyrian incursion. One dare not press too far the details in a general picture of restoration, but Amos’s opening oracles against the nations455 (1:3–2:5) must be balanced against his concluding with Israel (2:6–8); he rails against Israelite privilege (3:2; 9:7) and declares that God has shown providence toward other nations, such as Nubia, Crete, and Aram (9:7). The phrase “over whom my name is called” is an ot idiom denoting ownership; although it may be used of conquest, it is not used only of conquest and is applicable to God’s people.456 Some scholars think that those over whom the name is called are merely subjugated,457 but it is also possible that the nations are identified as God’s property in a manner similar to Israel, to whom the expression is also applied.458 On the latter view, Edom could thus share in the covenant promise459 and be incorporated into God’s eschatological people,460 just as Amos’s contemporary Isaiah said that Egypt (Isa 19:18–25, esp. 19:24–25) and Assyria would be (19:23–25).461 Hasel even suggests that Edom’s inclusion “emphasizes further that the eschatological remnant is largely an entity of religious instead of national destination.”462 Amos could not have envisioned or approved of some theological alternatives proposed by subsequent Christian interpreters, such as the replacement of Israel with Gentile Christians or the coexistence of two ethnically distinct “peoples of God”; rather, he looked for the restoration of the Israelite people he recognized, but he welcomed some Gentiles 450. Some believe that Edom is singled out because of animosity toward Judah in 586 b.c.e. (Cripps, Amos, 273), but the conflict goes back much further than this (cf. Mauchline, “Persistent Belief,” 291–92; esp. Hasel, Remnant, 212). 451. Kaiser, Theology, 196–97, argues that this text provides the present verb’s main background. 452. This text may imply that when Judah and Israel are reunited, they will possess Edom; Isaiah might be clarifying Amos’s prophecy. 453. Kaiser, Theology, 196; idem, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103, suggests that the connective is epexegetical, since Edom is a representative example of “the nations.” 454. Cf. Lempp, “Nations,” 26. 455. A common practice in the ancient world (cf., e.g., Craghan, “Mari,” 48; Hayes, “Oracles”; 1 Kgs 22:12). For international codes of conduct, see Barton, Oracles, 51–61. 456. See Driver, Amos, 223; Cripps, Amos, 273; Kaiser, Theology, 196; Motyer, Lion, 204 (Motyer embraces the nuance of conquest as well); Tanner, “Quotation,” 69–70 (helpfully highlighting Deut 28:9–10; Isa 63:19). Such language applies to conquest in 2 Sam 12:28 (where it is used for the honor of the conqueror); but it applies to ownership of Israel in obedience (Deut 28:10; cf. Isa 63:19; more distantly, 43:1; 49:1) or disobedience ( Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19), of the temple (1 Kgs 8:43; 2 Chr 6:33; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; 32:34; 34:15), of Jerusalem (cf. Deut 12:5, 11; 14:23–24; Jer 25:29; Dan 9:18–19), and of God’s special prophet ( Jer 15:16). 457. Harper, Amos, 198; Edghill, Amos, 93; Cripps, Amos, 273 (noting ownership and suggesting that this occurs here by conquest). 458. Laetsch, Prophets, 192; cf. Lempp, “Nations,” 24–25, 31. See references to the expression above. 459. Hasel, Remnant, 212. 460. Motyer, Lion, 202; Kaiser, “Inclusion of Gentiles,” 103. 461. Later, cf. Zech 2:11; 9:7; cf. Zeph 3:8–9; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 9:27. Although this is not the most common picture of Gentiles in Israel’s future, it is one option, and Amos’s apparent knowledge of the Abrahamic promise of blessing for the families of the earth (Gen 12:3; Amos 3:2; cf. later Zech 14:17) could stand theologically behind Amos 9:12. 462. Hasel, Remnant, 393. His case seems strong, but would Israel (or other nations) at the time have understood a difference? The nations’ being owned by God could indicate the reciprocation of a prior act (cf. Zech 3:9; Joel 2:32 [3:5 mt]), but probably “call” and “name” are expressions of God’s sovereignty (Amos 9:6) in his purpose in history.

2252

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 100

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

to be incorporated into that people in some sense.463 At the very least, this line of interpretation’s plausibility to some modern scholars suggests that we should not dismiss the basic point of James’s exegesis as necessarily contextually uninformed. The passage goes on in Amos 9:13–15 to expound Israel’s blessings in material terms, reflecting the fertility that God’s covenant promised an obedient people.464 Whether the emphasis in 9:13b is directly abundance465 or speed of growth,466 the ultimate point is abundance and the removal of the curse. Mountains467 flowing with grape juice repeats the image of treading grapes in the preceding line. The mountains melt not in judgment here (as in 9:5) but in the flowing of prosperity.468 The repetition of vineyards in 9:14 reinforces the point. Many favor the translation “restore the fortunes” in 9:14,469 but the rendering “turn back the captivity” has in its favor the fact that in almost470 every instance, this more specific phrase makes equally good sense.471 The sense is much the same in either case; God reverses the captivity of 9:4. In 9:11, YHWH would rebuild; here the people of Israel join this work of restoration, rebuilding Israel’s ruined cities.472 Their positive “dwelling” in the cities may contrast with the mournful “dwelling” of 9:5, again with a reversal of conditions. That they would “plant” vineyards joins them to YHWH’s work of restoration (9:13), just as their building does (9:11).473 Amos goes on to indicate that YHWH not only blesses their planting but “plants” them on their land and prevents them from being “uprooted” (9:15).474 iv. James’s Interpretation

Certainly, James’s choice of text justifying an eschatological perspective is plausible enough in Judea; the Amos quotations used by James here and by Stephen in 463. The closest model available was probably that of earlier Gentiles who had joined the covenant in the ot; by Paul’s day, the equivalent would be proselytes, probably the background for his argument in Rom 11 (cf. Donaldson, “Riches”). 464. Mays, Amos, 168, parallels Lev 26:5. This would also be a reversal of the judgments that Amos had prophesied (Marsh, Amos, 74). Ellis, Message, 301, even compares fertility to a restoration of paradise (citing also Hos 2:19–24; 14:5–8; Isa 11:1–9; 54:1–12; 60; 65:17–25; Ezek 47; Joel 3:18; Zech 8:12). The language here may be based on Joel 3:18, or vice versa (Archer, Survey, 292, thinks that Joel 2:32 recalls Amos 9). 465. That is, the harvest in April and May will be so abundant that reaping will not be finished until the October and November rains (McKeating, Amos, 70; cf. Cripps, Amos, 274–75, noting that the context emphasizes abundance rather than speed). 466. That is, the crops will grow more quickly than they can be reaped (Wolff, Amos, 354; Driver, Amos, 224; Harper, Amos, 198). 467. Vineyards being mainly on mountain slopes (Cripps, Amos, 275). 468. The image nevertheless recalls that of YHWH’s royal theophany in enthronement psalms (Pss 96:10; 97:5; cf. 46:6; 75:3), presumably at his promised revelation that Amos already called YHWH’s “day” (Amos 5:18–20). But the parallelism with the above line shows that it refers to fertility and not to an earthquake (contrast 9:1, 5). 469. Waard and Smalley, Handbook, 187. 470. The most notable exception, Job 42:10, would not be an exception if Job addresses the disappointment of exiles returning from Babylon yet awaiting divine vindication (cf. Ps 126:4). 471. Cf., e.g., Pss 14:7; 53:6; Isa 52:8; Dan 9:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:1; Nah 2:2; Zeph 2:7 (with Harper, Amos, 199). 472. Harper, Amos, 199, thinks that this sounds postexilic, but the returned exiles’ hopes were frustrated, not fulfilled (Hag 2:3). Most of the supposed postexilic parallels that he cites can be preexilic just as easily, and late-dating them all by comparing them with one another is circular reasoning. 473. Productive vineyards reverse the prior curses (Amos 4:9; 5:11). Marsh, Amos, 73, sees a reference to 5:11 and 8:1–3, although he doubts that 9:14 was written by Amos. Mays, Amos, 168, envisions a reversal of Deut 28:30–31, 38–40 (esp. 28:30, 39); cf. Lev 26:16, 33. Drinking from vineyards that they planted and eating from gardens signify success. 474. The prophets and other ancient Israelite literature commonly employ these agricultural metaphors (e.g., Deut 29:29; 1 Kgs 14:15; 2 Chr 7:20; Jer 1:10; 12:15, 17; 18:7).

2253

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 101

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Acts 7:42–43 are among those used in a key Qumran document to define that sect’s own identity.475 Further, James’s quotation may diverge from the traditional lxx reading in favor of the Hebrew at various points; mixed citations were common among those who worked with both languages.476 ( James also makes “the Lord” a clearer object of “seek” than in the lxx, again adapting it more conveniently, as in 2:17–21 and common Jewish practice in this period.) The lxx477 diverges from the mt at various points. The two most notable are when the lxx reads the mt’s yarash as darash (“will possess” as “will seek”) and when it reads the mt’s edom as if it were adam (hence translating, “people”).478 At least the rabbinic movement often used “Edom” as a cipher for Rome,479 whose dominion would end with the Messiah’s coming.480 More important, the lxx apparently reads Amos’s parallelism at this point as identifying edom with “nations,” rather than nations expanding the sample edom.481 Revocalizing words and changing “minor” letters to make a point was standard hermeneutical fare;482 a word with the same letters as adam might even be identified with it in meaning (Gen. Rab. 9:12).483 Contrary to Haenchen’s assertion,484 an expected original Judean use of only the Hebrew text would not contradict the overall argument of James in this text; although “Edom” was only one nation among many, the Hebrew text goes on to speak of nations called by God’s name who are also subjected to David’s house.485 Even though possessing them (as the Hebrew puts it) entails conquest, their being called by God’s name also would suggest conversion for first-century readers.486 That God’s name was invoked over God’s people, city, or house was common ot idiom, contrasting with the Gentiles, who lacked this special designation (Isa 63:19); it applies to “Israel’s covenant status” in many early Jewish texts (e.g., Sir 36:17; 2 Macc 8:15; Bar 2:15; Pss. Sol. 9:9).487 475. E.g., Lewis, Prophets, 22; Stowasser, “Überlegungen”; see comment on Acts 7:42–43. 476. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 159–62. For one comparison between Acts 15:16–18 and the lxx of Amos 9:11–12, see Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 592. 477. Some scholars think that different lxx translators stand behind different parts of the dominant lxx text of Amos (Howard, “Septuagint of Amos,” 112, on Amos 1:1–8:11 vs. 8:12–9:10), but this is open to question (Muraoka, “Separate Unit”). 478. With Witherington, Acts, 459. 479. See comment on Acts 2:16. 480. E.g., Exod. Rab. 1:26; Pesiq. Rab. 13:2; although such texts are late, the idea fits expectations for the Messiah (less emphasized in the generations immediately following Bar Kokhba). For a possible messianic reading of Amos 9:11 in rabbinic literature, see Feinberg, Prophets, 123; for its connection with 2 Sam 7:10b–14 in 4QFlor, see Lindars, Apologetic, 281. 481. Parallelism was a widespread ancient Near Eastern phenomenon, and Ugaritic forms were virtually identical to Hebrew forms (Albright, Yahweh, 4ff.). Rhetorically sensitive Greeks and Romans might also recognize parallelism, through the rhetorical devices synonymia (Rowe, “Style,” 133; but defined differently in Anderson, Glossary, 114) and epimone (Rowe, “Style,” 144–45; but defined differently in Anderson, Glossary, 53); cf. Isoc. Panegyr. 39 (cited in Rowe, “Style,” 137, on a different point); Cic. Prov. cons. 1.2; most excessively, Gorgias (see MacDowell, “Introduction,” 18–19). 482. E.g., Sipre Deut. 357.5.11 (changing “the western sea” to “the last day”). For alterations at Qumran, see, e.g., 1QpHab XII, 1–10; V, 8–12 in Lim, “Orientation.” 483. Thus, although one could argue that the lxx could have “misled” Luke here (so Miller, “Adam”), the frequent ancient use of utility as a text-critical criterion (noted earlier; cf. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 161) would have allowed Luke or a source, even if fully cognizant of the Hebrew text here, to prefer the lxx reading and certainly its contextual universalizing interpretation. 484. Haenchen, Acts, 448. 485. See King, “Amos 9:11–12”; Bauckham, “James,” 457; on compatibility, see also Meek, Mission, 93, 131. See also the preceding context in Amos 9:7. 486. They would not view these alternatives as mutually exclusive; other regions (such as Idumea) had been forcibly converted to Judaism (on Idumeans’ conversion to Jewish customs, cf., e.g., Strabo 16.2.34). 487. Bauckham, “James,” 457; for the ot idiom, he cites as examples Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14; Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19.

2254

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 102

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Others in the first centuries b.c.e. and c.e. applied this text in spiritualizing ways like the lxx.488 This is not to suggest that James quoted the verse in Hebrew and Luke has reproduced it in Greek; although this approach is possible, it is still at least somewhat more likely that its lxx form would have commended it more readily to either James’s or Luke’s use, in view of other relevant texts that could have been selected. As noted above, sages sometimes chose alternative readings based on what fit their purposes. An assembly in urban Jerusalem that may have included Greeks (cf. Gal 2:3) might well be conducted in Greek. If James’s approach portrayed here takes any hermeneutical liberties, it was understood that the goal was the intent, more than the letter, of a text,489 and he was well within the boundaries established for Jewish hermeneutics in his day. Ambiguity in texts was thought to allow for multiple readings, even on matters of accenting or syllable division (Hermog. Issues 41.14–42.4);490 later rabbis are particularly known for this practice.491 Given the range of options accepted in his day, James’s hermeneutic seems fairly closely connected with his text. v. David’s Tent (15:16)

Scholars debate the meaning here of “David’s tent.”492 Scripture often employed the image of “building” (like that of “planting”) for God’s people.493 Whatever else the restoration of David’s “hut” or “tent” means,494 it surely implies the restoration of David’s “house” or dynasty (for the play on different meanings of David’s “house,” see 2 Sam 7:6–7, 11–13, 16), so dilapidated by the captivity that it is here called a hut (cf. shoots from the cut-off “stump” of Jesse, Isa 11:1).495 Luke-Acts affirms the fulfillment of David’s line in Jesus (Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:31; 18:38–39; Acts 2:34; 13:22, 488. Bruce, Peter, 96–97 (CD VII, 15–16; 4QFlor 1 I, 11–13). 489. See, e.g., Hermog. Issues 40.6–19; 60.13–14; 80.10–13; 82.4–5, 13–18; 83.20; 86.4–5; Cohen, Law, 39–42 (citing, e.g., Quint. Inst. 3.6.46); in the rabbis, p. 50. 490. Cf. also the practice of using some laws to question the meaning of others (Hermog. Issues 40.20; 41.1–13). 491. E.g., differentiating parallel lines (m. ʾAb. 4:1; Sipre Deut. 313.1.4; cf. Keener, Matthew, 491); harmonizing, even earlier rabbinic opinions (y. Sukkah 4:6, §1); reading “sons” as either masculine or inclusive, depending on the interpreter’s needs (e.g., y. Ber. 2:2, §5). These later rabbis believed that there was greater meaning in the Torah than was available in the text itself (Levine, “Letters,” on b. Menaḥ. 29b). 492. See Neubrand, Völker, 137–60, for ecclesiological interpretation, and 160–64 for christological interpretation (noting also Jesus’s Davidic kingdom in Luke-Acts, 166–82); for surveys of views, see, e.g., Glenny, “Septuagint,” 16–18 (following Strauss, Messiah). 493. E.g., Ruth 4:11; cf. 4QpPsa III, 16; see comment on Acts 9:31. Ἀνοικοδομέω can apply to building God’s people in the lxx (e.g., Jer 1:10; 24:6). Hebrew texts and those influenced by them often parallel “building” and “planting” as analogous actions (Deut 28:30; Josh 24:13; Eccl 2:4; Isa 5:2; Jer 29:5, 28; 35:7; Amos 5:11; Zeph 1:13; cf. Ps 144:12; 1 Macc 3:56; Philo Virt. 28–29; Rewards 139; Jos. Ant. 4.298), including figuratively for building a people ( Jer 1:10; 18:9; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4; Sir 49:7; 1QS XI, 8) or for God’s people building in prosperity (Isa 65:21–22; Ezek 28:26). Okoronkwo, Compromise, 87, construes the verbs in Acts 15:16 chiastically: return (A); rebuild (B); fallen (C); destroyed (Cʹ); rebuild (Bʹ); and restore (Aʹ; this last is the weakest of the connections). 494. Some argue for an allusion to the resurrection, but this interpretation is highly vulnerable, since Amos 9:11 lxx twice uses Luke’s favorite resurrection term (e.g., Luke 24:7, 46), ἀναστήσω, in the same line, but Luke omits it here (Okoronkwo, Compromise, 183; Gaventa, Acts, 219). On ecclesiocentric readings, see below. 495. For the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty here, see Strauss, Messiah, 180–92; Johnson, Acts, 265; Fitzmyer, Acts, 555; Horton, Acts, 267; Nunnally, Acts, 273; Glenny, “Septuagint.” Luke understands that restoration in terms of Christ, not in terms of a kingdom restored to Israel in this age (Acts 1:6–7; Glenny, “Septuagint,” 24n102). Lightfoot applies it directly to the church (Lightfoot, Acts, the forthcoming commentary shared with me by Ben Witherington III), but James probably thinks more directly of Christ’s rule over his people.

2255

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 103

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

34–36). That David welcomed Gentiles496 may be relevant, but the international dominion of his house (cf. 2 Sam 8:1–14; 1 Kgs 4:21) is probably even more to the point (cf. Pss 2:8; 18:43; 22:27–28; 47:1–3, 8; 72:11, 17; 110:6). The “tent” (σκηνή) of David referred to his household, from which a ruler would arise (Isa 16:5 lxx). Other sources also support this reading of the restoration of Davidic rule. Qumran’s 4QFlorilegium, not surprisingly, employs Amos 9:11 in commentary on 2 Sam 7:10–14.497 The Damascus Document’s interpretation may presuppose this as well if the Florilegium may inform our reading of it. When rebels died by the sword (CD VII, 13, rec. A), the righteous escaped as Amos 5:26–27 predicted (CD VII, 13–14). The “tabernacle of the king” in Amos 9:11 is the “books of the law” (VII, 15–16); this suggests the eschatological interpreter mentioned elsewhere.498 Second Samuel 7:11–14 applies to the shoot of David (4Q174 1 I, 10–11), who would arise with the eschatological Interpreter par excellence (1 I, 11–12), when God would raise up David’s fallen branch (1 I, 12–13).499 Later rabbis and the Targum on Amos apply the promise to the restoration of David’s royal line and rule.500 Is it possible that the restored “tabernacle” of David refers also to the destroyed temple, demoted again, by virtue of its destruction, to its original form as a “tabernacle”? In this case it would refer to the familiar image of the eschatological temple. 501 Tobit apparently speaks of the temple’s restoration with such tabernacle language (Tob 13:11).502 More important, it is restored so that people may “seek the Lord” (Acts 15:17), language that could be suitable for worship in a holy place (e.g., Zech 8:21–22; cf. Exod 33:7)—though by no means limited to it (e.g., Deut 4:27–29; Ps 119:45, 94; Isa 9:13; 1 Macc 14:14). But the attachment of the promise to David offers problems for the temple view, though they are not insurmountable. Certainly David was involved in restoring the tabernacle (the ark was dislocated in Eli’s time, 2 Sam 6:17; 11:11; 1 Chr 15:1; 16:1; 2 Chr 1:4); David also established prophetic worship in God’s house (1 Chr 25:1–3). The only other relevant reference to the σκηνή in Luke-Acts concerns the idolatrously abused tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:43–44). But Luke explicitly recognizes that David did not build the temple (7:46–47), weakening this interpretation somewhat. Bauckham argues that God’s people as an eschatological temple is not an explicit Lukan emphasis and hence must be pre-Lukan.503 This image is certainly pre-Lukan 496. Cherethites in 2 Sam 8:18; 15:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kgs 1:38, 44; 1 Chr 18:17. These were Philistines (Ezek 25:16; Zeph 2:5). 497. 4QFlor 1 I, 10–13. See, e.g., Lindars, Apologetic, 281; Parker, “Apokatastasis,” 88; Marshall, “Acts,” 591; cf. Pixner, “Zion,” 322; but Fitzmyer, Acts, 556, emphasizes the contrast with Luke. The Talmud also applies it to the Messiah (b. Sanh. 96b; Scharlemann, Stephen, 157); cf. Gen. Rab. 88:7; eschatological hope answering the harsher verdict of Amos 5:2 in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:8. 498. On Luke’s use of the same Amos quotes as appear in the Damascus Document (CD), see the discussion of Steyn, “Vorlage of Quotations,” above. 499. Stowasser, “Überlegungen,” suggests a similar text form between Acts 15:16–18 and CD VII, 16; 4Q174 1 I, 12. 500. Marshall, “Acts,” 591 (following Evans, “Prophecy and Polemic,” 207–8); Tg. Amos 9:11 in Miura, David, 194. 501. Bauckham, “James,” 453–54; cf. Blaiklock, Acts, 117; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 183–84; discussion in Neubrand, Völker, 144–55; see comment on Acts 2:46. Marshall, “Acts,” 593, seems to follow Bauckham in applying the prophecy to the restored temple, which, for Luke, is the Christian community; yet he applies it (592), perhaps inconsistently, to restoration of David’s house. For important objections to seeing the temple here, see Miura, David, 191–94. 502. Schnabel, Acts, 639. The NRSV labels it Tob 13:10. 503. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 181–82. Idem, “James,” 457, also argues that “pillar” in Gal 2:9 shows that the Jerusalem church recognized the church as an eschatological temple (cf. 442–49; Bruce, Apostle, 153; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 545). “Pillar,” however, was a more common metaphor for influential

2256

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 104

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

(it is attested in the Qumran scrolls),504 but it is not necessarily non-Lukan; there are possible Lukan hints of this idea.505 I am not inclined to see an allusion to the temple here, but if there is one (and I do not rule it out), we should note its clear contrast with some other visions of the end-time temple. In the Qumran scrolls, the eschatological temple included no Gentiles (4Q174 1 I, 2–7, esp. 2–4).506 vi. Turning of Gentiles (15:17)

The turning of Gentiles comes after the raising of David’s house. The raising of David’s house implies the restoration of Israel; Jewish Christians would hardly read the text as claiming that the Messiah would rule the Gentiles instead of his people. The Messiah’s rule implies a restoration of the kingdom to Israel, a hope Luke affirms (Acts 3:19–21), but Luke expects this restoration after the infusion or grafting in of many Gentiles (1:6–8; cf. Rom 11:25–26).507 Some scholars read the passage as claiming that the turning of Gentiles follows Israel’s restoration and hence that the Twelve have completed their mission of restoring Israel.508 It is more likely, however, that this completion remains eschatological (cf. the temporal limitation of “times of the Gentiles”; Luke 21:24) and that Jesus’s enthronement as the ultimate Son of David is the completed prerequisite for Gentiles’ conversion. Jesus’s enthronement as the raising of David’s house implies Israel’s restoration, but they do not happen at the same time. Luke will probably recognize that this is almost the only positive note toward Israel in Amos, which also challenges the presumed spiritual priority of Israel over the nations (Amos 3:2, in the context of Amos 1–2). In contrast to some modern critics (noted above), ancient hearers had every reason to believe that the hopeful close of Amos did belong to the rest of the work. Other texts did speak of Gentile nations becoming God’s people, joining with Israel (Isa 19:23–25; Zech 2:11 [2:15 lxx]).509 Others also spoke of Gentiles being welcome in the eschatological temple, if this is relevant here.510 But it is possible, as some contend, that James employed Amos 9 because the other texts sounded as though these nations were included as proselytes, whereas Amos welcomed them as people in both Jewish (Ps 144:12; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 46:28; 49:19; on Exod 15:15; on Num 20:29; cf. 2 Bar. 2:1; 4 Bar. 1:2; Jos. Asen. 17:6 mss; 1 Clem. 5.2) and Gentile (Pindar Ol. 2.81–82; Cic. Verr. 2.3.76.176) texts (as noted already by Lightfoot, Galatians, 109, citing other texts; see also Keener, “Pillars,” 56–57). (Aus, “Pillars,” compares more narrowly the patriarchs; cf. Gen. Rab. 43:8; 75:5; but contrast Deut. Rab. 5:1.) Despite the temple imagery at Qumran, the “influential person” interpretation is plausible even there; see 1QSa (= 1Q28a) I, 11; possibly 4Q550a–b 2–3 (esp. 3 4). 504. See discussion of the eschatological temple in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–90; Keener, John, 525–26; cf. 1 En. 90:28–29; Tob 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657–60, 702, 772–74; esp. 11QT XXX–XLV; 4Q174 1 I, 2; 4Q509 4 2, 12; 4Q511 35 3; notes in Maier, Temple Scroll, 98–116; comments in Yadin, “Temple Scroll,” 41; Broshi, “Dimensions.” 505. See Luke 20:17–18 (cf. 19:40, 44) and Acts 4:11 (with Ps 118:22, 26–27); cf. Keener, “Human Stones.” 506. The “Temple of humanity [lit. adam]” in 4Q174 1 I, 6–7 might allude to an interpretation of Amos 9:11–12 similar to that in Acts 15, except for its contextual exclusion of foreigners (perhaps Zech 14:21 with 14:16–19 provides a resolution). “Adam” stands for “Gentiles” in 4Q167 7; Hos 6:7 (quoted in 4Q167 7 1) includes “like Adam” (and hence can be supplied there), and the pesher interpretation apparently speaks of “laws of [Gentiles]” (7 2; the reconstruction fits Gentile regulations in 4Q166 II, 16 on Hos 2:11); but the righteous have “Adam’s heritage forever” (4Q171 1–2 III, 1–2). 507. Others have also compared Luke’s ecclesiology in Acts with Paul’s hardening of Israel and welcoming of Gentiles (Seccombe, “People,” 370–71). 508. Jervell, Luke and People of God, 92–93. 509. Probably also Zeph 2:11. For some Gentiles becoming God’s people, Wright, Ethics, 250, also adds Ps 47:9; Isa 56:2–8; more questionably, 66:19–21. 510. Bauckham, “James,” 457–58, cites here Ps 96:7–8; Isa 2:2–3; 25:6; 56:6–7; 66:23; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:1–2; Zech 14:16.

2257

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 105

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Gentiles.511 Early Christians probably did see Gentile converts as spiritual proselytes,512 but the very point at issue in this context is whether these “proselytes” can be welcomed as ethnic Gentiles without physical circumcision. As noted above, early readers might think also of various other passages ( Jer 12:15; Hos 3:5; perhaps Isa 19:23–25) as well. And as in Paul,513 an ecclesiocentric reading of texts should not be thought unusual; we may compare the more familiar Jewish Israel-centered readings of texts.514 Since speeches in political histories often addressed the question of how open the community should be to new members515 and since Luke’s ideal audience supports (and may be largely a product of) the Gentile mission, this speech will only add to the positive portrayal of the Spiritguided church in Acts. d. James’s Compromise Solution (15:19–21) It is clearly wrong to cause needless difficulty for Gentiles turning to God (Acts 15:19), nor should there be any concern that the law will be neglected (15:21). But as a compromise solution, Gentiles can be asked to follow some basic, minimal expectations for table fellowship to maintain unity with the Jewish believers (15:20). Not each of the expectations is moral, but all are necessary qualifications for Jews (both believers and nonbelievers in Jesus) to regard these believers as righteous, trustworthy Gentiles, with whom table fellowship might appear less problematic for Jewish believers. It was common to include interpretations following quotations.516 James’s application of the Amos text (in view of preceding miracle claims) argues for a middle way. In a polarized setting, arguing for a middle way can offend both sides (Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.1–3),517 but in Luke’s perspective here it proves successful. Many arguments advocating harmony include the conventional rhetorical topic of compromise.518 i. The Proposed Decree (15:19–20)

James’s speech opens by noting his judgment (Acts 15:19). In some rhetorical handbooks, the speaker’s own opinion can constitute a “supplementary proof ” (Rhet. Alex. 14, 1431.9–19, esp. 9–10); he must demonstrate that his experience qualifies his opinion as an expert one and that his opponent lacks relevant experience (1431.11–14). James, of course, need not recite his qualifications for his audience. The 511. Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 169; idem, “James,” 457–58. Richard, “Acts 15,” esp. 200–201, also argues that the issue is that of accepting Gentiles as a distinct group while upholding the law and without assimilating them into the mother church. 512. Genuine proselytes did embrace the covenant (Sipra VDDen. par. 2.3.3.1; Qed. pq. 8.205.1.5) and did share Israel’s eschatological hopes (cf. 2 Bar. 41:4; 42:5–7; Lev. Rab. 2:9; 3:2; Pesiq. Rab. 35:3; albeit without patriarchal merits, Num. Rab. 8:9). Though Qumran evidence for their exclusion from the eschatological temple is earlier, it appears idiosyncratic on this point (cf. Baumgarten, “Netinim,” despite some overlap, 96). 513. Hays, Conversion, 187 (noting that Paul’s ecclesiocentric reading presupposes his Christology; Christology is also implied here). 514. E.g., a dove (L.A.B. 39:5; b. Šabb. 49a; 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2; cf. Mek. Besh. 3.86ff.; 7.27ff. in Johnston, “Interpretations,” 595) or trees (Jub. 1:16; 36:6; 1QS VIII, 5; XI, 8; CD I, 7; 4 Ezra 5:23; L.A.B. 12:8–9; 23:12; 28:4; b. Ḥul. 92a; Gen. Rab. 88:5; 98:9; Lev. Rab. 30:12; Esth. Rab. 9:2) could be used to symbolize Israel. 515. Penner, “Discourse,” 99–100. 516. E.g., in 4Q177 (see Williams, “Catena”). 517. See discussion in Heath, Hermogenes, 212. In reality, however, Aelius’s comments may be rhetorical παρρησία, feigning boldness by merely pretending to offend. 518. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 132 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.71.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.9, 44; 40.34; Ael. Arist. Or. 23.70–71; 24.40; Plut. Lyc. 7.2).

2258

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 106

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

first-person pronoun is emphatic, and “I judge” here might be rendered “I decree.”519 Later references to the decision of the council indicate what the Jerusalem apostles and elders (plural) decreed (Acts 16:4; 21:25). James’s refusal to “annoy” the Gentiles (15:19) employs a term that appears fourteen times in the lxx, including a refusal of Judeans to annoy their Gentile allies (1 Macc 12:14); that Gentiles are “turning to God” fits the language of Acts 15:3 (cf. 14:15). Paul’s letters reveal that he accepted Gentile adherents as full members of God’s people—that is, as proselytes without physical circumcision. Whether this question came up at the council is not clear, but it was not necessary to resolve at this point. The practical consensus that emerges is not over the theological status of Gentiles’ membership (God-fearers or proselytes); it is a least-common-denominator position: most Jews respected Gentile adherents of synagogues (on such “God-fearers,” see comment on Acts 10:2) and could welcome Gentiles who kept several basic requirements.520 Other Jerusalemite pietists would not criticize the Jerusalem church for approving of a mission that brought more Gentiles to worship the one God, provided that these adherents met the basic standards for “righteous” Gentiles. In 15:20–29, as in 11:3, table fellowship between Jew and Gentile is a central issue of concern;521 this emphasis represents a major issue in the church of Paul’s day (Gal 2:12–13), but Luke has, by arranging other material available to him in the Jesus tradition, prepared his audience for it (e.g., Luke 5:29–30; 15:1–2). A faction associated with James refused table fellowship with the uncircumcised (Gal 2:12);522 Peter affirmed the practice personally but did not wish to make an issue of it with other Jerusalem believers (2:12); Paul considered denial of such table fellowship a denial of the gospel (2:14). In contrast to his report about the council itself (2:7–9), Paul does not report the resolution of this conflict here, yet he names Peter, James, and John, as well as Barnabas, not as people the Galatian Christians should despise but as fallible Christian leaders they respected.523 Paul’s letter leaves unclear whether the debate of Gal 2:14 ended in a stalemate or whether he and the objects of his criticism in Antioch found at least some terms on which they agreed, but if the latter is the case, the rules of Acts 15:20 would make sense. This would be the case whether they were already instituted as a compromise at the council (as in Acts 15), then immediately ignored or reinterpreted in Antioch, or (as some think) instituted at a later date but reported by Luke in Acts 15 (to provide coherency to his narrative, the way he narrates the collection for the Jerusalem poor immediately after the prophecy inviting it, 11:28–30).524 Historically, this “Jerusalem decree” does not come from Paul or his churches (presumably including Luke’s), since (at least in his extant letters) Paul did not implement it as a decree in his churches. Presumably, then, such a decree must have originated in the Jerusalem church, and this could not have occurred without at least James’s 519. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 177; for ἐγὼ κρινῶ, cf. divine decrees in lxx Jer 28:36 (mt and et 51:36); Ezek 24:14; esp. a royal decree in Dan 3:29. Cf. the role of the high priest in the Sanhedrin and the later role of the Nasi in rabbinic circles. While James offers his opinion (cf. Paul offering his view in 1 Cor 7:25), the language sounds stronger than merely this (Acts 21:25; cf. 1 Cor 5:3–5). 520. As often noted, the Jerusalem compromise treats Gentile believers in the Pauline mission as “righteous Gentiles” rather than as full proselytes (Nanos, Mystery, 166). For Acts 15 as a Lukan model for conflict resolution, see especially Okoronkwo, Compromise (on the importance of “listening,” see 280). 521. See further Blue, “Influence,” 490–94. 522. As refusal of a gift was culturally insulting and could produce enmity (Marshall, Enmity, 18–20), refusal of table fellowship was surely insulting. 523. That he emphasizes their fallibility appears from those who “seemed” to be something, the pillars (Gal 2:6, 9). But he also recognizes the validity of their calling and mission (Gal 2:8–9). 524. For discussion of this option, see introduction, above, to Acts 15.

2259

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 107

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

approval. Thus, once we accept the likelihood of such a decree, “that it was actually promulgated on James’s initiative, as Luke records, is entirely credible.”525 For ἀπέχω as “abstain” in early Christian exhortation, see 1 Thess 4:3, 22; 1 Pet 2:11; Did. 1.4; Poly. Phil. 2.2; 5.3; 6.1; Herm. 34.8; 39.12.526 This meaning attested in Christian sources also reflects wider usage.527 ii. Proposed Backgrounds of the Decree

Scholars have proposed various views of the four (or three) prohibitions in Acts 15:20, 29, repeated in 21:25. Among them are the following: 1. The prohibitions are purely moral, analogous to the three most basic Jewish moral prohibitions. 2. The prohibitions concern activity in pagan temples. 3. They echo prohibitions for strangers in the land in Lev 17–18. 4. They echo traditions that became the Noahide laws. (1) Moral Interpretation

First, some scholars prefer the “moral” interpretation, viewing the list as an abstract of ethical principles,528 which is naturally appealing to modern sensibilities and some ancient ones as well. The Western text, which includes only the three “ethical” principles (“blood” can be interpreted as “bloodshed” if not linked with strangled food), may display familiarity with rabbinic tradition.529 Probably during the Hadrianic revolt, rabbis decided that Jews need not submit to martyrdom for minor issues, but held that three tests were nonnegotiable: idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual immorality.530 These three sins appear together regularly in rabbinic literature.531 This view is problematic. From a pragmatic angle, first-century cultural compromises need not appeal to modern sensitivities. More to the point of the evidence, the moral approach is most easily defended by following the Western reading in omitting “strangled.” The textual evidence, however, strongly favors reading all four elements here rather than three,532 and the moment we admit the food prohibition of things strangled alongside idol food, “blood” becomes likely a food prohibition rather than a prohibition of murder. Further, the rabbinic evidence cited in its support is not substantially earlier or more dominant than the Noahide law interpretation; it is also far less relevant to the issue of welcoming Gentiles. We do find this summary in earlier forms and applied 525. Bruce, Peter, 93. 526. Descriptively, Herm. 6.3; 16.4; 27.3; regarding false teaching, see Ign. Tral. 6.1; Phld. 3.1; Poly. Phil. 6.3. 527. E.g., Isoc. Nic. 54 (Or. 3.38); Sir 28:8. 528. E.g., Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 71; Harnack, Acts, 259–61; Barrett, Acts, 735 (πνικτόν perhaps added for ease of table fellowship); cf. Philip, “Quelques notes” (arguing that πνικτός points figuratively to not harming others); cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (for murder, though he attributes these rules to the law). More nuanced, cf. Instone-Brewer, “Infanticide” (esp. 321), noting Jerusalem’s culinary emphasis but that for Gentiles “smothering” could connote infanticide. Park, “Principles,” sees ritual prescriptions developed in a moral direction (compare 15:20 with 15:29; 21:25). 529. With Bruce, Acts1, 299–300; idem, Acts3, 73. 530. Barrett, Acts, 735 (citing, e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 25a; Sanh. 74a), interpreting the last term as “incest.” More technically, it included adultery as well as incest (Abrahams, Studies [1], 74). For a discussion of this tradition’s rhetorical character, see Passamaneck, “Mandate.” 531. Longenecker, Paul, 255n49, cites, e.g., m. ʾAb. 5:11; b. Yoma 9b; Sanh. 74a; also Rev 22:15; see also Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 35:25; on Deut 23:10. He rightly concludes, however, that these have no bearing on Acts 15:20, 29, which textually supports four prohibitions, one of which is meat with blood. 532. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 429–35; C. Williams, Acts, 31–32; Porter, Paul in Acts, 183n75; Okoronkwo, Compromise, 41–43.

2260

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 108

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

to Gentiles, but in different language and probably simply because these represent the most basic elements of Jewish morality, which can be enumerated or articulated in various ways. For example, a possibly second-century b.c.e. Alexandrian hope for a universal, eschatological law533 is summarized as avoiding idolatry and immorality (specifically adultery and male homosexual intercourse) and not killing (specifically infanticide; Sib. Or. 3.762–66). The “moral” approach also may impose a modern category on an era that defined its categories differently. Meat with blood in it may not offend modern “moral” sensibilities, but it offended keepers of Torah. In listing sins inviting the destruction of Judah (Ezek 33:27–29), Ezekiel lists eating meat with blood in it (33:25) alongside idolatry, bloodshed (33:25–26), and adultery (33:26). That two of the list’s core ethical principles overlap with those in Acts 15 and the other proposed parallels is, of course, instructive; Judaism had certain core ethical principles that appeared regularly (whether in the basic demands for Jews or in those for Gentiles).534 Moreover, these three precepts appear in rabbinic tradition as a sample of Noahide laws. Earlier rabbis were cited as teaching that Gentiles could be executed for three crimes (“adultery, bloodshed, and blasphemy”), but later rabbis claimed that the punishment applied for violating any of the Noahide laws (b. Sanh. 57a). (2) Avoiding Pagan Temples

Second, some scholars argue that the regulations prohibit involvement with pagan temples. In practice, this view resembles the first because it boils the ethical issues down to idolatry and immorality.535 On that view, all four prohibitions concern temptations that appeared together at pagan temple festivals (cf. 2 Macc 6:4–5).536 In this case, James is correct that they will not “trouble” the Gentiles (Acts 15:19; on this view, imposing general Jewish food laws would);537 Paul also can be said to comply with the decree because Paul does expect Christians to leave idolatrous temples.538 This approach has some merit in reminding us of a setting where many Gentiles would encounter these temptations together. It is, however, ultimately too narrow. If these regulations concern simply temple feasts, 15:20 is an unusual way to put it; the simple prohibition “Do not attend temple feasts” would be much more direct and would cause much less confusion to Gentiles. It is indeed often argued that poor Gentiles might acquire meat only at civic festivals,539 but this would not be true for rich Gentiles—and Jews were well aware of wealthy Gentile proselytes and sympathizers. Idol food was available outside temples, including in meetings of various associations;540 prostitutes were often available after private banquets.541 Further, if all the food regulations concern temples, then the prohibition against meat with blood in 533. Sib. Or. 3.757–59; compared to his earlier law at Sinai, 3.768. Against Davies, Torah, however, this is not a very common ancient Jewish conception; see Schäfer, “Torah”; Keener, John, 358–59, and sources there; Tait, “End of Law.” 534. The three basic sins attributed to Sodom were fornication, idolatry, and bloodshed (t. Sanh. 13:8). When condemning slander, rabbis tacked it onto the list of idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed as terrible sins (Gen. Rab. 70:4). 535. Witherington, Acts, 477. 536. Ibid., 461–62; Witherington, Corinthians, 190. 537. Witherington, Acts, 463. 538. Ibid., 465. 539. Cf. Theissen, Setting, 125–28; Smith, Symposium, 32; Jeffers, World, 61; but cf. Meggitt, “Meat Consumption.” 540. Witherington, Acts, 462, does, however, make a plausible and perhaps accurate response here, associating the term specifically with meat in an idol’s presence (citing Mal 1:7 lxx; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20, on 8:1ff.; esp. Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:944]). 541. Winter, Left Corinth, 86–88.

2261

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 109

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

it simply echoes the prohibition against idol food (narrowing the list to two requirements), even though the prohibition against blood in the ot is less narrow. Nor are the supporting arguments finally persuasive: James would not “trouble” the Gentiles (15:19) even if he addresses more than temple food; few argue that the prohibition of blood (required of all Noahides, Gen 9:4) implies obedience to all the food laws (cf. Acts 10:11–15). Moreover, the question is not so much whether Paul complies with the decree but whether he cites it—which remains a problem on whatever view one takes, because he never does so in his extant letters. He does comply with it in the sense of arguing against idolatry and sexual immorality, though his case against idol food is somewhat nuanced (the solution might prove more helpful for explaining his omission of blood, except that even idol food was often drained of blood).542 (3) Laws for Sojourners

Third, scholars commonly favor a background here in Lev 17–18.543 We must address this proposal at much greater length. This passage in Leviticus provided Israelites clear biblical guidance for how to live with Gentiles among them. If Gentiles would be “among God’s people” in the end time ( Jer 12:16; Zech 2:11 [2:15 lxx]), perhaps the eschatological ingathering of Gentiles should be regulated by rulings in the Torah for Gentiles “in the midst of ” Israel. Leviticus 17–18 includes this phrase five times (though 17:12 repeats 17:10), producing four commands (17:8, 10–12, 13; 18:26). Some interpreters make these commands identical to (and in the same sequence with)544 the apostolic decree’s list: idol foods (17:8–9, though this is not explicit); “blood” (17:10, 12); “strangled”—that is, the blood must be drained (17:13, again not explicit); and sexual immorality (18:26).545 Some other laws also applied to resident aliens (such as the Sabbath, Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14), but “in your midst” is the midrashic connection linking the other laws.546 One advantage of this view is that it is rooted in a text that is definitely early and in universal use among Jews and Christians; it is certainly reasonable to suppose that it supplied some of the exegetical basis for the views supporting James’s proposal, whether these texts were its direct source (and whether midrashically expounded by James) or not. Later teachers applied laws concerning the “stranger in the land” (the ger) to proselytes (lacking closer biblical precedents).547 This ambiguity would explain the later Pauline debate in Gal 3 over what had not been resolved: were Gentile converts full Jews, merely sojourning “God-fearers,” or (as Paul seems to argue) a middle way as spiritually part of the covenant without ethnic transformation?548 542. See Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278; Klauck, Context, 16, 18; further discussion below. This is not to claim that Gentile sacrifice deliberately and always removed blood (Klauck, Context, 19, correctly notes that this was an exclusively Jewish practice). 543. E.g., Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 323; Fitzmyer, Theologian, 194; Conzelmann, Acts, 118–19; Marshall, Acts, 253; Crowe, Acts, 117; Franklin, Interpreter, 48; Schnabel, Mission, 1017–18; Segal, Convert, 197 (relating it also to the Noahide commandments); Talbert, Acts, 132–33; Glenny, “Septuagint,” 20–21 (viewing it as “generally recognized,” 20); Dunn, Beginning, 466 (also viewing it as “generally recognized”); see recent discussion in Rost, “Aposteldekret,” 570–72 (and of Noah tradition on 573–74); Bennema, “Conflict,” 759–60; cf. proselytes in Cifrak, “Petrus.” 544. Following the sequence of Acts 15:29, which would be Luke’s written source, rather than 15:20; those who hold this position argue that 15:29 is more original (Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 172–74; see further Wedderburn, “‘Apostolic Decree’: Redaction”). 545. Bauckham, “James,” 458–59; idem, “James and Gentiles,” 172–74. 546. Bauckham, “James,” 460. 547. The first-century usage applied both to proselytes and to resident aliens; see Callan, “Background of Decree.” 548. Paul treats his converts like proselytes, but to most other Jews, they would look like merely “righteous Gentiles,” though another strand of Diaspora Judaism treated righteous Gentiles as proselytes (Donaldson,

2262

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 110

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Other scholars, however, argue that Lev 17–18 is probably not the background.549 This is first of all because the Leviticus passage offers guidance only for life in Eretz Israel, not in the Diaspora (where both Antioch and the new mixed churches are located), and the decree is for the Diaspora (Acts 15:23).550 One could reply that the passage offered principles that could be applied to evaluating righteous Gentiles or proselytes, but then we are talking about James’s depending on a theology based on the passage, rather than on the passage itself. (The application to evaluating righteous Gentiles, in fact, is compatible with the Noahide-laws view below, which does involve theology based on this passage.) Second, the content of the one passage differs from that of the other, a difference that may be significant in light of available parallels in other passages. The specific prohibitions in Leviticus addressed to strangers correspond exactly to the Jerusalem decree’s list only regarding the blood (Lev 17:10–13) and various kinds of sexual unchastity (without using the term πορνεία, 18:6–26).551 Idolatry (hence eating idol food) is excluded by implication, but the rule against offering sacrifices on one’s own is broader than this, requiring cultic centralization.552 Yet one could locate other passages combining at least two of the three elements, especially idolatry and sexual immorality, which were commonly linked in antiquity (Exod 32:6–8 [cited in 1 Cor 10:7]; Hos 4:11–14; Mic 1:7); one might also link all three in Exod 34:15–16. Finally, the midrashic connection with Leviticus’s “in your midst” has to be inferred by means of an implicit connection between Amos 9:12 and the analogous Jer 12:16 (and, by a larger midrashic stretch, Zech 2:11).553 This connection is plausible but not explicit, and the phrase is frequent in the ot (cf. also Luke 17:21; 22:27; 24:36; Acts 2:22).554 Whether we think of laws concerning sojourners or of Noahide laws, the outcome is largely the same: a preexisting category allows the church to welcome Gentiles as Gentiles, hence without requiring them to observe the full Torah.555 (4) Noahide Laws

The fourth major proposal for the decree’s background is the so-called Noahide laws.556 If by “Noahide laws” we mean the developed rabbinic form of the idea, Paul and Gentiles, 148–49). Donaldson rightly rejects the “righteous Gentiles” schema as the primary background for Paul’s view (230–36), seeing them instead as proselytes to an Israel reconfigured around Christ (236–47). Cf. Segal, Convert, 197–98. 549. Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 69–70, already in the nineteenth century; Barrett, Acts, 734–35; Witherington, Acts, 464; Gaventa, Acts, 222. 550. Some also point out that Lev 17–18 addresses mainly Israelites, and resident aliens only in passing (in Lev 17:8–9, 10–13; Gaventa, Acts, 222). 551. With Witherington, Acts, 464–65 (though his protest against the lack of the term εἰδωλόθυτον is irrelevant, since he admits that it is extremely rare outside Christian literature). 552. Lev 17:3–9 prohibits offering sacrifices on one’s own, with regard not only to their slaughter but also to the location of their offering. 553. For an argument for this connection, see Bauckham, “James and Gentiles,” 176–77. 554. The very reason for arguing that the midrash is pre-Lukan—Luke’s supposed obscuring of the connections—also renders the midrash uncertain because the connections remain obscure. 555. See, e.g., Perry, “Aliens,” 163–68, esp. 163 (noting that the issue is not whether Gentiles can be saved in Christ but whether they are proselytes or Noahides; he follows on this point Bockmuehl, Law, 164). 556. Longenecker, Acts, 245; Nunnally, Acts, 274; cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 661; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 335; Fontana, “Universalismo.” A number of Jewish scholars have articulated this view (Cohen, Maccabees, 217; Wyschogrod, “Judaism and Christianity,” 44–45; Flusser, Judaism, 630; Segal, Convert, 194–200, esp. 197–98), though some have demurred (Sandmel, Judaism, 479n36 [to p. 408], against Singer and Greenstone, “Noachian Laws”). Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697–1776), one of the most respected rabbis of the modern era, believed that both Jesus and Paul maintained Torah, using the Noahide laws to create a way of obedience for

2263

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 111

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

naturally the sources are late;557 but if we consider a range of early Jewish traditions concerning what God required of Gentiles, non-Jewish descendants of Noah, a core of relevant material is available. Later rabbis normally held Gentiles responsible not for keeping laws given only to Israel558 but for keeping the few requirements that God had given to all humanity—namely, laws given up to the time of Noah, from whom all people were descended. These laws appear fairly often in rabbinic sources.559 All Gentiles would be responsible for observing these rules.560 The Gentiles will protest at the judgment that they cannot be judged, because they lacked the law; God will remind them of the seven commandments given to Noah.561 (Rabbis would not expect them abolished in the eschatological time; indeed, some Amoraim said that the Messiah would give the Gentiles thirty additional commandments.)562 Tannaim believed that the Gentiles did not keep even these seven commandments.563 An individual Gentile who kept the Noahide laws, however, would be a “righteous Gentile.”564 Originally God gave six commandments to Adam,565 adding the prohibition of meat with blood during Noah’s time. The table on page 2266 provides some of the sample listings (including prerabbinic lists that are not all clearly Noahide laws in the later sense).566 Although its most developed form is rabbinic, the conception of Noahide laws did not begin with later rabbis. The Bible itself was clear that God forbade the Noahides to eat blood or murder people (Gen 9:4–6),567 and other sources report Noahic teaching of righteous laws (Jub. 7:20–21).568 At the very least, then, Gentiles ought not to (but normally did) eat meat without first draining the blood. The concept of Noahide laws probably has pre-Maccabean roots.569 Pseudo-Phocylides contains Gentiles (so Falk, Jesus, 14–15). As I argue elsewhere, Paul likely went beyond this; but the Jerusalem agreement probably did not, and the Jerusalem Jesus movement remained within acceptable halakic boundaries. 557. Some traditions have developed even further since antiquity; for one very conservative reading of the laws, see Cowen, “Study of Laws” (brought to my attention by Lois Olena and Wave Nunnally). 558. For an exception: the flood generation was punished for forty days for rejecting the Torah given in forty days (Gen. Rab. 32:5). If Noah was righteous merely by comparison with his generation (cf. Philo Abr. 36–37), this may not be saying much for his righteousness! 559. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8[9]:4; b. Sanh. 56a (citing Tannaim); 57a; 59a; 74b; Gen. Rab. 26:1; 34:14; Deut. Rab. 1:21. See further Moore, Judaism, 1:274–75; Urbach, Sages, 1:532–33; Sandmel, Judaism, 180. 560. R. Hananiah ben R. Simeon ben Gamaliel in b. Yebam. 48b. By contrast, Gentiles were not supposed to keep the Sabbath, since it was not among the Noahide laws (Deut. Rab. 1:21; but contrast the point of Gen 2:2–3). 561. So b. ʿAbod. Zar. 2b. A Gentile could (theoretically) be executed for violating these laws (b. Sanh. 57a). But whereas greater knowledge could produce greater responsibility (Luke 12:47; Rom 2:12; Sipre Deut. 43.14.1), some rabbis said it could produce greater reward for obedience (Benatar, “Obligation”). 562. Gen. Rab. 98:9. 563. Mek. Bah. 5.90ff. (Lauterbach, 2:236); Sipre Deut. 343.4.1. Most later rabbis agreed that Israel also kept these commandments (b. Sanh. 59a). 564. A ger toshab (“the sages” in b. ʿAbod. Zar. 64b, which also lists other views). Schoeps, Paul, 170, suggests that most early Gentile Christians were originally synagogue God-fearers responsible only for these laws. 565. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1; Exod. Rab. 30:9 (noting that he added an eighth to Abraham, a ninth to Jacob, and all at Sinai); Num. Rab. 14:12 (with a dubious pre-Tannaitic attribution); Deut. Rab. 2:25. God could not give Adam the Torah, since he failed even the six commandments that he was given (Gen. Rab. 24:5; Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §2; for the basic commandments to Adam, see also Gen. Rab. 16:6). 566. For the tradition history of the rabbinic versions, see Millard, “Gebote.” On these commandments, see Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 275–78. 567. Also Jos. Ant. 1.102, without adding further commandments. 568. Standards for Gentiles appear elsewhere, e.g., Sib. Or. 4.24–34, which may be a Hellenistic oracle updated (if not composed) in the late first century c.e. 569. See, e.g., Cohen, “Noahide Commandments.” Others also note precedents, e.g., Smith, Symposium, 165–66.

2264

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 112

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

allusions to it;570 the idea appears as early as Jubilees,571 and Philo and Josephus attest the tradition.572 The concept is certainly earlier than the formal content; although some elements were pervasive (such as prohibitions of idolatry, sexual immorality, murder, blasphemy), even Amoraim debated which others to include (Gen. Rab. 34:8).573 We should not expect all lists to be the same (and certainly not expect Luke to have “all seven” later rabbinic laws), but the overlap with Acts 15:20, given the common focus on Gentiles, may be instructive. Early Christians were aware of the Noahide law tradition, as is reflected in their sources. The minority Western reading at 15:29 overlaps with Noahide laws (idolatry, fornication, and murder).574 The five prohibitions of behavior reflected in Did. 3.1–6 parallel five of the traditional Noahide laws: idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, theft, and blas­ phemy.575 Although the Didache also looks at root causes, it reflects the same perspectives on basic moral demands as appear in rabbinic tradition, a “natural” law assumed by all. The idea of a universal law was widely appealing. The early Stoic Zeno reportedly urged people to live according to nature, following “the common law”—that is, the law common to all—which he identified as the pervasive Logos and Zeus.576 For early Stoics, this law concerned motivations that yielded perfect behavior, instead of focusing on particular actions.577 In the first century c.e., the Stoic philosopher Seneca uses “natural law” in various ways;578 nature’s law makes virtue evident and attractive even to those who disobey it.579 Musonius Rufus claims that the law of Zeus orders a person to be “good.”580 For Epictetus, “the divine law” summarizes human responsibility before God.581 One epitome of Stoic ethics portrays the law as “right reason,” which only the wise obey.582 570. See van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569, noting parallels with each of the seven. 571. Not only does Noah’s covenant prefigure Israel’s covenant in Jub. 6:4–10 (with 6:15–16, this passage provides an inclusio around 6:11–14); 7:20–25 portrays the Noahide laws more plainly (although Finkelstein, Pharisaism, 223–27, overstates his conclusions from this evidence; see Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 44–45). The patriarchs kept the Torah before it was given (a view shared by later rabbis, e.g., Gen. Rab. 92:4; and presupposed with the unwritten law in Philo Abr. 5–6, 16, 275–76 [Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 48]), with Noah even keeping the Feast of Shavuot (Pentecost) (Jub. 6:17–31); but sometimes they were shown mercy when they violated laws not yet given (33:15–16). In 7:20, the commandments given to Noah were these: doing justice, covering one’s nakedness, thanking the Creator, honoring parents, loving neighbor, and guarding oneself from sexual immorality, impurity, and injustice. 572. See Schultz, “Views of Patriarchs,” 48–49. 573. For the most common, “standard” elements (adding theft, “eating from a live animal,” and the requirement of establishing “a legal system”), see Le Cornu, Acts, 583. 574. C. Williams, Acts, 31–32; Flusser, Judaism, 630. 575. Flusser, Judaism, 508, citing this exact list of five from b. Yoma 67b; Sipra on Lev 18:4 (Weiss, 86a). 576. Diog. Laert. 7.1.88. On divine law as meaning living according to nature, see also Epict. Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marc. Aur. 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, “Natural Law.” For the connotative difference between logos and physis (Nature), see Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49; for the logos and nomos in Cleanthes’s Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12) as probably universal law, see Grant, Religions, 152–54. 577. Vander Waerdt, “Theory.” For Chrysippus (and later for Epictetus as well) humans have some innate ethical knowledge ( Jackson-McCabe, “Implanted Preconceptions”). Thus intentions are important (cf. Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.9; Hermog. Issues 61.16–18; 66.12–13; 72.14–73.3; Porph. Marc. 25.401–2; y. Ber. 2:1). 578. Especially related to human physicality; Inwood, “Natural Law.” For the wide variety of understandings of “natural law” in antiquity, see, e.g., Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 109–10. 579. Sen. Y. Ben. 4.17.4. 580. Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.35–36. Reason is from the gods and enables one to distinguish good from bad (3, p. 38.26–30). A perfect king would embody law in himself (8, p. 64.11–12). Others also opined that kings must have the law of reason within them (Plut. Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780C) or that some could embody a living law (e.g., Arist. Pol. 3.8.2, 1284a [in Bruce, “All Things,” 98n7]; the patriarchs in Philo Abr. 5). 581. Epict. Diatr. 2.16.27–28. 582. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11d, pp. 68–69.1–8; 2.7.11i, pp. 76–77.30–37.

2265

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 113

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Samples of Jewish Rules Expected of Gentiles Jub. 7.20* Do justice Cover nakedness Praise Creator Honor parents Love neighbor

Sib. Or. 3.757–59, with summary in 3.762–66† Avoid idols Worship God Avoid adultery Avoid homosexual intercourse Rear your child rather than killing it

Avoid sexual immorality Avoid impurity, injustice

Ps.-Phoc.‡ Establish courts (9–12, 86) Avoid idolatry (8–54) Avoid blasphemy (8–54) Avoid murder (4, 32, 58)

t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4§ Establish courts

Avoid adultery, incest (3, 177– 83) Avoid robbery, theft (6, 18, 135–36, 154) Avoid eating flesh with blood in it (147–48)

Avoid idolatry

b. Sanh. 56a, bar.‖ Establish courts

Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:1 (six Adamite commands)# Avoid idolatry

Avoid blasphemy Avoid idolatry

Avoid blasphemy Create courts

Avoid adultery

Avoid bloodshed

Avoid bloodshed

Avoid bloodshed

Avoid sexual immorality

Avoid theft

Avoid robbery

Avoid theft/ robbery

Avoid eating flesh taken from a live animal (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:6)

Avoid eating flesh from a live animal

Added for Noah: Do not eat flesh of living animal

Avoid blasphemy Avoid sexual immorality

Gen. Rab. 34:8 Avoid idolatry Avoid incest Avoid murder Avoid cursing the name (blasphemy) Keep the civil law Avoid eating flesh from a live animal Avoid crossbreeding; or witchcraft; or castration

*Technically, there are eight commands; should we collapse doing justice and avoiding injustice into one (that frames the others)? Or collapse avoiding immorality and impurity into one? †Probably second-century b.c.e. Alexandria. Though for people throughout the earth, they are compared to laws at Sinai (Sib. Or. 3.768). ‡Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569. §With fuller exposition in t. ʿAbod. Zar. 8:4–8, adding, in 8:6, castration and witchcraft; in 8:8, mixed seeds. ‖Others added: no blood, or no castration, or no sorcery; etc. #Virtually identical in, e.g., Deut. Rab. 2:25.

This “natural law,” however, existed in other philosophical circles outside Stoicism583 and among nonphilosophers.584 Socrates recognized universal, unwritten laws observed by people everywhere.585 For Aristippus, if all human laws were repealed, philosophers would keep living as they did.586 For Aristotle, whereas written laws varied, a law based on nature was constant.587 A Hellenistic rhetorician defined as “just” customs on which most of humanity agrees.588 For Cicero, the law of nature implants in people innate religion, including duty to gods, parents, country, and others;589 what is universally agreed throughout 583. In Plato, e.g., Diog. Laert. 3.8, 86. Porphyry distinguished the law of nature from the law of God (Marc. 25.384–86); the former related to bodily need (25.387–88), and the latter was known by the mind (25.392–93). Knowing the law of nature helps one ascend to the divine law, which established nature’s law (27.420–22); these laws superseded a written law (27.422–25). The mind knows the divine law (26.409–11; cf. 26.413–14, 417–20; 32.485–88), though it is inaccessible to the impure (26.402–3), and the wicked reject it (16.272–73). The law of nature teaches deliverance from passion (31.484), and one freed from passion has access to divine law (26.403–4). Cf. “divine writings” placed in a person (9.164–65). For one discussion of the law of nature in ancient sources generally, see Grant, Miracle, 19–28. 584. Cf. Cicero in Frank, Aspects, 109; Seagrave, “Natural Law Theory” (suggesting that Aquinas developed the Aristotelian and Ciceronian approach); Ovid Metam. 15.6; Max. Tyre 6.5–6; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; he regards God as pure Mind [27.8]); even Lucan C.W. 7.1; Libanius Topics 2.5; Introduction of a Law 1.1. Cf., in Palestinian Judaism, 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM X, 12–13. 585. Xen. Mem. 4.4.19. Skeptics such as Sextus Empiricus would have appealed to exceptions to disprove this thesis. For medieval natural law, cf. William of Thierry 2.12, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 89. 586. Diog. Laert. 2.68. The best morality was one not dictated by laws (Virg. Aen. 7.204–25, citing instead self-control and divine custom; Gal 5:23; 1 Tim 1:9). 587. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.6, 1375ab. Cf. Peter of Olivi 4.13, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 89. 588. Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.36–1422a.2. Cf. the sense of justice common to humanity in Apul. Metam. 3.8. 589. Cic. Inv. 2.22.65; 2.53.161.

2266

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 114

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

humanity is the law of nature.590 Justice must be based not on human opinion but on the law of nature;591 humans share a common sense of justice.592 This law that teaches what is right based on nature is as old as the divine mind, existing long before being written down.593 For Seneca the Elder, unwritten laws are less changeable than written ones.594 For Dio Chrysostom, it is not the laws inscribed on stone but the law of nature, the laws of Zeus, that matter.595 The idea of natural, universal law became so widespread that some Roman legal codes began by distinguishing laws particular to given states from the law of nature (ius naturale),596 the law due to natural reason (naturalis ratio).597 More generally, divine law came to be applied even to days of ill omen598 or heavenly decrees;599 “eternal law” could apply to such natural matters as the sun rising on time.600 It had long been a commonplace that laws of the gods (such as burial of the dead) took precedence over laws of the state when the two conflicted.601 Diaspora Jews apparently used the concept of universal law to help shape how they presented their moral convictions.602 Some Diaspora Jews believed that God would establish a common law for all humanity.603 Like Cicero, Philo adopts the Stoic image of the universal law of nature, which is essentially identical with reason;604 his Logos governs creation as a law would rule a city.605 Although the law of nature is, by normal definition, unwritten and universal rather than particular, Philo regards Moses’s law as a written copy of the law of nature.606 Natural law is widespread in most ancient intellectual sources except the rabbis,607 and as already observed, expectation of a universal ethic appeared even there (though few Gentiles would have included abstaining from food with blood in it). The Stoic idea of natural law also persisted in late antiquity 590. Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30. 591. Cic. Leg. 1.10.28. For Cicero, nature was the source of right (Off. passim, e.g., 3.17.72; 3.28.101) and itself equivalent to true law (Leg. 3.1.3); those who obeyed nature’s laws would always do right (Off. 1.28.100). 592. Cic. Leg. 1.12.33. Society’s common bonds came from nature (Off. 1.16.50). 593. Cic. Leg. 2.4.10. 594. Sen. E. Controv. 1.1.14. 595. Dio Chrys. Or. 80.5–6. For Dio, humans have an innate knowledge of deity reinforced by nature (12.27–29, 32). Customs were “unwritten laws” of particular societies (76.1), but they could differ from universal unwritten laws. 596. Justin. Inst. 1.2.1–2 (Birks and McLeod, 36–37), a later compilation of earlier laws. 597. Gaius Inst. 1.1 (Gordon and Robinson, 19–20). In the Hellenistic period, Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420a.26–28 defined law as reason (λόγος) specified by common agreement, a sort of social contract. Stoicism influenced Roman law in looking for a universal, rational basis for law ( Jervis, “Law,” 635); Remus, “Authority,” suggests that in the period of the empire, “nature” helped sustain or supplant laws, which had been losing their moral authority. 598. Tac. Hist. 2.91. 599. Sil. It. 6.120 (poetic). 600. Lucan C.W. 7.1. (Lucan believes that even the creator is bound by eternal law [2.10].) 601. Soph. Antig. 450–57, 913–14. In the golden age, people did right without needing a law (Ovid Metam. 1.89–90). 602. See Sterling, “Universalizing the Particular.” Cf. lxx translators in Roetzel, Paul, 52. 603. Sib. Or. 3.757–59. 604. See Horsley, “Law of Nature”; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:332–47; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 114–15. Koester, Paul and World, 126–42, emphasizes Philo’s contribution in particular to natural law discussion. 605. Myre, “Loi.” Stoics also emphasized God’s rule of the universe as a state (Cic. Fin. 3.19.64). 606. Najman, “Written Copy”; idem, “Authority.” Whereas Greek epitaphs often spoke of natural law, 4 Maccabees identifies the “law” with the Pentateuch (Redditt, “Nomos”); for the Torah as the law of reason, see, e.g., 4 Macc 1:17, 34; 2:5–14, 23; 5:16–34; 6:30; 7:7–8; 9:15; 11:5, 27; 13:22, 24. 607. Bockmuehl, “Law.” Unwritten law in Philo resembles Greek concepts more than later rabbis’ oral law (Martens, “Unwritten Law,” on Philo Spec. Laws 4.149–50; cf. the hidden, eschatological interpretation of the law at Qumran in Hamidovic, “Halakhah”). Rabbis could envision a central unifying principle to the law (as in b. Šabb. 31a; cf. Zipor, “Talebearers”; Keener, Matthew, 249), which some scholars relate to Greek unwritten law ( Jeremias, Sermon, 3).

2267

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 115

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

and is evident even in Aquinas.608 Gentile thinkers would not have recognized most of these specific Noahide laws as “universal,” but the concept of universal law offered a bridge for understanding the conception found in this Jewish tradition. The arguments supporting a midrash on Lev 17–18 (the third view, noted above) also work in favor of the Noahide laws, or at least something like them.609 The overlap with the Jerusalem Council’s list could stem from the comparable elements’ simply being essentials of the law or from the recognition that even in Noah’s day God had prohibited food with blood in it (Gen 9:4)—that is, the nucleus of what the later tradition of “Noahide laws” recognized. The Noahide laws themselves probably depend on and develop these themes in Lev 17–18,610 and by the period of Luke, interpreters could use the latter in explaining the former. The resemblances between Noahide laws and Lev 17–18 and between Acts 15:20, 29 and the other two sources probably do not simply stem from coincidence. The options are not mutually exclusive611 but point to a central tradition about expectations for Gentiles that may also be illumined by examining the earliest traditions about Noahide laws. Thus church fathers, while recalling an exegetical basis in Lev 17–18, could use the Noahide prohibition in Gen 9:4 to explain why Christians abstained from blood ( Justin Dial. 20; Tert. De monogamia 5).612 Luke may have been familiar with the Levitical background of the decree; at the least, he appreciates a principle relevant to Gentiles in the context: the love of neighbor (Lev 19:18) in context demands welcoming the strangers in the land as one would one’s own people (19:34), and Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel applies this principle to Samaritans (Luke 10:27–37).613 Many scholars doubt the relevance of the Noahide laws, because four of the seven are missing.614 In response, I may point out that some lists of universal moral standards (what “Noahide laws” are meant to represent) are shorter (Sib. Or. 3.762–66 addresses idolatry, immorality, and murder, as noted above). First-century Judaism itself held different opinions about how strictly Gentiles must observe its rules.615 Less persuasively, some claim that the Noahide laws applied only within Israel;616 this is not accurate, since (in contrast to Lev 17–18) “Noahide” laws by definition applied to all descendants of Noah. 608. Mitsis, “Stoics and Aquinas.” 609. This is true though some supporters of the Lev 17–18 interpretation adamantly reject the Noahide law interpretation (e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 557). The rabbis’ conception of Noahide laws in a sense universalized Lev 17–18 (cf., e.g., discussion in Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 383). 610. Cf. Millard, “Gebote.” 611. Perhaps some viewed these as analogous to Noahide laws, and others as analogous to laws for resident aliens; if so, this might explain the different approaches of James and Cephas in Gal 2:11–14 (Taylor, “Decrees”). Nanos, Mystery, 53, thinks that the decree drew from both models; he further contends (83–84; cf. 166–238, but note “for example,” 246) that the “teaching” received by Roman believers (Rom 6:17–18; 16:17–18) was this apostolic decree of halakot for righteous Gentiles. 612. Bauckham, “James,” 465, noting that Tert. Apol. 9.13 cites not only Lev 17:12–13 but also 17:15 and that Pseudo-Clementine literature cites Lev 17–18 for the reasons. 613. On the law of love in Luke 10:25–37 and Acts 15:20, see Oegema, “Gebot,” 510–14. 614. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 68–69. Barrett suggests that those included are the first, third, fourth, and seventh in the “standard” list (Barrett, Acts, 734–35). Barrett notes that “there is nothing in the text to call Noah to mind” (734); that objection, however, would rule out most references to Noahide laws apart from their frequent rabbinic title, since they were more often used to highlight the prohibitions than their origin. Lightfoot briefly rejects reference to Noahide laws here (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 9, from Witherington), yet (similar to my approach) views the decree as a matter not of principle but “simply to avoid offense” and unite Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus (p. 9). 615. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Dispersion,” 1:166 (citing Jos. Ant. 20.38–45, especially debating circumcision). Diaspora Jews commonly sought for Gentiles just to abandon idols and immorality; see Collins, “Symbol,” 163–86, as cited in Barreto, Negotiations, 99–100. 616. Witherington, Acts, 464.

2268

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 116

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Whatever else may be said, these rules at the least allowed Gentiles to be seen as God-fearers rather than as idolaters617 for both the Jerusalem church and other pious Jerusalemites. In contrast to most scholars, I believe that Paul’s commitment against sexual immorality, along with his principle of not causing offense in foods, would have inclined him to go along with such regulations618 provided that he did not need to present food laws as a matter of salvation. Far from being Luke’s later fiction about the Gentile mission’s triumph, this compromise would not, in fact, resolve the circumcision question decisively; it simply makes the Gentile converts acceptable to circumcisionists as God-fearers—not full proselytes. The compromise falls short of the Pauline view, which, presumably, Luke’s circle of churches held; it would not prevent division over the status of Gentiles, though it should have made it acceptable to eat with them (Gal 2:11–14). What the working compromise does achieve is temporary peace in the church, a silencing of demands for Gentile converts to be circumcised, and time for the Gentile churches to continue growing in their own way. After Jerusalem’s destruction, the church’s numerically largest future would lie especially with them.619 iii. Content of the Decree

The form of the decree is neither paraenesis nor vice list, though it bears some resemblance to both. Paraenesis in its most narrow sense620 lists a string of exhortations or advice, most only loosely connected with the audience’s setting.621 Paraenesis even in the narrow sense appears in some of Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 12:9–21; 1 Thess 5:12–22).622 Vice lists simply listed various sins, again usually only loosely connected with the audience’s setting.623 They appear in both Jewish624 and Gentile sources; Stoics625 (and other philosophers)626 were among those with a predilection for them, as were (for 617. See, e.g., Every, “Jews and God-Fearers.” 618. Sanders, “Between Jews and Gentiles,” suggests that Paul’s opposition to idolatry and immorality yet failure to observe Jewish boundaries regarding the Sabbath, food, and circumcision constituted boundary markers for a new movement, but the Noahide issue (the minimum necessary for righteous Gentiles as Gentiles) may best explain the particulars. 619. Cf. discussion in Wood, “Ethics,” 257–58. For the decree’s purpose as being unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, see also Savelle, “Reexamination”; Baker, Identity, 200; cf. also Robertson, Conversations, 66. 620. The preferred sense today includes a wider range of hortatory speech (Stowers, Letter Writing, 23), but there are texts that fit the narrower sense of stringing together exhortations, though these may be adapted for their context. 621. E.g., Isoc. Nic. 51–56 (Or. 3.37–38); Demon. 13–43; Dicta Catonis, collection of distichs, lines 1–57; Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; Diog. Laert. 1.70; 4Q412 frg. 1; Ps.-Phoc. passim; Test. Dan 5:1–4; cf. proverbs in 4Q424. On paraenesis in early Jewish sources, see further, e.g., Theron, “Motivation”; Stachowiak, “Pouczenia”; in general, see, e.g., Aune, Environment, 191; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 124–25. 622. Pauline paraenesis does have connections with its context (Sensing, “Paraenesis”; probably also more the case with philosophers than has been supposed, Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 65–66, 121) and, in some respects, resembles the use of sententiae in rhetoric (Holloway, “Prose”). 623. See more fully Charles, “Vice Lists” (including the four “cardinal” virtues of Plato and Aristotle, 1252–53); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 89–91; idem, Environment, 195–96, 201; Nock, Christianity, 100; Deissmann, Light, 316; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices.” The frequent looseness of the connection does not imply that the ethicists listing vices lacked conviction about their wrongness. 624. E.g., Jer 7:9; Ezek 18:6–8, 11–13; Hos 4:2; 4Q477 2 II, 4; Wis 14:22–27 (esp. 14:25–26); Philo Posterity 52. Cf. also eschatological vice lists (1QS IV, 9–11; Sib. Or. 2.255–82; Test. Levi 17:11; 2 Tim 3:1–5; see comment on birth pangs of the Messiah at Acts 2:23; for Gentile equivalents, Hesiod W.D. 181–201; Lucian Men. 11–12). 625. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 9.2.10–12 (in a chain, as in Jas 1:14–15); Epict. Diatr. 2.8.23; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b, p. 12.2–12; 2.7.10b, pp. 58.32–60.1; 2.7.10b, p. 60.1–7; 2.7.10e, p. 62.14–19; 2.7.11e, p. 68.17–20; Diog. Laert. 2.93. Stated negatively, cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.17–22. 626. E.g., Plato Laws 1.649D; Arist. E.E. 2.3.4, 1220b–1221a; V.V. 1249a–1251b; Diogenes Ep. 36; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 43; Iambl. V.P. 17.78.

2269

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 117

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

different reasons) rhetoricians.627 These range from short lists of several elements to a list of more than a hundred in Philo (Sacr. 32). Vice lists appear often in Paul’s epistles (Rom 1:29–31; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:19–21; Eph 5:3–5; Col 3:5, 8). A civic decree, however, offered specific regulations or prohibitions directed to the situation at hand. The form may thus also recall ot legal material (including, as noted, in Lev 17–18). (1) Idol Food 628

Along with some other scholars, Witherington notes that the term ἀλίσγημα (Acts 15:20) appears in later Christian literature especially in the setting of food eaten in the presence of the idols;629 the problem, he contends, is not idol meat but eating it in the temple precincts.630 This approach is probably too narrow a sense for our earliest sources (e.g., it fits 1 Cor 8:10 but may be less appropriate for 8:7).631 Like Revelation (Rev 2:14, 20) and patristic sources,632 Paul probably opposed all food known to be offered to idols;633 although in 1 Cor 8 he reasons with the Corinthians to avoid idol food on the grounds of not scandalizing fellow believers, he afterward, in 1 Cor 10, offers far more sweeping religious grounds. Certainly idol food and immorality were common temptations in pagan society (1 Cor 10:7–8; Rev 2:14, 20); idol food had long posed a temptation to God’s people.634 Since people could belong to multiple associations, converts who continued in other preconversion associations would be confronted with these temptations as social demands.635 Public meetings and dinner parties opened with a pagan rite;636 banquets began with a libation.637 Roman families would expect participation in ceremonial meals at the grave of a deceased loved one;638 social obligations involving sacrificial meals were virtually unavoidable.639 How could Christians participate in society without seeming to sanction the idolatry that pervaded it?640 How could they withdraw from such settings 627. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.13–14; Cic. Pis. 27.66; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22, 25; Cael. 22.55; Phil. 3.11.28; 8.5.16; Mur. 6.14 (negated); Invect. Sall. 6.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; 3.53; 4.126; 8.8; 32.28, 91; 33.23, 55; 34.19; Fronto Nep. am. 2.8; Lucian Posts 4; Charon 11, 15; Tim. 28; Nigr. 17; Max. Tyre 5.7; 36.2. 628. On idol food, see further Aune, Revelation, 191–94. 629. Witherington, Acts, 462 (Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:944]; cf. Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20, on 8:1ff.); idem, Corinthians, 200; idem, “Thoughts”; cf. also Fee, “Eidōlothyta”; idem, Corinthians, 359–61; contrast Fisk, “Eating Meat.” Ἀλισγέω, the cognate verb of ἀλίσγημα, appears in the sense of defiling food in Mal 1:7, though it does not always refer to idols (Dan 1:8; Sir 40:29). 630. Witherington, “Why Not Eat?” 631. With Garland, 1 Corinthians, 365n5; Thiselton, Corinthians, 617, indeed, suggests that it includes any food consecrated to a deity (broader than being sacrificed). Location did not specify function (Smith, Symposium, 76–77). 632. Thiselton, Corinthians, 660–61; e.g., Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 96; Bray, Corinthians, 79). Sometimes this was to avoid causing stumbling; see Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 20.8, 11; 24.5; 25.1–2 (Bray, Corinthians, 77, 79, 98, 100–101); Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 259 (Bray, Corinthians, 100); Aug. Ep. 47 (Bray, Corinthians, 100). 633. Cf., e.g., Garland, “Dispute”; idem, 1 Corinthians, 395; Still, “Paul’s Aims.” Paul answers the Corinthians on their terms in 1 Cor 8 and advances his own argument in 1 Cor 10 (Willis, Idol Meat, 270–71; cf. Dawes, “Danger”). 634. E.g., Ezek 18:6; 22:9. 635. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 138; Willis, “Banquets,” 144; idem, Idol Meat, 14, 63. 636. Ramsay, Pictures, 264. In many social settings, such as associations, food and other elements honored imperial deities (Harland, Associations, 239–64); most banquets involved sacrifice (Smith, Symposium, 85; Willis, Idol Meat, 7–9). 637. Smith, Symposium, 28–30; cf. Xen. Cyr. 7.1.1; Iambl. V.P. 28.155–56. For examples of libations more generally, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 1.462; 6.258–60; 9.175–77; Od. 2.431–32; 3.333–34; Hesiod W.D. 724; Eurip. Hyps. 118–19; Ap. Rhod. 1.435–36; Val. Max. 2.6.8; Pliny E. N.H. 14.23.119; Arrian Alex. 1.11.6; 6.3.2; Pliny Ep. 10.96.5; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.10; 5.10; Philost. Hrk. 1.6; 33.36; 53.9; 58.5. 638. Jeffers, World, 45. 639. Willis, Idol Meat, 63n234. 640. This proved a temptation to Jews invited to pagan friends’ ceremonies (Goodman, State, 49).

2270

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 118

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

(like some stricter Jews; see comment on Acts 10:28; esp. 11:3) without incurring the anti-Jewish label of “haters of humanity” (see comment on Acts 16:20–21)? They needed clear guidance regarding what their new faith expected of them. Sacrifices almost always included feasts;641 after ancients sacrificed their food, they ate most of it.642 Naturally, there was a surplus of meat at such festivals,643 and in many locations the poor may have been treated to meat especially at these festivals.644 (Meat could also be preserved for a time, however.)645 Mitchell thinks that in Pisidian Antioch in South Galatia, meat from the imperial cult was the main source of meat available, offering a setting in which one’s allegiances would readily become known.646 Some even ate meat to avoid association with a cult known to abstain from it.647 Although the largest quantity of meat was doled out at festivals, it was doled out more frequently at banquets, again consecrated to deities.648 One could not always be sure whether meat in the market was idol meat,649 though if it had not been specially prepared, one could suppose that it had been “strangled” instead of drained of its blood. Friendship and patronage networks also entailed invitations to dinner, where one had even less grounds for certainty about the source of the food.650 People of status (probably notably Erastus in Corinth, if he was a believer) would especially suffer if their mealtime associations were curtailed.651 One way to avoid complications with meat that one bought for oneself was to buy food prepared for Jewish requirements.652 Perhaps one reason Paul does not need to address the question of meat with the blood drained out is that Christians purchasing meat that had certainly not been sacrificed often might be incidentally acquiring meat that had been butchered in a kosher manner anyway, available especially from Jewish sellers. (2) Sexual Immorality 653 The term πορνεία (Acts 15:20) originally meant prostitution but came to apply

to any sexual immorality.654 Some scholars seek to limit the meaning more narrowly,655

641. E.g., Babr. 97; see Klauck, Context, 13–19. On imperial-cult feasts, see, e.g., Klauck, Context, 319–21. 642. E.g., Smith, Symposium, 67–69; Xen. Anab. 5.3.9; Theophr. Char. 9.2; Paus. 9.39.5. Benefactors such as the emperor could dole out meat to the masses ( Jos. Ant. 19.130). 643. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 29 complains that festivals promote gluttony; cf. celebratory eating at a festival in Apoll. K. Tyre 39. For eating at festivals in Roman Egypt, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53–54, 57. 644. Cf. Theissen, Setting, 125–28; Smith, Symposium, 32; Jeffers, World, 61; Thiselton, Corinthians, 619; in Jewish Palestine, Sanders, Judaism, 129. Meggitt, “Meat Consumption,” argues that meat was more widely available outside festivals than many scholars (who have treated it as an exclusively elite option) have supposed. 645. Frost, “Preservation.” 646. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:10. 647. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.22 (the cult might be Judaism). 648. Willis, Idol Meat, 13–14. 649. Cf. Koch, “Macella”; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 145; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 365–66; Witherington, Corinthians, 189; Smith, Symposium, 75; Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278–81. Isenberg, “Sale,” thinks that the source of meat was typically identified (and shows that this was sometimes the case, as in Vit. Aes. 51), but as others have shown (e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 783), often enough it was not. 650. Meeks, Moral World, 112. 651. Theissen, Setting, 129–30; Meeks, Urban Christians, 98. 652. Cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 6–7, 288–93. 653. I have treated this subject more extensively in Keener, “Adultery”; but I have adapted here esp. Keener, John, 593–95. 654. Johnson, Acts, 266 (citing Tob 4:12; 8:7; Sir 23:23). 655. Witherington, Acts, 463, limits it to sacral prostitution (which Jewish people may have expected more often than it happened in this period) to fit his thesis that the entire decree concerned temple activity. Fitzmyer, Acts, 557–58, argues, from analogy with zenut in CD IV, 12–V, 14, that it includes polygamy, divorce (IV, 20–21), and incestuous marriages (V, 7–8). The application of the prohibition against second marriages to divorce in IV, 20 (cf. Black, Scrolls, 123; Schubert, “Ehescheidung,” 27), however, is problematic, since the context concerns royal polygyny (CD V, 2; with Vermes, “Halakah”; Keener, Marries Another, 40–41);

2271

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 119

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

often to incestuous marriages,656 despite the breadth of the term’s potential semantic range (obvious enough simply from a concordance search in the nt). Such a narrow limitation of a term with a quite broad semantic range (in both early Christian and wider Greek literature) is difficult to justify.657 It is true that some Gentiles, both individually658 and corporately,659 were known for marriages incestuous by biblical standards.660 Most Gentiles in the Pauline geographic sphere, however, opposed incest, as Paul himself recognized (1 Cor 5:1);661 given the decree’s initial geographic target (Acts 15:22–23), not to mention Luke’s own likely target audience, it is not likely that the decree was directed toward sibling marriages in Egypt.662 (Although its contours vary from one society to another,663 the incest taboo, in some form, is further, the text itself claims that Belial’s nets enslaved Israel, not only Gentiles (CD IV, 16). The parallel text in 11QT LVI, 18–19 prohibits only polygamy (in view of the quotation of Deut 17:17 and context instructing the king) and allows remarriage after a spouse’s death (with Yadin, “Attitude”; though Murphy-O’Connor, “Remarques,” believes that the two texts may address different issues). 656. In various passages, e.g., Bruce, Thessalonians, 82; Meier, Vision, 256; Harrington, Matthew, 30; Caron, “Divorce,” 312; Schedl, “Ehebruchklausel”; Wambacq, “Possibilité”; Witherington, “Exception.” For a discussion of the forbidden degrees of marriage (in Philo and later rabbis), see Belkin, Philo, 232–41. 657. See Barrett, Acts, 732; Keener, Matthew, 467–69; Hagner, Matthew, 1:124. 658. E.g., P.Oxy. 237, vol. 7, lines 19–29; stories about allowing it to prevent death from lovesickness (Val. Max. 5.7.ext. 1; Sen. E. Controv. 6.7); claims about Caligula in Suet. Calig. 23.1; 24.1; Jos. Ant. 19.204 (but Josephus justifies the same for parents of a royal proselyte in the East, 20.18); Nero in Suet. Nero 28.2; storytellers also exploited such lines (Ovid Metam. 9.454–665; 10.314–476; Parth. L.R. 2.2; 5.2–3; 11.1–3; 13.1–4; 17.1–7; 31.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 1); for exceptions for philosophers, see Hook, “Oedipus.” 659. On alleged Persian intercourse with mothers, see, e.g., Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.152; 3.205; Ptolemy Tetrab. 4.10.203; Catullus 90.1–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 10.30; 21.5; Philo Spec. 3.13; Tatian 28; Tert. Apol. 9.16; Gane, “Leviticus,” 309–10; more documented, with sisters, Yamauchi, Persia, 127, 450; comment on Nabateans at Acts 9:23–25. For Egypt, see comment below. 660. For Jewish suspicions, see Sib. Or. 5.390–91; cf. Gen. Rab. 18:5; 52:11. Jewish people harshly condemned all kinds of incest (Gen 19:30–38; 49:3–4; Jub. 16:8; 33:1–14; 41:23–26; Philo Spec. Laws 3.19; Jos. Ant. 17.341; Test. Reub. 1:6–10; Gr. Ezra 4:24; Sipre Deut. 246.1.2; y. Ned. 2:1, §4; Taʿan. 4:5, §8; Deut. Rab. 2:21; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 35:25; on Deut 23:10; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 179–81; Belkin, Philo, 232–41) and considered the Jewish standard stricter than Gentile practice (e.g., Sipra Qed. par. 4.206.1.2; y. Qidd. 1:1, §2; cf. Jos. Ant. 20.18). Some Gentiles might have condemned levirate marriages, though (cf. Ps.-Libanius Introduction of a Law 1). 661. Hesiod W.D. 328–29; Xen. Mem. 4.4.20–21; Lysias Or. 14.41, §143; Diod. Sic. 5.55.6–7; Cic. Leg. 2.9.22; Catull. Carm. 67.23–24, 29–30; 78.1–6; Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 3; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.6; Gaius Inst. 1.59–64; Plut. Rom. Q. 108, Mor. 289D; Par. St. 19, Mor. 310BC; Juv. Sat. 2.32–33; 4.8–9; Tac. Ann. 14.2; 16.8; Suet. Calig. 23–24; Nero 28; Min. Fel. Oct. 31.1; Apul. Metam. 10.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.10; 5.14; Iambl. V.P. 17.78; 31.210; Keener, “Adultery,” 12–14; Robinson, Criminal Law, 54–57; Ebner, “Incestus.” The story of Oedipus (Sophocles Oedipus the King; Seneca the Younger Phoenician Women) was often recalled (e.g., Soph. Antig. 863–66; Eurip. Phoen. 869; Epict. Diatr. 1.24.16; Mart. Epig. 10.4.1; Hdn. 4.9.3; cf. Justin 1 Apol. 27; cf. also discussion in Henrichs, “Oedipus”). Many regarded as shameful even Claudius’s marriage to his niece (Tac. Ann. 12.5; Suet. Claud. 26.3; 39; Dio Cass. 61.31.6); exceptions had to be made for deities (e.g., Burkert, Religion, 178; Virg. Aen. 1.45–46; Athenag. Plea 32), and the emperor may have invoked this privilege (for one theory, Green, “Claudius”). 662. On these, see Paus. 1.7.1; Diod. Sic. 1.27.1; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.152; for a discussion of frequency, see Scheidel, “Incest Revisited”; for development, Ameling, “Sibling Marriage”; Rowlandson and Takahashi, “Marriage”; more skeptically, Huebner, “Marriage” (who suggests, e.g., that one sibling was adoptive); against Huebner, with considerable evidence, Remijsen and Clarysse, “Incest”; for political motives in the Ptolemaic dynasty, see Ager, “Familiarity”; cf. ANET 467–69; in Nubia, see Adams, Nubia, 260; for the limitation mainly to the royal family until the Roman period, see Long, “2 Samuel,” 462; in some more recent cultures, cf. Radcliffe-Brown, “Taboo,” 50. These were rejected elsewhere (Diod. Sic. 10.31.1; Gaius Inst. 1.61), though Greeks allowed nonuterine, half-sibling unions (e.g., Ach. Tat. 1.3.1–2; Corn. Nep. 5 [Cimon], 1.2; cf. Corn. Nep. pref. 4). Although Jewish people felt that God tolerated brother-sister marriages in an earlier period (Gen 20:12; y. Sanh. 5:1, §4), Lev 18:9, 11 and Deut 27:22 ruled out subsequent brother-sister marriages (Sipre Num. 90.1.1) except perhaps for Gentile slaves (y. Yebam. 11:2, §3). 663. See, e.g., Farber, Kinship Systems, 59; Barth, “Descent,” 6; Schapera, “Kinship,” 152, 156; cf. Gough, “Mappilla,” 433; Pitt-Rivers, “Kith,” 94–95. Sometimes degrees of kinship also vary in amount of incest guilt (e.g., Elkins, “Models,” 171; Evens, “Mind,” 126; Schlegel, Dominance, 12, 69, 76, 123–24); some cultures also provide rituals for removing incest guilt (e.g., Southall, “Ideology,” 159). A few cultures prohibit all firstcousin marriages (Farber, Kinship Systems, 26–28, 31–32; for parallel cousins, Kuper, “Kinship,” 104), but most permit at least cross-cousin marriages (e.g., Mark, “Marriage”; Gough, “Variation”; Murphy and Kasdan,

2272

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 120

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

almost universal.)664 Further, Jewish people suspected Gentiles of forms of immorality much wider than incest alone.665 Although sexual immorality might seem self-evident enough a vice that it need not be stated as a prohibition for genuine converts,666 Jewish people in general did not trust Gentile sexual behavior,667 and their suspicions had some empirical basis, especially for unmarried men (quite a number of men, given the late age of marriage for Greek men and the average longevity). Going further, a late line of rabbinic tradition even suggests that one should assume a female proselyte to be a virgin only if she is under the age of three years and one day; otherwise one takes one’s chances!668 Whether among Gentiles or among their own people, Jewish people detested as horrible behavior premarital sex,669 adultery,670 prostitution,671 and frequently even lust,672 which some viewed as visual adultery.673 It was crucial to keep oneself from sexual immorality (Jub. 20:3). Jewish men disdained marrying prostitutes, who had defiled their bodies.674 Despite frequent Jewish views of Gentiles, however, even Gentiles prohibited or frowned on various forms of sexual behavior (though, with exceptions for particular objects,675 usually not lust, which most viewed as normal and healthy676 and “Agnation,” 12). Some apply extended sibling terminology to forbidden cousins (e.g., Fields and Merrifield, “Kinship,” 27; Farber, Kinship Systems, 94). 664. See Graburn, “Incest Taboos,” 324; Parsons, “Kinship,” 410; cf., e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 179–80, 192; Evans-Pritchard, Kinship, 29–48; Firth, Tikopia, 280–97. Incest invites punishment by deities or society (e.g., Wilson, Rituals of Kinship, 134–35, 187; Evens, “Mind”; Nukunya, Kinship, 68; Willner, “Definition,” 152; Fortes, “Kinship,” 257; Needham, “Kinship,” 27; in magic, see Makarius, “Violation,” 233–34). 665. See Wilt, “Appealing to Context” (against restricting πορνείας to “incest” here). 666. Many modern Christian pastors at this point might lament, “Would that it were so!” See, e.g., Sider, Scandal, 22–24. 667. E.g., m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; cf. 2 Macc 6:4; bestiality in y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1, §3; homosexual intercourse in Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600; 5.166, 387; y. Qidd. 4:11, §6. Cf. Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 233, for a reaction against “laxe, hellenistische Sexualethik.” 668. B. Yebam. 60b. 669. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.199; 1 En. 8:1–2; Jub. 20:4; 33:20; Test. Ab. 10:8 A; Asc. Is. 2:5; t. Sanh. 13:8; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; see further Keener, “Adultery,” 10–11. It is equivalent to prostitution (Sipra Qed. pq. 7.204.1.1–2; either may be condemned in CD IV, 17–18; VII, 1; VIII, 5; 1QS IV, 10). 670. E.g., Wis 14:24; L.A.B. 2:8; Sent. Syr. Men. 45–46, 240–51; Test. Levi 17:11; Tr. Shem 7:15; 9:9; 10:16; at greater length, see Keener, “Adultery,” 7–10. 671. Deut 23:17; Sir 9:6; 19:2; 41:20; 2 Macc 6:4; Jos. Ant. 4.206, 245; Philo Jos. 43; Sib. Or. 5.388; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; perhaps Jos. Asen. 7:5/6. 672. E.g., Job 31:1, 9; Tob 8:7; Sir 9:8; 23:5; 25:21; 41:21; Sus 8; 1QS I, 6–7; IV, 10; CD II, 16; 11QT LIX, 14; 1QpHab V, 7; Sib. Or. 4.33–34; Pss. Sol. 4:4; Test. Iss. 3:5; 4:4; Test. Reub. 3:3; 4:1, 6, 11; 6:1–3; Test. Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; 2, §9 B; b. Ber. 20a; Yebam. 63b; y. Ber. 9:1, §16; Ḥag. 2:2, §4; Ḥal. 2:1, §10; Gen. Rab. 32:7; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2; see further Keener, Matthew, 186–87; Mueller, “Faces of Lust.” Cf. Matt 5:28–30; 2 Pet 2:14; Justin 1 Apol. 15; Sent. Sext. 233; Tert. Apol. 46.11–12; for avoiding holding one’s membrum during urination, cf. b. Nid. 13a; Gen. Rab. 95 MSV; for not looking at one’s private parts, cf. y. Sanh. 10:5, §2. 673. Test. Iss. 7:2; Test. Reub. 4:8; b. Nid. 13b, bar.; Šabb. 64ab; Lev. Rab. 23:12; Pesiq. Rab. 24:2; see Keener, Marries Another, 16–17. 674. Jos. Ant. 4.245. This appears to assume that the woman had a choice, which was probably more common in Israel (prostitutes in Pss. Sol. 2:11). 675. Gentiles might frown on it if the woman was betrothed or married (Ach. Tat. 4.3.1–2 in context; Char. Chaer. 2.2.8; Val. Max. 4.5.ext. 1), but it was not legally punishable (Char. Chaer. 5.7.5–6; 8.8.8; Philost. Letters 26 [57]); also for immoral intentions or the appearance of such (Xen. Cyr. 5.1.8, 16–18; Cic. Cat. 1.6.13; Val. Max. 2.1.5; 4.3.ext. 1; Plut. Alex. 21.5; Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.11–14). Stoics opposed lust because it meant that pleasure, rather than virtue, dominated one’s thoughts (e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.37; Epict. Diatr. 2.18.15–18; 3.2.8; 4.9.3; Marc. Aur. 2.10; 3.2.2; 9.40; cf. Nock, Christianity, 19; on the dangers of other pleasures, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 116.4–22; purely descriptively, Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.14–15). For diverse views on self-stimulation, see Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.206. 676. E.g., Ach. Tat. 1.4–6; Apul. Metam. 2.8; Diog. Laert. 6.2.46, 69; Diogenes Ep. 35; Artem. Oneir. 1.78; Philost. Letters 10 (§50); 13 (59); 26 (§57); 58 (61); Epicurus in Max. Tyre 32.8.

2273

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 121

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

which many sought to procure through magical means).677 Granted, many prohibitions involved merely mixing of status;678 Roman law regarded as stuprum, its closest equivalent to unlawful “fornication,” only liaisons between persons belonging to particular social classes.679 Although “prostitution” does not exhaust the semantic range of πορνεία, it is certainly part of it. Despite the disapproval of some (especially Jews and Christians),680 sleeping with prostitutes681 was considered legal and common behavior, and even some of those who disapproved of male premarital sexual activity might warn not to judge others who engaged in it.682 Nevertheless, Gentiles did not regard such sexual relations as on the same level as a legitimate marriage bearing legitimate heirs.683 Women might engage in prostitution legally684 (this activity generated substantial Roman tax revenues)685 provided they were unmarried,686 but some circles regarded sex with prostitutes as shameful,687 perhaps because of the economic excess or submission to pleasure it entailed.688 Women’s premarital689 and extramarital purity was considered so important that some Gentiles, both men690 and women,691 preferred women’s death to their de677. E.g., PGM 4.400–405; 13.304; 32.1–19; 36.69–101, 102–33, 134–60, 187–210, 291–94, 295– 311, 333–60; 62.1–24; 101.1–53; Theocritus The Spell; Lucian Dial. C. 1 (Glycera and Thais), 281; 4 (Melitta and Bacchis ¶1), 286; Lover of Lies 14–15; Apul. Metam. 3.16–18; Philost. Hrk. 16.2; Test. Jos. 6:1–8 (even if the woman was married, PDM 61.197–216 = PGM 61.39–71; Tibullus 1.2.41–58; cf. Eurip. Hipp. 513–16); cf. Frankfurter, “Perils”; Jordan, “Erotic Spell”; idem, “Formulae” (on P.Duk. inv. 729); Dickie, “Who Practised Love-Magic?”; Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 125; with regard to Apuleius, Bradley, “Apologia”; Nelson, “Fish”; in a more recent culture, Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 15. For aphrodisiacs, see Pliny E. N.H. 27.35.57; 27.99.125; 28.4.19; 28.6.34; 28.80.261; 30.49.141; for antiaphrodisiacs, see 24.38.62; 32.50.139. 678. E.g., P.Eleph. 1.3–4; Dio Cass. 54.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9–11; Gaius Inst. 1.66–92; Ulpian Rules 5.8–9; cf. Arrian Ind. 12.8; Gardner, Women, 36. In Judaism, cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.244–45; t. Sanh. 4:7; y. Giṭ. 1:4, §2; Ketub. 1:5, §2; Qidd. 1:1, §8; 3:12, §8; Yebam. 6:1–9:8. On the relation between Jewish and Roman codes here, see Cohen, Law, 133–36; further documentation appears in Keener, Marries Another, 58–60, 169–70. 679. E.g., Williams, Homosexuality, 106–7; Rawson, “Family,” 34; Robinson, Criminal Law, 70. 680. Especially against abuse of slaves; Sir 41:22; Sent. Syr. Men. 347–53; Christian influence may exist in the public disapproval of Justin. Cod. 9.25. The prohibitions, however, suggested that the temptation existed (m. ʾAb. 2:7; t. Hor. 2:11; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:6). Christian influence in the empire eventually abolished prostitution (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69–70). 681. Some even viewed prostitution as a legitimate deterrent to adultery (Gr. Anth. 7.403). For prostitutes at banquets, see, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.intro. 682. Epict. Encheir. 33.8. Others apparently found nothing wrong with limited male promiscuity (cf. Ap. Rhod. 1.842–909). 683. E.g., Demosth. Boeot. 2.8–10 (LCL, 4:486–87); Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB. 684. Gardner, Women, 130; Justin. Cod. 9.22. Cf. honored prostitutes of higher status (e.g., Athen. Deipn. 13.596b; Aul. Gel. 7.7.5–7; Sipre Num. 115.5.7); many, however, entered the profession through economic necessity (Terence Andr. 73–79), and most because they were slaves (Apul. Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8 A; cf. Justin. Cod. 9.20, 29). They were supposed to writhe flexibly to prevent conception (Lucret. Nat. 4.1268–77). 685. See, e.g., OGIS 674 = IGRR 1.1183; McGinn, “Taxation”; Lewis, Life, 141, 145, 171–72. Pay varied according to appearance and skill (e.g., CIL 4.1679). 686. On their being unmarried, e.g., Prop. Eleg. 2.7.7. An equestrian who engaged in this behavior could be exiled, and her husband punished if he refused to confront her activity (Tac. Ann. 2.85). 687. Diod. Sic. 12.21.2; Cato Coll. dist. 25; Aul. Gel. 15.12.2, 3. Prostitution was a shameful profession (Dio Chrys. Or. 64.3; 70.1; frg. 7 [Stob. Flor. 4, 23.60 {Hense, 588}; 74.60 {Meineke}]), as was brothel owning (Dio Chrys. Or. 7.133–35; Max. Tyre 5.7). 688. Cf. Diogenes Ep. 44; Diog. Laert. 6.2.61, 66; Mus. Ruf. frg. 12, p. 86.13–16; Artem. Oneir. 1.78; Sall. Catil. 14.6; Livy 23.18.12; Aul. Gel. 9.5.8. Some philosophers did not regard it as an ethical matter (Diog. Laert. 2.69, 74; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.201). 689. E.g., Hom. Od. 6.287–88. 690. Diod. Sic. 12.24.3–4; Livy 3.44.4–3.48.9. 691. Diod. Sic. 15.54.3; Livy 1.58.12.

2274

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 122

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

filement. All ancient Mediterranean cultures disapproved of adultery—that is, the wife’s unfaithfulness to her husband and a man’s seduction of another’s wife.692 (A double standard existed when it came to a husband’s unfaithfulness with an unmarried woman.)693 Although it may have been frequent,694 adultery was shameful695 and was considered the most grievous form of “theft,”696 and it constituted a serious insult against another man’s or woman’s morality.697 A man who, informed of his wife’s adultery, refused to divorce her could himself be arraigned for lenocinium—“pimping.”698 For the sexual abuse of slaves (from a Jewish and Christian perspective, also a form of πορνεία), see the section “Sexual Abuse” in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13.699 The larger culture’s values always threatened to overwhelm the church. Certainly a generation later, and possibly this early, some voices in the churches treated sexual immorality as a matter of personal taste (Rev 2:14, 20).700 (3) Avoid Blood (and Strangled Animals)

Presumably, “blood” (Acts 15:20) recalls the biblical prohibition against meat with blood remaining in it, to be observed by all Noah’s descendants (Gen 9:4),701 including Gentiles among the Israelites (Lev 17:10–14).702 In some Jewish traditions, corrupted animals and people began to eat each other (Jub. 5:2), and giants ate others’ flesh and drank their blood (1 En. 7:5); those who ate blood were evil (98:11).703 Meat, however, was acceptable so long as there was no blood in it (Jub. 6:6–7). Jubilees claims that Noah and his sons swore that they would not eat blood (6:10); Abraham warned Isaac against eating it (21:6), and a pious person might wish to avoid even getting blood on himself (21:17–19).704 Despite the prohibition’s association with Noah in Genesis, some Tannaim opined that Israelites themselves consumed blood before receiving the law (Sipre Deut. 76.1.1); others considered it the least commandment (76.1.1; 76.3.2). Strict pietists, however, claimed that consuming blood was a capital offense that God would avenge (CD III, 6); pouring out blood was thus crucial (XII, 12–13). The prohibitions against “things strangled”705 and against “blood” are probably two approaches to the same question; strangled animals would not have the blood 692. E.g., Plut. Bride 42, 46, Mor. 144B, EF; Dio Cass. 77.16.5; Apul. Metam. 6.22; Athen. Deipn. 4.167e. Only a few philosophers did not condemn all adultery (Diog. Laert. 2.99). 693. For the gender-based double standard, see, e.g., Eurip. Pirithous frg. 1–13; Justin. Cod. 9.1; but cf. also Isoc. Nic. 40 (Or. 3.35); Diog. Laert. 8.1.21. 694. Probably with rhetorical overstatement, Sen. Y. Ben. 1.9.4; 3.16.3; Dial. 12.16.3; Juv. Sat. 4.1–20. On actual conditions, see Richlin, “Adultery.” 695. E.g., Eurip. Hipp. 403–18; Hor. Sat. 1.2.38, 49, 64–100; Ep. 1.2.25–26; Odes 1.15.19–20; Juv. Sat. 6.231– 41; Epict. Diatr. 2.4; 2.10.18; 2.18.15; Plut. S. Kings, Alexander 3, Mor. 179E; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 5.5. 696. Artem. Oneir. 3.11; Sib. Or. 1.178; 3.38, 204; 5.430; Ps.-Phoc. 3; cf. Epict. Diatr. 3.3.12. 697. E.g., Sall. Catil. 25.3–4; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.15–6.16; Appian Hist. rom. 7.9.56; Mart. Epig. 2.47, 49; 3.26.6; 6.45.4; 6.91; 9.2. 698. Robinson, Criminal Law, 67–68; Gardner, Women, 131–32; Richlin, “Adultery,” 227; cf. Ps.-Phoc. 177–78. The penalty, however, was merely infamy (Robinson, Criminal Law, 69). 699. Keener, Acts, 2:1929–33. 700. Observations from Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 8 (from Witherington). 701. Cf. t. Demai 2:24. In Genesis, the image develops the forbidden food of Gen 2:17 (blood is associated with life also in 4:10); the consequence for violation in both cases is death (2:17; 9:5), foreshadowing the danger of disobeying Israel’s food laws (Lev 11), especially regarding blood (Lev 17). Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 72, though waxing homiletically eloquent on the matter. Later, cf. Qur’an 16.115. 702. By contrast, Barrett, Acts, 733, takes “blood” to be bloodshed, as in Greek and rabbinic idiom, and thinks that πνικτοῦ would make “blood” redundant. 703. The sense in Jub. 7:24 seems to be different. 704. Gilders, “Blood,” argues that Gen 9:4–6 (read together with other texts) is the source of all that Jubilees says about blood. 705. The term for “strangled” appears with this application only in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25 in extant literature (Dunn, Acts, 206), but the meaning seems clear enough.

2275

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 123

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

drained.706 Grammatically, the decree uses polysyndeton, a common rhetorical device (e.g., in Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.25–26).707 Polysyndeton can be used in vice lists708 as elsewhere. The separate articles in Acts 15:20 do not set up a technical hendiadys, but given the semantic range of καί, we need not press its every occurrence in the chain for parity, as if each item mentioned is equally distinct from others. Some scholars associate this prohibition with cultic slaughter of animals,709 but in this period its concern is likely broader than this issue. In fact, as E. P. Sanders points out, pagans, like Jews, at sacrifices usually bled animals to death. Sometimes they pulled back the victim’s head, then punctured its carotid artery; other times they slit its throat. “Most of the blood was drained and thrown on the altar”; because pagans did not hang up the carcass as Jews did, blood often remained in the carcass initially. But it soon was removed as “the animal was eviscerated, the joints were separated, and then the meat was boned.”710 Admittedly, Greeks “did not prohibit cutting the trachea” during the slaughter, “and if it was cut the animal might strangle on its own blood.”711 Rabbis disagreed among themselves as to how much of the trachea could be cut (m. Ḥul. 1:2; 2:1; 3:1). Still, some Jews may have complained about what they believed to be a pagan technique; one work complains about the “bread of strangulation” (Jos. Asen. 8:5; cf. 21:14).712 Some sages considered Diaspora Jews idolaters for eating with Gentiles even if they brought their own food (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4:6). How could Gentiles have access to kosher meat? Jews in various cities did have their own meat markets,713 presumably for animals slaughtered in a kosher manner and not merely a safe distance from pork.714 Diaspora Jews apparently had the right for licensed markets to sell their food. Some scholars argue that this right was restricted at times, such as under Claudius, after Paul left Corinth.715 When access to “pure” meat was limited, some Jews would choose to forgo eating meat altogether (Rom 14:21; 1 Cor 8:13). Although Paul in one of his letters makes an issue of food offered to idols, he does not make an issue over kosher slaughtering. This seems curious regarding a commandment given to all humanity (Gen 9:4–5), but perhaps he accepted the spiritual point of the law (valuing life)716 as fulfilled, or believed that standard Gentile butchering removed sufficient blood. If the prohibition results from a Jerusalemite 706. Munck, Acts, 140–41; Bruce, Acts1, 300; Johnson, Acts, 267. 707. Polysyndeton characterizes the abundant lists in Arius Didymus Epitome of Stoic Ethics; the device conveys a sense of quantity (Hermog. Method 11.426–27, citing as an example Demosthenes Or. 9.26). In rhetoric, see Rowe, “Style,” 134–35; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.3.50–52); Anderson, Glossary, 103 (citing Demet. Style 54, 63 in support and 194 against); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 367; briefly, Plath, “Polysyndeton.” 708. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 33.23. For asyndetic vice lists, see, e.g., Rom 1:29–31; Gal 5:19–21; Col 3:5, 8. 709. Magical papyri may attest strangulation to transfer life essence to an idol, and priests sometimes ate some of the blood (Witherington, Acts, 464; blood pudding in Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278). Houston, “Foods,” 331, suggests that the prohibition may originally have related to sacrifice. 710. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278; Klauck, Context, 16. 711. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 278. 712. Ibid., 278–79. 713. Jos. Ant. 14.261; Winter, Left Corinth, 288–93. 714. The Jewish prohibition of pork (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; cf. Isa 65:4; 66:3, 17) became so widely known that it was almost proverbial (see comment on Acts 10:12). Most other ancient Near Eastern (Nissen, “Pigs,” 245, on temples) and Mediterranean (Schneider, “Pigs”) peoples did not object to pork. More widely on ancient human-pig relations, see Albarella et al., Pigs. 715. Winter, Left Corinth, 296–99. 716. The point of the blood taboo in Scripture is respect for blood as the vehicle of, or as at least representative of, life (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23; see further Müller, “Leben”; Wenham, Leviticus, 245 [and Milgrom, “Prolegomenon,” which he cites]; for life in the blood, cf. Vervenne, “Blood”); cf. Jos. Ant. 1.102; esp. Philo, e.g., Worse 80, 81, 84; Heir 54, 60, 63, 65; Spec. Laws 1.205; most explicit in 4.122–23).

2276

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 124

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

misconception about pagan meat (as noted above), Paul had no reason to complain about the practice to his Diaspora churches (and perhaps no reason to disabuse them of the notion). Although Gentiles did not prohibit all blood drinking,717 most of their meat would have had relatively little blood in it. Perhaps Paul simply did not regard the issue as morally significant, considering that it would be far out of sight of those Judean believers who would likely stumble over it. Why would this rule matter sufficiently to be emphasized explicitly alongside regulations about idol food and sexual immorality? The biblical connection with the universal human ancestor Noah probably supplies part of the reason, but there is precedent in Acts for suspecting that concern for table fellowship is another (Acts 11:3).718 Matters of food, though not of blood (which Paul’s Gentiles may have avoided if later Gentile church practice in early church fathers provides an indication), were important in early Christian Jewish-Gentile dialogue. Paul’s letters also suggest that James’s partisans remained strict regarding their own table fellowship with Gentiles, presumably for the sake of the “circumcision” faction and the peace of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:12; cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Peter, by contrast, was more moderate, willing to eat with Gentiles when more conservative Jewish Christians were not around (though presumably he would not have eaten blood or something blatantly unclean such as pork).719 Paul never requires kashrut for Gentiles (Rom 14:2–3, 6, 15, 21).720 But he does oppose idol food if one knows that this is what it is, especially to prevent stumbling but also because it has been devoted to “demons” (1 Cor 8–10, esp. 10:20).721 Most of the Gentile churches in Asia seem to have adopted the prohibition of idol food (Rev 2:14, 20; Pliny Ep. 10.96.10), which probably would have been less likely without Paul’s influence. iv. Plausibility of the Decree

Scholars who affirm the promulgation of such a decree debate whether the decree was given at the Jerusalem Council or afterward. For this and several other questions concerning the decree’s plausibility, the reader is referred to the introduction, above, to Acts 15. Here I will merely summarize a few points. First, the very fact that the decree appears more conservative than what Luke’s hero Paul taught in his churches and letters (at least on the matter of eating blood) argues against Luke having invented it. A more relevant question might be whether he invents the apparent consensus the document effects. To this it should be said (as noted in more detail in the introduction to Acts 15) that the Jerusalem church accepted Paul’s mission and he accepted theirs (Gal 2:7–9). Whatever their disagreements, they did not break fellowship with each other; Paul’s collection is evidence that, from his side at least, communion remained open (Rom 15:25–27, 31; 1 Cor 16:1–3; 2 Cor 8–9). (Paul also seems to have believed that this would satisfy the Jerusalem church leaders [Gal 2:10], though perhaps not everyone there [Rom 15:31].) Divided personalities and ideologies could coexist, within reason, then as today. 717. Klauck, Context, 19. 718. Cf. Hill, Hellenists, 143–46 ( Jerusalem Christians were not opposing table fellowship with Gentiles but providing limits to make it more appropriate); but some doubt that table fellowship with Gentiles is the primary issue here (cf. Bauckham, “James,” 463–64; Gaventa, Acts, 222). 719. Even most Diaspora Jews continued to keep kosher (in Asia Minor, see Trebilco, Communities, 18). 720. See discussion of the kashrut at Acts 10:12. 721. I explain this interpretation in Keener, Corinthians, 72–73, 84. Instead of both reflecting a common source, Goulder, “Letters,” 104, thinks that Acts 15:20 reflects Luke’s knowledge of 1 Cor 8–10, but dependence on this source alone appears to beg the question of their dissimilarities.

2277

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 125

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Second, Paul agreed with some elements of the decree and probably would have accommodated others.722 Paul certainly opposed idolatry and sexual immorality. (Those who, on the basis of 1 Cor 8, view his opposition to idolatry as weak have probably misread that chapter.)723 He may have agreed to the food regulations on the principle of not causing a fellow Christian to stumble with regard to one’s food practices, whether the food had been offered to idols (1 Cor 8:7–13) or was simply not kosher (Rom 14:1–23).724 As W. L. Knox puts it, “Paul would probably have preferred to trust the spiritual development of his converts rather than to issue a formal proclamation, but he could hardly object to a proposal which gave him the essentials of victory.”725 If Paul accepts the decree on the basis of the principle of avoiding needless stumbling blocks rather than out of obedience to the Jerusalem church, his arguments, based on this principle, against offensive foods are consistent with his reasons for holding them.726 Paul cites not the decree but his principles for accepting its regulations. If this proposal seems too simple, we should note that in his arguments against sexual immorality and food offered to idols, he provides only a little biblical support in 1 Cor 5–8 (though offering some in 10:1–11).727 If Paul employed philosophic forms of moral reasoning that would appeal to the Corinthians instead of citing Scripture, how much less should we expect him to cite decrees from a distant church?728 Third, one would not expect a mere invention by Luke to have the continuing role in the church that these regulations played. Far from these rules being entirely abandoned after the decree’s promulgation (like many ancient Near Eastern legal collections), some commentators argue that they were retained for more than a century, appearing in Rev 2:10, 14 and (in my opinion more clearly) Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen729 (all this without Acts being one of that period’s more popular books). Thus they remained obligatory in the Rhone Valley in 177 (Euseb. H.E. 5.1.26).730 Still later, Tertullian refutes the charge of Christians eating human blood by noting that they do not consume even animals’ blood, that “we abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat.”731 In the fourth century, Augustine apparently chides those still keeping these rules.732 722. Paul could have accommodated them for the sake of the unity of the church. That this was an important concern for him is revealed by his collection (Rom 15:26–27). That Paul felt that his gospel was at stake at this meeting (Gal 2:2, 5) suggests that it did matter to him what the Jerusalem leaders and assembly ultimately concluded. 723. See, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 72–73, 84; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 395. 724. See also Dunn, Acts, 197; Nanos, Mystery, 133, 149–50, compares Paul’s approach to preventing stumbling with that of the decree. Paul may not view idol food as harmful in itself (see, e.g., 1 Cor 8:4, 8–9; deSilva, Honor, 298), but this may represent rhetorical posturing in view of his solid opposition in 1 Cor 10:20. 725. Knox, Jerusalem, 227. Knox sees pagan idolatry and immorality as moral mandates and food as an issue only because of early Christians’ common meals (226). 726. This is no small observation, particularly since Paul did not always match his arguments to his reasons; cf. Keener, Paul, 31, 46. For the stumbling-block principle here, see also Faw, Acts, 164. 727. Some have argued for a heavier biblical subtext in 1 Cor 5–7, at least in terms of allusions (see Rosner, Ethics). 728. He is far more apt to appeal to a consensus of “all the churches” (1 Cor 11:16; 14:33). 729. Bauckham, “James,” 464–65. Arguments for echoes in Rev 2:14, 20 (also Witherington, Acts, 466) are tenuous because idol food and sexual immorality were the commonest expressions of pagan immorality. If εἰδωλόθυτος is a distinctively Christian term, texts using it could echo the decree, but it appears in other early sources (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19); moreover, it is not exclusively Christian (4 Macc 5:2). 730. Le Cornu, Acts, 851. 731. Tert. Apol. 9.13 (LCL, 51, 53). Wallace and Williams, Acts, 71–72, note that the claims of abstention from blood in this passage, Min. Fel. 30.6, and Euseb. H.E. 5.1.26 all occur in contexts refuting claims of Christian cannibalism; they allow that these sources could depend on the decree in Acts. 732. Wood, “Ethics,” 258. Food customs related to the decree might be in view in the forbidden foods of Lucian Peregr. 16 (so LCL, 5:18–19n2), but these could be simply idol food in general (which Christians

2278

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 126

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

Granted, the subsequent Christian practice need not stem solely from the decree; the decree would not have been issued had it not addressed wider sentiments in at least the Jerusalem church. But the later tradition at least suggests that the decree is not purely a Lukan invention without basis in the beliefs of the early church; secondcentury fathers might quote and allude to Acts, but this probably would not reflect a widespread policy derived solely from the book of Acts, which does not seem to have been as influential as some other works (e.g., Matthew) before the time of John Chrysostom.733 v. Law Observance Will Not Suffer (15:21)

Jewish communities may not have appeared in literally every city (cf. Acts 16:13), but the Jewish Diaspora was quite old, and its communities were common enough for a speaker in Jerusalem to offer such hyperbole ( Jos. Ant. 14.115). Such Jewish communities had long been settled there, often in cities of Asia Minor, for example, from the time of the Seleucid Empire.734 Moses was read each Sabbath in the synagogues, and at least often the prophets were read also (Luke 4:17; Acts 13:27), yet people still failed to understand them (Acts 13:27; cf. Luke 24:25, 27; 2 Cor 3:14–15); the mere reading of Moses did not produce compliance. The point is not, however, that reading Moses proves pointless735 but probably that ethnic Israel would preserve this custom no matter what and hence the practice was not endangered by the influx of Gentiles who would not follow all the precepts for Israel. This argument fits Luke’s apologetic: the Christian movement even in its Gentile form was no threat to Judaism or to Jewish ways (preserved by Jewish Christians) despite accusations to the contrary (Acts 21:21; 24:5–6). (Conversely, it could mean that Gentile believers were to abstain from the practices in 15:20 to avoid offending the many synagogue attenders of 15:21.) In any case, James certainly is not suggesting that Jewish Christians reject Moses (21:21–24) but that Gentiles were not under obligation to follow the entire law to follow Israel’s God. What is ruled on is the issue that arose at Antioch concerning circumcising Gentiles (15:1–2, 23; though the decree is used somewhat more widely geographically, 16:4) and, historically in view of Galatians, Paul’s circumcision-free mission to Gentiles (Gal 2:2, 7, 9; cf. Acts 21:24–25).736

5. The Consensus Decree (15:22–29) The apostles and elders assented to James’s proposal and issued a circular document for the Gentile churches; this document would be confirmed orally by figures trusted in those churches alongside representatives of the Jerusalem church. This agreement rejected) or even Jewish Christians’ kashrut. Augustine believes that the rule was useful for uniting Jew and Gentile but irrelevant in the largely Gentile church of his day (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 32.13). 733. Using an index of Scripture citations in Tertullian, I estimate that several of Tertullian’s works cite the Gospel of Luke about twice as often as they do Acts (closer to sixteen times as often in his anti-Marcionite work, but for obvious reasons there), and Matthew about three times as often. 734. Whatever James means by ἀρχαίων here, it is safe to venture that he implies greater antiquity than the early years of the Jesus movement or the Gentile mission (as in Acts 15:7; cf. 21:16); it does not require the measure of antiquity suggested in 3:21, 24. 735. Schwartz, “Futility,” takes the γάρ as indicating the futility of imposing the law on Gentiles, who will not keep it. 736. In practice, most Diaspora congregations included both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 18:4–8; 19:8–10), and the theoretically distinctive missions overlapped (cf. Bruce, Peter, 31–32).

2279

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 127

6/19/14 1:53 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

was meant to preserve the unity of the Jewish and Gentile believers.737 Luke’s portrayal of the peaceful result of consensus is a particularly significant point in the interpretation of this paragraph; see comment on Acts 15:25. a. Choosing Emissaries (15:22) The apostles and elders had met to seek a decision (Acts 15:6), but the entire assembly cared about the issue (15:4) and may have voiced its approval of its leaders’ decision. “It seemed proper” (ἔδοξε in 15:22, again in 15:25, 28) was standard idiom for “‘passing’ a measure in the assembly”738 or “resolved”; it became conventional in Hellenistic decrees.739 Civic assemblies could send letters or delegations to the public assemblies of other cities,740 and one would expect that communities of resident aliens could exercise the same privilege. Of course, delegates from the mother church were not representatives from just any church, nor was Jerusalem just any city to Christians throughout the world (cf. Isa 2:3; Gal 4:26).741 Traditionally, Jerusalem authorities could prescribe some matters for the Diaspora, though in this period it was their perceived moral authority that gave them considerable influence (see comment on Acts 9:2). Later rabbis claimed authority to promulgate decrees,742 though it is unclear in what period and to what extent outsiders agreed with them.743 Sending a legation of two representatives from the people and two from the council is attested elsewhere (Char. Chaer. 3.4.17).744 Here the assembly selects (for the process, see comment on Acts 6:5) two messengers as witnesses (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15) from its own circle to complement the testimony of Barnabas and Saul, leaders of the Antioch delegation now returning to Antioch. These agents are authorized with the delegated authority of the assembly that sends them, to the extent that they execute their commission accurately.745 This will confirm the “official” Jerusalem perspective against those who have, by virtue of their provenance and support in the Jerusalem church, been claiming to represent it (Acts 15:24). 737. For the emphasis on unity here, see, e.g., Park, “Principles.” Nevertheless, the arrangement is somewhat deficient as a “missions model,” appearing to be dictated primarily by the mother church (which may have had some hierarchical tendencies; cf. Acts 15:19). But this negative observation is also mitigated somewhat by four factors suggesting that Luke would not transculturally apply this as a model for all “mother churches’” behavior: first, the newer churches were only a few years old; second, the Jerusalem church is not any mother church but held a special role in salvation history; third, the Antioch church representatives (most vocally Paul and Barnabas) had given voice to concerns of the Diaspora churches; and fourth, the decree would do more in practice to protect the Diaspora churches from traveling Jerusalemites’ interference (perhaps Luke’s primary interest in it) than to actually force implementation of its prescriptions far from Jerusalem (e.g., we never hear of Paul, in his letters or Acts, delivering decrees after 16:4). 738. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 178 (citing also Dalman for the same idiom in Aramaic). 739. Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Porter, Paul in Acts, 76. Crowds sometimes demonstrated favorable responses (see, e.g., Acts 15:3). 740. See Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Trapp, “Letters,” 847. 741. Because Luke is writing “salvation history,” Schwank, “Wort,” compares this scene to the law proceeding from Jerusalem in Isa 2:3. 742. See Patte, Hermeneutic, 100–101; even in the Diaspora, t. ʿOr. 1:8 (in R. Jose ha-Galili’s name, thus early second century); Sanh. 3:10; Sipre Deut. 59.1.2; 188.1.2; perhaps y. B. Qam. 4:1, §3; Giṭ. 5:6, §3; by the early third century, they even sent messengers to try to enforce their decrees, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; cf. perhaps (but not clearly) CIJ 1:438–39, §611. Gerhardsson, Memory, 307, thus sees this council as propagating a very limited halakah. 743. For the thorny questions involved here, see, e.g., Neusner, Traditions; idem, New Testament; Keener, John, 185–94; for synagogue zodiacs, see excursus on astrology at Acts 2:9–11 (Keener, Acts, 1:837–39). 744. Cited by Witherington, Acts, 467 (following Johnson, Acts, 276). 745. On the shaliach, see discussion in Keener, John, 310–15, and sources cited there. Influential people are chosen both for their representative value and because they may need some flexibility to apply this decree concretely on the ground; cf. their prophetic abilities in Acts 15:32.

2280

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 128

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

The name “Judas” appears frequently (cf. 1:13, 16), without providing any reason to assume that we should identify with each other any of the various individuals who bore the name; it was “enormously popular in 1st-century Palestine.”746 If “Barsabbas” is a family name, he was probably Joseph Barsabbas’s brother (1:23); more likely, the name in both cases simply means “born on the Sabbath” (see comment on Acts 1:23).747 Although the precise title is as yet unattested elsewhere, many analogous names indicate birth on the Sabbath.748 “Silas” (Σήλ[α], CIJ 2:139, §935; Jos. Ant. 14.40; 18.204; 19.299, 317, 320–21, 353; Life 89–90, 272; cf. War 2.520; 3.11) and “Silanus” (Heb. text, CIJ 1:449, §630)749 are both attested as names among Jews. It may be the Greek form of an Aramaic name found in Palmyrene inscriptions, the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew “Saul” (sha’ûl).750 Σιλουανός (Silvanus) in Paul’s epistles (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 1 Pet 5:12) is clearly the same person, and commentators typically regard “Silvanus” as the latinized form of his name.751 (Silvanus, or Σειληνός, was the most famous Satyr, a comrade of the wine god Bacchus.752 Ancients sometimes associated him with Pan and Faunus, but although he was patron deity of some lower-class collegia, this deity of the countryside lacked a public cult.)753 Paul’s letters prefer formal names such as “Silvanus” and “Prisca” whereas Luke employs the less formal “Silas” and “Priscilla.”754 b. Greetings (15:23) This “encyclical” letter probably borrows the notion of earlier Jewish encyclical models.755 Luke probably had access to a transcript of the letter; historians sought documents when writing their accounts,756 and a brief (hence easily recopied) document so widely circulated would have been available to him, probably in more than one location (Acts 15:30; 16:4).757 Sometimes historians did compose such letters if an original was lacking758 (no less than speeches); at the very least, they could make 746. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 89–90 (citing Josephus, ossuaries, and other sources). 747. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 178 (citing also Test. Jud. 8:2). Lightfoot thought him probably Joseph’s brother (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 10, from Witherington). 748. Williams, “Names,” 101–2. 749. A non-Jew in Jos. Ant. 18.52. 750. Fitzmyer, Acts, 564; Williams, “Names,” 95. Kaye, “Portrait of Silas,” argues that Silas stops appearing in the text once, in Corinth, the mission is no longer based in the synagogue (fitting Acts 15:22). Historically, however, we can be certain that he was active in Corinth and remained so afterward (2 Cor 1:19) as well as before (1 Thess 1:1). 751. E.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 135; Marshall, Thessalonians, 48. Contrast Schmithals, Apostle, 88, who argues that it is a Greek and Roman name that simply sounded similar to his Jewish name, “Silas.” The name “Silvanus” usually implies Roman citizenship ( Judge, First Christians, 562). 752. Originally the satyr Silenus (elsewhere associated with satyrs; cf. Ovid Metam. 4.26; 11.89–90, 99; 14.609), naturally blended with the Italian Silvanus. 753. Rives, “Silvanus”; cf. further on this deity Holzhausen, “Silvanus”; Dowden, “Silvanus”; Dorcey, Silvanus; on satyrs generally, see, e.g., Janowski, “Satyrs.” Well over a thousand inscriptions from the western Roman Empire mention this deity (Rives, Religion, 15). Older portraits of woodland deities like Pan were wilder and more dangerous, but some became more domesticated in time (cf. Kantzios, “Pan”). 754. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207. 755. So Le Cornu, Acts, 845; on such encyclicals, see comment on Acts 9:2. 756. Judge, Athens, 135–36, argues that historians such as Luke could employ letters differently from speeches (see comment at Acts 23:25). 757. Witherington, Acts, 467–68, suggests that it could have been available even in Philippi. Luke does not mention it beyond South Galatia, however. Lightfoot argues for Luke’s access, noting that “we” begins soon after (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 10, from Witherington). 758. Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.14 (noting both preserved and composed letters in histories).

2281

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 129

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

stylistic changes.759 But a document as widely circulated as the decree must have been able to be easily reproduced, and Luke need not have found it in Syria-Cilicia or Galatia. Certainly Paul and Silas, being among the letter’s emissaries, could have reproduced such a brief statement fairly accurately from memory, and it is likely that Paul was one of Luke’s sources (see comment on Acts 16:10).760 Novelists employed letters as dramatic devices,761 but historians included them as well,762 and sometimes even novelistic works about earlier historical characters could include authentic letters, since such documents often remained extant for some time.763 They exercised a literary as well as historical function; in Greco-Roman historiography, embedded letters serve a purpose analogous to speeches, also providing “authenticity and verisimilitude to the narrative.”764 This letter (about 111 words) is of a usual length for letters; most of Paul’s preserved letters (except Philemon) are long (more resembling letter-essays in length though more relevant to their audiences).765 “When necessary,” historians could compose letters.766 As noted, however, it should not have been necessary in this case; the contents of the decree would have been widely known, and such a brief decree could have been recited verbatim767 by those who delivered it. Although Romans had an efficient courier system for the government,768 this was not available for ordinary mail.769 Some scholars have suggested that some letters 759. Görgemanns, “Epistolography,” 1146 (citing Thucyd. 7.8–15). 760. Also see Keener, Acts, 1:406–14. 761. See Aune, Environment, 169 (citing Ach. Tat. 1.3.6; 5.18.2–6; 5.20.4–5; Char. Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.2–3, 5–6). Authors composed pseudepigraphic letters for propaganda, fiction, or simply rhetorical practice (cf., e.g., Görgemanns, “Epistolography,” 1146; Cook, Dogma, 51; see further Keener, Acts, 1:403); sometimes letters were also forged (Arrian Alex. 6.12.3). 762. E.g., usually paraphrased notes in 1 Macc 10:18–20, 25–45; 11:29–37; 13:35–40; Tac. Ann. 2.65; 3.16, 53–54; 4.39; 6.6; 15.13, 24; 16.24, 27; even more often mentioned (cf., e.g., Tac. Ann. 1.5; 2.42, 78, 79, 88; 3.35, 47; 4.70; 5.2, 3; 6.12, 15, 29; 12.19; 14.10; 15.8). 763. Aune, Environment, 169 (citing possible examples in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.7, 24; 2.46; 4.22, 27, 46; 6.29; 8.7.3). For the longevity of respected manuscripts, see Evans, World, 75–76, following esp. Houston, “Evidence.” The personal correspondence of a respected figure such as Cicero could be published. Personal letters were often retained, and authenticated copies could be made for use in court (Apul. Apol. 78); they became public documents when necessary (86). Nevertheless, forged changes in letters (84) or forged letters (Polyb. 5.42.7; 5.50.11; Arrian Alex. 6.12.3; Tac. Ann. 16.17 [cf. 5.4]; Apul. Apol. 87; Metam. 4.16; 2 Thess 2:2; cf. Jos. Life 356; Suet. Vesp. 6.4) remained real dangers, though using forged documents in court was legally punishable (see, e.g., Robinson, Criminal Law, 38). 764. Aune, Environment, 128; cf. Klauck, Letters, 420. For the rhetorical value of including letters, see Pliny Ep. 7.9.8. 765. E.g., most papyri; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46. The average length of extant papyrus letters (from a total of about fourteen thousand) is 87 words (Richards, Letter Writing, 163); on average, Cicero’s run to roughly 295; Seneca’s, 995; and Paul, on the very long side, 2,495 (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 113). For at least pretending to honor the ideal of brief letters (on the ideal, see Demet. Style 4.228; also Isoc. Ep. 2.13; Libanius [Characteres epistolici] 50, in Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 113), cf. Pliny Ep. 2.5.13; 3.9.27, 37; 4.5.3 (Pliny did not like brevity, 9.13.26; 9.20.1; 9.32). 766. Klauck, Letters, 420. See further Rosenmeyer, Fictions; comment on Acts 23:26–30. 767. Though it was more likely interpretively expanded on. Luke himself may well exercise the usual literary freedom to cast the decree in his own words (or what he remembers of it from Paul), at least in the case of a few words offering strategic connections to his larger narrative. Some of the key wording, however, is likely pre-Lukan, as is probably the concern regarding blood. Pervo, Acts, 381, objects that a decree applying only to Gentiles in mixed Diaspora churches and allowing Jews to continue to observe the law would have been virtually unworkable. Against Pervo’s skepticism on this point, this seems precisely what Paul urged in his letters (Rom 14; 1 Cor 7:18; 9:20–21; Gal 2:14; 5:6; 6:15). 768. See Llewelyn, Documents, 7:13–22, §1; cf. earlier the Persian system (Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17–18; Llewelyn, Documents, 7:2–5, §1) and that of Ptolemaic Egypt (7:5–13, §1). Remijsen, “Postal Service,” contends that the efficiency of the Ptolemaic and Roman mail service demanded greater interest in precision with hours than previously. Unlike the earlier Persian and Ptolemaic postal services, however, Rome depended on messengers dispatched as needed rather than regular mail couriers (Kolb, “Postal Services,” 690). 769. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 379; White, “Tradition,” 103.

2282

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 130

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

may have gone by couriers of trading companies.770 Cicero depended on messengers and used various means to conceal his more dangerous messages from outsiders.771 A rapid, dependable courier could bring a letter somewhere fairly quickly772 unless he was delayed en route (Pliny Ep. 2.12.7). Most letters, however, went with ordinary travelers who happened to be traveling in the appropriate direction.773 Certain kinds of letters had to be retained for only the most trustworthy travelers.774 Travelers to some locations (such as Rome) were easier to find than travelers going to other locations.775 Letters could thus arrive at odd times, several written at different times yet arriving simultaneously;776 or letters might not all arrive,777 at least not in any reasonable length of time.778 Letters often crossed in the mail.779 If a traveler was going in a particular direction, some ancients would send a letter without news just to make good use of the opportunity.780 Short notice from the traveler, however, could result in short letters.781 Unlike ordinary mail carried by travelers not named in the letter,782 named messengers sent with an important letter often might be called on to explain its content orally.783 The form of greetings here represents the usual form for letters in the Greek world. (The much less common “grace and peace,” known to most readers today from early Christian letters,784 develops a Hellenistic Jewish adaptation of traditional Greek and Jewish components.)785 The letter would begin with the name of the sender, then specify the addressee or addressees, then state χαίρειν—that is, “Greetings.”786 The form may be illustrated most profusely in the papyri.787 (In polite speech, χαίρειν became the 770. Ramsay, Letters, 15. 771. Nicholson, “Confidentiality.” On the use of messengers, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 14.1.6; Cicero and other wealthy persons could use freedpersons or servants (3.1.2; 9.15.1). A wealthy person might send letters daily so that his friend would have messengers by whom to send letters back (Att. 12.42); another might promise to send daily news if the correspondent provided letter carriers (Quint. fratr. 2.12.5). 772. In 54 b.c.e., Cicero in Rome received a letter from Caesar in Britain in twenty-six days (Cic. Quint. fratr. 3.1.8.25). 773. ZPE 22 (1976): 51 (in Stowers, Letter Writing, 62–63); Cic. Fam. 5.5.1; Att. 1.5, ¶3; Diogenes Ep. 6. 774. Cic. Fam. 1.7.1; Att. 1.13, ¶1; 4.1. Whereas some messages could be entrusted to Gentiles (provided it was not the day before the Sabbath), a scrupulous priest might avoid doing so (t. Šabb. 13:11). 775. Cic. Att. 1.9. 776. Cic. Fam. 3.11.1; 7.18.1; 16.21.1 (after forty-six days). 777. Cic. Fam. 2.1.1. This was a believable alternative to someone’s not having written (2.10.1; 2.13.1; 4.4.1). Protesting lack of letters was one way to display affection (e.g., 2.2.1; 14.10.1; 15.20.2; 16.25.1; 16.26.1; Pliny Ep. 2.2.1–2; 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 3.17.1–2; 4.11.16; 6.1.2; 6.4.5; 9.2.1–2; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.2; Ad Ant. imp. 1.4; 2.3). 778. Mail speed probably improved during the empire (Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 86), but even then letters traveling even by messenger could take months (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 50.1). 779. Cic. Ad Brut. 4.1 (2.4.1). 780. Cic. Fam. 4.10.1; Att. 1.12; 7.10. Others wished to wait for news (Att. 8.14). 781. Cic. Fam. 15.17.1; 15.18.1; Att. 1.10. 782. Llewelyn, Documents, 7:27–28, §1. 783. Xen. Cyr. 4.5.34; Col 4:7; Danker, Corinthians, 109. 784. Paul’s epistles and 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clem. 1.1; Ign. Smyrn. 12.2. 785. Cf., e.g., 2 Macc 1:1; 2 Bar. 78:2; on wish-prayers, see Wiles, Prayers, 25–29. Of course, the nt adaptation as a wish-prayer involving both Father and Son was distinctively Christian (Keener, Corinthians, 21). 786. E.g., 1 Macc 10:18; 12:6, 20; Demosth. Ep. 1.1; Diog. Laert. 7.1.8; 10.1.83; Char. Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.5. This form is often discussed by commentators, e.g., Kelly, Peter, 39. It might be significant that this form, rather than the “grace and peace” formula used by many other early Christians (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phlm 3; outside Pauline literature,1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clement title), remained dominant in James’s circle (Jas 1:1). Though the greeting was common, it is interesting that the only other extant first-century Christian letter using this greeting is the letter attributed to James (possibly with some of the same editorial assistants), though it appears widely in Ignatius’s early second-century letters (Ign. Eph. title; Magn. title; Trall. title; Rom. title; Smyrn. title; Pol. title). 787. E.g. (sampling SPap for a chronological range), P.Cair.Zen. 59060.1 (257 b.c.e.); PSI 333.1 (256 b.c.e.); P.Cair.Zen. 59154.1 (256 b.c.e.); 59426.1 (260–250 b.c.e.); 59192.1 (255 b.c.e.); 59251.1 (252

2283

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 131

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

standard morning, as opposed to evening, greeting.)788 The address is courteous; delegating the authorship of a letter to a person of lower rank diminished the status of the expected recipient (Plut. Cic. 37.3), but this letter stems from the “apostles and elders.” More significant are the designated addressees: ἀδελφοί (“brothers and sisters”). That this is the same address as in Peter’s (Acts 15:7) and James’s (15:13) speeches in this chapter is evident, but now Gentiles are addressed.789 The title can refer to relatives, members of the same people, or members of the same group (see discussion at Acts 9:17). Here a title often applied to fellow Jews is extended to fellow followers of Jesus the Messiah, highlighting their common allegiance to the Jewish king rather than their differing ethnicities. Although the terms of the agreement may treat Gentile believers as God-fearers, the affectionate greeting would please those who viewed them as members of God’s people.790 This letter is more than one hundred words (perhaps 109, but textual variants render impossible an exact count). Although this length might seem brief compared with Paul’s letters (even Philemon has well over three hundred), it was in fact average; papyrus letters averaged eighty-seven words, with normal samples ranging from a minimum of sixteen to 209 words.791 Antioch was the home of the Christian movement that had requested a decision (presumably in its favor) in 15:2 (cf. 14:26–15:1); Syria was the province of which Antioch was the chief city, and it appears often enough in Luke-Acts (Luke 2:2; Acts 18:18; 20:3; 21:3). We need not delay long over the mention of Cilicia alongside Syria; καί could connect related as well as unrelated items.792 Syria (with its capital at Antioch) and Cilicia were joined as a double province in this period but separated again under Vespasian in 72 c.e. (Gal 1:21; see comment on Acts 23:34).793 Probably there were churches in Cilicia, perhaps having known Paul’s influence in earlier years (see comment on Acts 9:30; 15:41). (Although the decree was not addressed to the churches of Asia where Paul and Barnabas had evangelized together, these two missionaries found it useful there as well [Acts 16:4].) c. The Letter Body (15:24–29) In rhetoric, a “period” united extensive clauses and phrases in a complex and elaborate manner, completing the thought only at the end.794 This passage (15:24–26) is b.c.e.); P.Hib. 54.1 (ca. 245 b.c.e.); P.Eleph. 13.1 (222 or 223 b.c.e.); P.Paris 43.1 (154 b.c.e.); 47.2 (152 b.c.e.); P.Oxy. 292.2 (ca. 25 c.e.); BGU 1079.2 (41 c.e.); P.Oxy. 299.1 (late first century c.e.); P.Giss.Univ. 21.2 (second century c.e.); P.Tebt. 421.1 (third century c.e.); see also Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 11. 788. Dio Cass. 69.18; Lucian Slip 1–7 (earlier they had been interchangeable; cf. Tob 7:1, 4–5). The evening greeting, ὑγίαινε, also appears in letters, but not as often: cf. health wishes of various kinds in, e.g., P.Lond. 42.2–5; P.Giss. 17.4; 80.13; P.Giss.Univ. 20.38; 21.11; P.Cair.Zen. 59060.1; P.Eleph. 13.1–2; Cic. Fam. 14.8.1; 14.11.1; 14.15.1; 14.16.1; 14.17.1; 14.21.1; 14.22.1; 14.23.1; 14.24.1; 15.1.1; 15.2.1; 15.19.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.7 (22); 5.8 (23); 5.25 (40); 5.59; Diog. Laert. 8.4.79; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 48; 2 Macc 9:19; 11:28, 33, 38; 3 Macc 7:1–2, 9; CPJ 1:244f., §132.18–19; Let. Aris. 35, 40–41, 46; 3 John 2; see further Deissmann, Light, 151, 154, 179–80, 184, 188, 192–94, 201–2; Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 15–16, 25–34; Weima, Endings, 34–39. Both appear in 3 Macc 7:1 (purporting to be a letter). 789. That Luke employs the title for Gentiles first in this chapter (also 15:1) could be significant (see Trebilco, “Self-Designations,” 32–34, 49). 790. This does not mean that the community officially viewed them as members of God’s people; the designation can be applied to Gentiles who are allies, as in 1 Macc 12:6, 10, 21; 14:20, 40. 791. Richards, Letter Writing, 163, based on about fourteen thousand ancient private letters. 792. Syria adjoined Cilicia (Pliny E. N.H. 5.22.91), separated by Mount Amanus (5.18.80); foreigners could mention them together because of their general proximity (5.35.129; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.163). 793. Hemer, Acts in History, 179; Bruce, Acts1, 307; Fitzmyer, Acts, 564–65; Green, “Syria and Cilicia.” Cilicia itself consisted of two disparate regions joined simply for administrative purposes (Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 133). 794. Rowe, “Style,” 151–52 (citing Quint. Inst. 9.4.19; Demet. Style 2.29); Anderson, Glossary, 94–101 (including [p. 96] Demet. Style 10–35); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 346–47; cf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk,

2284

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 132

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

the only period in Acts (as Luke 1:1–4 is the only one in the Gospel).795 Ironically, later critics advised the avoidance of periods in letters; appropriately, however, they were to be used only in short letters when they were used.796 (Even if objections were this early and widely known, however, this letter is an official decree in eastern Mediterranean circles that would have probably been more impressed by the ability of the Jerusalem church to draft a text in Hellenistic rhetoric than concerned with the niceties of some rhetoricians.) Although Luke is able to write periodically,797 he generally avoids complex writing except in appropriate places (cf. Luke 1:1–4). Many rhetorical experts considered narratives more enjoyable if they remained unadorned and without periods (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 388.30–32),798 and Luke writes especially narrative. (Although narrating some actions, his preface in Luke 1:1–4 is not itself narrative in the conventional literary sense.) Such periods were also better avoided when one was discussing normal subject matter, in contrast to “more elevated subject-matter” inviting “a higher tone.”799 If, as I think (see comment on Acts 15:22), Luke has access to and reproduces the letter verbatim or (perhaps more likely) is heavily dependent on it, the Jerusalem church must have assigned the drafting of the letter to its most educated scribes.800 Plainly, they intend not only to offer encouraging words but to honor their Greekspeaking Diaspora recipients with the best of Greek rhetoric. Lest the Diaspora believers take any offense at the requirements of Acts 15:29 (if any would), the letter prepares its intended recipients by setting the stage: the decree is much more lenient than the troublemakers of 15:24; the congregation was united (15:25, 28) and led by the Spirit (15:28); the missionaries to the Gentiles agreed (15:25) and had been received by the Jerusalem church (15:25–26); and Jerusalem had sent its own genuine representatives (15:27) in contrast to the false claimants of 15:24.801 i. Dissociation from the Schismatics (15:24)

Official documents, like speeches, often included narrative prologues, and this letter is no different (15:24 or, less likely, 15:24–28).802 The term Ἐπειδή (“Since” in most translations), which opens the narratio of 15:24, could be rendered “whereas,” suiting the legal language of decrees.803 Normally, when authorizing someone as Grammar, §464; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 17–18. The final clause should carry rhythm, and Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 23 thought that the period should be able to be spoken in one breath (Anderson, Glossary, 100); Quint. Inst. 9.4.122–30 might define “any complete sentence” as a period (Glossary, 101). 795. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 120; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §464. 796. Malherbe, “Theorists,” 17. 797. Some orators in Cicero’s day remained unable to construct these (Cic. De or. 3.198, in Anderson, Glossary, 99). One may distinguish between periods in the strict sense and periodic-type sentences (e.g., Hermog. Inv. 4.3.176). 798. Cicero wanted to keep them rare even in judicial speeches (Or. Brut. 221–26, in Anderson, Glossary, 99), and Pliny was not impressed by them (Pliny Ep. 5.20.4). Historians could write complex sentences (cf. Philo Posterity 53), but some Atticist critics disapproved (Dion. Hal. Pomp. 4). 799. Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv (noting that these appear rarely in Maximus of Tyre but appropriately: Or. 2.10; 10.9; 11.12; 21.7–8; 41.2). 800. Cf. the high level of Greek and rhetorical sophistication in the canonical Epistle of James, which also claims Jerusalemite origin (a claim that is more plausible than often granted; allowing redaction of James’s material, cf., e.g., Martin, James, xxxi–xxxii; Davids, James, 2–13; Mayor, James, i-lxv; Robinson, Trust, 68–69; Painter, James, 24; Dunn, Beginning, 1128–29; uncertain, see Sidebottom, James, 19–24). 801. Cf. the rhetorical value of preparatory words (e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 104–5). 802. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lysias 9; Cic. Quinct. 3.11–9.33; Tac. Dial. 1–3, 19. Even ancient Hittite covenants had narrative prologues (cf. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 58–60; Bright, History, 151; Weinfeld, “Covenant Making”; Kline, Treaty, 43). 803. Aune, Environment, 128.

2285

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 133

6/19/14 1:53 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

a representative, one provides a letter of recommendation (see comment on Acts 9:1–2); the effect here is the opposite, though preparing for the real letter of recommendation in 15:25–27. The assembly disavows the mission of those who earlier claimed or implied its approval by virtue of their Jerusalem connection (15:1); it does not disavow that they belong to the Jerusalem church but disclaims their problematic message.804 Speaking of teachers “from us” does not itself associate those who went with the senders; the same sort of language can apply to false teachers (Deut 13:13; cf. 1 John 2:19). Orators sometimes demeaned their opponents by refusing to name them,805 and τινές or equivalent expressions at times serve this rhetorical function (24:19);806 in this context, the term alludes to the troublemakers (15:1) and their Pharisaic allies (15:5). This prepares for the contrasting letter of recommendation for the named agents Paul and Barnabas, as well as those who would support their testimony concerning the proceedings (15:25–27).807 Although Acts normally follows the sequence “Paul and Barnabas” after 13:9 (13:42, 43, 46, 50; 15:2, 22, 35), the Jerusalem church began with Barnabas (15:25), who was more familiar to them and who for strategic reasons may have also led in giving testimony to them (15:12).808 That these unauthorized teachers had “troubled” the Antioch church was no small offense. In Luke-Acts, the verb ταράσσω applies to astonishment at something supernatural (Luke 1:12; 24:38) but also to “stirring” unrest (Acts 17:8, 13).809 Vices that “disturb” (ταρασσόντων) can cause division (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.19).810 The verb’s only use in Pauline literature applies specifically to Paul’s nemeses that modern scholars call Judaizers (Gal 1:7; 5:10); perhaps Paul’s own language, in the report he offered to Jerusalem’s leaders, is echoed here (though we lack sufficient evidence to upgrade “perhaps” to “probably”). ii. The Importance of Harmony (15:25)

Although divisiveness marked ancient politics, ancient speeches often exhort hearers to consensus or harmony, which makes the Jerusalem Council’s outcome, as 804. Johnson, Acts, 276, compares those who, according to Paul, genuinely were from James (Gal 2:12); but on my reading, this is a later incident, one related to the table fellowship implications of the salvation question rather than (in contrast to Acts 15:1, at least the way Luke stated it) to salvation itself. 805. See Marshall, Enmity, 341–48. The non-naming is conspicuous in Aeschines Ctes. 1; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8–9; 47.11, 20–21; 51.3; Lucian Peregr. 11–13 ( Jesus as simply “that crucified sophist” in Peregr. 13); Hist. 17; see also Demosth. Or. 19.120 (noted in Hermog. Inv. 4.3.179); Cic. Agr. 24.63–64; Res Gestae 1.1; 4.24; Quint. Decl. 293.1; Libanius Speech in Character 7.1, 3. 806. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36; 47.23; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 247, §76D. This is, however, far from always the case, including in Luke’s writing (e.g., Acts 10:23; 11:20). 807. Cf. Munck, Acts, 143. Preparing for unexpected turns in advance was also good rhetoric (Hermog. Inv. 4.12.202); the letter could prove controversial for some. 808. Lightfoot noted this arrangement of names in 15:12, 25 (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). Luke also reverses the names in 14:12, 14, possibly because the speakers in 14:12 identified Barnabas with the higher deity. Before 13:9, Barnabas is always named before Saul (11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 7; cf. 13:1). 809. Cf. also τάραχος in Acts 12:18; 19:23 and ἐκταράσσουσιν in 16:20; perhaps used as a synonym for the term in 15:19 (though the present term may be stronger). Larkin, Acts, 227, compares a violent use of the same language in Jos. Ant. 14.406 (rendering, “ravaging” your souls; see further BDAG). Ἀνασκευάζοντες (“subverting”) was also appropriate military language for plundering (Bruce, Acts1, 302, citing Vett. Val. 2.7; 176.9; 199.33; BDAG shows the verbs combined at Vett. Val. 212.20). The term differs from the one used in Acts 15:19 (a canonical hapax legomenon), and so it is, at most, possible that, but unclear whether, Luke seeks to evoke it. 810. Such disturbance is more relevant to the term’s use in this text than is the philosophic goal of being ἀτάραχος (Epict. Diatr. 2.5.2; 4.8.27; Diog. Laert. 10.85; 10.144.17; cf. Test. Dan 4:7; Test. Job 36:3/4–5; ἀπαθείας in Crates Ep. 34, to Metrocles).

2286

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 134

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

portrayed by Luke, particularly praiseworthy.811 Disunity characterized the broader culture as a whole;812 intercity rivalries, for example, were common,813 and Roman civic culture was rife with partisan politics and alliances, especially during the republic but also in the empire.814 Writers and speakers emphasized the need of unity for the state,815 for armies,816 for families,817 and so forth; it was ideal when enemies could be reconciled,818 and ancients might praise those who made peace.819 They also warned of dangers of disunity,820 whether for the state,821 for an army,822 or for rulers;823 divide and conquer remained a useful technique.824 Personal enmity was standard in partisan politics825 but also extended to matters such as favored teachers,826 rhetoric,827 and literary competition.828 Orators had long exhorted cities to pursue harmony and beware divisions.829 Pursuing concord, ὁμόνοια, is a central ideal in many of Dio Chrysostom’s speeches to cities.830 One speaker was said to shock his audience by praising both harmony and 811. See also Spawforth, “Homonoia,” for the Greek political ideal; in Rome, Purcell, “Concordia,” for “the cult of personified harmonious agreement” (375; see here also Bloch, “Concordia,” 681; Livy 24.22.1; 24.22.13; Jos. Ant. 14.145, 219, 222; Suet. Tib. 20; rejected in Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14); on personified Strife, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 4.440–43; Cypria 1; Nünlist, “Eris.” The Muses bring concord in Iambl. V.P. 9.45. I draw most of the treatment of the background of this issue from Keener, John, 1061–62; cf. also some discussion on unity at Acts 1:14. 812. This is not to attribute to Greeks an individualistic concept that transcended group loyalties; see Martin, “Anti-individualistic Ideology.” 813. Heraclitus Ep. 9; Babr. 15.5–9; Hdn. 3.2.7–8; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.36.2–3; Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Gen. Rab. 34:15. See fuller comment at Acts 21:39. 814. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.8.1–2; 8.14.1; Handb. Elec. 45; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6; Plut. Cic. 3.1–2; Pliny Ep. 6.6.3, 5–9; Tac. Dial. 36; Suet. Jul. 72; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6. Such a mentality required shared enemies (e.g., Lysias Or. 9.10, 13, §115; Iambl. V.P. 35.248–49); on enmity, see Marshall, Enmity, 35–69. This partisanship also occurred in Roman patronage (see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 116; Winter, Left Corinth, 189–90). 815. E.g., Xen. Mem. 4.4.16; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.53.1; Livy 2.33.1; 5.7.10; 24.22.1, 13, 17; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 94.46; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.13; Max. Tyre 16.3; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.23–25. On the ideal of unity in antiquity, see now esp. Thompson, One People, 19–134 (worthy of more detailed interaction but published after I finished the primary draft of this commentary). 816. Babr. 85. 817. Dion. Hal. Epid. 4.271 (in a marriage); Val. Max. 2.6.8 (spoken to children and grandchildren by one about to die, as in testaments); Mus. Ruf. 13B, p. 90.6–14; Men. Rhet. 2.7, 411.15–18; cf. Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 17.1–2. 818. Val. Max. 4.2 passim; Plut. Themist. 12.6–7; Suet. Jul. 73; Tac. Hist. 2.30. 819. E.g., Hom. Od. 1.369–71; Cic. Att. 1.3; 1.5; 1.10; Tac. Hist. 2.5; Iambl. V.P. 7.34; 9.45; 27.126; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.485. 820. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.255–58; Livy 2.60.4; 3.66.4; Babr. 44.7–8; 47. 821. Sallust Jug. 73.5; Livy 3.66.4; cf. Thucyd. 3.81.2, 4. 822. Hom. Il. 1.255–58; Polyb. 3.104.1 (generals’ rivalry). 823. Hdn. 8.8.5. 824. E.g., one’s enemies (Babr. 44.7–8); for slaves in a household (Plut. M. Cato 21.4); see further comment on Acts 23:6–7. 825. E.g., Sall. Jug. 73.5; Plut. Sulla 4.4; 7.1; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1; 25 (Atticus), 7.1–11.6. 826. See esp. Winter, Philo and Paul, passim. Some teachers also used competition to spur on their students (Suet. Gramm. 17). 827. Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; Lucian Prof. P.S. 22; Eunapius Lives 493–94; cf. Libanius Declam. 36.13, 43; Pogoloff, Logos, 176. 828. E.g., Plut. Cim. 8.7; Aul. Gel. 17.4.3–6; cf. Polyb. 6.11.9; Dio Chrys. Or. 52; Pliny Ep. 7.9.3; 7.20.2–3; 7.30.4–5; Paulsen, “Competitions”; Schmidt, “Competitions.” Note the need for self-defense in most of Terence’s prologues (e.g., Andr. 1–27; Self-T. 16–52; Eun. 1–45; Phorm. 1–23; Moth. 1–57; Brothers 1–25) and in Phaedrus 2.9.7–11; 3.prol. 23; 4.prol. 15–16. 829. E.g., Demosth. Ep. 1.5; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1422b.33–36; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.14–16; Hdn. 3.2.8. 830. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.17; 38.5–8; 40.26 (in marriage, see 38.15; in nature, see 40.35–36, 38); also “friendship,” e.g., in 38.11; 39.2; 40.26; “reconciliation” in 38.11, 47; 39.2; also linked with friendship in 40.36. Also allegedly Apollonius of Tyana (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15; 6.38). Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 48.14.

2287

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 135

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

στάσις—until explaining that by the latter he meant only competition to benefit the city (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.8). One matter inviting praise for a city is its citizens living in harmony (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.23–24);831 concord reliefs were also important symbols in cities.832 Virtue produces harmony (ὁμόνοια, e.g., in Lucian Hermot. 22), and everyone praised such harmony.833 The same theme of harmony appears in Paul’s letters (Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 1:10–12; Eph 4:3; Phil 2:2; 4:2–3). Jewish sources also praise ὁμόνοια (4 Macc 13:25; Sir 25:1; Wis 18:9),834 though they also recognize a harmony among the wicked (Ps 82:6 lxx [83:5 ET]; Wis 10:5).835 Only controversies that are for God’s sake are of lasting worth.836 The idea of becoming “of one mind” or “spirit” (for Luke’s use of ὁμοθυμαδόν, see Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6, though some other language for unity was more frequent)837 was conventional in Greek literature on harmony.838 For example, Greeks joined together in one mind (μιᾷ γνώμῃ) to battle a common foe (Lysias Or. 2.24, §192); becoming of one mind (μίαν γνώμην) would cast out στάσις, or discord (Dio Chrys. Or. 39.8). Paul’s letters also refer to becoming of one “mind” (Rom 12:16; 15:5; 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 1:27; 2:2–3; 4:2). Jewish groups also emphasized the importance of decisions by consensus. This is true in Qumran, for example (1QS VI, 8–13, 22–23; VII, 21; VIII, 18–19), just as Josephus notes for the Essenes (War 2.145).839 Later rabbinic assemblies were often fractious, and the sources sometimes depict (probably hyperbolically) even violence between factions. Nevertheless, the dominant ideal was submission to the decisions of the majority of sages840 (a majority that could, however, change from one generation to the next).841 Still later sages even told the story that when one complained to 831. Cf. Israel in the wilderness in Mek. Bah. 1.108ff. (Lauterbach, 2:200)! 832. E.g., I. Eph. 1264. See also personified Concord (see, e.g., Purcell, “Concordia”). 833. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 38.6, 10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1. It was standard in Stoic ethics (Erskine, Stoa, 59; in Zeno, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75; cf. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.4–7; 2.7.11k, pp. 84–85.26–27; 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.13–16; a similar idea in 2.7.5 L, pp. 34–35.31–32). 834. Josephus employs the term twenty-four times; see especially prayer for Israel’s concord (Ant. 4.50); the idealized experience of Israel’s concord (Ag. Ap. 2.179, 283); Pharisaic experience of concord (War 2.166); cf. the exhortation of sons to concord (Ant. 16.133; War 1.457). Philo employs the term thirteen times (see esp. Decal. 14, 132; Spec. Laws 1.70, 295; Virt. 35, 119; Rewards 92, 154; in marriage, cf. Spec. Laws 1.138). 835. Among Gentiles, cf., e.g., Lucian Par. 30 (using ὁμολογία). 836. So m. ʾAb. 5:17. 837. The term was not always positive; see mob enmity in Acts 7:57; 18:12; 19:29; cf. 12:20; Jos. Ant. 15.277. The term appears elsewhere in the nt only at Rom 15:6; but more than thirty times in the lxx, esp. in Job ( Job 2:11; 3:18; 6:2; 9:32; 16:10; 17:16; 19:12; 21:26; 24:4, 17; 31:38; 34:15; 38:33; 40:13), Judith ( Jdt 4:12; 7:29; 13:17; 15:2, 5, 9), 3 Maccabees (3 Macc 4:4, 6; 5:50; 6:39), 1 Esdras (1 Esd 5:46, 56; 9:38), and Wisdom of Solomon (Wis 10:20; 18:5, 12); seven times in Philo (especially positive are Conf. 58; Mos. 1.72). Although we cannot rule out coincidence in usage, Luke may here adapt the decree’s language to fit his usual usage in Acts (providing literary continuity), or he may derive from this document his usage elsewhere (for the same reason). 838. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 38.15; 39.3, 5, 8; see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 76–77, 79 (citing esp. Isoc. Paneg. 138; Philippus [Or. 5] 45; Archidamus [Or. 6] 9, 25, 34, 37, 93; Thucyd. 1.113.2; 1.122.2; 1.140.1; 2.55.2; 6.17.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.23.2; 49.3; Jos. Ant. 7.60, 276). On “speaking the same thing,” see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 68–69 (citing esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.135; 34.17; Ael. Arist. Or. 23.31, 42, 43; 24.29, 52; Jos. Ant. 10.107; 17.35; 18.375, 378, in addition to earlier sources in J. J. Wettstein). On “unity” in Paul, see esp. Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation; now also Damgaard, “Brugen.” 839. Also noted by Le Cornu, Acts, 815. 840. See, e.g., t. Ber. 4:15; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 36a; Ber. 37a; Song Rab. 1:1, §5; widely acknowledged (e.g., Rivkin, Revolution, 238). On majority opinion of sages, see discussion in Petzel, “Bürgschaft.” 841. Urbach, Sages, 1:586. This happened, perhaps most obviously, when the majority shifted from the Shammaite to the Hillelite position (see comment on Acts 5:34); for later rabbis, following Shammaite practice could incur judgment (b. Ber. 11a). On courts annulling other courts’ decisions, see b. ʿAbod. Zar.

2288

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 136

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

R. Simeon ben Yohai that the sages had ruled against R. Simeon’s decree, the rabbi retorted that the majority view of sages must always prevail, and he decreed speedily fulfilled judgment on the complainer.842 Majority opinion would trump even a bat qol, a heavenly voice.843 Some ancients considered democracy’s need to abide by the rule of the majority too great a temptation for the masses, who too easily degenerated into mob rule.844 Some lamented the problem of majority rule in public assemblies; each vote weighed equally, as if each voter had equal wisdom.845 In this case, however, the council achieves not a narrow majority vote but a consensus, albeit one forged on compromise and tolerance (see comment on Acts 15:20). iii. The Council’s Consensus (15:25)

Luke’s portrayal of consensus emphasizes the product of the council rather than the friction that led to it, though he does not suppress the latter (Acts 15:1–2, 5). This portrayal has apologetic value for Luke; he displays the church’s rational conduct in resolving deep-seated conflicts. Some scholars argue plausibly that Luke portrays the Christian movement in Acts as an ideal politeia equal or superior to the best Greek and Roman models.846 Philo likewise stresses for potential Greek readers the unity of Judaism, as opposed to Greek thought;847 this requires emphasizing particular points while playing down other realities. Some rightly contrast Luke’s portrayal of riotous assemblies opposing the church (19:24–40; 21:27–36)848 but wrongly suppose that Luke’s portrait must therefore be fictitious. Certainly the church does resolve conflicts better than does the Sanhedrin in Acts (22:30–23:11; but cf. 5:33–40), and its public assemblies include less unrest than those of cities portrayed in Acts (16:19–22; 19:24–40). But while Luke derives clear narrative benefit from this portrayal, it is intrinsically likely that a minority community (known from independent sources to have suffered persecution) would have experienced the outside world as hostile and achieved some measure of internal cohesion. Certainly Luke’s report suggests less unity than required by sectarians’ regulations at Qumran (1QS passim). Some argue that Paul would never have assented to such rules, contending that he reproved Peter for something no more severe in Gal 2:11.849 As argued above, however (see the introduction to Acts 15 and comment on Acts 15:20), Paul himself opposed sexual immorality unconditionally and opposed eating known idol meat, which could become a stumbling block to others (including the sort of people who would have insisted on that condition in the decree). His letters do not mention blood as 36a. Later rabbis seem astonished by their own traditions of earlier Shammaite dominance (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 87–88). 842. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:17; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Eccl. Rab. 10:8, §1. The majority must win even when it is wrong (y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:1, §6). 843. B. B. Meṣiʿa 59b; so also Le Cornu, Acts, 835 (citing additionally m. ʿEd. 1:5; t. Ber. 4:12; Sanh. 3:4). 844. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.47, 49. 845. Pliny Ep. 2.12.5–6. 846. Penner, “Discourse,” 89–100. Particularly noteworthy, Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.145–46 portrays Israel’s constitution in a manner analogous to Acts (91). Others also note the element of apologetic in Josephus’s emphasis on Israel’s unity (e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 127–28). 847. See Runia, “Hairesis-Model.” 848. E.g., Pervo, “Meet Right.” Contrast with Pervo’s overly ready skepticism on this point the carefully researched approach (and observations of genuine issues of unity and conflict in antiquity) in Thompson, One People, 14–16; idem, “Idealization.” 849. Hill, Hellenists, 108. Hill himself notes (146), “There never existed a truly law-free mission to the Gentiles. Even Paul expected of his Gentile converts obedience to some (indeed many) Jewish laws” (e.g., concerning homosexual behavior, Rom 1:26–27; probably 1 Cor 6:9).

2289

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 137

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Luke does, but Peter’s perceived act of breaking table fellowship with Gentile Christians when he knows better is more serious than agreeing to a public compromise to avoid eating blood. If the decree was a program of unity and not soteriology, a matter of strategy rather than of principle (see comment on Acts 16:3), the epistolary Paul undoubtedly could have agreed to it (1 Cor 9:19–23).850 Some scholars argue that for Paul as for most Greek political theorists, “concord is more important than liberty” (cf. 8:9).851 Normally those sent as a civic assembly’s representatives were the ones most trusted (Aeschines Embassy 23). Thus, for example, when Egyptians requested a delegation of Jewish elders, one Jewish work reports the claim that those sent were those “highly honored among us [τιμωμένους παρ᾽ ἡμῖν]” (Let. Aris. 40). The highest praise is reserved for Judas and Silas (Acts 15:26), who must be introduced initially to the Antioch Christians. But the reference to “our beloved Barnabas and Saul”852 (15:25) and the expectation that they will report the same message (15:27) also imply endorsement of the view and ministry of these leading delegates from Antioch, especially in view of the repudiation of their opponents in the debate in 15:24 (cf. 15:1–2).853 iv. Recommending Judas and Silas (15:26–27)

Trusting and commending the Antioch church representatives to deliver (and presumably interpret and apply) the decree was a major step favoring the Gentile recipients. Nevertheless, some conciliatory representatives from the Jerusalem church would also be necessary if the Antioch church’s own conservative faction was possibly to be satisfied. The sending of these special representatives from Jerusalem would also confirm how seriously the Jerusalem church took the concerns of their fellow believers in the Diaspora. The Jerusalem letter recommends Judas and Silas on the basis of their risking their lives for Jesus’s name (15:26). Some scholars understandably prefer the translation here “dedicated or devoted” rather than “risked.”854 Yet compare the similar recommendations in Rom 16:4 and Phil 2:30; tested willingness to die for Christ was an important criterion for recognizing devoted servants of Christ (Luke 9:23–26; cf. 2 Cor 4:11). The idea may have been a point of honor among early Christians; Paul is willing to die for Jesus’s name in Acts 21:13. Luke uses the verb παραδίδωμι elsewhere to describe the suffering of Jesus (Luke 18:32; 20:20; 22:4, 6, 21–22, 48; 850. With also Bruce, Commentary, 313–14. On its being strategic, see also Gaventa, Acts, 46; for keeping unity, also, e.g., Bock, Acts, 506 (508 for flexibility on secondary issues and unity on the primary ones). 851. Grant, Paul, 26. 852. Luke elsewhere applies the term ἀγαπητός only to Jesus (Luke 3:22; 20:13; cf. Mark 1:11; 12:6), but early Christians often used it affectionately for other Christians (e.g., Rom 16:5, 8, 9, 12; 1 Cor 4:14, 17; Phil 2:12; 4:1; 2 Tim 1:2; Phlm 16; Heb 6:9; Jas 1:16, 19; 1 Pet 2:11; 4:12; 2 Pet 3:1, 8, 14, 15, 17; 1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1, 2, 5, 11; Jude 3, 17, 20). This practice continued in the early second century (1 Clem. 1.1; 7.1; 12.8; 16.17; 21.1; 24.1–2; 35.1, 5; 36.1; 43.6; 47.6; 50.1, 5; 53.1; 56.2, 16; Ign. Magn. 11.1; Trall. 8.1; Smyrn. 4.1; Pol. 8.2). Lightfoot (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 10, from Witherington) observes that 2 Pet 3:15 speaks thus of Paul. 853. Paul himself reports acceptance and endorsement of his ministry by the Jerusalem leaders (Gal 2:7–9), though not mentioning the wording or suggesting that it was reported to the churches. Paul’s wording is stronger than here, and so the moderate wording here is not at all unbelievable. (Paul’s wording may portend the Peter-Paul parallelism in the very structure of Acts.) 854. C. Williams, Acts, 185; see especially Schnabel, Acts, 649, who rightly notes the lack of lexical support for “risked.” The argument for the traditional translation does not rest solely on broader lexicography, however; just as the passage does not import every possible sense of the verb, its particular application of the verb rests on its Lukan usage and its reference to Barnabas and Paul here.

2290

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 138

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

24:7, 20; Acts 3:13), Peter (Acts 12:4), Paul (21:11; 27:1; 28:17), and disciples in general (Luke 21:12, 16; Acts 8:3; 22:4).855 Confirming the letter by word of mouth (Acts 15:27) may reflect the importance of orality or may guard against the slightest possible accusation of forgery.856 Probably, however, the idea is simply that of letter bearers needing to confirm the letter’s contents with their own testimony, perhaps orally providing further detail concerning the discussion (cf. 1 Macc 12:23; Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–8).857 The tradition of depending on at least two witnesses (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15) was widespread in early Judaism.858 On the importance and nature of letters of recommendation, see comment on Acts 9:2. v. A Charismatic Decree (15:28–29)

The language is suitable for a decree; for example, an emperor declares, “It has been decided by myself and my council” ( Jos. Ant. 16.163).859 Inscriptions from the Greek East abundantly illustrate such language for decrees produced by the agreement of citizen assemblies, relevant for the agreement of the assembly of God’s people here.860 On ἔδοξε, see further comment on Acts 15:22. What is remarkable is not the literary form but the content, especially who participates in the decree: this matter seemed good to the Holy Spirit as well as to them. This statement provides a pneumatological climax in Acts: the Spirit was promised to empower witnesses for the Gentile mission (Acts 1:8), guided them to the nations, in a proleptic sense, even at Pentecost (2:5–11), expressed empowerment by providing genuine foreign languages unknown to the speakers (2:4; 10:46; 19:6), initiated the Gentile mission in 8:29 and 10:19, and confirmed it in 10:44–47. Now the same Spirit has led the Jerusalem church to a theology that welcomes Gentiles.861 Some scholars point out that the Spirit is here described in ways consonant with personality, whether in an incipient trinitarian sense (as in Paul and John)862 or understood as an aspect of (and perhaps functioning as a circumlocution for) God.863 855. The Psalmist pleaded that God not “hand over” (παραδῷς) his “life” (ψυχήν) (Ps 73:19 lxx; cf. the idea in lxx Pss 26:12 [παραδῷς με]; 117:18; 118:121; cf. entrusting one’s spirit to God, Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59); here believers “hand over” their own lives. Luke often mentions Jesus’s “name” in Acts, but perhaps the proximity of the quotation about people (albeit Gentiles) called by God’s name (Acts 15:17; cf. 15:14) is significant. 856. On forgery, which was not uncommon, see, e.g., Livy 40.55.1; Pliny Ep. 6.22.3–4; 10.58.3; 10.65.2; Suet. Aug. 33.2; Claud. 9.2; 15.2; Vesp. 6.4; Jos. Life 356; Robinson, Criminal Law, 36–39. Judicial rhetoric often contended that the opposing side’s documents were forged (Quint. Inst. 5.5.1). Chrys. Hom. Acts 33 (Martin, Acts, 190) suggests that letters by themselves could be falsified but others came with Paul and are attested as trustworthy. 857. With Johnson, Acts, 277. Named letter bearers were often expected to elaborate the circumstances noted in letters (Head, “Letter-Carriers”; Xen. Cyrop. 4.5.34). Letter bearers also often supplemented the content of letters with news and the like; see Cic. Fam. 14.1.6; Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.28; 1.46; 1.87; P.Oxy. 32. In some cases news could be safely conveyed only orally (Cic. Fam. 2.4.1; 2.5.1; 2.12.1; 3.1.1; 4.4.2; Quint. frat. 3.8.2). 858. E.g., 11QT LXI, 6–7; LXIV, 8; CD IX, 3–4, 17–23; Jos. Life 256; Ant. 4.219; Test. Ab. 13:8 A; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; y. Giṭ. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6. See further Daube, “Witnesses”; Vliet, No Single Testimony. Among early Christians, see 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Matt 18:16. 859. From Haenchen, Acts, 453; Fitzmyer, Acts, 566. 860. E.g., Schnabel, “Reading Acts,” 259. 861. For the Spirit and ethnic unity in Acts, see also Wenk, “Power”; on the Spirit and the Gentile mission, see, e.g., Philip, Pneumatology, 204–24; for the Spirit and institutional authority (at least in this case), see Casalegno, “Espírito Santo.” Horton, Acts, 265, views Peter’s speech in Acts 15 in terms of Paul’s “wise message” (1 Cor 12:8). 862. E.g., cf. 2 Cor 13:14; Matt 28:19; esp. John 14:16, 26; 16:9–10, 14–15. In Paul, see further Fee, Presence, 839–42; in John, Keener, John, 954–71. 863. For discussion of the thesis of the Spirit’s personality in Acts, see Shepherd, Narrative Function, 255–56; Gaventa, Acts, 38; cf. further discussion in Hur, Reading, 129–80; Choi, “Personality,” 101–222.

2291

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 139

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

More open to debate is how the Spirit made the Spirit’s will known. Because prophets were present (15:32), it is possible that the Spirit confirmed the council’s decision with prophecy or at least the assurance from the prophets that they sensed the Spirit’s approval (cf. 13:1–4).864 The phrase “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit” might imply evaluation of prophecy (cf. 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22).865 It is also possible, however, that the assembly’s achieving consensus that sufficiently satisfied everyone could be attributed to the Spirit. Within the narrative as a whole, the Spirit may be presumed to have testified through Scripture (Acts 15:15–17), which the Spirit had inspired (1:16); through receiving the Spirit, this receiving being the mark of acceptance by God (15:8); or through signs (15:12) that might also be attributed to the Spirit (cf. 6:8; 10:38). Avoiding a “burden” picks up Peter’s image of the unbearable yoke (15:10) and perhaps James’s image of not troubling the Gentiles (15:19). Not laying a “burden” (βάρος) of requirements on one may be idiomatic (cf. Rev 2:24), including its use with the verb here;866 one might also bear another’s “burden” (Gal 6:2; Diogn. 10.6). The letter climaxes with (not surprisingly) the decree’s contents (Acts 15:29). For discussion of the decree and its elements here, see comment on Acts 15:20. This verse adds εἰδωλοθύτων, replacing 15:20’s τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων as a synonym (cf. 4 Macc 5:2; 1 Cor 8:1; Rev 2:14; see again fuller comment on Acts 15:20). Since pagans would not call their divine images “idols,” the term is Jewish, “constructed with a polemical edge against the Greek ἱερόθυτον.”867 The letter closes with the standard “Farewell,”868 familiar in many ancient letters and also in the lxx.

6. Delivering the Message in Antioch (15:30–35) Far from the Antioch church resenting the Jerusalem church’s intervention, it celebrated the mother church’s having accommodated it rather than siding with the circumcisionists, and preserving the church’s unity. a. Delivering the Letter (15:30–31) Someone would read the letters while others would listen (cf. Rev 1:3).869 Although such a brief letter could be recopied and “published” much more rapidly than 864. Aune, Prophecy, 265–66. Cf. an inscription that includes a divine decree (IG 12.3.178; third century c.e., in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 323). Prophecies could be written down (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 28.7; Jer 30:2; 36:2, 28; Rev 1:19; 2–3; Jub. 23:32; 2 Bar. 50:1–2; 4 Ezra 12:37; 14:22, 25–26). Some scholars view even the wording of the statement as a “sentence of holy law,” but it does not easily fit the form they propose for it (Hill, Prophecy, 106, critiquing Käsemann). 865. Aune, Prophecy, 222. 866. BDAG cites Xen. Oec. 17.9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.10; P.Giss. 19.18; for “load” used figuratively, cf. also, e.g., Hierocles On Marriage (Stob. Anth. 4.67.24). Otherwise Rev 2:24 may echo the Jerusalem decree, being violated by some in that church (Rev 2:20). For emotional “burdens,” see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 41.12; Moses lamented that the “burden” of the people proved too heavy (Num 11:11, 17; Deut 1:9; but these do not use the same term). 867. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 139. Witherington, “Thoughts,” allows that the term might have originated in Jewish Christian circles, but 4 Macc 5:2 is probably independent of those circles. 868. See, e.g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 20; esp. Weima, Endings, 29–34; for examples, see 2 Macc 11:21, 33; 3 Macc 7:9; Jos. Ant. 11.130; Life 227; Ign. Eph. 21.2; Magn. 15.1; Tral. 13.2; Rom. 10.3; Phld. 11.2; Smyrn. 13.1–2; Pol. 8.3; Mart. Pol. 22.1; in letters outside closings, e.g., 2 Macc 9:20; 11:28; 3 Macc 3:12; 7:1; Jos. Ant. 12.51, 56, 148; 13.166; 14.190, 306; Life 366. Cf. the Latin closing Vale (e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 93.12; 96.5; 97.16; 98.18; 99.32). 869. On letters for public reading, see, e.g., Cic. Fam. 3.3.2; on public readings, see Keener, Acts, 1:46–49; for readings in congregational settings, see comment on Acts 13:15; on circular letters to Diaspora communities,

2292

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 140

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

a large book, many people even in urban congregations could not read, and this was sophisticated Greek.870 Presumably one of the prophets in the group, preferably (if possible) one with rhetorical training or aptitude that would allow a delivery matching the content of the letter,871 would have done the reading. In view of Acts 15:27, it is likelier to be Judas or Silas, supplementing Paul and Barnabas (though both groups were prophets; 13:1; 15:32). If Silas was a Roman citizen (16:37) and able to minister effectively with Paul, he probably came from a background that may have afforded Hellenistic education; Judas may have been selected in part for his ability to speak well to a Diaspora congregation as well (though the only explicit criteria are spiritual, 15:26; cf. 15:32). That the Jerusalem church’s agents (perhaps through their Antiochene hosts) “gathered” (συναγαγόντες) the congregation probably indicates that this was not a regular meeting of the entire church but one arranged rapidly on the group’s arrival by word of mouth, probably by means of the house churches.872 Synagogues were community centers and could be used for meetings besides Sabbath prayers; similarly, the house churches may have met on various days. The leaders of the Antioch churches would know the house church leaders, who could probably contact most members over the course of a few days, especially if this fuller assembly was scheduled after most of the house gatherings had met, whether they had met on the Sabbath or perhaps (if the practice in Antioch is this early) Sunday morning. Some scholars believe that the church in some locations met together regularly (though not exclusively) in a large assembly hall (cf. Rom 16:23) in addition to house meetings.873 For logistical factors, however, it seems likely that the various house churches normally met separately and came together only for special occasions. The church seems large in Antioch, and so such a larger gathering, if it occurred, might have required a patron’s villa, renting a larger building, or meeting under a stoa. It is not impossible that the church even borrowed a larger synagogue’s facilities for a meeting, although, given its large number of Gentile members, this recourse seems fairly unlikely. Neither Luke nor Paul depicts much friction with the Jewish community there, which was probably large enough and cosmopolitan enough to include diversity in perspectives despite being a minority within the larger society. Still, their novel approach of admitting Gentiles to full status without circumcision may not have commended them to the mainstream synagogue community, despite the frequency of Gentile adherents there (see Jos. War 7.44–45; discussion at Acts 11:19–20). The church celebrated the letter’s encouragement (Acts 15:31). That the believers in Antioch sent Jerusalem’s agents back to Jerusalem “in peace” (15:33) shows that the decision was acceptable not only in Jerusalem but in Antioch as well.874 Luke does not portray Jerusalem as imposing its will unilaterally and the churches as simply submitting to it; the Spirit that led the Jerusalem church (15:28) was leading the other see comment on Acts 9:2; among Christians, cf. Col 4:16; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; Rev 1:4; Mart. Pol. 20.1; perhaps Eph 1:1. 870. Then again, some argue, partly from the prevalence of inscriptions, that many urban people were expected to be able to understand them (cf. Evans, World, 64, with other evidence on 63–74) even if they could not write well (as attested by spelling irregularities in popular graffiti; cf. ibid., 71–73). 871. Oral performance of a rhetorically sophisticated document was important (cf. Keck, “Pathos,” 78–79, 83; Witherington, Corinthians, 107). 872. People could gather at a synagogue not only for the regular Sabbath but also for a specially called fast day ( Jos. Life 290). 873. Banks, Community, 38; Blue, “House Church,” 175. 874. Johnson, Acts, 279.

2293

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 141

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

churches as well (cf. 13:1). The “rejoicing” here fits the response of other Diaspora churches to the Gentile mission in 15:3; joy was a sign of the Spirit’s activity in the church (13:52; cf. 8:39; also in Paul, cf. Rom 14:17; 15:13; Gal 5:22; 1 Thess 1:6).875 Although Luke, narrating adventures, focuses on difficulties, he favors the state of the church as being at peace, instead of troubled, and receiving “encouragement” (Acts 9:31). b. Receiving Jerusalem’s Delegates (15:32–33) The church was encouraged not only by the written letter (15:31) but also by the exhortation of Jerusalem’s representatives (15:32). Luke underlines the positive relationship between the Antioch church and these representatives from Jerusalem: Judas and Silas help the church (15:32), and the church also sends them away in peace (15:33). Like Barnabas when he first came to Antioch (11:22–24; παρεκάλει, 11:23), these prophets encourage the believers (cf. 1 Cor 14:3);876 they are also received like other prophets from Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30), who probably influenced Antioch’s own prophetic leadership (13:1). The relationship between Jerusalem and Antioch is portrayed as one that is edifying, with trust between the leaders of the churches in both locations. For Luke, this picture again reinforces the continuity between the movement’s heritage and its mission, between Israel and Gentile Christians. The fall of Jerusalem might change the dynamics, but it should not alter the church’s foundation. The “encouragement” already provided in the letter (15:31, παρακλήσει) continues in person (15:32). Luke values the ministry of encouraging believers (14:22) as well as of “strengthening” them (14:22; 15:41; 18:23);877 such ministry may appear primarily in summary statements because the focus of Luke’s action is generally evangelistic. That Judas and Silas were “also” prophets “themselves” may mean that they added to the inspired message of the document (15:28) or that they were prophets like Barnabas (and probably Paul) in 13:1. Barnabas and Paul were also preaching and teaching in Antioch in this period (15:35). Their lengthy message of παράκλησις would befit prophets, who also exhorted, though typically in first-person address from the Lord.878 Listening to public speaking was a major form of public leisure, and so many would be accustomed to listening at length (cf. 20:9, 11). That the messengers were sent “in peace” (15:33) indicates that the dissension was finished (15:2); the specific wording reflects the traditional Jewish greeting (Luke 10:5) and sending off, “Peace” (Heb. shalom). Most specifically, it means that those sent off were well received, not despised (Acts 16:36; 1 Cor 16:11; Gen 26:29, 31; 2 Sam 3:21–23; 1 Clem. 65.1).879 It indicates that they were received hospitably and were sent off with their needs provided (cf. Rom 15:24; see comment on Acts 15:3). 875. It also is an appropriate response to the greeting χαίρειν in Acts 15:23 (“joy” is another meaning of the same term). 876. Tannehill, Acts, 192–93. 877. The only other nt references; the earlier lxx usage seems to more emphasize leaning or dependence rather than the sense here. In view of different wording and the commonness of the terms shared, a connection with Rom 1:11–12 (used to imply the apostolic decree in Romans; so Nanos, Mystery, 210–11) seems implausible. 878. For prophecy employing first-person discourse, see, e.g., Acts 13:2; Rev 2–3. Some modern claims that nt prophecy is couched less authoritatively seem to me to overlook most concrete examples of nt prophecy. 879. Cf. 3 Macc 6:27; Greek Ahiq. 32.1. For “go in peace,” see, e.g., Exod 4:18; Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42; 2 Sam 15:9, 27; 2 Kgs 5:19; Tob 10:12; Jdt 8:35; Jub. 12:29; 18:16; 19:30; 21:25; 27:11; 31:27; Ahiq. 6.7; 7.21; cf. also 11Q12 9 4, 6. It need not mean, however, as the English idiom might convey, that they simply sent them off without violence (contrast 1 Kgs 12:18)! Garland, 1 Corinthians, 761, doubts that the use of this traditional formula necessarily implies reconciliation in 1 Cor 16:11 (cf. Jas 2:16).

2294

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 142

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Ratifying the Gentile Mission (15:1–35)

c. Who Remains? (15:34–35) The variant reading (Acts 15:34), which nearly all scholars reject as spurious,880 interrupts the flow of thought;881 “they” were sent (15:33) makes no sense if only one of the two was (15:32). Also, if the reading were authentic, why mention the contrast of Paul and Barnabas staying in 15:35? Despite Acts’ usual narrative logic, Luke does not explain how Silas returned to Antioch after leaving. Silas could have returned between 15:34 and 15:40, since the events are “after some days” (15:36; for Luke this designation may condense a significant passage of time, as in 9:23). It would take between fifteen days and a month to make the voyage to Jerusalem, and the same amount of time if he later decided to return to a place where he had experienced a form of ministry not available in Jerusalem.882 Perhaps we can imagine him coming with another delegation that included Peter or a still later delegation that included further emissaries from James (Gal 2:12). Or if Silas and Judas were only the two leading members of the Jerusalem delegation, it is possible that the mention of those sent away in Acts 15:33 simply refers to the delegation as a whole (not including Silas in particular) and that the emphasis of sending “in peace” was more important than the individuals sent. Luke typically condenses material and leaves many questions unanswered, assuming information that he often does not supply (perhaps even in some Acts parallels with Synoptic tradition missing in his Gospel).883 Because descriptions are incomplete in all texts, they deconstruct at points, whether they are novels or historical narratives.884 Thus Harpalion’s father, Pylaemenes, mourned for him in Hom. Il. 13.658—but Pylaemenes had already died in 5.576.885 The story world of the Iliad appears inconsistent when Hephaistos takes a full day to fall from heaven (1.592) but Thetis can leap directly from Olympus into the sea (1.532), Athena can dart immediately to earth (4.78), and Ares can flee swiftly from earth to heaven (5.885).886 Some accounts appear inconsistent with the extrinsic world we know: the dog Argos, admittedly old, recognizes Odysseus, although, according to the story line, Odysseus has been away twenty years, much longer than a normal dog’s life (Hom. Od. 17.292, 301–2).887 In Ovid’s patchwork of stories, the Bears constellations appear unable to descend into the ocean in Metam. 2.171–72, yet they become constellations more than fifteen years later (2.497; cf. 2.401–16, 505–7), when they are prohibited from descending 880. E.g., Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 12 (from Witherington); idem, Acts (forthcoming, from Witherington); Ehrhardt, Acts, 91; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 439. 881. Cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 123. This was demonstrated to me by my wife, who, unaware that the verse is a variant (and using a French translation that did not acknowledge it), asked me how it could possibly fit its context. 882. Witherington, Acts, 470n456. In this case, Paul may have summoned him from Jerusalem (472) because he could officially speak for Jerusalem, could interpret the decree, and was probably a Roman citizen, which would help in colonies such as Troas, Philippi, and Corinth (473). Paul did not yet know that he was going to these sites, but it would also be helpful in Pisidian Antioch and Lystra and perhaps Iconium. 883. Luke probably cut one detail “too many and failed to notice the anomaly” that remained (Dunn, Acts, 210). 884. I adapt here Keener, John, 38–39. 885. More loosely, if one allows for hyperbole and figurative language, one may compare the conflicting claims for Cassandra and Laodice in Hom. Il. 3.124; 13.365–66. Likewise, sleep came on Zeus in 1.610–11, but 2.2 reports that Zeus could not sleep that night. Cf. perhaps the Muse (Od. 1.1) and Muses (24.60). 886. One could reconcile the accounts by postulating that an involuntary fall could be slowed by the deity. Nevertheless, Lucian finds myths about Hephaistos even more contradictory than this in Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1). 887. Though not completely unheard of. Some ancients also critiqued inconsistencies in Homer; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xli–l. See further comment in Keener, Acts, 3:2655–56.

2295

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 143

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

into the sea (2.508–31). If one reads the Latin in its most common sense, then Alpheus is both father of Arethusa (5.487) and a river god who tries to rape her (5.599–641, likely suggesting inadequate editing of distinct stories). Where such divergences represent sources, these sources are forever unrecoverable to us today.888 Such inconsistencies also appear in historical works, such as Livy’s claim that a Numidian’s nephew is a brother’s son (Livy 28.35.8) at one point and a sister’s son (27.19.9) at another; this may stem from different sources889—or from an oversight of Livy’s. Though Plutarch reports a detailed tradition (possibly partly legendary) from his own hometown, many pieces of the story fail to cohere, because much information is missing.890 Pseudo-Callisthenes891 seems to accept conflicting versions of Alexander’s paternity (Alex. 1.1–14, 30, 35); Parmenion also remains general after being removed from that office for conspiracy (2.9, 17). In other cases, inconsistencies may stem from writers’ faulty interpretations, as ancient historians recognized (Polyb. 3.8.1–11; 3.9.1–5). Orators both expected and exploited inconsistencies in their opponents’ accounts (e.g., Rhet. Alex. 5.1427b.12–30; 9.1430a.14–21; 10.1430a.26–27). By condensing his material, Luke falls into a problem common to many writers using sources, including historians. In any event, the ultimate point is not disputable: Silas did in fact become Paul’s traveling companion on the following journey (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1). What is questionable is the sense of Luke’s summary statement in Acts 15:33, not Silas’s later presence in the mission. That Paul and Barnabas remained (15:35) distinguishes them from the Jerusalem delegation that left (15:33). That they continued teaching and evangelizing there “with many others” suggests that Luke knows more about the Antioch church than his focus on Paul and Barnabas allows him to narrate; the wording sounds as if leadership may have expanded (presumably along with the number of house churches) since the leaders mentioned in 13:1. Paul’s own writings apparently attest that he and Barnabas remained together in Antioch for some time after the Jerusalem Council (Gal 2:11, 13).

888. Many inconsistencies in Valerius Flaccus’s version of the Argonautica, however, may stem from the work’s being unfinished (Mozley, “Introduction,” viii; the end of Val. Flacc. 8 is incomplete). 889. So F. G. Moore in LCL, 8:142n1. 890. Why did the Romans not hunt Damon in Plut. Cim. 1.5–6 (though they do appear in 2.1–2)? 891. Writing one of our few examples of historical novels, but drawing on earlier biographies and here probably reflecting the confusion of traditions.

2296

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2a_TW_djm.indd 144

6/18/14 10:14 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

T

he Jerusalem Council was a turning point, and many scholars deem it (at least in some, though not every, sense) the center of the book of Acts; the rest of the book carries forward the Gentile mission that the council approved.1 Paul’s journey in 15:40–18:21 proved strategic. If Paul’s undisputed epistles show us anything about his interests (they might reflect the commitments of the circles that preserved them), it is clear that churches planted on this mission were strategic to Paul’s vision (1–2 Corinthians; Philippians; 1 Thessalonians).2 At such a distance from Jerusalem and Antioch, Paul also exercised considerable independence (cf. 2 Cor 10:13–16).3 Some scholars argue that Luke arranges disparate events in Paul’s ministry by means of a journey narrative, as in the Gospel (Luke 9–19) and some Hellenistic travel narratives.4 Although Luke does use a travel narrative to organize material in his Gospel and Paul’s journeys may function somewhat analogously in Acts, he does not create Paul’s journeys from whole cloth. The chronology of this section of Acts simply does not allow for Paul’s returning to Antioch every so often, and his letters attest his ministry in many of the locations listed on this “journey.” Scholars have assigned diverse chronologies to the journey that begins in this section. Too many variables exist for any of the chronologies to be exact, but they can provide us some approximate estimates. All modern reconstructions of Pauline chronology that ignore Acts differ significantly,5 suggesting a heavy element of speculation; Acts provides a concrete source that should be taken into account.6 Using both Acts and Paul’s epistles as a guide, Jewett arrives at an often-cited estimate as follows:7 1. Torrey, Composition, 42, emphasizes Acts’ second half ’s homogeneity, though this may not take adequate account of the “we” sections. 2. Dunn, Acts, 213, probably overstates this, since the only undisputed letters left (which he counts as exceptions), Romans and Galatians, together make up 40 percent of these cities addressed (and the only place we would expect from the first journey would be Galatia, Cyprus being Barnabas’s territory), and the disputed letters do not help the case (most reflect Paul’s ministry in Acts 19:10). 3. Dunn, Acts, 212–13, may overstate this, and he bases it on his view of the conflict of Gal 2:13. 4. Johnson, Acts, 10. Some have objected to the somewhat anachronistic language of “missionary journeys” (cf. Townsend, “Journeys and Missionary Societies”). The danger of anachronism is genuine; but we lack better, widely recognized alternative terminology, and the analogy communicates something helpful. 5. See Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 25. 6. On the sequence of events matching Paul’s letters where we can be certain about the sequence there, see Campbell, “Journeys,” 81–87; Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 203–4; Trebilco, “Itineraries.” 7. Jewett, Chronology, 59–61. For a very helpful chart comparing the chronological details of Jewett, Lüdemann, Hyldahl, Donfried, Riesner, Murphy-O’Connor, Hengel and Schwemer, Schnelle, and Wedderburn, see Dunn, Beginning, 499.

2297

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 1

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Travels Jerusalem to Antioch (15:30) Visit in Antioch with time for word to return to Jerusalem Antioch to Derbe (15:41–16:1) Visits to churches in Syria, Cilicia, and Derbe (15:41– 16:1) Derbe through Lystra to Iconium (16:1–5) Visits in Lystra and Iconium (16:4–5) Iconium to Neapolis and Pisidian Antioch Visit in Antioch in Pisidia (16:4–6) Pisidian Antioch to Ancyra (16:6–7; Gal 1:2; 3:1); and to North Galatia (to bring them to where they were “opposite Mysia” and at approach to Bithynia) Missionary activity and illness in North Galatia (Gal 4:13) Ancyra and Troas (16:8) Missionary activity in Troas (16:10ff.; 20:6–12) Troas to Philippi through Neapolis (16:11) by sea Missionary activity in Philippi (16:12ff.) Philippi to Thessalonica (17:1) Thessalonian mission (17:1–9) Thessalonica to Beroea (17:10) Beroean ministry (17:10–14) Beroea to Athens (17:5–6) Ministry in Athens (17:16–34) Athens through Piraeus, by ship to Cenchreae, on to Corinth (18:1) Totals for travel

Kilometers traveled 600 —

Minimum time estimated* 15 days 7 weeks

Normal time† 4 weeks 4 months

471 —

12 days 5 weeks

3 weeks 10 weeks

144 — 142 — 312

3 days 2 weeks 3 days 1 week 8 days

4 days 8 weeks 4 days 4 weeks 2 weeks

—

6 months

1 year

771 — — — 140 — 70 — 56‡ or 450§ — By land, 16; by sea, 75 3,497 (by sea, 775; by land, 2,722)

20 days 2 weeks 3 days 3 months 4 days 3 months 2 days 2 months 10 days 2 weeks 3 days

6 weeks 8 weeks 3 days 1 year 4 days 4 months 2 days 2 months 2 weeks 4 weeks 3 days

91 weeks; 640 days

201 weeks; 1409 days

*At 40 km. per day, no delays. †At 30 km. per day, with delays. ‡By land to Pydna, Piraeus to Athens. §By sea from Pydna to Piraeus.

Jewett concludes that this “missionary journey” took two to four—and probably three to four—years.8 Although he seems right to critique the eighteen-month period often suggested, two years would probably be adequate; Paul’s companions sometimes apparently stayed behind for instruction (most explicitly, Acts 17:14–15), accounting for some of the estimated time. Obviously, many estimates are pure guesswork.9 The five to ten weeks spent visiting churches in 15:41 could have taken much longer, but total figures remain limited by the need to have Paul in Corinth for his meeting with Gallio in 18:12–17, during Gallio’s brief tenure of office. Some of the larger periods, however, are questionable. One year in Philippi is surely too long, especially given Luke’s copious detail for the closing scenes of Paul’s initial ministry there yet little attention to much of the rest. If Paul did not stay to minister in North Galatia (see introduction, above, to Acts 14), we may eliminate six to twelve months from this itinerary.10 Given Paul’s mention of working in Thessalonica, we may presume that he stayed there more than three 8. Jewett, Chronology, 62 (allowing time for Paul’s indecisiveness in Acts 16:7, and other factors; but even on such matters, the time we allot to, e.g., indecisiveness is guesswork). This pushes the council earlier than the usual estimate of 48–49 c.e. 9. The necessary imprecision is noted by others, e.g., Dunn, Beginning, 514–15. 10. With Riesner, Early Period, 312, who also questions the lengths in Antioch, Troas, and Philippi, though he accepts that three to four months might be correct for Thessalonica.

2298

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 2

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

weeks; but given 17:2, need we really assume a minimum of three months? Granted that Paul must have made some disciples in Beroea (20:4), would it have taken Paul’s enemies in Thessalonica, two days from Beroea, two months to learn of his work there and stir trouble for him (17:13)? The times spent traveling from one place to another—where Jewett is especially helpful—account for less substantial periods on the itinerary. Of course, it is easier to criticize any particular chronology for its educated guesses than to construct an alternative one; the alternative would offer its own educated guesses, no less susceptible to critique as guesswork.

1. New Colleagues, Old Areas (15:36–16:5) Paul and Barnabas part over Mark, but God apparently uses the conflict (which is not portrayed positively) to produce two ministry teams. With at least two new colleagues (first Silas and then Timothy), Paul, delivering the decrees, revisits the churches that he and Barnabas founded. The mission must continue; in God’s plan, even the conflict between the missionaries may not stop it. a. Conflict with Barnabas over Mark (15:36–39) Luke does not portray the schism between Paul and Barnabas positively, but neither does he suppress it. He treats it briefly, explaining why the two missionaries separated. When partners differ over which absolute values take priority—in this case, loyalty or forgiveness, on the one hand, and expectation of wholehearted commitment, on the other—conflict appears inevitable.11 Although the two parties’ motives may be honorable, their schism is unfortunate and is reported because it is necessary to explain the transition in Paul’s partners. i. Following Up on Converts (15:36)

“After some days” probably covers a considerable period of time here, like the “considerable days” of 9:23; given space available in a single-volume monograph, Luke simply cannot cover everything in detail.12 He often employs the expression κατὰ πόλιν (Luke 8:1, 4; Acts 15:21; 20:23).13 Although Paul may wish to deliver the decrees to Cilicia (Acts 15:23; cf. 15:41; 16:4), his concern to follow up on the believers in Cyprus and Phrygia seems paramount here (14:21–23; cf. 1 Thess 2:17–3:11). On my later dating of Galatians, it is possible that the circumcisionist missionaries had not yet traveled north of Antioch and had not yet threatened the young churches in the vicinity of Phrygia. Paul’s concern for the welfare of his converts is characteristic also of the epistolary Paul (2 Cor 11:28–29; 1 Thess 3:2, 5), but Luke has reason to record it. Luke elsewhere reports a protagonist’s plans (Luke 9:51), at least sometimes to point out that subsequent events are not the cause of the change of plans (Acts 19:21). W. L. Knox sees a contradiction between this passage and 16:4, where the council’s decrees are for the churches of Galatia as well; he resolves this tension by seeing 15:36 as Paul’s 11. On “avoidance” or withdrawal as a common social response to conflict, cf. Malina and Pilch, Letters, 347, 354–55. 12. Nor perhaps would he have wished to cover some details that may have been available to him, such as the confrontation between apostles at Antioch, which likely occurred during this period (Gal 2:11–14; Dunn, Acts, 210). 13. With a range of meaning; elsewhere in earliest Christian literature, only Titus 1:5; Mart. Pol. 5.1; Ign. Rom. 9.3; in the lxx, 2 Chr 11:12; Esth 8:17; 1 Macc 1:51; 2 Macc 4:36; 3 Macc 3:16; 4:4; 6:41.

2299

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 3

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

verbal report to Luke whereas the other passage represents Luke’s composition of what was not previously in written form.14 Acts 15:23, however, shows us that Jerusalem directed the decrees to the churches of Antioch in the province Syria-Cilicia; in 16:4, it is “for them to keep” in the sense that it is instruction for Gentiles (also 15:23, applied here analogously to different Gentiles), not for them as Phrygians. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians suggests that the matter eventually became an issue in Galatia, since Judaizers seem to have moved on to these churches after they lost their hearing at Antioch. That some continued to observe the decrees in the second century might reflect the influence of Acts but probably suggests that independently in some areas the decrees continued to be viewed as binding. But neither in Paul’s later letters nor later in Acts do we read further about the decrees, which, for the Pauline circle of churches, seem to have faded from relevance with increasing distance, whether of time from their promulgation or of place from their provenance. ii. Barnabas’s Loyalty to Mark (15:37)

Barnabas acts in character; he had also shown Paul himself similar kindness (9:27; 11:22–25), making Paul’s refusal (15:38) appear more ironic. Barnabas’s willingness15 to take Mark portrays the virtue of mercy or clemency, praiseworthy among people of rank in antiquity.16 In typical ideals, sages should also nurture growth, not emulate the harshest Cynics.17 Some ancients opined that one should reject a friendship only if the friend has a major and unchanging vice (Iambl. V.P. 33.232).18 Barnabas undoubtedly viewed Mark’s failure less severely than did Paul and thus maintained loyalty. Refusing to betray a friend is honorable behavior (Athen. Deipn. 15.965F, §25). Friendships functioned in urban Roman society, at least, as political alliances, so that the enemy of a friend became one’s own enemy and a person sought to isolate his enemy from his friends.19 For Barnabas to fail to support Mark would therefore greatly disappoint Mark, whereas Paul would expect loyalty to himself rather than Mark.20 Friends could quarrel when one advocated on behalf of others for the other friend to forgive them (Philost. Hrk. 53.19). Mark and Paul placed Barnabas in an unenviable position; culturally, he was expected to choose his allegiance or create friction anyway by refusing to do so. Luke does not inform us of Barnabas’s kinship with Mark, which appears in Col 4:10, but historically it would have complicated the situation even more. Kinship was also an important bond that created loyalty (Aeschylus Prom. 39; 1 Chr 2:15–16).21 14. Knox, Acts, 51–52. 15. Turner, Grammatical Insights, 95, contends that the imperfect tense of the verb indicates the initial tentativeness of Barnabas’s suggestion; but it could simply imply (if anything) a persistent suggestion. From Barnabas’s aorist infinitive and (in Acts 15:38) Paul’s repetition of the verb with a present infinitive, Turner infers (ibid.) that Barnabas intended for Mark to come, but only Paul assumed that meant that Mark would stay. 16. For praiseworthy rulers showing mercy to enemies, see, e.g., Polyb. 1.72.3; Diod. Sic. 27.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.54.2; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Val. Max. 5.1.ext. 1a; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian Hist. rom. 10.4.24; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Hdn. 1.2.4; cf. also Jos. Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; see further Good, King, 47–49. On the theme in general, see esp. Good, King. 17. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 71. 18. Rejection of friendship typically led to enmity, and it became part of the political web of alliances and enmity relations in Roman society; see Marshall, Enmity, passim. 19. Ibid., 67–69. 20. On the virtue of loyalty, see Crook, “Loyalty”; with respect to friendship, see discussion in Keener, John, 1009–10; idem, “Friendship,” 382–83. 21. Some older laws mistrusted and sentenced to death relatives of persons executed for treason (Quint. Curt. 6.11.20; 8.6.28; 8.8.18, though not enforced). Some leaders excused persons who acted from loyalty to siblings, since it was expected (e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.60).

2300

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 4

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

It was, however, often a conditional value; for example, those who honored duty to the state would argue that a prosecutor must dutifully convict the accused even if the accused was someone loved by the prosecutor (Val. Max. 3.8.ext. 4). Further, the suspicion of nepotism, which Barnabas’s support of his relative might have raised,22 was a negative judgment.23 For Mark not to be able to go was also an insult to Mark; someone left behind on a voyage he wished to make might prove quite angry with those who had advised leaving him behind.24 Conflicts between fathers and children, or elders and those who were younger (here concerning Paul and Mark), proved interesting to ancient audiences. Because the issue was so emotional (and unfortunately not uncommon in genuine legal cases), declaimers often practiced speeches on topics about conflicts between fathers and sons and consequent acts of disinheritance;25 in real life the situation was rarer (cf. John 8:35) but could occur.26 Philosophers allowed that students could make “progress” in the right way.27 Character could change, though this happened especially in youth.28 Some experts thus counseled patience toward those needing progress. More than some of his peers, Quintilian counseled patience with and sensitivity toward children (though Mark is hardly a child now): one should treat each boy individually, since some need control whereas this provokes others to rebellion; fear helps some and hurts others; appeals to ambition move some whereas others are crushed by rebuke (Quint. Inst. 1.3.6–7).29 Some hearers would value Barnabas’s point here, though for most, as for Luke, Paul is the larger narrative’s main protagonist. iii. Paul’s Concern with Mark (15:38) The term for Paul’s judgment (ἀξιόω) can refer to a matter of prudence rather

than a moral consideration.30 This is in keeping with the Paul of the Pastorals, who expected coworkers in ministry to share his hardships as a disciplined soldier would (2 Tim 2:3–4); but the earlier letters’ Paul also valued the soundest coworkers (e.g., 2 Cor 8:16–22; Phil 2:20–22). If he acted as the de facto leader of the team, Paul was 22. In the real world, not Luke’s narrative world, since Luke does not draw the connection. Luke might avoid the connection, in fact, to protect Barnabas here; for apologetic to avoid the appearance of nepotism, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.26–28, 34, 58. 23. See comment on Acts 12:17. One must be willing to prefer the wise to one’s parents (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.10). Cf. m. B. Meṣiʿa 2:11; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §10. 24. E.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.1302–8 (Heracles against the sons of Boreas); Soph. Philoc. passim (Philoctetes against Odysseus, although, for a more understanding appraisal of Odysseus’s pragmatic role, see Norwood, Greek Tragedy, 162–67, 179). 25. Berry and Heath, “Oratory and Declamation,” 409; e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 1.1.intro.; 1.6.intro.; 1.8.7; 2.1.intro.; 2.4.intro.; 3.3; Hermog. Issues 33; 40.20; 41.1–13. 26. See P.Cair.Masp. 67353 (569 c.e.); Isaeus Menec. 35; 43; in Roman law, see Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 137; for the revocation of wills, e.g., P.Oxy. 106 (135 c.e.); for the usual (but not certain) presumption of disinherited sons’ guilt, see Hermog. Issues 47.1–6; the disinheritance could be challenged at times if the grounds were inadequate (Val. Max. 7.7.3; Hermog. Issues 38.12–17). 27. Among Stoics, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 87.4–5; 94.50; Epict. Diatr. 1.4; 2.17.39–40; Encheir. 12–13; 51.2; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.7b, pp. 44–45.25–26; Marc. Aur. 1.17.4 (on his other studies); Diog. Laert. 7.1.25 (Zeno); 7.1.91 (Posidonius); Motto, “Progress”; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 70–71; Deming, “Indifferent Things,” 390; Meeks, Moral World, 50. In its Stoic form, this doctrine was often criticized or lampooned (e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.24.67; Plut. Progr. Virt., Mor. 75A–86A; Lucian Hermot. 63). Among other philosophers, e.g., Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91; Diog. Laert. 2.93 (Aristippus); cf. progress toward virtue in Isoc. Demon. 12; in other education, Quint. Inst. 2.7.1; Lucian Soph. 6; Jos. Ant. 20.263; Gal 1:14. 28. See Gill, “Character-Development.” 29. But cf. “Lines from Columbanus” (probably Catonian), line 27, in Minor Latin Poets 1:630–31: one who loves his son will discipline him with a rod (also Prov 13:24). 30. Johnson, Acts, 282 (citing 2 Macc 4:19; 4 Macc 5:17; Acts 28:22); though it may be used differently (e.g., 2 Thess 1:11).

2301

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 5

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

presumably responsible for making the decision,31 but he and Barnabas had probably made decisions together on previous occasions. The charge of desertion was a serious one (see comment on Acts 13:13), and much was at stake on this journey. The mission to reach unevangelized Gentiles took precedence over the formation of missionaries whose commitment might be in doubt. Many ancients counted it unwise to entrust something important to one who had already proved himself unworthy. Thus, for example, Cicero advised a governor of Asia to treat all courteously but to admit to his inner circle only those who have proved themselves trustworthy (Quint. fratr. 1.1.5.16); one should not trust someone one has not observed (1.1.5.15; cf. 1 Tim 3:10). If a subordinate has never offered reason to distrust him for the past two years, it is safe to trust him; if one finds grounds for suspicion, however, one ought not to trust him or stake any of one’s honor on his behavior (Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.14). Others also advised trusting a friend only if one had tested the friend and found him or her worthy (Publ. Syr. 134); generals also could test their soldiers.32 Similarly, teachers could be reluctant to accept untrustworthy disciples.33 An expert teacher might test prospective disciples to determine if they would repay the investment of attention (Iambl. V.P. 17.71).34 Accusers would charge that a disciple’s behavior reflected badly on the teacher, though a teacher’s supporters would claim otherwise.35 Yet even the greatest teachers were often said to have disciples who turned out badly,36 abandoning them37 or even betraying them (Luke 22:4, 6, 21, 22, 48).38 Rejection of proffered friendship could produce enmity.39 Although the implied author propagates a particular perspective, many ancient authors were sophisticated enough to recognize that readers often identify successively with various characters40 and hence can see various sides of an issue.41 Many ancient readers would have sufficient literary sensitivity to adopt a nuanced perspective, viewing both Barnabas and Paul as virtuous yet colliding with each other in tragic disagreement.42 Although clemency was praiseworthy (Acts 15:37), so was severity in the cause of a higher virtue (such as duty to the Roman state, in Roman moralists). Thus Valerius Maximus, after citing praiseworthy examples of severity, turns to praiseworthy examples of mercy (clementia, Val. Max. 5.1). He provides examples of paternal harshness 31. When multiple volunteers were available, someone leading a mission could choose his companion (Hom. Il. 10.227–36). 32. E.g., Quint. Curt. 3.7.14–15. One could also test others (3.6.9, 12). 33. Greco-Roman culture generally criticized fickleness and unreliability; for fickleness, see comment on Acts 2:47. 34. Elsewhere Pythagoras tests a student to whet his appetite (Iambl. V.P. 5.23–24). 35. Xen. Mem. 1.2.12, 18, 26. 36. Xen. Mem. 1.2.12. 37. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.19; 4.37–38; cf. 5.43. 38. Also Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.37, 39. 39. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.16, 23; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 257; Watson, “Boasting,” 82; Pliny Ep. 8.6.9. 40. See Dewey, “Oral-Aural Event,” 151–57, esp. 152–53 (and 153n16 on Plato’s use of mimesis involving emotional identification with characters). 41. Some historians excelled in presenting different sides as sympathetically as possible for both rhetorical and literary reasons; see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3 (the Albans); 9.39.1–6 (patricians and plebeians); Livy 21.1.3 (Romans and Carthaginians). In another genre, Homer highlights the heroism of Greeks and Trojans alike, later allowing for Euripides’s Trojan Women and, more fully, the Roman appropriation of Aeneas (Virgil’s Aeneid). 42. Cf. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 13 (from Witherington): “Barnabas acted on natural but personal considerations, Paul recognized his public duty.” (Given his setting in Victorian England, however, there can be little doubt which of these two approaches Lightfoot found nobler.)

2302

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 6

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and severity (5.8), followed by examples of moderation (5.9);43 although he seems to prefer the latter, he learns from both. (For example, one father could have spared his son, “but that would have been the story of a wary father, this is the account of a stern one.”)44 Gentile moralists could point out the importance of reproof,45 but this was especially a Jewish emphasis. Jewish law also emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof,46 that admonition must always precede punishment,47 and that it continue until the offender repents or decisively repulses the reprover.48 Like some other ancient moralists,49 rabbis emphasized that reproof was to be private50 and taken before witnesses only if necessary.51 A sage could hyperbolically rule that publicly shaming one’s fellow warrants exclusion from the coming age.52 The Qumran scrolls, which include record keeping of rebukes,53 also emphasize the standard Jewish sequence (seen also in Matt 18:15–17): private reproof, then before witnesses, and finally before the gathered assembly.54 That Josephus adds to Exod 18:14 this principle of private correction in Ant. 3.67 reinforces the probability that Jewish people expected private reproof.55 Love and concern could demand reproof, at least toward those who might trust one enough to hear.56 Ideally the same person could be uncompromising in insisting on the right standard57 yet demonstrate mercy toward those who erred.58 In practice one sometimes had to take one side or the other, and Luke presents the ideal character Jesus coming down on both sides of the line (e.g., Luke 9:41, 55; 12:28; 19:10; 22:32; 24:25). iv. The Missionary Schism and History (15:39)

Luke might have chosen to omit this split, simply noting that Paul took a new partner. If the Chronicler omitted David’s sin, Josephus omitted the golden-calf episode (see comment on Acts 7:41), and Plutarch omitted or minimized Caesar’s affairs,59 we might expect Luke to follow suit. But biographers often did include unpleasant reports 43. In terms of forbearance or avoiding undue harshness, rather than precisely the Aristotelian mean between extremes (Arist. N.E. 2.7.1–9.9, 1107a–1109b; E.E. 2.3.1–5.11, 1220b–1222b; cf. Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Hor. Sat. 1.1.106–7; Ep. 1.18.9; Plut. Dinner 20, Mor. 163D; 21, Mor. 164B; Diog. Laert. 1.93; Let. Aris. 223, 256; Ps.-Phoc. 36, 59–69b, 98; Wolfson, Philo, 2:277). 44. Val. Max. 5.8.5 (LCL). Likewise, Valerius praises those who value duty to country above family when he praises the former value, but he saves examples of the latter for when he praises the latter value; ideally, one could risk one’s life for both fatherland and father (5.4.ext. 7), but when they were in conflict, he did consistently value loyalty to country higher (5.6.pref.). 45. E.g., Publ. Syr. 10. I here expand on Keener, Matthew, 453. 46. Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 1.3.2; b. ʿArak. 16b, bar.; Šabb. 119b; Tamid 28a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 54:3; see also Manson, Sayings, 210. 47. Sipre Deut. 173.1.2; y. Sanh. 7:6, §2. 48. Moore, Judaism, 2:153. 49. Plut. Flatt. 32, in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 115. 50. God honored reproof, but he punished public (as opposed to private) reproof (b. Sanh. 101a). 51. Edersheim, Life, 378, cites b. Šabb. 119b; Tamid 28a; ʿArak. 16b; see Beer, “Lykwdm.” 52. E.g., m. ʾAb. 3:11; b. Sanh. 107a; other references in Urbach, Sages, 1:253. 53. For offenses such as anger and pride; 4Q477; Eshel, “Rebukes.” 54. Cf. Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Davies, Sermon, 79; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4. Qumranites detested disrespect for fellow members of the community (e.g., 1QS VI, 26–VII, 9; VII, 15–16). 55. Public admonition thus represented the form of rebuke reserved for the severest of circumstances (cf. Gal 2:14; t. Kip. 4:12). The text offers no indication that the dispute was public, though the church clearly knew that the apostles had separated (Acts 15:40). 56. Cf. Prov 3:12; 13:24; 19:18; 23:13; 27:5; Sir 7:23; 18:13; 30:2, 13; elsewhere, cf. Confuc. Anal. 152 (14.8). Nevertheless, wisdom might demand withholding reproof at times (Prov 9:7–8; Sir 20:1). 57. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.24–27; cf. 9, p. 76.8–11; frg. 41. 58. Cf. Mus. Ruf. 10, pp. 78.31–80.6; frg. 39; Lutz, “Musonius,” 29. 59. See Beneker, “Chaste Caesar.”

2303

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 7

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

about even mostly positive characters.60 Biographers believed that readers could learn from both positive and negative historical examples. On the level of Acts’ theology, however, God’s sovereign plan in the outcome may be more important (15:39–40).61 The conflict between Paul and Barnabas meets the criterion of embarrassment as something Luke probably would not have invented;62 so, most likely, does the implied portrayal of Mark.63 Luke has to report it because he must explain why Paul is no longer traveling with Barnabas, but Luke does not devote more space than necessary to the account. (In rhetoric, it was best to hurry over an embarrassing account.)64 Many scholars, however, suggest that the primary reason for the split was not Mark (though that may have been involved) but a more serious conflict that Luke preferred not to mention—namely, the disagreement reported in Gal 2:13.65 How plausible is this alternative motive? Although it is reasonable that various matters of friction may have contributed to each other,66 Galatians does not claim or imply that it was the encounter reported there that brought the split to its head. Galatians (like Paul’s other letters) does not in fact mention any split and hence does not offer a report that conflicts with Acts, though peripherally supporting its picture that tension sometimes occurred between the two and their respective personal characters, which played a role in it. Luke need not feel obligated to report the incident in Gal 2:11–14 if (assuming he knows of it) he views it as a merely temporary step back from the agreement in Acts 15; the hypothesis that it proved more than temporary does not accord with the almost unanimous consensus against the necessity of circumcising Gentiles that emerged in the Diaspora church, including Ignatius’s Antioch.67 But Paul’s report in Gal 2:11–14 confirms the same 60. E.g., Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1–4.9.6; Plut. Cimon 2.4–5; Corn. Nep. 11 (Iphicrates), 3.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.21.602–3; passim in Suetonius’s topical arrangements. 61. David Bauer (“Friendship”) has pointed out that Silas as a Roman citizen and Timothy as half-Greek may have proved more suited to the mission that ensued in Asia than Barnabas and Mark would have been. The conflict is portrayed negatively, yet God still accomplishes his purposes through limited persons (see comment on 13:26) and through humans’ sinful actions (e.g., 2:23; cf. Judg 14:4). 62. Bede Comm. Acts 15.39a is quick to emphasize that no sin is involved, since agitation is acceptable if the cause is just. 63. The epistles portray Mark more favorably (probably reflecting a later stage of his historical career, including his relationship with Paul in Rome, Phlm 24; Col 4:10; for Mark in Rome, cf. 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13, although Lightfoot [“Third Notebook on Acts,” 13, from Witherington] thinks that 1 Peter probably refers to a different Mark, the Gospel’s author). Black, “Mark in Acts,” thinks that Luke employs Mark as a foil for Barnabas and Paul, and doubts that Luke knew of Mark from the epistles. It is conceivable that Paul’s followers divided (probably more by personality than by theology) over his legacy after his death, which would explain why Luke plays down Mark, Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1; Acts 18:17), and Titus (and possibly diminishing Timothy’s role) while favoring, e.g., Luke and Aristarchus. But neither Mark nor Sosthenes, and possibly Titus, appears in sections covered by the “we” material, and so further detail about them might simply be irrelevant. Barnabas and Silas receive their due; after them, Luke has less obligation to report all Paul’s companions. That Luke would neglect some characters “secondary” to his narrative seems plausible, at least to me and if only for anecdotal reasons: I remember clearly the involvement of some close friends in particular events twenty years ago, but only when consulting my journal did I recall the key role played by some other individuals that I had nearly forgotten. 64. Theon Progymn. 5.52–56; for focusing only on matters relevant to one’s purpose, cf. Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 345, who cites in this respect Lucian Hist. 56–57; Cic. De or. 3.27.104–5; 53.202–3; Quint. Inst. 8.4; Longin. Subl. 11–12; cf. Lucian Hist. 6. 65. Dunn, Acts, 209; Conzelmann, Acts, 123; Hill, Hellenists, 126; Barrett, Acts, 752. 66. Lightfoot suspected that tension from the incident in Gal 2 contributed toward the distrust that led to the split here (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 12 [from Witherington]). 67. Indeed, Paul seems to expect his audience to be surprised by Barnabas’s stance (“even” Barnabas), which is not what one would expect if Barnabas became an advocate of separate eating (instead of merely trying to avoid offense).

2304

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 8

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

attitudes revealed in Luke’s report: Barnabas is more conciliatory (in negative terms, lax), and Paul more of an uncompromising purist (in negative terms, inflexible). Sometimes commentators are too eager to turn natural human differences into theological ones;68 but as later rabbis observed, it is normal human nature that if business associates do not get along, they part company and do not wish to see each other (Num. Rab. 19:15). Nor should we play down the importance of Luke’s portrayal of the division, as if he has whitewashed division out of the picture evident in Galatians; “a matter of principle” informs the separation here no less than in Gal 2.69 The fallout of the disagreement in Gal 2:13 was probably not so traumatic as to be permanent and probably does not reflect fundamental divergence in values.70 (The accusation of “hypocrisy” in Gal 2:13 in fact suggests that Barnabas agreed with Paul on the fundamental issue but that Paul felt that Barnabas did not act accordingly.)71 After the putative breakup, Paul still refers to Barnabas as an example in his letters (1 Cor 9:6; cf. Col 4:10),72 and even in Gal 2:1, 9, he continues to be portrayed as Paul’s partner; 2:13 speaks of “even” (καί) Barnabas, implying that the negative behavior (from Paul’s perspective) there attributed to him was regarded as not characteristic of him. Galatians 2:14 explicitly mentions Paul confronting only Peter. To infer the breakup with Barnabas in the Galatians passage is to read between Paul’s lines as well as Luke’s, though biblical scholars have certainly perfected the art of drawing inferences. Against Luke’s portrayal of the Antioch church as supporting at least Paul (Acts 15:40; Luke is silent in 15:39–40 as to whether it also supported Barnabas, but it is a reasonable guess that it did), some think that the conflict resulted in the Antioch church withdrawing its authorization of Paul or even rejecting Paul’s gospel.73 But several factors lead me to believe that this judgment is surely too harsh. First, it infers a much harsher reading of that conflict than our harshest ancient source on the subject, Gal 2:11–14, presents. One could have disagreement, even acting separately when consensus on strategy proved elusive, without necessarily taking a posture of enmity. Paul’s “even Barnabas” emphasizes how bad the situation was by citing what is, from Paul’s and his audience’s perspective, an unexpected defection on the issue at hand. Had Paul and Barnabas actually split over the issue in Gal 2, it would have served Paul’s rhetorical purpose in that passage to have mentioned it (Paul is emphasizing the independence of his gospel). “Even Barnabas”—as opposed to something like “Barnabas, as you might expect”—hardly sounds as if Paul harbored long-term disdain for his former colleague. (In fact, he continued to treat him after the split as a normally appropriate model [cf. 1 Cor 9:6, which implies that Paul had also mentioned Barnabas’s ministry favorably to the Corinthians].) We lack any indication that he expected the Galatians to think that they must choose between him and Barnabas (the normal expectation in a newly formed enmity relationship).74 The Galatians would likely read this as a negative incident in an otherwise usually positive 68. Note the same critique from Munck, Acts, 147. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 219, point out that the two would hardly have worked together so long unless they shared a common mind on basic theological matters, including Christology and salvation. Paul explicitly says that they together defended Paul’s gospel in Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 9), though Paul was the dominant voice (2:2, 7). 69. See also Johnson, Acts, 288. 70. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 218: Paul and Barnabas had a “partnership in teaching and mission lasting almost ten years,” and this “was possible only because despite all differences, there was a fundamental theological agreement between the two people involved.” 71. See Schnabel, Acts, 662. 72. With also González, Acts, 182. 73. Haenchen, Acts, 476 (rejecting his gospel); Dunn, Acts, 209 (withdrawing its authorization); cf. Bruce, Thessalonians, 38 (relations weakened); Stuhlmacher, Romans, 143 (Paul separated himself). 74. Including, it appears, in that very letter (cf. Gal 4:16–20).

2305

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 9

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

relationship between their church planters. Whether in the conflict over John Mark or in the conflict over eating with the uncircumcised, Paul shows no signs of hostility toward his former companion in his extant correspondence. Genuine enmity was normally expressed much more harshly than “even Barnabas,” using invective utterly absent in Paul’s portrayal.75 Nor does Paul’s Galatian letter clarify that the Antioch church in the end rejected Paul’s case for that of Jerusalem. Second, this inference contradicts the explicit statement of Luke (Acts 15:40), who was much closer to the situation than we are and hence is more likely to have had reliable evidence than we are.76 We have the option of doubting Luke’s evidence, but it seems curious to dispute his explicit statement on the basis of inference rather than any genuine explicit evidence to the contrary. Third, both Barnabas and Paul at least begin by revisiting locations where they previously started churches; neither is necessarily “replaced” in Antioch’s mission. Fourth, later hints suggest that historically Barnabas and Paul reconciled (1 Cor 9:6; Col 4:10), and taking Silas (cf. 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1) may suggest Paul’s wish to retain ties with Jerusalem.77 That Paul does not complete the description of the encounter in Gal 2:11–14 should not be used to argue from silence that his gospel was rejected in Antioch78 or even (more plausibly) that he lost the debate to Peter, leading to the need for the Jerusalem decree that supposedly weakened his cause.79 As noted above, Paul’s argument carried the day in the Diaspora churches, including Antioch. Moreover, because Paul was writing the letter, he could just as easily have cited Peter’s response and then refuted it; I believe that Peter, who sought in Antioch to be conciliatory to both sides, probably answered graciously or in terms Paul construed as an inadequate defense.80 In fact, like the Gospel writers, writers of philosophic biographies, and others,81 Paul in Galatians concludes with the decisive words of the protagonist. That our reports 75. On the use of invective in enmity relations, see Marshall, Enmity, 46–69; for misrepresentation of enemies, see 56–61. 76. Luke also leaves the implication that Paul deliberately visited the church at Antioch in Acts 18:22. 77. Dunn, Acts, 210–11, though recognizing these as qualifying, not contradicting, his previously stated assessment. 78. Pace Haenchen, Acts, 476. Johnson, Acts, 287–88, also doubts that Galatians clearly attributes the division to the disagreement. 79. Hill, Hellenists, 126. Granted, Paul did not tout his victory here as he did with the conflict in Gal 2:6–10 (so Dunn, Beginning, 489–90), but consequently inferring Paul’s loss constitutes a colossal argument from silence. 80. Peter was not insisting that Gentiles be circumcised; rather, he probably was seeking to be “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:20–22, esp. 20), as many note (Hill, Hellenists, 129; Cousar, Galatians, 47; cf. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 283), or perhaps was concerned about the Jerusalem church’s witness to fellow Jerusalemites (Hansen, Galatians, 63; cf. Gal 6:12). For Paul, a higher principle of the gospel and free evangelism were at stake. 81. Cf., e.g., Plut. Ages. 21.4–5; Alsup, “Type”; Robbins, “Pronouncement Stories”; idem, Rhetoric; Poulos, “Pronouncement Story”; Barrett, “Anecdotes”; in Jewish contexts, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 3:16–28; 10:3; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; Sanh. 13:5. Jewish use appears rarer (Robbins, “Introduction,” xvi), perhaps because of the representative genres available; cf. VanderKam, “Pronouncement Stories” (19 examples, mainly in Testament of Job and Ahiqar); Greenspoon, “Pronouncement Story”; and esp. Porton, “Pronouncement Story,” who alone deals with the Jewish equivalent of “sage” narratives found in the Greek parallels. Yet Porton may underestimate the value of the rabbinic texts, which cite Scripture as in the nt texts (see Theissen, Gospels, 120n143). These do, admittedly, become dominant especially in the Amoraic period, however, probably because of the primarily halakic character of Tannaitic texts preserved. In rabbinic controversy-dialogues (e.g., b. Roš Haš. 32b), the rabbis debate pagan interlocutors in general (e.g., b. Bek. 8b; Sanh. 39a; y. Meg. 1:11, §3; 3:2, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 4:7; Num. Rab. 4:9; 9:48; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §2); pagan philosophers (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 54b, bar.; Bek. 8b–9a; cf. b. Sanh. 39a), including “Epicureans” (possibly used in its general denigrating sense of those who denied divine providence and judgment; t. Sanh. 13:5; y. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. ʾAb. 2:14, expounded in b. Sanh. 38b); Sadducees (b. ʿErub. 101a); Samaritans (y. Yebam. 1:6, §1); and minim (schismatics) in general (b. Sanh. 38b; 39a; 43a; Ḥul. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b–57a; more sources in Herford, Christianity, 226–27).

2306

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 10

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

favor one side surely does not require us to suppose that this side could not have offered persuasive words. Should silence concerning the replies of Jesus’s opponents in the Gospels be taken to mean that their replies must have been so persuasive as to lead to Jesus’s verbal defeat? Granted that the stories are shaped to end with Jesus as victor (in spite of the fact that his opponents must have often sought to continue challenging him),82 this does not compel us to simply assume that the opposite of what the narratives suggest must be what happened. Jesus remained popular and his followers continued to think him more persuasive than his opponents, whatever the opponents thought. Further, Paul recounts the scene as an example of his case, not necessarily a decisive turning point that his readers know about. Galatia was close enough to Antioch, and Paul’s opponents shrewd enough, that if that meeting had gone in such a hostile way, we cannot suppose Paul’s audience would have been unaware of it, and we might expect Paul to counter Antioch’s decision more explicitly. This, of course, is also an argument from silence, but one meant to counter what is weaker than a normal argument from silence because it discounts some explicit textual evidence—namely, Acts. Granted, one can argue that Luke had reasons to cover up such a split, but the fact remains that such an argument must first discount the explicit evidence we do have, of whatever quality, before arguing from the silence that remains. Luke is in fact our only clear source for the split between Paul and Barnabas. v. A Negative Portrayal (15:39)

The portrayal is not of a gentle and reasoned decision based on what would be most strategic for the kingdom (i.e., two teams instead of one); Luke reports an emotionally charged conflict. That Luke would describe the conflict between two of his protagonists as a παροξυσμός, typically a strong term (Deut 29:28; Jer 32:37),83 supports his reliability84 and reinforces the nuanced character of his portrayals (i.e., not simply the sort of binary dualism toward which Johannine literature tends). In a biography, one should not change what one disagrees with (though one need not always make it a point of emphasis); thus, for example, although Plutarch praises Cato the Elder freely, he criticizes his mistreatment of slaves (M. Cato 5.1, 5) and undoubtedly does not appreciate Cato’s mockery of Romans too fond of Greek culture and ways (12.4). In another biography he even insists that it is necessary to include failings in the biography of a good person but with the right balance for one whose character is otherwise noble (Cim. 2.4–5).85 Although conflict was understandable,86 it was not positive. The schism here contrasts starkly with the establishment of harmony in Acts 15:25;87 writers sometimes contrasted high and low points to highlight the difference.88 Luke makes this clear by using here a cognate verb of that used for John Mark’s own departure in 13:13: 82. For challenge-riposte and honor-shame, see, e.g., Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 41–42; Malina, Windows, 8; Robbins, Texture, 76–77, 80–82. 83. Cf. the strong cognate in Acts 17:16. Its connotations are not violent in its other nt reference (Heb 10:24); it is a medical analogy in Ign. Pol. 2.1. 84. So Bruce, Acts1, 306. 85. This was permissible in the Greek world, even when one was writing about persons viewed as semidivine (Eunapius Lives 461; cf. 459) or about one’s own teacher (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.21.602–3). 86. Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (Martin, Acts, 193) praises Barnabas for his virtue of kindness and Paul for his of austerity, citing their separate gifts and the positive final outcome. 87. Cf. also Fitzmyer, Acts, 571, who draws from it the moral that dissensions remain in the Christian community despite harmony on other points. 88. E.g., a rhetorical critic might compare a writer’s best and worst passages (the method is explicitly discussed in Dion. Hal. Thuc. 35, end).

2307

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 11

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

if Mark’s action was inappropriate (as Paul thought), so must be the schism of Paul and Barnabas from each other over this earlier separation.89 Ancients knew that the stubbornness of a hero could also harm the whole cause; this was a major theme of the Iliad, the most commonly cited work in the Greek world (stated at the very beginning in Hom. Il. 1.1–4: the Iliad recounts Achilles’s anger and how many valiant warriors died because of it). (That God positively supplies two teams instead of one [Acts 15:39–41]90 merely emphasizes that the supreme protagonist of the narrative, though less its explicit focus, is God. It does not whitewash the disappointing failure of one or both human protagonists in the account.) It was honorable to control one’s anger;91 those who emphasized self-control sometimes claimed that to lose one’s temper was to lose one’s mind—that is, experience temporary insanity.92 Stoics categorized different kinds of anger, a negative disposition;93 the wise person would avoid it.94 Other Gentile philosophers95 and moralists96 also urged against anger and said that a sage should correct a student but not in anger.97 Jewish moralists, too, advised against anger,98 and this value applied to sages also;99 sometimes more hellenized Jews offered the Greek remedy of reason and its power for self-control.100 Moralists warned that those who acted in anger might afterward regret it.101 89. With Johnson, Acts, 282, though he wrongly thinks that Luke judges Barnabas badly for returning to his homeland (283; why should this be more negative than his initial mission to Cyprus alongside Paul in Acts 13?); cf. Kisau, “Acts,” 1328 (criticizing Paul). Luke employs ἀποχωρέω only twice (Acts 13:13; Luke 9:39) and ἀποχωρίζω only once (Acts 15:39); in the nt, each appears only once outside Luke’s work. 90. Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (Martin, Acts, 193) attributes this to God’s plan, so that each minister received the appropriate role. 91. E.g., Cic. Phil. 8.5.16; Prov. cons. 1.2; Plut. Contr. A., Mor. 452F–464D (entire essay); Educ. 14, Mor. 10B; Diog. Laert. 1.70; Philost. Hrk. 27.10–11; 45.6; for dangers of anger, see, e.g., Val. Max. 9.3; Babrius 11; earlier, Ahiqar in ANET 429. See most fully Harris, Restraining Rage. 92. Plut. S. Rom., Cato the Elder 16, Mor. 199A; Hor. Ep. 1.2.61–62; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 18.14 (quoting favorably Epicurus); Philost. Ep. Apoll. 86. 93. See Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.8–14; Diog. Laert. 7.1.114. 94. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 123.1–2; Dial. 3–5; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.21; 16, p. 104.18 (emphasizing self-control); Epict. Diatr. 1.15.1–5; 2.19.26; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.15–16; 2.7.11s, pp. 100–101.6–7; Marc. Aur. 6.26; cf. Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2; Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16. Typical moralists urged control of anger, but Stoics such as Seneca, its eradication (Hoof, “Differences”). 95. Lucian Dem. 51 (quoting Demonax); Diog. Laert. 8.1.23; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 86–87, 96; Iambl. V.P. 22.101. An Epicurean scientifically attributed anger to heat in the soul (Lucret. Nat. 3.288–318); but whereas Epicureans viewed anger more negatively than Aristotle, they denied the Stoic view that it could be eradicated (Procopé, “Epicureans,” 188–89). 96. Publ. Syr. 214; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.13.37–39; Hor. Sat. 1.3.76–77; Val. Max. 4.1.ext. 1–2; Plut. Rage frg. 148; Bride 39, Mor. 143E (in marriage); Solon 21.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.34; 4Q477 2 II, 4; Max. Tyre 25.6 (on the power of philosophic rhetoric); cf. Libanius Invect. 7; on restraining all such passions, e.g., Cic. Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; 2.5.18. It depicts the masses’ behavior (Lucian Charon 15). An orator should not become angry but might feign it when appropriate (Isoc. Ad Nic. 23). 97. Philod. Crit. frg. 12 (though he seems to allow the use of insults for securing attention in frg. 21); cf. Iambl. V.P. 22.101. An angry or irritable sage could appear hypocritical (Lucian Hermot. 9, 18, 80; Runaways 19, 27). One should also wait until a person’s anger has subsided to correct him (Isoc. Demon. 31). 98. Sir 20:3; Ps.-Phoc. 57 (drawing on the same idea as CD IX, 4–8; cf. Lev 19:17); Test. Dan 2–4 (esp. 2:2; 3:6); m. ʾAb. 2:10; b. Qidd. 40b–41a; Pesaḥ. 113b; Gen. Rab. 49:8; further in the rabbis, Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 464–65, §1306–12; among Christians, Jas 1:19–20; Did. 3.2; 4.10; 15.3; 1 Clem. 13.1; 46.5; 63.2; Ign. Phld. 8.1; Poly. Phil. 12.2; Barn. 19.7. Cf. Sir 8:16; the fine levied in y. B. Qam. 8:6, §1; the eschatological cessation of human anger in Sib. Or. 3.377. 99. Hillel in b. Šabb. 31a. 100. See, e.g., 4 Macc 1:24; 2:16–17, 20; 3:3; cf. Hadas, Aristeas, 199, on Let. Aris. 253. One non-Hellenistic approach included gluttony to reduce anger (Ahiq. 189 [saying 91]). 101. E.g. Hor. Ep. 1.2.59–62; Ps.-Phoc. 57–58. Thus it was best to grow angry only slowly and with forethought (Publ. Syr. 628, 695).

2308

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 12

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Biographies, especially those of philosophers,102 would praise a protagonist for not becoming angry.103 Pauline literature itself opposes anger (e.g., 1 Cor 13:5, 7; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Eph 4:25–5:2; Col 3:8) and division (1 Cor 1:10–13; 3:3–4; Eph 4:3–6; Phil 2:1–4, 14; 4:2–3) and advocates love (e.g., 1 Cor 13; 1 Thess 3:9–10). Yet some forms of anger were considered more justifiable than others,104 and letting go of anger quickly was at least better than holding it for a long time105 (in Pauline literature, see Eph 4:26).106 That a former friend should become one’s enemy can be used to imply negative things about one’s character (Isaeus Dicaeog. 40); whether it stemmed from fickleness of character or from an abundance of new friends, the ending of friendly love was not honorable (Fronto Ad am. 1.19). How will Paul and Barnabas each explain to their churches the absence of the other primary colleague? The opposite of friendship (amicitia) would be partners torn apart by rivalry (Val. Max. 2.9.6a). Friendships were not always permanent,107 and the refusal of gifts or other offenses could turn friendship into enmity.108 Given our evidence for Paul’s later reconciliation with Mark (Phlm 24; Col 4:10) and appreciation of Barnabas (1 Cor 9:6), either this separation did not lead to enmity109 or relations were later reconciled (whether in person or by letter).110 Friends could quarrel without permanently destroying their relationship (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 53.19).111 When expedient, even Roman politicians made friends (political allies) of their enemies (Suet. Jul. 73). Most people wished to reduce enmities,112 certainly including the mature epistolary Paul (Phil 1:17–18; 4:2–3), and people often did reconcile.113 Luke does not provide us this information, however, because his interests lie elsewhere. Luke thus is certainly not “covering up” for Paul; he may well have known of the reconciliation (especially since he ends up in Rome himself, Acts 28:16; and this was where Mark joined Paul, Phlm 24). Because it is not his focus, he does not revisit their reconciliation, though one topic that interested some ancient writers was notable reconciliation between famous men (Aul. Gel. 12.8). Although Luke tells us no more about Barnabas (his focus being Paul), later legends filled in Barnabas’s story, many or all of them fancifully. The fullest source, Acts of 102. Iambl. V.P. 2.10; cf. Lucian Dem. 7. Cf. Josephus’s depiction of the Essenes (War 2.135), who did, in fact, restrict anger (CD IX, 4–6; 1QS V, 25). 103. E.g., Plut. Brut. 29.2; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 17.1–2. So also other genuine recollections, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2. 104. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 46.1; Gen. Rab. 74:1; cf. Aul. Gel. 1.26. Aristotle viewed unrestraint in anger as less shameful than unrestraint in passions (N.E. 7.6.1, 1149a), but Seneca found Aristotle too soft on anger (Sen. Y. Dial. 3.9.2). 105. See Plut. Br. Love 17, Mor. 488BC (deSilva, Honor, 172–73); Publ. Syr. 184; Sir 20:3. 106. The sun going down (as in Eph 4:26; Poly. Phil. 12.1) is idiomatic for a long time (Dio Chrys. Or. 10.20; cf. Deut 24:15; b. Ber. 2a; y. Taʿan. 3:11, §4); cf. also the warning against couples sleeping apart from anger in Plut. Bride 38, Mor. 143D. This saying recalls Ps 4:5 lxx (4:4 ET; cf. b. Ber. 4b; 5a; Ruth Rab. 8:1) and may also evoke a Pythagorean saying that had become a commonplace (Nock, Christianity, 97; Johnston, Ephesians, 21). 107. Marshall, Enmity, 18–21, 39–43, 68. 108. Ibid., 18–20. 109. So Chrys. Hom. Acts 34 (noting that despite the sharp disagreement, they parted for the greater good, not from anger). 110. Usually acknowledged; e.g., Johnson, Acts, 283; Dunn, Acts, 210. Cf. the eventual reconciliation of George Whitefield and the Wesleys despite their continuing theological differences (Noll, History, 91–92). 111. Cf. 1 Sam 20:8. Even romances could claim that lovers argued, but they emphasized that lovers reconciled readily and gladly (Char. Chaer. 1.3.7). 112. Marshall, Enmity, 44. 113. Ibid., 42–43, citing, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. 95.63.

2309

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 13

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Barnabas, is from the fifth or sixth century c.e.114 In it, Barnabas ordained as Cyprus’s bishop one Heracleides, who had spent time with Paul at Kition (Latin, Citium); given that such bishops probably do not predate Ignatius by many decades, this tradition is likely false, though Heracleides may have been an early bishop. The legend claims that Barnabas carried an early gospel from Matthew (on the basis of Papias’s tradition that Matthew wrote first).115 He confronted Bar-Jesus again, through whose instigation Cyprian Jews burned Barnabas alive in the hippodrome; Mark then went on to Alexandria (the last claim according with earlier tradition).116 Tradition also claims that in 478 c.e. Barnabas’s tomb was revealed through a dream to Cyprus’s bishop, Anthemius; Barnabas was supposedly still holding Matthew’s Gospel.117 Some earlier traditions118 claim that Barnabas authored Hebrews. What is relevant for the text of Acts is that revisiting the churches was originally Barnabas’s plan (15:36); Barnabas chose to revisit those in Cyprus with Mark (who had remained with them during their Cyprus mission), leaving Paul to deal with southern Asia Minor. b. Strengthening Churches in Syria and Cilicia (15:40–41) Silas (Acts 15:40) was an obvious candidate for the mission; he is named in the decree letter itself (15:27) and appears to be a Roman citizen (16:37), a status useful in the eastern empire.119 Committing Paul and Silas to the grace of the Lord (15:40) included commissioning (14:23), as when Barnabas and Saul first left Antioch (13:1–3);120 Luke employs the same verb for the retrospective on the Antioch church’s committing Barnabas and Saul to God’s grace in 14:26. Luke’s focus on Paul’s continuing mission, however, does not necessarily imply that the church failed to send Barnabas and Mark as well. With Barnabas heading to his homeland, however, the church expected Paul and Silas to bring the message of the decree to the churches of Syria-Cilicia outside Antioch (15:23, 41). By heading northward, this new team would be well positioned to continue on to visit again the churches of Galatia (16:1). Both travel conditions and the disposition of the culture would invite the team to leave in the spring and in the morning.121 Winters were difficult for travel, especially by sea but also by land, especially across mountain ranges such as the Taurus (see comment on Acts 13:14); for further discussion on the difficulties of winter travel, see the extensive comment at Acts 27:9.122 Because travelers would need to lodge at night (cf. Luke 24:29), a morning departure allowed for a longer day’s journey (cf. Judg 19:8–21). 114. It does contain some genuine knowledge of Cyprus (cf. Acts Barn. 18–19, in Young, “Aphrodite Cult”). My summary of its content follows Finegan, Apostles, 78. 115. Papias frg. 3.16; Papias in Euseb. H.E. 3.39; probably followed by Iren. Haer. 3.1.1, also cited in Euseb. H.E. 5.8.2 (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:8). 116. The tradition of Mark in Alexandria is not secure before John Chrysostom (Best, Mark, 35, noting that earlier tradition focuses on Rome; Anderson, Mark, 26, suggesting that Chrysostom follows Euseb. H.E. 2.16.1). An Alexandrian provenance for Mark is defended in Barnard, “Mark and Alexandria” (cf. Finegan, Records, 67ff.); but Rome is more common (e.g., Jeremias, Parables, 27; Longenecker, Christology, 18; Lane, Mark, 24–25). 117. Finegan, Apostles, 78. 118. Tert. On modesty 20 (in González, Acts, 182); cf. Robinson, Redating, 217ff. (followed and summarized by Hill, Prophecy, 144–46). This view was probably a guess (Hagner, Hebrews, xxi); besides other, more-often-named candidates, Silas could be added as one possibility. 119. With Bruce, Acts1, 306–7. 120. Fitzmyer, Acts, 572. 121. Ramsay, Pictures, 172. 122. Also the discussions in Keener, Matthew, 580–81; idem, John, 823–24.

2310

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 14

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

If Barnabas went to Cyprus (Acts 15:39, sailing from Seleucia as in 13:4), Paul could return to the land of his birth, Cilicia (15:41; see 9:11); Paul had spent much time in Syria-Cilicia earlier (Gal 1:21; cf. Acts 9:30; 11:25), and it was on the way to Galatia. Syria-Cilicia was a single province in this period (see comment on Acts 23:34; more briefly, on Acts 15:23), but there seems little reason to mention both unless Paul actually visited both. Even so, it is not certain that the two journeyed to Tarsus; since it was on the way, however, it is a reasonable surmise that they may have done so.123 Since the decrees affected all of Syria-Cilicia (Acts 15:23), Paul and Silas probably minister among churches, likely churches that Paul himself founded earlier (9:30; 11:25).124 One Roman trade route passed through both Tarsus and Iconium, then branched in two directions, one of them west to Ephesus (cf. 16:6).125 Most likely they took the most “direct route via the Taurus Passes”—that is, the Cilician Gates—“through the non-Roman territory of Commagene”; an approaching winter may have earlier prevented their later return by this route.126 The distance from Tarsus to Derbe by this route was about 150 miles (240 km.). Lycaonia, where Paul would soon arrive (16:1), was close enough to Cilicia for the two to be later combined as a province, probably sometime between 138 and 146 c.e.127 Luke often speaks of “strengthening” churches (14:22–23; 18:23); the apostolic model was not just evangelism but planting self-propagating churches that would continue to evangelize their communities. c. Recruiting Half-Greek Timothy (16:1–3) In 15:36–39, Paul loses his main traveling companion (in a conflict over a younger, former traveling assistant). In 15:40–41, Paul takes a new major traveling companion (Silas) and here also adds a new younger assistant, Timothy. Unlike Paul’s earlier colleagues, Timothy is half-Greek. But whereas this might be seen by some as an advantage in reaching Gentiles, his ambiguous status would please neither Greeks nor Jews, and hence Paul seeks to normalize his status. In the process, Luke shows the extent to which Paul accommodated Jewish sensitivities such as those that had surfaced at the Jerusalem Council (15:5, 20). If some of Paul’s detractors regarding circumcision or Jerusalem considered him too inflexible or a cause of a rift with the mother church, Luke would surely have demurred, and expected his Diaspora audience to do the same. i. Travel to Derbe and Lystra (16:1)

Luke briefly summarizes Paul’s ministry in Syria and Cilicia,128 beyond which Paul revisits churches he and Barnabas founded (as Paul had planned in 15:36). In 123. Tarsus was accessible on the road from Cappadocia through the Cilician Gates (Strabo 12.2.7; Täuber, “Cilicia”). 124. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 156–57. On Judaism in Syria, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 242–58 (for the Roman period, 249–58). 125. See the map in “Trade Routes”; with a wider range of possibilities, cf. Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 66, A–F 1–3. 126. Riesner, Early Period, 278; cf. Finegan, Apostles, 92. They might have traveled from Cilicia Trachea, north through the Calycadnus river valley, but they probably left from Cilicia Pedias (where Tarsus lay), north over the Via Tauri, then on to Derbe to the west-southwest (see Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 66). 127. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:155. 128. For a recognition of cursory summary, rather than detailed, scenes in Acts 16:1–5, see rightly Plümacher, Lukas, 107.

2311

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 15

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

contrast to Syria and Cilicia, Luke now mentions specific towns because he will offer an incident of note instead of merely summarizing regions. The mention of Derbe before Lystra in 16:1 is deliberate. Already in Syria-Cilicia (15:41), Paul presumably took the land route through his own region of eastern Cilicia and then through a mountainous pass to the north. Passing through the gorge called the Cilician Gates129 (rather than following the previous route from Cyprus to Attalia, Perga, and Pisidian Antioch), he would have reached Derbe before reaching Lystra (in contrast to the route in 14:6–8, 20).130 The Cilician Gates, the pass through the Taurus Mountains, was 1,050 meters high.131 It offered the only major land route between Syria to the east and Lycaonia to the west, which, “apart from the Via Sebaste, was the only route between the highlands and the south coast of Asia Minor that was suitable for wheeled traffic.”132 This route would take Paul through the rugged territory east of the Taurus Mountains, which presumably suggests that they are not traveling in winter.133 Once past the Cilician Gates, Paul and his companions would pass through several towns before arriving at Derbe and Lystra.134 Paul may have learned to traverse such paths from his previous journey rather than in his home province; he hailed from the rich southern plains of eastern Cilicia (Cilicia Pedias), not the mountainous, wild western portion (Cilicia Tracheia).135 The use of the singular in 15:41–16:3136 reveals the extent of Luke’s focus on Paul here. Ministry in Cilicia and Phrygia was especially Paul’s follow-up work, and Silas may be mentioned especially once their new work together is emphasized, though they were obviously together (15:41; 16:4).137 ii. Jewish-Gentile Intermarriage (16:1)

In small Lystra, intermarriages occurred among ethnic groups; we know of a prominent Roman colonist in Lystra (MAMA 8.12) and soldiers in the region (ILS 2403) who married local women.138 Luke normally distinguishes proselytes (who serve his narrative purpose in emphasizing the Gentile mission) from born Jews, and so it is unlikely that Timothy’s mother simply converted to Judaism after marrying a 129. Pliny E. N.H. 5.27.99 notes that there are so few passes in the Taurus Mountains that they bear the name “Gates”: the Armenian, Caspian, and—the pass that Paul would have taken—Cilician. “Gates” began as their local name (Quint. Curt. 3.4.2); they were easily defensible (3.4.4–5, 11), since the passages were said to be so narrow that no more than four could walk side by side (3.4.12). Tarsus was near them (Hild, “Tarsus”); Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 123 miles (198 km.) from Antioch on the Orontes to Tarsus; a further 25 miles (40 km.) to the Cilician Gates; and a total of 130 miles (209 km.) from Tarsus to Derbe. 130. See Hemer, Acts in History, 111; Riesner, Early Period, 281; Witherington, Acts, 473. 131. Täuber, “Cilicia” (also noting the gates’ role in military campaigns; e.g., Xen. Anab. 1.4.4; Arrian Alex. 2.4.3; Dio Cass. 74.7.2). Abbott, Acts, 117, notes that the mountains are visible from Tarsus. On mountain passes generally, see, e.g., Sauer, “Passes.” 132. Mitchell, “Cilician Gates”; cf. Judge, “Cilicia”; on the Cilician Gates further, see also concisely Schnabel, Mission, 1129. 133. On the difficulty of such mountainous journeys in winter, see Rapske, “Travel,” 4; comment on Acts 13:14. 134. See Schnabel, Acts, 663, for details. 135. Bean and Mitchell, “Cilicia,” 330 (united for administrative purposes during the republic). Eastern Cilicia was one of the most fertile parts of Asia (331), ca. 100 mi. (160 km.) long; for details, see Judge, “Cilicia,” esp. 699. 136. For how this is handled by translations in Acts 16:1, see Ellington, “Who’s Who.” 137. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 149, suggests that their joint mission of delivering the decrees explains the shift to the plural in Acts 16:4; but the decrees are not mentioned after this whereas the plural is. The alternative to such conjectures would be to posit careless conflation of written sources (or, more likely, of Luke’s notes) here, a solution that, though plausible, is equally conjectural. 138. Levick, Roman Colonies, 191n1. For material in this section, I drew on Keener, “Interethnic Marriages,” 33–38.

2312

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 16

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Gentile (cf. also 2 Tim 1:5);139 her parents (if both remained alive at the time of her marriage) must have been assimilated enough to permit the union (conservative Jewish communities looked askance at it; see discussion below).140 Regardless of theory, some Jews probably overlooked intermarriage.141 In actual practice, the product of a mixed union might be treated as more knowledgeable and sensitive to Judaism than a Gentile would (much earlier, cf. 1 Kgs 7:14; Jos. Ant. 8.76). Some later rabbis even sought to whitewash Solomon’s marriage to pagan wives as a proselytizing venture.142 By and large, however, Jewish people merely rejected intermarriage with varying degrees of vehemence. Even a Gentile king had to be circumcised to marry a Jewish princess, though he might apostatize afterward if the marriage failed ( Jos. Ant. 20.145–46).143 Although Jewish men’s marriages to Gentile women were sometimes viewed as acceptable ( Joseph in Ant. 2.91–92; Herod in 17.20; Antipater in War 1.181),144 intermarriage was normally very negative.145 The book of Tobit, for example, emphasizes endogamy within Judaism as well as within the clan (Tob 1:9; 6:12; cf. 5:11, 13).146 More dramatically, Jubilees prescribes death for any man who marries off a daughter to a Gentile; the daughter should also be burned.147 Jews traditionally regarded intermarriage with pagan women as a horrible sin (e.g., 1 Esd 8:68–96; 9:7–9; Tob 4:12; 2 Bar. 42:4); Scripture indeed warned against it.148 How did haggadah explain Judah’s allowing his sons to marry Tamar, likely a Canaanite? In one source, his own Canaanite wife arranged this marriage without his consent, so that he cursed her and she died for her sin along with her children (Test. Jud. 11:3–5).149 Some women who married into Israel, accepting Israel’s faith, are presented 139. Not that proselytes’ children would be deemed unfit if the rest of the marriage was normal; Tannaim regarded offspring of proselytes as full Israelites (Bonsirven, Judaism, 56; Fee, Corinthians, 302n29, citing m. Ketub. 4:3; Yebam. 11:2). (Amoraim applied this principle even to a child in the womb when the mother was converted; b. Sanh. 58a; elsewhere, De Ridder, Discipling, 98.) 140. Some scholars suggest that Jewish communities in Asia Minor were less rigorous than those in Judea (Bruce, Commentary, 322); this was probably at least the case for the more assimilated Jewish communities, which must have included Phrygia (see comment on Acts 14:11). Still, most Asian Jews observed the Sabbath and food laws (Trebilco, Communities, 17–18). On some issues, Tannaim allowed those living in the Diaspora more latitude (cf. e.g., t. Šabb. 8:5, for a proselyte living among Gentiles). 141. So Werman, “Jubilees 30” (surveying different approaches). 142. A minority opinion in y. Sanh. 2:6, §2. 143. A Jew marrying an idolatrous woman was bad in Jos. Ant. 18.344–45, 349 (undoubtedly made worse in this case because she began as an oppressor’s wife, 18.340–43). 144. On interethnic marriages in the ot, see also Hays, “Perspective”; comment on Acts 7:29. It appears negatively in Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:1; but for various reasons, there is no judgment against it in Gen 41:45; Exod 2:21; Ruth 4:13 (Bar, “Intermarriage,” 103–4; Keener, “Interracial Marriage,” 4–11). 145. E.g., Jub. 20:4; 22:20; Philo Spec. Laws 3.29; Test. Levi 9:10; McKnight, “Proselytism,” 839–40; Lange, “Daughters”; cf. also Conzelmann, Acts, 125, following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:741, on rabbinic evidence; Le Cornu, Acts, 860, citing Jubilees. 146. See Skemp, “Ἀδελφός.” Untainted descent is meritorious in Num. Rab. 9:7. Endogamy appears in various societies; cf., e.g., caste endogamy (Béteille, “Race,” although this is nonracial, 444–45, 448, 461; cf. Barnouw, “Customs,” 16–17), a practice known in Greco-Roman antiquity (Arrian Ind. 12.8). 147. Jub. 30:7 (on Jub. 30 but also other sources, cf. Werman, “Jubilees 30”). Religious intermarriage is equivalent to giving one’s children to Molech (Jub. 30:10). The Lord opposes such behavior (30:11); a biblical foundation for this in 30:12 is the deceitful claim of Dinah’s brothers in Gen 34:14. 148. Deut 7:3–4; Ezra 9:12, 14; 10:2, 10–11; Neh 10:30; cf. Gen 24:3, 37; 28:1; Num 25:1. The concern was especially pagan religious assimilation (see, e.g., Bar, “Intermarriage,” 100–102; Keener, “Interracial Marriage,” 12–13; though Lange, “Intermarriage,” argues that the issue in Ezra is especially cultic). Later, Islam warned against mixing believers and nonbelievers (Qur’an 60.10). 149. In another, later version, Judah proselytized her before marrying her (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 38:2, also noting that her father was a merchant, perhaps implying that he need not have been Canaanite).

2313

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 17

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

nobly, whether Ruth, Rahab, or sometimes Tamar,150 but when some Israelite women wanted to attract their Babylonian oppressors, God judged them harshly (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 17:6). Later rabbis cursed Esau for marrying foreign wives (Gen. Rab. 65:2). Some scholars argue that the main purpose of 4QMMT was to oppose intermarriage with Gentiles (cf. esp. 4QMMT C 4–8, 31–32);151 some even think that the Qumran community omitted the book of Esther partly because of its inclusion of Esther’s marriage to a Gentile.152 Some think that 1 En. 6–7 adapts mixed humandivine marriages of Hesiod’s Catalogues of Women and Eoiae to warn against JewishGentile unions;153 1 Enoch could have obtained this idea simply from Genesis itself, however, if the author read Gen 6:2–4 in light of other warnings in the Pentateuch (24:3, 37; 28:1; Deut 7:3–4). In 1 Esd 9:9, God wanted his people to divorce their pagan wives. Later rabbis, who did not accept mixed marriages as binding (b. Qidd. 68b), could view the offspring as a mamzer (an illegitimate child) who could not marry Jews154 or at least as legitimate but still not marriageable.155 Mixed unions were so scandalous that the children could suffer for them: when Judah cursed his wife, not only she but also her children died.156 Many later rabbis insisted that only the son of a Jewish mother, not that of a Gentile mother married to a Jew, could be circumcised on the Sabbath.157 Gentiles, viewing it as part of Jewish separatism, sometimes criticized Jews for their thoroughgoing abstinence from foreign women.158 The matter was different, however, if the Gentile was converted.159 Whether Timothy’s maternal grandfather was assimilated or not, early Christian tradition suggests 150. E.g., L.A.B. 9:5; ʾAbot R. Nat. 45, §125 B; Pesiq. Rab. 40:3/4; 49:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 38:25–26; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 38:25; Tg. Ruth 3:15; Bamberger, Proselytism, 195–99; Johnson, Genealogies, 159–66; cf. Heb 11:31; b. B. Bat. 91a; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 33. Ruth was a model proselyte (Butting, “Bedeutung”); in some traditions, many prophets descended from Rahab (Sipre Deut. 357.2.1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:5). 151. Sharp, “Zeal”; but cf. Himmelfarb, “Levi,” arguing that the larger issue (in many texts of the Maccabean era) was priests not marrying unfit Jews. The document prohibits any form of intermarriage that could be understood as prohibited in Scripture, including to those with crushed testicles and those from hostile peoples (4QMMT B 39–44); priests dared not intermarry with the people (B 80–82), though the children of mixed unions could remain holy (B 75–76). The issue was to avoid profaning Israel’s seed, not fear of contracting impurity (Hayes, “Intermarriage”). Some scholars also argue that Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities was written to oppose intermarriage (DesCamp, “Women”). 152. Kalimi, “Esther.” Esther’s marriage posed problems to later rabbis, too, who were uncomfortable with her voluntarily bearing a mixed child (Esth. Rab. 8:3; although commentators are divided, in the book of Esther itself her being added to the king’s harem was very likely not voluntary). Marriage of a priest’s daughter to a Gentile (cf. Lev 19:8?) is “fornication” (see 4Q513 2 II, 2, 5). 153. Morisi, “Origine.” 154. Le Cornu, Acts, 861, cites t. Qidd. 4:16; b. Qidd. 68b; Yebam. 45a; 47a. On the offspring of a Gentile or slave with an Israelite woman being a mamzer, see also m. Yebam. 7:5; y. Giṭ. 1:4, §2; for slaves, m. Qidd. 3:13; cf. m. Giṭ. 9:2). On the wider definition of mamzerim more generally, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 337–42; rabbis preferred one learned in Torah, however, to an ignorant high priest (m. Hor. 3:8). 155. Le Cornu, Acts, 861, cites b. Yebam. 23a; Qidd. 68b. 156. So Test. Jud. 11:3–5 (though Shelah did not die, 13:3). 157. So Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3 (the detractor in the passage merits punishment). In ʾAbot R. Nat. 36 A, R. Eliezer thinks that pagans’ children who die as minors (though the editor thinks that he refers to wicked Israelites) will be damned, though R. Joshua disagrees; in t. Sanh. 13:2, they will not share the coming world or be judged (cf. further Marmorstein, Merits, 40–41; Moore, Judaism, 2:386). 158. See Tac. Hist. 5.5 (though presenting it as a contrast with supposed promiscuity among Jewish people). By contrast, Tacitus more favorably presents the Germans as “untainted by intermarriage with other races” (Germ. 4, explaining their distinctive blue eyes and red hair). 159. Jos. Asen. passim; m. Qidd. 3:5; b. Yebam. 92b; B. Meṣiʿa 16b; McKnight, “Proselytism,” 844; cf. the tradition that Job married Jacob’s daughter Dinah (L.A.B. 8:8; Test. Job 1:4–6; Gen. Rab. 76:9; b. B. Bat. 15b). Later rabbis asked the status of a child of a proselyte who had been circumcised but not yet immersed (y. Qidd. 3:12, §8). Although Simeon and Levi appear to have the final word in Gen 34:31, their killing of those willing to join Israel is ultimately excessive (49:5–7).

2314

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 18

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

that Timothy’s mother, Eunice, and grandmother Lois had strong faith before him (2 Tim 1:5)160 and that he knew the Scriptures from childhood (3:15), which would be helpful for his work with Paul. Some Jews would not have respected even marriage to anyone who failed to uphold proper standards, Jewish or Gentile. Thus it was later said that women from Hillelite households dared not marry Shammaite men, since the latter did not accept Hillelite interpretations of halakah.161 Interethnic marriages were not in themselves objectionable to most peoples (e.g., Polyb. 1.78.8–9); thus Alexander and his Macedonians married Asian (e.g., Persian and Bactrian) women.162 But even in this instance, the children from these unions were to be left with the Asian wives, not brought back to Macedonia, lest this mixing create cultural conflict.163 Earlier Romans also married foreign women, but they viewed as a mark of their culture’s superiority that whereas their own daughters married to foreigners remained loyal to Rome, foreigners married to Romans also remained loyal to Rome.164 Those who wished to defend someone’s mixed parentage could point to great historical examples of the offspring of such unions.165 Gentile customs, however, made intermarriage difficult among some other peoples or classes. In fifth-century b.c.e. Athens, the children of a union between an Athenian and another Greek could not be Athenian citizens.166 Traditional Greek states sometimes had treaties recognizing marriages between their own citizens and those of other Greek states, thereby recognizing the children as legitimate and as citizens.167 Those with some nonGreek ancestors could be subject to ridicule.168 Romans accepted as legally valid Roman marriages only those in which both partners had conubium, the right to marry a Roman,169 and laws carefully regulated Romans’ marrying non-Romans (e.g., slaves).170 Augustus granted Roman citizenship sparingly to prevent the tainting of the Roman people’s blood (Suet. Aug. 40.3). Centuries later, Christians in government passed legislation forbidding marriage between Jews and Christians, a union that had long been occurring.171 Class intermarriage was also a serious issue.172 In Egypt, the privileged metropolite class rarely married outsiders, since this would cost its children their special privi160. This could mean that they became believers in Jesus before Timothy, but in view of 2 Tim 3:11, 15, it is likely that the author praises their Jewish faith, which he accepts as genuine (though πιστῆς in Acts 16:1 does indicate a believer, perhaps from Paul’s first journey there; 10:45; 16:15; Luke does not employ the title in Luke 1–2, where we might expect it if he defined it more generally). It was common to credit those who raised young people when the latter turned out well (Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.16–19). 161. So y. Qidd. 1:1, §8. More generally, Jewish people had to observe biblical prescriptions on priests’ marriages (cf., e.g., t. Sanh. 4:7; at length, see y. Yebam. 6:1–9:8); a priest who married one of inappropriate status could be removed from the priesthood (y. Šeb. 6:1, §9). Normally, the husband’s status vis-à-vis the priesthood determined the status of both members (y. Ketub. 1:5, §2). 162. Quint. Curt. 8.4.25 (because of Alexander’s passion, 8.4.25–26); Arrian Alex. 7.4.8. 163. Arrian Alex. 7.12.2. The children could, however, be raised as Macedonians. 164. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.1.2. 165. Apul. Apol. 24, citing Cyrus’s mixed heritage as Mede and Persian. 166. Baugh, “Marriage,” 105. 167. Rhodes, “Epigamia” (citing, e.g., SIG3 421, 472 for treaties; for honorary grants to individuals, e.g., IG 5.1.961). 168. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 78; Ctes. 172; Lucian Parl. G. 4. 169. Schiemann, “Conubium,” 758; Gardner, Women, 32; Stambaugh, City, 93. Naturally, this left many children even in Roman households (especially those born to slaves or concubines) “illegitimate” (Gardner, Women, 143). 170. See Gaius Inst. 1.66–92. Jewish and Roman laws regulating the status of children born to irregular marriages appear to be related; see Cohen, Law, 133–36. 171. See Sivan, “Rabbinics.” Many Christian women were married to pagan husbands, a situation that caused serious difficulties (see MacDonald, “Married to Unbelievers”). 172. For such unions between people of different legal status, see esp. Weaver, “Status,” using especially inscriptions; also Llewelyn, Documents, 6:17 §1. Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB, seems to treat it as a moral issue. Mixed marriages may have become more problematic in the late empire (Grubbs, “Marriage”).

2315

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 19

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

leges.173 Roman law at one time prohibited intermarriage between patricians and plebeians, a prohibition some of the latter found insulting.174 Augustus’s laws had removed restrictions between free males of nonsenatorial classes and freedwomen,175 but senatorial males could marry neither freedpersons nor actors.176 Women marrying slaves could become slaves or take the status of freedpersons.177 For some philosophers, the question of moral compatibility led to an insistence on virtuous partners.178 Luke does not view ethnic intermarriage with hostility (Acts 7:29) so long as one continues to practice the faith, but Timothy’s mother’s inability to have him circumcised may suggest that the marriage was not religiously ideal. Luke does not address the issue, in any case, and had fault been found, it probably would have been with the father of Timothy’s mother (who under normal circumstances would have arranged or at least approved the marriage), not with herself (who may have been very pious, as 2 Tim 1:5 suggests). Timothy’s status with both Jews and Gentiles remained ambiguous and hence problematic for ministry in both communities until Paul helped him define it here. That Paul would think it worth doing so might suggest that Asian Jewish opposition was less thoroughgoing than one might guess from Luke’s usual emphasis, and this, in turn, suggests that Luke has preserved a genuine tradition here. The tradition that Timothy had known the Scriptures from childhood (2 Tim 3:15) need not conflict with the claim that his father was a Gentile; even in 2 Timothy, our source for the former claim, the Jewish faith of only Timothy’s mother is indicated (2 Tim 1:5), which is not the usual pattern.179 Fathers normally took the children in a divorce in Roman marriages,180 but in other marriages the mother often received custody.181 If Timothy’s father was elderly or for other reasons died when Timothy was a child, the mother’s influence would also be paramount.182 Moreover, mother-son bonds tend to be close in Mediterranean societies, perhaps even closer than sibling bonds.183 Wives also had varying degrees of freedom, but they had more freedom, in general, in this period than previously (though more among Romans).184 A wife could also influence a marriage spiritually, for good or bad.185 Timothy’s Jewish faith (or at least instruction), however, might have been acceptable 173. Lewis, Life, 41–43. 174. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.28.4; Livy 4.4.9. The ban was repealed “within a few years” (Lintott, Romans, 19). 175. Primarily for demographic reasons (far more aristocratic men than women, Dio Cass. 54.16.2), but cf. an additional proposal in McGinn, “Missing Females?” 176. O’Rourke, “Law,” 180. Josephus objected to free persons marrying slaves altogether, and he or his tradition read this into Israel’s law (Ant. 4.244–45). 177. In the time of Claudius, Tac. Ann. 12.53; cf. Weaver, “Status,” 151. Inscriptions in Asia Minor do, however, testify of mixed slave-free households (Martin, “Slave Families,” 214–22, esp. 214). 178. See Deming, Celibacy, 144. 179. The mention of fathers would normally take precedence (though rabbis noted that Scripture could mention either first); certainly, they were not normally omitted in such descriptions when they were equally pious. 180. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 158, 169; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 139; Yarbrough, “Paul,” 410. Women could not adopt, since they lacked legal power over even their birth children (Gaius Inst. 1.104). 181. Jeffers, “Families,” 141; cf. idem, World, 246. In earlier Rome, the dissolution of mixed marriages might leave sons with Roman fathers, and daughters with the non-Roman mothers (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.1.2). 182. Marshall, Acts, 259, says that the Greek verb tense in Acts 16:3b suggests that the father was already dead. At least in the United States, when the mother gains custody of children, the children tend to lose contact with paternal kin (Anspach, “Kinship and Divorce”). In the case of a remarriage, Roman law recognized legal paternity through marriage to the mother over biological paternity (see Schwartz, “Callirhoe’s Choice”); educating another’s child made one an adoptive parent ( Jacobson, “Adoptive Parents”). 183. See Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 272–73. 184. See Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 130 (citing sine manu marriages and related matters in Gaius Inst. 1.111, 145, 171); Verner, Household, 33, 39; Keener, “Marriage,” 687–88; see further Keener, Acts, 1:608–9. 185. Gen. Rab. 17:7, making the wife the primary influence (but this may represent a rare opinion or be ad hoc). Rabbis also envisioned cases in which a husband, but not a wife, obeyed Pharisaic interpretations of tithing rules (t. Demai 3:9).

2316

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 20

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to, even if not welcomed by, his father, who, after all, had knowingly married a Jewess.186 It is even possible that Timothy’s father was a God-fearer attracted to the synagogue without an ethnic commitment to Judaism, which had allowed his son the same degree of attachment.187 Opposing circumcision, which to Gentiles seemed a form of mutilation, would not require opposing all Jewish beliefs and practices, as the existence of a class of God-fearers indicates (see comment on Acts 10:2). Philosophers concurred that children should be taught right from wrong starting from infancy (ἀπὸ νηπίων, Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.35–36),188 a case that would fit how Timothy’s youth is described in 2 Tim 3:15. (On education more generally, see comment on Acts 7:22; 22:3.) Although fathers bore ultimate scholastic responsibility,189 even in Rome, mothers could be responsible for early education;190 in Jewish circles, the father bore primary responsibility for sons’ education in the Torah,191 but a mother could assume responsibility for this education if the father was unavailable.192 iii. Timothy’s Ethnic Status (16:1)

There is some debate as to whether Timothy’s status at this point was Jewish or Gentile by virtue of his parentage. Tannaitic sources counted as Jewish the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile man,193 as many scholars note.194 Many find here implications for Timothy’s status,195 including a Jewish scholar (R. Jacob Emden, 1697–1776) as early as the eighteenth century.196 The problematic question is the date of this evidence; Tannaitic evidence is the earliest rabbinic evidence we have, but in its compiled form, it is as much as one and a half centuries after the book of Acts was written (though mostly reflecting tradition earlier than its writing). Some doubt that the matrilineal principle precedes the Mishnah197 and hence contend that Timothy was a Gentile.198 186. Cf. moralists’ advice on beginning children’s education with a nursemaid of good character and articulate in Greek (e.g., Plut. Educ. 5, Mor. 3DE; Carcopino, Life, 104; cf. Tac. Dial. 29); who better to teach virtue than a mother from a people known for attention to their moral customs? 187. See Schnabel, Acts, 664–65. 188. See also Xen. Cyr. 1.2.3; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.17–18; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.5–6; Plut. M. Cato 20.3; Crates Ep. 33; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.22–23; Iambl. V.P. 31.206; cf. Petron. Sat. 4. Not everyone, however, shared these ideals (Dixon, Roman Mother, 141). 189. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.19; “Lines from Columbanus” (probably Catonian), line 27, in Minor Latin Poets 1:630–31; Plut. M. Cato 20.2–8; cf. Verner, Household, 134. It was best to school children nearby so that fathers could rear their children strictly (Pliny Ep. 4.13.4). 190. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744. The mother would also be responsible for discipline if the father was unavailable (e.g., Plut. Coriol. 1.2, where the father was deceased). 191. Cf. Sir 7:23; Wis 3:11–12; 4 Macc 18:9–19; Let. Aris. 248; b. Qidd. 29a, bar.; Safrai, “Education,” 947 (citing t. Qidd. 1:11; Sipre Deut. 46; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.178; Philo Embassy 210); idem, “Home,” 770; Goodman, State, 72 (citing, e.g., t. Ḥag. 1:2). 192. So b. Soṭah 21a (Amoraic). The emphasis on the mother’s role in Malina, Windows, 71, 82, is probably most appropriate at a young age (see helpfully Lincoln, Ephesians, 400, 406; cf. 2 Kgs 4:18–19; in some other traditional cultures, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 169). 193. M. Qidd. 3:12; Yebam. 7:5; t. Qidd. 4:16. 194. Cohen, Law, 140 (noting that the issue of dispute, settled in the child’s favor by later Amoraim, was whether the child was legitimate); Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 118–19; idem, Jew, 9–17 (dating the tradition as early as Ezra 9:2, though this claim is disputable); Falk, “Law,” 510; Le Cornu, Acts, 861 (citing m. Bik. 1:4; y. Yebam. 13a; Qidd. 41a; b. Yebam. 17a; 23a; Qidd. 68b). A proselyte’s status was much closer to Israelite if his or her mother was Jewish (m. Bik. 1:4–5); this might suggest a situation like Timothy’s, but it may also suggest a tradition in which maternal descent was insufficient. Some Amoraim even averred that women exercised the greater moral influence (Gen. Rab. 17:7). 195. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:741; Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 2:287. Schiffman, Jew, 17, notes that this was the criterion by which the Tannaim evaluated Gentile Christians. 196. Falk, Jesus, 18, noting that Paul was therefore with the halakah to circumcise Timothy. 197. Cf. Cohen, “Matrilineal Principle in Perspective” (also idem, Beginnings, 263–307, cited in Pervo, Acts, 388); Hadas-Lebel, “Mariages mixtes.” Cohen proposes its origin in the many women converting to Judaism but also in the Mishnah’s concern for varied kinds and Roman laws concerning status (“Origins of Matrilineal Principle”). Slater, “Emergence,” relates the emerging of that principle to rabbis’ understanding of masculinity and status. 198. Cf. Cohen, “Was Timothy Jewish?”; also see idem, Beginnings, 363–77, cited in Barreto, Negotiations, 69n27.

2317

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 21

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Others argue that the Mishnaic sources simply confirm the earlier picture provided here.199 “If Luke’s evidence for the acknowledgement of the matrilineal principle is supported by later rabbinic law, then in accordance with the routine practice of ancient historians, we have to treat it as a terminus post quem.”200 Roman law also provides an analogy for attribution of status. Although Roman law technically regulated only the marriages of Roman citizens (where status came from the father),201 from a Roman perspective children in all other marriages took their status from the mother.202 Some peoples known to the ancient Mediterranean world practiced matrilineal descent, but this was noteworthy (Polyb. 12.5.6–11; 12.6b.2). Most likely, these rules were not yet standardized for all regions in this period, and Timothy’s status, however defined by Roman and Pharisaic legal experts, remained ambiguous in the eyes of outsiders. Further, although he may have been raised with Jewish knowledge by his mother (cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15), his uncircumcised status (presumably because of his father’s objection after his birth)203 prevented him from being viewed as a full member of Israel among Jews. Regularizing his status would help Timothy with Jewish audiences and not hinder his hearing with Gentiles, for Jews probably would consider an uncircumcised man too Gentile whereas Gentiles would count a half-Jew practicing many Jewish customs too Jewish.204 Given Luke’s emphasis that Paul fought against circumcision’s requirement for Gentiles (Acts 15:1–2), Luke clearly views Timothy as essentially Jewish (2 Tim 3:15 confirms this as his upbringing)—that is, at least Jewish enough. At the same time, in a work that emphasizes the gospel crossing all barriers, often being preached at the intersection of Jewish and Greek worlds (19:10, 17; 20:21; even in synagogues, 14:1; 18:4), specification of Timothy’s ambiguous ethnic status is no coincidence. His “hybrid” status (in the language of current postcolonial scholarship) symbolizes the intersection of Jew and Greek, so that he embodies in himself the goal of the church’s unity (cf. also the interethnic union in 7:29).205 Just as the culturally hybrid Hellenist Jews carried forward the mission in chapters 6–8 and the culturally hybrid Paul continues it, Timothy’s interethnic and intercultural heritage continues to symbolize the direction that the Spirit is moving God’s people.206 199. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 12–16, esp. 16. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 284, and Talbert, Acts, 137: it is not documented before the Mishnah, but Luke seems to assume it. Some argue that Philo attests an emphasis on having a Jewish mother (see Niehoff, “Identity”). 200. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 17. 201. Children took the father’s rank in most unions (Livy 4.4.11, on plebeians and patricians; in Jewish unions involving priests, cf. y. Ketub. 1:5, §2). Romans, like others, were more tolerant of their men intermarrying than of their women doing so. 202. Ulpian Rules 5.8 (third century c.e.; available in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 192, §195); Buckland, Roman Law, 99; Dixon, Roman Mother, 18; Jeffers, “Families,” 133–34. 203. With, e.g., D. Williams, Acts, 275. It is not hard to see why a Gentile might balk at this particular rite, which some viewed as mutilation (e.g., Plut. Cic. 7.5; see discussion of circumcision at the introduction to Acts 15). 204. Cf. similarly Bruce, Acts1, 308. Some Gentile Christian exegetes, such as Ambrosiaster, and some medieval exegetes viewed him as Jewish (Fitzmyer, Acts, 575, disagreeing). 205. See Keener, “Interethnic Marriages,” 33–38; and esp. Barreto, Negotiations, 61–118 (esp. 92; cf. his discussion of hybridity in 45, 49–53, 140–80, esp. 140, 166–80; his use of Hemer, Acts in History, 56–58, for guidelines for the study of ethnicity). Barreto views “Greek” as an ethnic marker (Negotiations, 110–13), rightly rejecting the proposal that “Greek” functions here only as a status marker (Negotiations, 73n40, 110n164), although the title carried status in some non-Greek areas (such as rural Egypt). Timothy collapses “exclusive categories” of Jew and Greek (117), embodying both ethnic identities and thus bringing them together (118); cf. also idem, “Difference.” 206. Barreto, Negotiations, 116, cites approvingly Wall’s perspective that Timothy’s mixed identity is an advantage for the mission (Wall, “Acts,” 227).

2318

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 22

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

iv. Timothy’s Reputation (16:2)

Timothy was probably a Pauline convert from Paul’s earlier visit; Paul calls him his “son,” and although this could simply involve imitation (1 Cor 4:17), the context also suggests evangelism (4:15).207 This also fits the tradition of the Pastoral Epistles that Timothy knew firsthand Paul’s sufferings in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra (2 Tim 3:11), which, so far as we may infer from Acts, were limited, or mainly limited, to his previous journey. But Paul had not spent long enough in Lystra to observe firsthand the maturation of all his converts; he might therefore have solicited reports of Timothy’s maturity. The concern that he was well spoken of, however, might be less for Paul’s benefit than for that of the group’s testimony, as Timothy’s circumcision (Acts 16:3) is. That Timothy was “attested” by others, in this case the brothers and sisters in Lystra, fits an interest not only of Luke (6:3; 10:22; 22:12) but of others as well (e.g., Col 4:13; 1 Tim 3:7; 3 John 12). Good reputation was a matter of great importance (see Tob 10:13; Sir 34:23–24; comment on Acts 6:3). In a letter of recommendation, Pliny Ep. 10.86B urges that everyone who knows the person he is recommending compete to honor him. Apuleius praises his supporting witness as respected by all who know his skills (Apol. 61–62). Because the church was fairly recent (despite the appointment of “elders,” Acts 14:23), consistency was important in evaluating prospects for ministry (cf. 1 Tim 3:6–7). Reputation was clearly important in the local region; people in the region (perhaps Jewish people specifically) already knew enough about Timothy to know that his father was Greek (Acts 16:3). Small towns with even smaller Jewish populations discussed the limited news available, and so this information would be more widely circulated than news about individuals in a location such as, for instance, Syrian Antioch. Other factors supporting Timothy’s selection might have included his bicultural background and perhaps his Jewish upbringing and biblical knowledge (cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15) as well as other factors on which Luke does not elaborate. Although Paul came to Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1), the report about Timothy comes from the believers in Lystra and Iconium rather than Derbe (16:2). Although Lystra and Iconium belonged to separate jurisdictions, they were geographically close to each other (perhaps 30 km.), in contrast to the site of Derbe.208 That the Roman road probably did not extend to Derbe, making travel there less pleasant, may have also reduced the exchange with this town. This conclusion comports well with the evidence of 2 Tim 3:11, where Timothy knew of Paul’s ministry in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra but Derbe is not mentioned. Acts 20:4 links Timothy with Gaius of Derbe but apparently implies that Timothy himself was not from there. Thus it is likely that Timothy had been involved with the churches of Iconium and Lystra and was from Lystra. Some suggest that Timothy was a Roman citizen,209 which would fit an interest of Paul and Silas; his mixed Greek and Jewish parentage, however, do not offer confidence that he belonged to the Roman citizen element of the colony. v. Timothy’s New Role (16:3)

Timothy was probably young, especially if 1 Tim 4:12, addressing Timothy many years later, preserves reliable tradition;210 that he is younger than Paul (who by now 207. With Marshall, Acts, 259; cf. 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2. 208. Mitchell, Anatolia, map 6, 1:99; Hemer, Acts in History, 111–12 (on the basis of current views of Derbe’s site, as against earlier ones). 209. Judge, First Christians, 565. Had he been a Roman citizen, it would have served Luke’s purpose to mention it, though given his selectivity we cannot hang too much weight on his silence. 210. The age range included here is probably the same as in Acts 7:58 (see comment there). In contrast to Saul in Acts 7:58, some envision Timothy as in his mid- to late thirties in 1 Tim 4:12 (cf. Kelly,

2319

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 23

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

must be at least forty) is probably implied in Paul’s designation of Timothy as his “son” (1 Cor 4:17). (It was common for younger men to be disciples of rabbis or to be apprentices in a chosen field before having families. Some Romans enjoyed introducing younger men to political life,211 though this may reflect peculiarly Roman patronage practices.) Mark as a young man had served as an apprentice-servant for the Barnabas-Paul team earlier (Acts 13:5, 13); now perhaps Timothy replaces him in this role for the new Paul-Silas team.212 If Timothy had any interest in ministry, this invitation provided an exceptional opportunity. Students often sought out private tutors (especially if the larger schools could not accommodate the demand); some teachers had not yet attracted sufficient students to act as other than tutors, though sometimes offering exalted claims for themselves.213 Paul was much more than a private tutor despite the small number of his traveling companions, and for Timothy to travel with him was to assume a role similar to the disciple role that Jesus’s disciples filled in the Gospel. Disciples were often counted as “sons” to their rabbinic “fathers”—hence (again) Timothy’s title in Pauline circles (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1).214 vi. Timothy’s Circumcision (16:3)

Although later Jewish tradition assigned the task of circumcision to a mohel, in this period anyone was able to perform it,215 though one would hope that whoever did so was skillful and careful (cf. Gal 5:12).216 For a grown man, however, circumcision would always be painful (Gen 34:25). That Paul circumcises Timothy here coheres with Timothy’s being regarded in Paul’s letters as a son in the faith (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22).217 Mentoring younger men was considered a virtuous activity.218 It can be no coincidence that Luke reports this event soon after describing the Jerusalem Council; just as Jerusalem believers, when led together by the Spirit, affirmed Gentile converts’ freedom from circumcision, Paul here does not in principle oppose circumcision of a person of Jewish descent.219 Even here, however, Luke supplies missionary strategy rather than theology as the reason;220 this seems to fit the epistolary Paul, who sees circumcision as spiritually neutral (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15) and warns against making foods or holy days a stumbling block to Jewish Christians (Rom 14). Scholars, however, often debate this difference as a serious incongruity.221 How could Paul battle circumcisionists in Acts 15:1–2 (on the Lukan literary level) and Pastoral Epistles, 2; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 52); late twenties might be likelier (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 560–61). 211. E.g., Pliny Ep. 6.23.2. 212. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 149. 213. Winter, Philo and Paul, 25–30 (citing esp. P.Oxy. 2190.20–21). 214. E.g., Porph. Marc. 1.6–8; Eunapius Lives 486, 493; 4 Bar. 7:24; Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4; b. Pesaḥ. 112a; Šabb. 25b; 31a (Hillel); Pesiq. Rab. 21:6 (Moses to Israel); 51:1; Phlm 10; Matt 23:9; John 13:33; 1 John 2:1, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; 3 John 4. 215. Conzelmann, Acts, 125 (following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 4:28–29). 216. We do not read of many accidents, but cf. y. Šabb. 19:3, §3. 217. A title applied elsewhere in Pauline literature only to two other people (Phlm 10), one of these in the Pastorals (Titus 1:4) where Timothy still holds pride of place (1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1). 218. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b9, pp. 22–23.30–33. See also discussion at Acts 13:13; 15:37–38. 219. Segal, Convert, 219, argues that Luke portrays Paul as abiding by the decree here, thereby undercutting the criticism of Acts 21:21. Cf. also Aug. Ep. 82.8, to Jerome (Martin, Acts, 196). 220. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9 (using 1 Cor 9:20); Chrys. Hom. Acts 34; in Cat. Act. 16.1–3; Bede Comm. Acts 16.3 (Martin, Acts, 195–97). Some do count against the act the very Pauline texts I cite for circumcision’s moral neutrality (cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 401–2). 221. Goulder, Competing Mission, 224, allows the account in Acts but attributes it to the urging of Silas, given his Jerusalemite tendencies. But this renders it difficult to explain why Paul would withstand many in Jerusalem (Gal 2:3–5) yet succumb to an incompatible traveling partner (with whom he kept traveling).

2320

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 24

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

struggle with Barnabas and contend for Titus’s freedom (Gal 2:3–5, 13, on the historical level),222 then circumcise Timothy afterward? This would become a genuine contradiction only if we argue that Timothy is Titus,223 and given the sequence, not necessarily even then. As already noted, the question is not hard to answer on the Lukan literary-theological level.224 Luke deliberately juxtaposes this notice with Acts 15, providing an apologetic against those who claimed that Paul opposed Jewish circumcision (refuting the slander of 21:21 in advance).225 Whether everyone regarded Timothy as Jewish or not (see discussion above), Luke plainly treats him as Jewish enough not to contradict his own account in Acts 15. Acts may be irenic as well as apologetic, showing that Paul posed no threat to the true Jewish message and heritage.226 On the historical level, however, scholars sometimes balk. Some suggest that Luke has simply accepted a slander about Paul as a fact useful to his argument, and they offer (rather speculatively) that it might be this very rumor that Paul refutes in Gal 5:11.227 Others allow that it is “possible” that Paul circumcised Timothy yet regard it as improbable, citing this as evidence against Acts’ author having been Paul’s companion.228 The supposed inconsistency was noticed already in late antiquity by some critics of Paul, who also complained about inconsistent views of the law in his epistles.229 Many scholars counter, however, that Timothy’s case differs substantially from Titus’s because Timothy has a Jewish mother and was raised with Jewish faith; he 222. With most exegetes (e.g., Witherington, Galatia, 135; Wright, Justification, 113), I read Gal 2:3 as Titus not being circumcised, although it is not impossible, with some, to read it that he submitted to it willingly. 223. Fellows, “Titus,” skillfully defends the identification of Timothy and Titus (developing a suggestion by Borse, “Timotheus und Titus,” 34). Some evidence supports this position’s plausibility: Apart from 2 Tim 4:10, which Fellows can discount as later misinformation (“Titus,” 35–36), Timothy and Titus do not appear together. Certainly, this argument would also resolve why “Titus” does not appear in Acts. Also, “Titos” would make a good nickname, a useful shortened form for “Timotheos.” Against it would be the oddity of changing names for a person without explanation, even in same letter (2 Cor 1:1, 19 for “Timothy,” and thereafter “Titus,” e.g., 2:13), though this sometimes occurred (even in Gal 1:18; 2:7–11, 14; Fellows, “Titus,” 34–35). Moreover, “Titus” was not a particularly rare name (e.g., 2 Macc 11:34; it appears 201 times in Josephus, but this is because of Vespasian’s son); “Titius” in Acts 18:7 is closer to “Titus” than “Timothy” is, yet most do not link them. The thesis is certainly plausible, but given the uncertainty of the positive evidence, whether it is the likeliest solution depends partly on how much one thinks that the author of the Pastorals knew. I favor accurate information in the Pastorals about distinct persons more than Fellows does, believing that the concrete tradition in 2 Tim 4:10 may reflect traditional assumptions about their distinct identities within living memory of Timothy; the evidence of Acts 16:3 is also against this speculation, since the author belongs to the Pauline circle and, on my view of authorship (see Keener, Acts, 1:402–16, and comment on Acts 16:10), would have known Timothy and presumably whether or not Paul had him circumcised. 224. On the Pauline level, if Luke’s report is true, the Galatians would be the very ones to know of Timothy’s circumcision (on the South Galatian view) and hence would profit particularly from Paul’s recounting Titus’s noncircumcision. 225. With Johnson, Acts, 289–90. 226. See Brawley, “Paul in Acts,” 143–44; idem, Luke-Acts and Jews, 155. 227. Bornkamm, “Missionary Stance,” 203–4; Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 271. Pervo, Acts, 388, notes this view (of Linton, “Aspect”) as possible but prefers pure Lukan invention (inverting Gal 2:3–5 to make Paul positive); yet at the time that he (or even I) dates Luke, was circumcision still “positive” among most churches, especially Luke’s Diaspora circle? 228. Barrett, Acts, 753. His argument, however, at least partially deconstructs because he dates Acts late enough for Luke to have known Paul’s letters while he counts Luke’s divergence from the letters against his reliability here. Even if Luke were inaccurate here, it would not imply that he lacked access to Paul at one time—only when he was writing. Conversely, if, as the “we” sections likely do indicate, he was Paul’s companion on the journey to Jerusalem, it is likely that he would have accurate information on this point (since Timothy was on the same trip, Acts 20:4). Luke would not invent the problem; see Garroway, “Heresy,” 32. 229. Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 3.30–36 (Porphyry’s 58–59).

2321

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 25

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

merely lacked circumcision.230 As Luke’s Paul opposes only Gentile, not Jewish, circumcision, the same may be said for the epistolary Paul (1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15).231 Further, Timothy’s circumcision is here explicitly a missionary strategy, not a concession to others’ mistaken standards of salvation or holiness.232 Paul specifically says that he practiced Jewish customs and submitted to Jewish law to reach Jewish people (1 Cor 9:20).233 It is difficult to believe that this submission to Jewish customs excluded circumcision where it was not a matter of Gentiles’ salvation, especially when Paul lists circumcision as among his own Jewish “qualifications” (Phil 3:5).234 Ethnicity studies suggest that if Paul defined his primary identity as in Christ, he could adapt some elements of his identity to relate to Gentiles, while under normal circumstances maintaining his own Jewish identity.235 Although not all Gentile Christians agreed, even Justin in the mid-second century c.e. claimed that Jewish Christians could continue to observe the law so long as they did not impose this requirement on Gentiles (Dial. 47).236 Indeed, Gentile (both Greek and Latin) patristic writers of the late second and early third centuries, who knew Greco-Roman intellectual currents well, already defended Paul’s circumcision of Timothy as “accommodation,” on the basis of 1 Cor 9:19–23 (Tert. Marc. 5.3; Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9).237 Later rabbis preserve the adage that one should adapt to local custom wherever one goes (Exod. Rab. 47:5). The Pastorals later report the beginning of Timothy’s ministry, presumably a sending off by church elders (Acts 14:23) in prayer similar to what is described for Paul and Barnabas in 13:3. When the elders laid hands on Timothy (1 Tim 4:14),238 prophecies were given about him (1:18; 4:14). He also received on this occasion a spiritual gift (4:14) that was from the Spirit (2 Tim 1:7) and came through Paul’s laying on of hands (1:6), presumably along with those of the elders. In conclusion, Luke’s depiction of Timothy highlights in one person the intersection of Jewish and Greek cultures treated elsewhere more broadly in his narratives. Moreover, Luke’s depiction of Timothy’s circumcision, coming on the heels of the Jerusalem Council, portrays Paul as continuing to approve Jewish practices so long as they are not imposed on Gentiles (see similarly 21:20–26). 230. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 84–85; Witherington, Acts, 474; Dunn, Acts, 216; Erdman, Galatians, 50–51; Le Cornu, Galatians, 90. Even Paul’s letters include apparently inconsistent texts (e.g., Gal 2:11–14 and 1 Cor 9:19–23) that treat two different kinds of situations (cf. Richardson, “Inconsistency”; for greater consistency, Carson, “Inconsistency”). 231. With, e.g., Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 16; Dunn, Acts, 216; Hengel, Peter, 61n199. See further discussion on Paul’s continuing Jewish identity at Acts 18:18. 232. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 476; Bence, Acts, 19; Fernando, Acts, 432; Gaventa, Acts, 46; Wright, Ethics, 188–89; Talbert, Acts, 137; Peterson, Acts, 451; Thompson, Unfolding Plan, 188–89. 233. So here also Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.9 (Martin, Acts, 197). The practice of local adaptation was an old (and debated) one; see, e.g., Mommsen, History, 190–91 (on Sulla); Quint. Inst. 3.7.24; Plut. Alex. 45.1–3; Alc. 23.4–6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.2–6; Eunapius Lives 495–96; Exod. Rab. 47:5. But while Paul had to adapt to reach Gentiles (cf. Hillel in Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 336ff.; Longenecker, Paul, 207; Le Cornu, Acts, 961), Jewish culture was his own. For how Paul’s Jewish commitments in his letters cohere with Luke’s depiction of them, see Hvalvik, “Believer” (followed at length by Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 431–32). 234. Useless, he claims, in boasting before God but apparently of some value for establishing his credentials against the circumcisionists. To say, “not to mention,” but then to mention something was a common rhetorical technique (see comment on Acts 24:19). 235. See Hodge, “Apostle to Gentiles.” 236. See discussion in Osborn, Justin, 159–60. 237. Mitchell, “Accommodation,” 202–4. Clement uses the same language to explain passages attributing human emotions to God (Strom. 2.16). 238. Presumably at ordination (cf. 1 Tim 5:22). On various uses of the laying on of hands, see comment on Acts 6:6.

2322

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 26

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

d. Strengthening Churches in Phrygia (16:4–5) Paul and his colleagues strengthen the churches of Phrygia, just as Paul did in Syria-Cilicia (Acts 15:41). The term “decrees” (δόγματα) suggests something official and authoritative (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), perhaps because of inspiration (Acts 15:28; cf. Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) but perhaps also because the mother church in Jerusalem remained somehow authoritative. The term κεκριμένα alludes back to the church’s “judgments” (Acts 15:19; 16:4). Paul in his letters grants the Jerusalem church a special role (Rom 15:27; cf. 1 Cor 16:3; Gal 2:1–2) but prudently does not cite its authority; the latter would have probably gained favor neither with his churches nor, had it come to its attention, with the Roman government (at least not if Roman officials accepted the argument of some Jews that the Christian sect of Judaism was disapproved by mainstream Judaism). Some scholars argue that some of his challengers may have also laid claim to Jerusalemite sanction (perhaps 2 Cor 11:22); in this case, emphasizing Jerusalem’s authority might not have helped his cause. With his emphasis on the continuity between the church’s heritage and their mission, Luke is thus more apt to employ the term than Paul would have been (Paul, in fact, does not mention the decrees in his letters; see comment on Acts 15:20). The term does fit the official language of the letter in Acts 15:23–29, including the use of ἔδοξε in 15:22 (though cf. the nonofficial use in Luke 1:3);239 this is probably Luke’s source for the term. This region was not part of Syria-Cilicia, to whose conflicts (especially noted in Antioch) the decrees had been addressed (Acts 15:23), but their applicability was potentially broader, and Paul may have sought to neutralize any future influence of “Judaizers” in this region. His epistle to the Galatians (see introduction, above, to Acts 14) suggests that the Judaizers did indeed later achieve a position of influence; this would also suggest that the decrees failed to prevent this, which might in turn explain why he does not cite them there. If Paul taught his churches to depend on the Spirit and the gospel that they had received (Gal 3:2; cf. 1 Cor 2:4–5), they may have regarded the Jerusalem church’s decrees as of secondary importance. More important, if those who came after Paul claimed a more recent or authoritative testimony from Jerusalem, they could neutralize the decrees’ effects. In his letters, Paul reasoned with the relatively autonomous Gentile churches instead of citing a temporally and geographically distant decree; he did, however, duplicate some of its content. He may not have emphasized the dietary aspect of the decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25), but he clearly condemned sexual immorality (1 Cor 5:1–13; 6:9–10; 1 Thess 4:3–8) and offered arguments against idol food (1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:14–11:1). There is no reason to doubt that initially240 Paul did report the decree to churches, viewing it as mostly a victory for their autonomy. Apparently they also viewed the decree favorably (Acts 16:5; cf. 15:30–31). See comment on Acts 15:20 and the introduction, above, to Acts 15. For churches being “strengthened,” compare 14:22; 15:32, 41; 18:23;241 for their “increasing in number,” compare 4:4 and especially 6:7 (on which see comment); 239. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 185, think that Luke portrays Paul as a delegate of the Jerusalem apostles (a portrayal that would obviously contradict Gal 1:17–2:10), but this overstates Paul’s subservience to Jerusalem in Acts. 240. It is not reported after Acts 16:4 and hence at least not explicitly reported as taught to new churches or in the period from which Paul’s relevant letters missing it derive. 241. The precise term στερεόω appears elsewhere in the nt only for a disabled man physically strengthened by faith (Acts 3:7, 16; cf. 9:19; perhaps relevant for analogy); cf. the more closely related use of the term in 1 Pet 5:9. For related ideas of establishing or strengthening churches, cf. Luke 22:32; 1 Thess 3:2; encouragement

2323

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 27

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

11:21 (hence probably referring to members rather than to the number of churches, although, so long as the church met in houses, this would be a necessary outgrowth of the expansion of members as well). That the growth was taking place “daily” recalls the church’s growth after Pentecost, showing continuity between the Gentile mission and the Jerusalem church’s origins (2:47; cf. 2:46; 17:11; 19:9); “number” evokes 4:4; 6:7; 11:21.

2. God’s Leading to Macedonia (16:6–10) Going where God wanted and when he wanted was key to being assured of God’s blessing—an assurance that would prove essential when the missionaries faced the sufferings that awaited them while breaking ground in Macedonia. In this passage they are revisiting Phrygian Galatia as they have done in 14:21–25, following up and perhaps building on what was done for more evangelism; but they clearly desire to move on to unevangelized regions (cf. also this interest of Paul’s in Rom 15:20–21). The evangelized region had changed; indeed, new civic structures had been constructed in growing Pisidian Antioch even since their last departure.242 But providing opportunity for all regions was paramount for a small mission team in a sea of humanity unexposed to the gospel. a. The Spirit’s Prohibitions (16:6–7) Before receiving positive guidance (16:9–10), the missionaries are restrained from going elsewhere (16:6–7) and hence are initially unable to make much progress in their mission to new areas beyond Phrygia. To a reader unfamiliar with the ambiguity and delays sometimes experienced in seeking divine guidance (cf. 21:4 and comment there), the mission appears to wander almost aimlessly (cf. Gen 37:15; 1 Sam 9:4; Plut. Galba 1.4) now that Paul lacks Barnabas’s help and has pressed beyond the previous sphere of ministry. The picture contrasts with the success just narrated in 16:5. It is not the sort of report Luke would likely invent about his hero (though it might add suspense, it lacks the action and adventure of conflict scenes), and one that he does not elaborate. At the same time, ancient literature appreciated divine guidance, and those most sympathetic with dependence on it would not view Paul’s delays negatively. The information it suggests about the mission’s difficulties is thus likely historical, yet Luke can also derive theological capital from it. i. The Phrygian-Galatian Region (16:6)

Scholars debate the exact meaning of “the Phrygian and Galatian region” in 16:6. Nevertheless, in the earliest reading the definite article for the region precedes and brackets both Phrygia and Galatia, strongly suggesting that Luke means one region rather than two.243 Many scholars thus adopt the unified phrase “Phrygian-Galatia” here, which also diminishes geographic difficulties (below).244 (Luke uses a similar in Luke 22:43; cf. Eph 3:16; 2 Thess 2:17; 3:3; 1 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 4:17; Heb 12:12; 1 Pet 5:10; Rev 3:2. For the language of something “increasing daily,” cf. the dangers in Vell. Paterc. 2.30.5; 2.91.3. 242. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:10, noting a triumphal arch in 50 c.e. commemorating Augustus’s triumphs in Pisidia. The new, colonnaded Tiberia Platea connected this arch with the temple complex, which could be seen by those approaching the city from miles away. 243. The grammar, however, is not by itself decisive; see Robertson, Grammar, 787–88. 244. E.g., Riesner, Early Period, 285; Witherington, Acts, 478; Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 62; D. Williams, Acts, 276–77; Blaiklock, Acts, 121–22. One may compare Φρυγία Ἀσιανή (Galen De alimentorum facultatibus 1.13.10) and the frequent “Pontus Galaticus” (CIL 3.6818; Hemer, Acts in History, 112n28).

2324

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 28

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

construction in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of the tetrarch who controlled “the region of Ituraea and of Trachonitis,” again with one article and χώρα.)245 Thus Luke distinguishes the part of Galatia that is Phrygian (much of the southern region of the province of Galatia) from Galatian territory that is not. The titles appear together as closely related again in Acts 18:23, though not grammatically identified as here. Presumably, Phrygian people inhabited this part of the Galatian province; as noted in the introduction to Acts 14, it is unquestionable that ethnic Phrygia overlapped with provincial Galatia. Antioch and Iconium belonged to Phrygia as well as Galatia; Lystra was near Phrygia and also in Galatia. Luke’s regional designation refers, then, to the cities Paul had visited on his previous trip, as in 16:4.246 This makes better sense of the itinerary: if the missionaries wanted to head for Ephesus in Asia (16:6), North Galatia was far out of their way to the north;247 even regarding Luke’s mention of Mysia, north Galatia “lay some 200 km NE of any natural route between Lystra and Mysia.”248 To translate “Phrygian-Galatia” here (with Ramsay) turns “Phrygian” into an adjective, and some commentators have complained that they find the term only as a noun in this period. Colin Hemer, however, has provided sufficient examples of the adjectival form to lay this objection to rest. It appears even in much earlier Greek (e.g., Eur. Bacch. 159; Tro. 151).249 Those who doubt that Φρύγιος can function as a three-termination (i.e., -ος -α -ον) adjective assume that the adjective should appear primarily in a two-termination (-ος -ον) form, but the three-termination form, in fact, appears to be more common.250 By the time Hemer wrote a later article, he complained that he had found so many more examples that it now seemed “superfluous to cite” them all.251 Some scholars reasonably object that the missionaries have already ministered in Phrygia and South Galatia in Acts 16:1–5, so that they are now moving beyond the province of Galatia into the region of North Galatia. But if 16:5 functions parenthetically, the first line of 16:6 may rehearse in different terms the action of 16:4 before moving forward, merely changing the earlier verse’s imperfect verb into a synonym phrased as a constative or culminative aorist from the perspective of completed action.252 Luke’s use of the verb διέρχομαι in 16:6 is synonymous with his use of διαπορεύομαι in 16:4; the latter appears less frequently in Luke-Acts (only Luke 6:1; 13:22; 18:36; elsewhere in the nt, only Rom 15:24) but covers the same semantic range there. The immediate contextual proximity of Phrygian-Galatian towns already 245. The substantive “Ituraea” there may function adjectivally; at the very least, the area is a political unity. For Philip as tetrarch of Trachonitis, see Jos. Ant. 18.137 (cf. 18.27, 237); on Ituraea, see, e.g., Bieberstein, “Ituraea”; on Trachonitis, Pliny E. N.H. 5.16.74. Strabo 16.2.20 associates Ituraeans with Arabs. 246. Cf. MAMA 7:xii, emphasizing the northern part of Phrygia that is part of Galatia (citing Pliny E. N.H. 5.145). 247. By contrast, Pliny the Elder even conjoins Lycaonia with the province of Asia (N.H. 5.25.95), although the meaning of this description is open to debate. 248. Mitchell, “Galatia,” 871. 249. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 123. For other examples from various periods, including the first century, see Hemer, “Phrygia,” 124–35 (citing Athen. Deipn. 2.55a; 3.75B; various inscriptions; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 15.10; Diog. Laert. 6.1; Lucian Affairs 42). 250. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 124. Cf. LSJ. 251. Hemer, “Further Note,” 99. He offers some of the clearest on 101–2: Arist. Mir. ausc. 58 (834b); Pollux Onomasticon 7.100; Alciph. Ep. 2.4, 21; Strabo 10.3.12; Arrian Tactica 33.4; Aelian Farmers 19 (Mormias to Chremes); Sib. Or. 14.236 (late one); plus a large number of inscriptions (including IG 12.1.531, 532, 534, 895). 252. For the constative aorist, see, e.g., Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 171, §332; Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 196; Wallace, Grammar, 557–58; for the culminative aorist, Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 196; Wallace, Grammar, 559–61. Hemer, “Phrygia,” 125, also warns against having too much depend on the aorist character of the participle (κωλυθέντες) in Acts 16:6.

2325

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 29

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

covered favors, rather than works against, the idea that Luke has the same “Phrygia” and “Galatia” in mind.253 Another argument offered for the North Galatian theory here is that “region” is not a technical term for an administrative district, as Ramsay supposed, and hence refers to the geographic region rather than the province.254 Refuting one older supporting argument for the South Galatian theory, however, does not mean that the North Galatian view necessarily follows. Granted that the term does not specify a province, neither does it specify that Luke does not use the term to include the province. We might suppose that he does not intend the term to designate previously evangelized territory, because he did not employ the term earlier, but Luke is not bound to always employ the same title for a region. Thus, for example, he speaks of “Greece” (Ἑλλάδα) in Acts 20:2, after having spoken before (and more often) of “Achaia” (18:12, 27; 19:21). Further, one could object that Luke, unlike Paul, often uses nonprovincial regional titles such as “Mysia” (16:7–8).255 But “Bithynia” (16:7) was a Roman province,256 indicating that Luke can employ both provincial and regional titles. “Asia” in 16:6 also appears in the provincial sense, matching the “strong sense of provincial identity fostered by Julio-Claudian policy and abundantly illustrated in the formulations of contemporary documents.”257 Luke introduces hearers of the gospel from Phrygia in 2:10. Phrygia in the broadest sense included even Troas (e.g., Strabo 2.5.31; 10.3.32)258 but in the narrower sense included both a hellenized Galatian region and Phrygia Epictetus and adjoined Lycaonia and (to the west) Lydia (12.5.31). Because Phrygia Epictetus was the northern Phrygia that, with Mysia, bordered the south of Bithynia (12.4.1), the “Galatian” Phrygia to which Luke refers must be the southern one.259 Galatians settled Phrygia as far as Lycaonia, and this Galatian Phrygia, along with Cilicia to the south, formed the western border of Cappadocia (12.1.1). Elsewhere also Strabo mentions that the Galatians conquered the part of Phrygia adjoining Cappadocia (4.1.13);260 the border with Cappadocia supports the view that the Galatia referred to here is South, rather than North, Galatia.261 ii. Not North Galatia (16:6)

Did Paul minister in North Galatia? Even if Phrygia-Galatia refers to South Galatia, the road northward might have passed through North Galatia. Scholars are particularly interested in this question to determine the audience in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. 253. Of course, Paul had previously evangelized only some cities in Phrygia-Galatia anyway. 254. Conzelmann, Acts, 127 (though concurring that the first journey included the province of Galatia). 255. For Luke’s preference for urban centers rather than Paul’s for Roman provinces, see Cadbury, Acts in History, 39–40. 256. Established as such by Pompey in the second quarter of the first century b.c.e. (White and Frend, “Bithynia,” 520; Bruce, Acts1, 310; Johnson, Acts, 285). At one time (in the first century b.c.e.), Bithynia was under the same proconsul as Asia (Vell. Paterc. 2.42.3). 257. Hemer, Acts in History, 179. 258. Also Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7. This need not suggest that Paul’s contacts in a different Phrygian region would have been particularly helpful here; Lesbians exerted greater influence in the Troad by this period (Strabo 13.1.38). 259. Sib. Or. 3.514 links Mysia with Phrygia and (also to the south) Lycia. 260. Sometimes, as in Strabo 12.5.31 and 12.8.1, he mentions the part of Phrygia settled by Galatians, but he is not clear as to its location. 261. Greater Phrygia, south of North Galatia, was also held by a Galatian king in the first century b.c.e. (Strabo 12.5.4); the phrase could refer to Phrygia north of Lycaonia, especially on the boundary of North Galatia—but South Galatia combines the two regional titles better and is a region where Paul had already ministered. The area was intertwined; Cappadocia shares flora with Mysia (Pliny E. N.H. 24.102.163).

2326

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 30

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

If he ministered only in South Galatia, then it is the only option for his audience in the letter; if an argument can also be made for his ministry in North Galatia, however, one can choose between them. Even at the outset, however, we should note that the exact site of travel would not necessarily support the view that Paul and Silas founded churches in North Galatia (generally the issue of contention for the background of Galatians). Even if Luke refers here to North Galatia, he reports no ministry here; we may infer ministry here only if we may assume that he means South Galatia (and hence may read Acts 16:6 in the light of 16:4). They are journeying north, but Luke reports the Spirit’s restraint from ministry rather than new ministry itself.262 The verb διέρχομαι can be used for ministry (Luke 9:6; Acts 8:4, 40; 9:32; 10:38; 11:19; 13:6; 15:3, 41) but also applies to any travel (Luke 2:15; 4:30; 8:22; 17:11; 19:1, 4; Acts 9:38; 11:22; 12:10). North Galatia afforded much less opportunity for the ministry of two Greekspeaking Jews. Eastern Phrygia and the southern part of North Galatia were already sparsely populated (as remains the case today);263 just north of Iconium, a semidesert region begins, and the only likely targets of ministry in North Galatia would have been near Pessinus or Ancyra, the provincial capital to its east.264 The steppe of eastern Phrygia was completely rural, and only the upper classes were hellenized in the first century; “the Phrygian and Celtic tribal languages still predominated until the beginning of the Byzantine period.”265 Paul could not speak the vernacular of Phrygian highland villages.266 Four new, small cities were formed between Ancyra and Iconium in the late first or early second century, but there were few urban areas to evangelize in the mid-first century.267 At some point, North Galatia and Pontus (to its north) were evangelized (1 Pet 1:1),268 but it need not be on this mission by Paul, who certainly did not evangelize as far east as Cappadocia (which is also mentioned in 1:1, as is Asia in the west).269 Riesner makes a strong argument that Paul never even entered North Galatia on this journey.270 One would not turn easily to Mysia if approaching Bithynia from Ancyra, nor does one reach Mysia easily from Pessinus.271 North Galatia was far to the east of Mysia,272 and Paul had no reason to travel this far east even to reach Bithynia; if it was out of the way from Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia, it is difficult to see why Paul would have gone there. As Mitchell, insisting that South Galatia must be meant here, puts it, North Galatia “lay some 200 kilometres as the crow flies northeast of any natural route between Lystra and the region of Mysia.”273 Though the boundaries of Phrygia, 262. Paul has to go through Mysia to reach Troas (which was in Mysia), and so “passing by” it in Acts 16:8 means simply that he did not preach there (see LaSor, “Mysia”). 263. Riesner, Early Period, 282. 264. Ibid. On Pessinus, a major center of the Phrygian Cybele cult, see Mitchell, “Pessinus.” 265. Riesner, Early Period, 282–83. For Roman perceptions of ethnic Galatians, see introduction, above, to Acts 14. 266. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 160. 267. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:96. 268. As was Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1; Pliny Ep. 10.96, keeping in mind that Pliny was governor there). But it was not on this occasion (Acts 16:7). 269. For documentation for the first few centuries of the church in Pontus, see Grant, Paul, 58–59. On Pontus and Bithynia, see discussion in Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 135; comment on Acts 2:9–11. Chrys. Hom. Rom. 29 (on 15:19; Bray, Romans, 362), contends that Paul ministered in Cappadocia, but such ideas could have originated among later Cappadocian Christians. 270. Riesner, Early Period, 282–86, concluding (286) that he “never set foot” in the region. 271. Ibid., 283. 272. Unless one defines Mysia very broadly; in Appian Hist. rom. 12.17.118, Mysia adjoins Paphlagonia, Galatia, and Phrygia. On Mysia, see more detailed discussion in Carroll, “Mysia.” 273. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:3–4 (quotation, 2:3).

2327

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 31

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Mysia, and Bithynia were confused over time (Strabo 12.4.4; 12.8.2), Mysia and part of Phrygia lay directly south of Bithynia (12.4.1; 12.8.1). If the missionaries traveled near Nacolea and Dorylaeum, this was Phrygian, not Celtic (Galatian), territory.274 But if Luke’s phrase means Phrygian Galatia in the south, they followed the Via Sebaste (see comment on Acts 13:14) through the cities of Paul’s first journey and may have planned to follow the highway to Apamea and through the Lycus Valley to Ephesus (i.e., into Asia).275 Other scholars prefer the idea that Paul “passed through Phrygia and old Galatic territory” (North Galatia), approaching both Bithynia and Mysia but allowing them to reach Troas (Acts 16:8). By contrast, according to this view, if one went through Galatic Phrygia in the south, one would have to pass through Asia to Mysia.276 But one could have headed northward from Pisidian Antioch to Dorylaeum without entering Asia (and they probably did travel north without entering Asia); in any case, the text does not deny that Paul traveled through Asia but only that he evangelized there. Likewise, Troas itself was in Mysia (according to the broadest definition of Mysia),277 yet Paul “passed by” Mysia (16:8); the phrase means simply that they did not remain to do extensive evangelism in Mysia (though they may have inadvertently founded a church in Troas; see 20:6–7).278 Thus the issue in the text is not where Paul traveled but where he evangelized (16:6). Recently Breytenbach has offered a detailed analysis of the geographic data.279 Paul would naturally seek out cities on the way; which would be the most obvious cities to seek? Paul may have earlier hoped to head west via the Roman post road to the heart of the province of Asia—namely, Ephesus280—but the Spirit had different plans.281 If moving west to Asia (16:6) from Iconium, the group would seek the main route (west of Pisidian Antioch) that passed through Apamea, Colossae, and Laodicea on the Lycus. Just a few miles farther west, this road met another passing through Tralles and Magnesia and on to Ephesus.282 Apamea, with its Jewish community, would have been attractive to Paul,283 but other sources suggest that Paul did not pass along 274. Riesner, Early Period, 283–84. 275. Ibid., 285; cf. D. Williams, Acts, 277. Schnabel, Missionary, 89, also summarizes the possible routes into Asia. The first possibility was to the northwest, across the the Karakus Dagi mountain range, which is some 6,500 feet (2,000 m.) high; this was not impassable for pedestrians. More easily, a main road leading to the southwest would have carried them to Apameia Kibotos; or Paul could have traveled west and then southwest “on the Via Sebastea, passing through Apollonia (Mordiaion, also Sozopolis), before reaching a junction of several roads, one of which leads to Apameia.” 276. Barrett, Acts, 767–68. 277. Philost. Hrk. 23.12, 16; LaSor, “Mysia”; cf. Cypria 7 (the no-longer-extant epic but summarized in Proclus Chrestomathia, which the editor [M. L. West] supplements by Apollod. Epit. 3.1–33; see GEF 73); near but distinct from the Troad in Libanius Encomium 3.8–9. It was also in Lesser Phrygia (Strabo 12.8.1; Libanius Speech in Character 16.2; Invect. 2.1–2; cf. Sib. Or. 3.401–7; 11.132), fitting the older definition of Phrygia (Lucian Judg. G. 3, 5). Bowers, “Route through Mysia,” suggests that Paul’s travel from beyond Mysia to Troas implies that he already planned to go to Macedonia, the dream of Acts 16:9 simply confirming this plan. 278. With Bruce, Acts1, 311; alternatively, they entered it in Acts 16:8 only after coming opposite it in 16:7 (Barrett, Acts, 770–71). Certainly, Paul evangelized Troas more fully later (2 Cor 2:12). Because they had to traverse at least some of Mysia to reach Troas, commentators often view Luke’s wording as clumsy or based on information to which we no longer have access ( Johnson, Acts, 285–86, comparing the confusion in Strabo 12.4.5). 279. See Breytenbach, “Reasons”; cf. also idem, Provinz, 117–18. 280. Fitzmyer, Acts, 478. A major road led from Antioch through Tralles and Magnesia to Ephesus (Strabo 14.2.29). For the route from Iconium to Ephesus, see “Trade Routes.” 281. The aorist participle κωλυθέντες might imply that they were forbidden to enter Asia even before their ministry in Phrygia and Galatia (see Barrett, Acts, 768–69, against Ramsay). 282. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 160–61. 283. Ibid., 161–62.

2328

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 32

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

this route beyond Apamea.284 Paul was probably forbidden to evangelize Asia not after entering Asia but before passing the province’s eastern edge; he was not able to evangelize Apamea, Apollonia, and other cities there.285 Ramsay suggests that after being forbidden to speak in Asia, Paul may have taken the route northward to Dorylaeum and turned north to preach in the Greek cities of Bithynia (Nicaea and Nicomedia). Forbidden, however, to enter Bithynia, he and his companions turned west, keeping near the frontier but hoping to enter elsewhere.286 The road from Smyrna to Dorylaeum was significant in Roman times, connecting Bithynia with Smyrna and Ephesus;287 but they had already been forbidden to enter Asia. Luke’s phrase “over against Mysia” means opposite Mysia (cf. the same use of κατά in 27:2, 5, 7); Luke might mean at its eastern border, at Cotiaeum/Cotyaeum (Kotiaeion) or Dorylaeum (Dorylaion).288 In the north of this northern Phrygian region,289 they could go north (right) to Bithynia or west (left) to Mysia and Asia; here they stop facing Mysia, then proceed due northwest through Mysia (16:8). In the general sense of the title, Mysia was the northwestern part of Asia Minor (Strabo 12.4.5), and the Troad (including their temporary destination in Troas) was normally reckoned part of it.290 Breytenbach notes various possibilities for the route they followed when turned away from Bithynia. One possible target city, en route to Pessinus in North Galatia and “still in Phrygia παρόρειος,” was Docimeium/Docimium, where Jewish workers are attested;291 the missionaries could have traveled there from Prymnessus. In this case, not entering Bithynia would mean that they would not have turned northeast “at the Colonia Iulia August Felix Germa,” a route to Bithynia that, avoiding mountainous terrain, entered Bithynia through a river valley. Instead, they could have remained on the mountains’ southern side, traveling west “on the unpaved road up the Tembris valley, probably until Dorylaeum.”292 Because they would not approach Mysia before Dorylaeum on this route, however, they may have instead traveled from Phrygian Prymnessus to Cotiaeum, a major city, and from there to Dorylaeum. Either way, they would ultimately reach Dorylaeum, and from here they would seek to pass west. Yet the way westward was obstructed by the present-day Sündiken Daglari, more than three thousand meters high.293 These heights proving impassable, they could not proceed.294 What, on this view, would it mean to “pass by” Mysia? Παρέρχομαι can mean to “pass by without touching,” but it can also mean to “pass through” (BDAG). Breytenbach suggests that they followed the Tembris river valley “through Cotiaeum to Aezani,” then, “leaving the Phrygian highlands,” passed through Mysia. They could 284. Ibid., 163, notes that the gospel ultimately apparently reached the Lycus Valley (including Colossae) from Ephesus (Acts 19:10), not earlier (cf. Col 1:7; 2:1). 285. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 165. 286. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 391. For Paul’s presumed plans to preach in these cities (and Chalcedon), see further Schnabel, Mission, 1:842–48; idem, Missionary, 270. 287. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 391. 288. Bruce, Acts1, 310. Roads parted at Dorylaeum (D. Williams, Acts, 277), “the juncture of several major north-south and west-east roads” (Schnabel, Missionary, 90); for pagan superstitions about crossroads, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 36.70.204. 289. What Strabo calls Phrygia Epictetus, as opposed to the “Galatian” Phrygia (Strabo 12.4.1; 12.5.31). 290. Cf., e.g., Lake, “Route,” 230. 291. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 166–67. 292. Ibid., 167. 293. Ibid. 294. Ibid., 168.

2329

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 33

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

then walk along the paths known in “the east-west valley” where the Macestus forges a way through the mountainous Mysia Abbaeitis. If they passed between the Alaçam Daglari and the Simav Daglari, they might have followed the northward bend of the river until the location of the later Hadrianuthera. . . . From here they probably moved westward, through the upper Enbeilos basin. They could have crossed over to the Aegean coast, ascending on Adramyttium by means of the Euenos valley.295

They probably had planned to reach strategic Nicaea and Nicomedia in Bithynia, but “insurmountable difficulties” turned them instead toward Alexandria Troas.296 iii. Mysia and Bithynia (16:7–8)

Mysia (16:7–8) was named after the Mysi, a Thracian-Phrygian group who migrated from Europe and from whom Moesia (the region “south of the lower Danube”) was also named297 (just as Asia’s “Galatians” were Gauls, or Celts, like those in Europe). Mysia was not ethnically, geographically, or politically a unity,298 and its reported boundaries vary according to the source.299 Strabo defines its contours, which were large and which bordered on many strategic regions that must have interested Paul and Silas: it was north of Lydia (Strabo 13.4.10); near the Troad (12.3.3; 12.4.6); and on the south (with “Phrygia Epictetus”) of Bithynia (12.4.1). Several times he mentions that it was near Bithynia (12.4.5, 8) and it was difficult to distinguish its boundary from that of the Phrygians (12.4.4; 12.8.12). Mysia produced good wines (14.1.15) and also had herdsmen (Philost. Hrk. 23.6) and, in upper Mysia, milkers of mares (23.10).300 Mysia was the region that included the missionaries’ temporary destination in Troas (Acts 16:8, 11); Strabo reckons Troas as near it (12.3.3; 12.4.6). Philostratus notes that the Troad (Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4) and Mysia (23.6) shared the common feature of shepherds and cowherds; he claims that the Achaians purposely attacked Mysia before Troy to prevent the inhabitants from joining the Trojans (23.8) and that Heracles’s son then ruled there (23.9–10). In contrast to Paul’s earlier journey (and perhaps his own preference), the journey from Dorylaeum and Cotiaeum northwest to Apamea and Troas was not on a major road that was heavily traveled.301 Bithynia (16:7) also could appear an attractive destination. Pompey expanded Bithynia (Acts 16:7) in the mid-first century b.c.e. (Strabo 12.3.1); joined with the Propontis (the modern Sea of Marmara)302 and parts of Pontus, it was one of the praetorial provinces arranged by Caesar (17.3.25). It would be a strategic region, though probably not to the same extent as Roman Asia; Bithynia produced many 295. Ibid. Schnabel, Missionary, 90, suggests that Paul probably “passed through Kadoi and, along the upper reaches of the Makestos River, through Synaos, Hadrianothera and Adramyttion before reaching Alexandria Troas.” 296. Breytenbach, “Reasons,” 169. 297. Bruce, Acts1, 310. 298. Schwertheim, “Mysia,” 427. 299. Ibid., 426, notes that it can either border (Strabo 12.4.5–6) or include (Ptolemy Geog. 5.2–4) the Troad. More difficult are the southern borders with Phrygia (Schwertheim, “Mysia,” 427, citing Strabo 12.4.4). 300. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 63n76, note that this comes from Hom. Il. 13.6; Hesiod frg. 150.15; 151; Strabo 7.3.7, 9. Philost. Hrk. 23.11 associates the Mysians with Scythians, but while the latter were also considered mare milkers (Hesiod Catalogues of Women and Eoiae 39–40; cf. Max. Tyre 21.6; Olmstead, Persian Empire, 148), this places the Scythians too far west. 301. Riesner, Early Period, 292–93 (thinking most likely a journey from Cotiaeum to Apamea). 302. On the Propontis, see concisely Bean, “Propontis.”

2330

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 34

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

learned people (12.4.9) and controlled the southern part of the Propontis (between the Hellespont and the Pontus Euxinus [Black Sea], 12.3.2); this provided commercial prosperity.303 It also had a known Jewish community (see Philo Embassy 281).304 Some Christians evangelized Pontus and Bithynia in the first century (1 Pet 1:1). But this was not God’s mission for Paul at this time. Some scholars suggest that Paul deliberately avoided paved Roman roads on this journey, in contrast to his first one, perhaps because he had experienced excessive hostility in the major centers on those roads.305 Although admitting that the evidence is incomplete, others suggest that the roads between Dorylaeum and Troas were in reasonably good condition.306 Mysia may have even had paved Roman roads, but at the present time we lack secure archaeological evidence to confirm this.307 iv. Divine Guidance (16:6–7)

Waiting to be certain that God would be with a mission fits a pattern evident at times in Acts, where fully succeeding in an assigned mission is dependent on divine blessing and empowerment (Acts 1:4–8; 13:2–3; Luke 3:22; 24:49; cf. Isa 6:5–8; Jer 1:6–10). The guidance by the Spirit in Acts 16:6–7 is mostly negative;308 positive guidance awaits the vision and interpretation of 16:9–10. (Luke is not committed to only one form of guidance; elsewhere in Acts the Spirit’s words can supplement angelic guidance or a vision; see 8:26, 29; 10:10–16, 19.) Whereas elsewhere one dare not “hinder” (κωλύω) what God’s Spirit has affirmed (10:47), neither dare the evangelists, empowered only by the Spirit (1:8), venture where the Spirit has “hindered.” We cannot be certain why the Spirit prohibited them from speaking in the province of Asia, but some possibilities based on the rest of Acts can be suggested.309 Eventually Paul would have a very effective ministry there (19:10, 20), but only after he had learned some strategies from his ministry of reaching Greeks in Achaia, which historically probably exposed him to a higher level of rhetoric and philosophy than he had had before (cf. 17:22–34; 18:11; 1–2 Corinthians; see comment on Acts 19:9). Further, apparently he would have only a single period of opportunity there before pagan reaction would force his relocation (Acts 19:30–34; 20:16). The opportunity was better embraced at a maturer stage in his ministry than at this one.310 303. On the Black Sea, see Olshausen, “Pontos Euxeinos.” 304. See Stern, “Diaspora,” 153. Further on Bithynia, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.43.148–50 (its major cities included Prusa and Nicaea, 5.43.148); Sheppard, “Bithynia”; for archaeological work on Bithynia and Propontis, see, e.g., Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 129–30, and sources cited there; further on Propontis, see Olshausen and Sauer, “Propontis.” 305. French, “Roads,” 57–58. 306. Jewett, “Mapping ‘Missionary Journey.’” 307. French, “Roads,” 56. 308. This need not mean that other aspects of their move northward lacked divine direction (so Dunn, Acts, 217), though this is possible; their mission, as a whole, included such direction (cf. Acts 13:1–4), but this did not guarantee direction for all details. Riesner, Early Period, 292, thinks that the “thwarted destinations” represented Lydia, Meshech, and Tubal in Isa 66:19, which Paul was using to guide him, but this proposal is too speculative. 309. The suggestion that the Spirit may have restrained them from heading toward Asia because a JewishChristian presence was already there (Riesner, Early Period, 285) is hardly compelling in its textual basis (Acts 18:24–26); aside from what Apollos knew, he “came” to Ephesus (18:24) only later, and we cannot be sure what the disciples of 19:1–7 knew, except that Luke counts it inadequate. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 82, suggests that missionaries may have already been working in Bithynia and Mysia. 310. The same idea of following the divine timing for ministry appears elsewhere in early Christian sources, e.g., John 11:6 (where in fact Lazarus may have already been dead; see Barrett, John, 391; Keener, John, 839–40); cf. perhaps John 4:4.

2331

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 35

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The apostles’ dependence on divine guidance here (and in 16:9–10) offers a contrast with pagan “revelation” in the following context (16:16–18) and underlines the superiority of the Spirit to pagan forms of divination.311 Some scholars argue that Luke’s point here is that God’s revelation was clear, not ambiguous as in pagan oracles312—although it is debatable how clear it is here, and certainly Christians too had their ambiguous experiences with guidance (21:4). It is not clear how the apostles heard the Spirit’s restraint. In line with 13:1–2, prophetic utterances is a possible means (cf. 2:17–18);313 in light of 16:9–10, dreams or visions are also possible (cf. 2:17).314 The Spirit could also speak less formally through one of them uttering his words (8:29; 10:19) or presumably even sharing a strong but preverbal sense of intuition.315 It is important, in any case, for Luke to portray their uncertainty as a matter of waiting for divine guidance rather than of fickleness or human indecision, which were negatively regarded.316 Because this is the beginning of their new work (after strengthening established churches), the contrast with previous successes when Barnabas initially led the team (13:5–12) may have given them pause; then again, that journey had its obstacles as well (13:13, 45, 50–51; 14:5, 19). “Holy Spirit” (16:6), an expression used only twice in the ot (Ps 51:11; Isa 63:10– 11), was now a standard title for God’s Spirit, appearing in the Qumran scrolls,317 later rabbis,318 and other sources between them.319 What is extraordinary is that the “Spirit of Jesus” in Acts 16:7 performs precisely the same function in the very next verse, identifying the two. This is a mark of Luke’s high Christology (cf. also others, Rom 8:9; probably 1 Pet 1:11); Jesus is divine or at least the exalted divine agent who represents the Father as the Spirit represents him.320 The phrase “Spirit of Jesus” adapts the familiar “Spirit of the Lord” (Luke 4:18; Acts 5:9; 8:39) as a template.321 The presence of the exalted Lord is mediated through his Spirit (Acts 2:33; cf. 1 Cor 311. See Green, “Will of God,” 214. Magical rituals sometimes apparently practiced divination through inculcating altered states of consciousness (see Quack, “Efficacy”). 312. Green, “Will of God,” 215, arguing that this approach would appear compelling to pagans. 313. Bruce, Acts1, 311 (though allowing the possibility of a vision or inward sense); Stählin, “Apostelgeschichte 16:7,” 250–51 (suggesting that it probably came through Paul, or perhaps Silas; cf. Acts 15:32). 314. Haenchen, Acts, 485 (which he seems to view negatively, 485–86). Others (Aune, Prophecy, 266; Fitzmyer, Acts, 578) refuse to decide between such alternatives. 315. Some ancient hearers could have been familiar with the idea of divine intuition, e.g., in interpretations of Socrates (see Apul. De deo Socr. 162, although presented more like a voice in 163, 165, and possibly visual in 166). For the Spirit and guidance in Acts, see Warrington, Discovering, 63–65 (noting Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 20:22–23). 316. E.g., 2 Cor 1:17–18; Phaedrus 4.prol. 8–9; on fickleness, see further comment on Acts 2:47. 317. Sometimes for God’s Spirit, sometimes for a purified human spirit: CD II, 12; V, 11; VII, 4; 1QS III, 7; IV, 21; VIII, 16; IX, 3; 1QSb II, 24; 1QHa IV, 38; VI, 24; VIII, 20–21, 25, 30; XV, 9; XVII, 32; XX, 15; 1Q34bis 3 II, 7; 1Q39 1 6; 4Q255 2 1; 4Q270 2 II, 11, 14; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q416 2 II, 6; 4Q418 8 6; 4Q422 I, 7; 4Q444 1 1; 4Q504 1–2 V, 15; 4 5; 4Q509 97–98 I, 9. For discussion, cf. Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 52–57; Keener, Spirit, 9–10 and notes; Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts”; Coppens, “Don,” 211–12, 222. 318. See, e.g., m. Soṭah 9:6; t. Pisha 2:15; 4:14; Soṭah 13:3; Mek. Pisha 1.150ff. (Lauterbach, 1:14); Mek. Shir. 7.17–18 (Lauterbach, 2:55); Sipre Deut. 22.1.2; 355.17.1–6; 356.4.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; 11:16; b. B. Bat. 122a; Meg. 7a; Yoma 73b; y. Hor. 3:5, §2; Gen. Rab. 91:6; Lev. Rab. 1:3; Esth. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:1, §9; 8:9, §3; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 31:21; 35:22; Tg. Neof. 1 on Num 11:26, 28; Tg. Isa. 40:13; further Schäfer, “Geist,” 306–7. 319. E.g., Jub. 1:21, 23; Pss. Sol. 17:37; Wis 1:5; 4 Ezra 14:22; L.A.B. 28:6; 32:14; Mart. Is. 5:14. See further discussion on the Spirit in Keener, Acts, 1:519–28 (for Luke’s theology), 529–37 (for background). 320. Given texts such as Acts 2:21, 38 and divine or wisdom Christology elsewhere in the nt, a divine Christology is more likely here. But it seems to be assumed, taken for granted, rather than articulated. Certainly, it goes beyond the mere union of Christ and Spirit claimed in Pistis Sophia 61 (in Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” 403–4). 321. See Turner, Power, 304. This is true also for Paul’s “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9), which matches the “Spirit of God” (Rom 8:9, 14; 1 Cor 2:11, 14; 3:16; 7:40; 12:3; Phil 3:3); cf. Turner, “‘Divine’ Christology,” 436.

2332

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 36

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

15:45; John 14:26; 16:10, 13–15).322 Thus Jesus’s work is inseparably linked with God’s.323 But we dare not miss another point—namely, who is being guided by the “Spirit of Jesus.” Paul and Silas, though not yet “successful” in this mission, already parallel Jesus in Luke’s first volume, who was also guided in his mission by the divine purpose (Luke 4:43). Biblical piety included seeking divine guidance before battle ( Judg 20:18, 23, 27; 1 Sam 22:10, 13; 23:2, 4, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23; 1 Kgs 22:5, 7; 1 Chr 14:10, 14; 2 Chr 18:4, 6; Jer 21:2). This was also the common polytheistic practice among ancient Israel’s contemporaries. Apparently, a truce was established with a rival Egyptian dynasty on the basis of a prophetic message,324 and Assyrian kings took military actions based on oracles;325 Akkadian oracles contain optimistic prophecies concerning Esarhaddon’s successes.326 Omens by seers (probably diviners) affected the actions of armies from Mari.327 Such practices also continued in Greco-Roman expectations.328 Even many philosophers accepted the mantic art as a matter of discerning “signs” (σημεῖα) from the gods or spirits.329 Many ancients expected that those who routinely ignored bad omens would eventually suffer.330 Historical works also reported omens, dreams, and other forms of divine guidance.331 Most cities in southwestern Asia Minor, in Lycia and Pisidia, had dice oracles that anyone could consult,332 and Phrygians were among those with a reputation for divining omens based on the stars.333 People in Galatia thus would also be familiar with seeking divine guidance, albeit quite different from Paul’s dependence on the “Spirit of Jesus.” (On divination, see further comment in “Non-Jewish Sources” in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18.)334 Supernatural guidance sometimes guided those who were lost (ravens in Plut. Alex. 27.2). It was considered pious to act only after having heard favorably from the gods and to refuse to act without doing so.335 Even the most peripheral members of Luke’s 322. On John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7–15, see Keener, John, 951–82, 1029–43. Some would add 2 Cor 3:17 (Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 163; Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 35–36; Hamilton, Spirit and Eschatology, 6; Dunn, Baptism, 96), but it probably simply echoes the Exodus text’s language midrashically (see Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 122–23; Bruce, Apostle, 120–21; McNamara, Targum, 112; Matera, II Corinthians, 96; esp. and most extensively, Belleville, Glory, 256–72). 323. Stählin, “Apostelgeschichte 16:7”; Turner, “Spirit of Christ and Christology.” 324. “The Instruction of Meri-Ka-Re” (ANET 416). 325. ANET 281, 284ff.; Pritchard, East, 1:192, 196, 198. In Mesha’s Moabite inscription, see ANET 320 (Pritchard, East, 1:209–10). 326. ANET 449–50. 327. Pritchard, East, 1:261. Moran, “Prophecy,” 17, notes that ARM 13.23 and 13.114 from Mari “predict either victory over Babylon or at least deliverance from its threat.” For Mari and Canaan, see Gordon, Near East, 162. 328. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.4.12–13; Hdn. 8.3.7; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.2–3. 329. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b12, pp. 24.32–27.2; 2.7.11s, pp. 98–99.16–23; Apul. De deo Socr. 134–35. For Plutarch’s approval of divination, see Mackay, “Plutarch,” 101–2 (for portents, 103–4). For attention to omens in classical antiquity more generally, see, e.g., Rosenberger, “Omen.” 330. E.g., Julius Caesar (Suet. Jul. 59, 77, 81.2–4). 331. Meister, “Herodotus,” 269. 332. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:13; Toner, Culture, 44–46, and sources cited there. An Akkadian divination ritual, possibly resembling the biblical Urim and Thummim, employed black and white stones (LKA 137, trans. V. Hurowitz, in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture 1.127, p. 444). 333. Juv. Sat. 6.585, deriding the gullibility of those who accept Phrygian or Indian diviners. 334. Keener, Acts, 1:897–902. For divination in the ot period, see also Van Dam, “Divination,” 159–60. 335. Xen. Anab. 6.3.18 (praising the piety of the Greeks); 6.4.16–25; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 40; Plut. Arist. 17.6–18.2; cf. Val. Max. 1.1.2. A general who neglected to consult the omens might lead his troops to their deaths (Val. Max. 1.6.6); a truly great leader might do nothing without consulting the gods (Xen. Cyr. 1.5.6, 14; 1.6.2, 44; Val. Max. 1.2.2; cf. rulers trusted because of their piety in 1.2.1–4; 1.2.ext. 1–4). (This expression of Xenophon’s piety is noteworthy; he figures prominently in Parker, “Divination.”)

2333

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 37

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ideal audience would view Paul and Silas as servants of God.336 Even pagans believed that oracles, portents, and other divine communications expressed the divine plan, and so such devices advance literary plots.337 For Luke, however, they are central to his message that the eschatological Spirit has come, confirming Jesus as Israel’s Lord and the church as his people (Acts 1:6–8; 2:17–18). b. Divine Invitation to Macedonia (16:8–10) The Spirit prevented the missionaries from prematurely beginning work in Asia and elsewhere (16:6–7) because God had a better plan for them, which was revealed as they persevered in their mission. Whether or not John Mark might have changed by this point, Paul was certainly right to suppose that this new mission would require perseverance (15:38). Waiting for God’s more specific guidance must have seemed difficult and could have seemed embarrassing to Paul, as the expedition’s leader, had his companions not shared his faith that God had sent them. i. Troas and Ancient Troy

After passing Mysia, Luke says, the group reached Troas (16:8). Although some earlier commentators wrote of an inland road to Troas without hard evidence, their surmise is a reasonable one. A dislocated milestone marked “15,” found about eighteen miles from Troas and thirteen from Scepsis, suggests a road at least that far inland.338 We cannot be certain that they followed this road or how far it stretched. Troas was hardly the easiest destination to reach from where they started, and so it appears that they chose Troas deliberately instead of simply being led there providentially by the Roman road system.339 (1) Alexandria Troas

Because Troas was not far from the coast, the apostles’ “descent” to it in 16:8 is aptly phrased.340 Troas was a strategic location especially for sea voyages to the west, but not a likely accidental destination from their previous locations (16:6–8);341 in coming here, Paul and Silas probably hope to be permitted to minister somewhere besides Troas (though it was a colony; see comment below). Although Troas in Paul’s day was still overshadowed by ancient Ilium’s legendary greatness, it was hardly forgettable on its own merit. It was the Troad’s largest city in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.342 Most of the city remains unexcavated, but it is thought to cover more than a thousand acres, its ancient walls once being five miles around.343 The limited archaeological data support the closeness of Strabo’s estimate for the walls, and some scholars, estimating a hundred persons per acre, have surmised a hundred thousand inhabitants. This estimate may well be too high, but clearly it was a significant city.344 Archaeologists have identified the theater; an agora in the city’s northern part, containing a small Augustan temple and an odeum to its east; an older Doric temple 336. The exception might be a Middle Platonist who denied the value of prayer (e.g., Max. Tyre 5.8), but this viewpoint was a rare one (see comment on Acts 3:6). 337. Aune, Environment, 134. 338. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 101–2. 339. Ibid., 102n66. 340. Barrett, Acts, 771. 341. Hemer, Acts in History, 112, esp. 112–13n29. 342. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138. On Troas, see further Yamauchi, “Troas”; Blaiklock, Cities, 35–38; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 331–35. For other towns in the Troad, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.125–27. 343. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 333. 344. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 87–88.

2334

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 38

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

in the east of the city; and an elevated area walled off from the rest of the city.345 A temple to Apollo Smintheus has also been found; Homer claimed Apollo among the original Ilium’s defenders.346 The double-dock harbor “lies outside the city walls,”347 but the walls apparently stretched close to two miles from the city proper northwest toward the harbor.348 Although the city bore the name “Alexandria” after its founding in the fourth century b.c.e., the emperor Augustus officially titled it “Colonia Augusta Troas” or “Colonia Augusta Troadensium” (CIL 3.39),349 recalling the grandeur of its past.350 “Troas” was thus Alexandria Troas’s preferred official title in this period. According to legend, Alexander of Macedon founded the city and dedicated it to Apollo Smintheus when he invaded Asia (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.8–9).351 Scholars argue, however, that Antigonus (323–301 b.c.e.) named it “Antigonia” when he founded the site about 310 b.c.e. Lysimachus refounded it with the title “Alexandria Troas” (ca. 300 b.c.e.), and it remained a free Greek city under the Seleucids, Pergamene kings, and Romans until receiving the status of a Roman colony.352 It had a large artificial harbor and was strategic for travel between the East and the West.353 Their history and vibrancy made both Alexandria Troas and Troy popular destinations for ancient tourism.354 Both its history and its location thus made the Troad an attractive point for strategic ministry.355 (2) Evocative Connections with Ancient Troy?

Ancient writers often assumed wide geographic knowledge for their informed audiences, including the history connected with places.356 This assumption would especially hold for cities known from the most commonly retold stories, whether biblical stories for Jews or the Homeric epics for Greeks. Although they were often confused in antiquity, the Roman colony of Troas was distinct from the site of ancient Troy, still inhabited as the town of Ilium. Hemer notes that Troas could never “escape the historic and civic prestige of Ilium” to the north, “which continued to hold the primacy in a religious league of confederate cities.”357 Scholars recognized that Ilium was the site of Homer’s tales (Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.315), although many sites he had depicted in the Troad no longer existed (5.33.124). Archaeologists have observed forty-seven blocks of Roman Ilium, most of them 360 345. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139. 346. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 333; Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139. 347. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139. 348. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 87–88. 349. Hemer, Acts in History, 179. 350. This past grandeur, being primarily past, could not guarantee present honor when it was vying with more prominent cities such as Ephesus and Miletus (Tac. Ann. 4.55). 351. Cf. the founding date in 334 b.c.e. (Hemer, “Alexander Troas,” 81), i.e., well before Alexander’s death in 323 b.c.e. 352. Bruce, Acts1, 311; see also Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.124. 353. E.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 579. Further on Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357–59; Yamauchi, Cities, 21; more fully, Frisch, Inschriften von Ilion. (Lampsacus, a Phocaean colony in the northern Troad ca. 50 mi. northwest of Troas, was also prosperous when robbed by Verres more than a century earlier; Wormell and Mitchell, “Lampsacus.”) 354. Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 245. 355. Julius Caesar considered making it a regional center of government (Suet. Jul. 79; Hor. Odes 3.3). It was no less pagan, however, than other locations; Priapus the fertility deity (Apoll. K. Tyre 33, further north in Lampsacus) and hero cults (Philost. Hrk. passim) flourished on the Hellespont. 356. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc. 357. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 94, also noting that in the first century, it appears that Ilium freely produced coins but Troas did not. The wealthier part of the late Roman city apparently faced the Dardanelles (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138).

2335

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 39

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Roman feet north-south by 180 Roman feet east-west.358 Still, Ilium owed Alexandria Troas a debt; more than two centuries earlier (ca. 216 b.c.e.), Troas sent a relief force of four thousand that delivered Ilium from the attacking Gauls.359 Despite its distance of ten or fifteen miles south-southwest from Homer’s Troy,360 the continuity between later Troas and the famous past of its vicinity remained in popular thought.361 Indeed, much more distant cities claimed such connections; Rome traced its founding to Trojans (esp. in Virgil’s Aeneid),362 and some cities in Phrygia claimed that Phrygian heroes in the Trojan War had founded them.363 Troas would naturally evoke the same connection, especially given its name and for an audience outside the Troad. Some believed that the fallen heroes of the Trojan War still lived in the area of Troy.364 Greeks recognized Troy as the subject of their most famous and widely read epic, the Iliad.365 Allusions to the story pervaded Greek literature,366 and in the period here depicted, an emperor could watch a reenactment of the Trojan War.367 Educated people at banquets might take turns reciting the final leaders of Troy well more than a millennium after the purported time of its fall (Athen. Deipn. 10.457F); those who thought of Troy in their own day typically associated it with its past suffering (8.351a).368 Diaspora Jews, too, were familiar with the city, as is evident in the Sibylline Oracles.369 Various important figures were thought to have visited there.370 Nevertheless, Troas’s location on the Hellespont also made it the ideal site for disembarking to Macedonia, and so connections with the Trojan War would not appear paramount except in support of other allusions. When Troas was connected with Macedonia, however, another allusion may have come to mind: that of Alexander 358. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138, also noting a second-century b.c.e. temple of Athena there (see also Mannsperger, “Troy,” 972; in the Roman period, Korfmann, “Troy,” 978); Athena was also worshiped elsewhere in the Troad (see Pliny E. N.H. 2.97.210). (Homer arrayed Athena on the side of the Greeks, but it was assumed that Trojans also worshiped her; on her supposed image in Troy, the Palladium, see comment on Acts 19:35.) 359. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 88 (citing Polyb. 5.111.3–4). 360. From the map in Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 86 (and a comment, 92), Ilium appears fewer than 10 mi. north of Alexandria Troas. 361. Thus some thought that the Palladium (Athena’s image; cf. also comment on Acts 19:35) might have remained in later Ilium, unless Diomedes and Odysseus, in fact, succeeded in carrying it off (Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.53; despite the city’s destruction!). 362. In the Aeneid’s ideology, Troy’s death yields Rome’s birth (Krauter, Epos, 234, and sources cited there). Other allusions are frequent enough, e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.54; 4.55; 12.58; some Italian games founded by a Trojan in Tac. Ann. 16.21. 363. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:208. For Trojans as Phrygians (cf. 16:6), see, e.g., Libanius Invect. 2.1–2; Speech in Character 16.2; Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7; 11.132; in Homer, however, cf., e.g., Il. 2.862–63. 364. Especially emphasized in the later Philost. Hrk. 2.11; 11.7; 18.1–2; but the local tradition of Hector’s appearances appears in Max. Tyre 9.7. 365. Philost. Hrk. 25.13 complains that Homer departs from this stated subject (cf. λόγον ὑποθέμενος) after Il. 22. Homer’s actual explicit theme in the Iliad is the conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles (Il. 1.6–7) and how Achilles’s stubborn anger led to many deaths (1.1–5). 366. E.g., Lucian Prof. P.S. 20. For the mythology, see Stenger, “Troy”; on Homer’s popularity, see comment at Acts 17:28. 367. Tac. Ann. 11.11 (on Claudius’s reign). 368. In Dio Chrys. Or. 33.8, the actor apparently would have acted out Troy’s fall, to the displeasure of his audience in Ilium; Troy was among the most prominent cities to fall in Lucian Charon 23. 369. A second-century b.c.e. oracle lists it among cities to be destroyed, though the oracle purports to be an older prophecy offered before Troy’s fall (Sib. Or. 3.206). Probably pre-Christian Asian prophecies locate Troy in Phrygia (Sib. Or. 3.205–6, 401–7; 11.132); this was Phrygia in the broader sense (Strabo 12.8.1). 370. Borgeaud, “Excursions.” Luke has historical as well as literary interests, of course; we know that Paul did visit there at some point (2 Cor 2:12), likely including just before his voyage to Philippi (cf. Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:2).

2336

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 40

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of Macedon invading Asia (see discussion below). Alexander paralleled his invasion with that of Achilles and the Greeks challenging Troy. ii. Asia’s New Gift to Europe

Although divine guidance has occurred for the Diaspora mission previously (13:2), this is the first place in Acts in which divine guidance is narrated concerning a specific location. This may be partly because the places that offer the greatest opposition may require the greatest advance assurance, but the transition may also be strategic for the plot. It will later be narrated for Rome as well (27:24; cf. preparation for opposition in 18:9–10). Given the ancient Greek association of the Troad with the Greek point of entry into Asia, ancients familiar with the Iliad (Greeks’ most popular work) and the famous conquest of Asia by Alexander of Macedon might view this as another strategic geographic point in the Acts narrative.371 But whereas the traditional Greek story line was a military invasion of Asia (under Alexander spreading Greek civilization),372 here messengers of what could be perceived as an Asian faith bring this faith to Europe. (1) The Troad, Europe, and Asia

One distinction associated with Troy was that it guarded the Hellespont, since at least Homeric times the Greek boundary between Asia and Europe (e.g., Varro L.L. 7.2.21).373 Greeks crossed via the Hellespont into “Asia” (e.g., Polyb. 4.46.1), as Persians did into “Europe” (Lysias Or. 2.28, §193). But whereas the Greeks invaded Asia in the eras of the Iliad and (from Macedonia) of Alexander,374 now the gospel comes from Asia to Greece, Macedonia, and the rest of Europe. Greek and Roman literature normally portrays movements from Europe to Asia as more positive than the reverse; Jewish people, however, would think differently, as would ideally those adopted into and committed to a Jewish movement such as the Jesus movement. Greeks and Romans viewed the legendary Trojan War as a clash between Europe and Asia.375 A Roman tragedy could have a Trojan lament the loss of “mighty Asia’s” pillar.376 From a Greek perspective, the Trojan War was a war of “Europe” against “barbarians” (Philost. Hrk. 31.2). This war became the prototype of any wars between Greeks and barbarians—namely, those across the Hellespont (23.12; cf. 23.16). In more recent history, Alexander’s crossing the Hellespont also was viewed as marking his entrance into Asia from Europe;377 the war between Alexander and Persia was between “Europe” and “Asia,”378 and Alexander allegedly struck his spear into the 371. Believers in Troas itself might envision this less so, since their local experience would not be limited to their knowledge of ancient traditions. I have addressed much of the material in this section in Keener, “Asia and Europe.” 372. In reality, fusing Greek and Asian cultures. 373. Between Macedonia and the part of the world including Syria (hence Judea), Phoenicia, and Egypt in Paus. 1.6.5. Schwertheim, “Troad,” 956, notes that the Troad was long “the most important European portal to the Near East.” On western Turkey as the boundary for Asia, see, e.g., Le Cornu, Acts, 78 (citing, on various boundaries, Strabo 2.5.24, 26, 31; 7.4.5; 12.8.15; Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.17). But for the Tanais as a boundary in the north, see, e.g., Quint. Curt. 6.2.13–14; 7.7.2–3. 374. Although Demosth. Philip. 3.31 complained that Macedonians were not only barbarians but even unfit as slaves, subsequent Hellenistic civilization treated both them and Ionians in Asia as culturally Greek. 375. Virg. Aen. 7.224; Ovid Am. 2.12.18; Apollod. Epit. 3.1; Max. Tyre 35.4; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.17–19; Philost. Elder Imag. 1.1. One could even depict the mythical flight of Jason and Medea from Colchis, from the generation preceding the Trojan War, as Europe opposing Asia (Val. Flacc. 8.396). 376. Sen. Y. Troj. 6–7. 377. Polyb. 3.6.4; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.4–5. Cf. Alexander’s alleged critique of his father’s ambition to cross Europe to Asia (Plut. Alex. 9.5, complaining that he was too drunk even to move between couches). 378. Quint. Curt. 4.1.38.

2337

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 41

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ground and thereby claimed Asia as his conquest (Ps-Callisth. Alex. 1.28). Thus Alexander conquered Asia but never attempted to conquer Europe (including Italy; Livy 9.16.19); the Macedonian Empire controlled large parts of Europe and most of Asia in its heyday (31.1.7).379 Some Greeks viewed Alexander’s invasion of “Asia” against the Persians as a deliberate reminiscence of Achilles’s fight against Troy. Tradition claimed that Alexander himself (who viewed himself as a new Achilles) evoked this comparison, invoking the spirit of Achilles against the Persians.380 Alexandria Troas bore Alexander’s name (although Luke omits “Alexandria”), and tradition claimed that the city was founded in 334 b.c.e.—that is, during his lifetime.381 Greeks and Romans counted Persia as “Asia,”382 Persian attacks on Greece as Asian designs on Europe,383 and their defeats after invading Greece as Europe’s conquest of Asia.384 Because Greeks and Romans encountered Asian kingdoms in periods of the latter’s weakness, Asia received the unfair caricature385 of cowardice as against Europe and Africa, which proved harder to subdue (Appian Hist. rom. pref. 9).386 Yet when Gauls crossed the Hellespont to invade the Troad, Alexandria Troas’s inhabitants fought back (Polyb. 5.111.1–7), providing a good warning to European barbarians not to invade “Asia” too eagerly (5.111.7). Culturally, prosperous Asia Minor was increasingly hellenized and romanized; I have been noting these elements at length in preceding chapters. Symbolically, however, its heritage, epitomized especially by Troy and the wider ancient empire of Persia, was quite different. At least as attested in later sources, those who wove legends reported the enduring hatred toward Troy of Achilles’s ghost, still hovering near Troy (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11; Hrk. 56.6–10), and the continuing Greek perception that Troy was hostile territory (Hrk. 53.13).387 The location of the Protesilaus cult on the Hellespont suited that hero’s role of avenger of non-Greek incursions against Greeks, guarding Europe from “barbarian” Asia.388 Most people in the Aegean knew better, recognizing primarily shared culture in the urban areas, but the persisting mythic associations could provide symbolic value. That Paul and Silas voyage from Troas to Macedonia could reinforce the possible contrast, for Luke’s audience, with Alexander, the Macedonian who invaded “Asia” at Troy. Granted, people sailed from Troas to Macedonia and the reverse on a regular basis (e.g., Acts 20:5–6), but the juncture in Luke’s narrative might be significant. The guidance that leads to this journey (16:6–10) immediately follows one of Luke’s 379. Livy elsewhere couples Greece and Asia (Livy 37.53.7; 38.48.3; 38.51.3) and contrasts Asia (especially Asia Minor) with Europe (especially Greece; 34.58.2–3; 37.53.13; 37.54.20). 380. Plut. Alex. 15.4; Philost. Hrk. 53.16. He allegedly took a sacred shield from the Trojan temple of Athena (Arrian Alex. 6.9.3). 381. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 81; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.8–9. 382. E.g., Aeschylus Pers. 73 (they ruled Asia; Greece, by contrast, is in Europe, Pers. 799); Ael. Arist. Panath. 13, 157D–158D. 383. Lysias Or. 2.21, §192; 2.28, §193; Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 3.4; 17 (Agesilaus), 2.1; Philost. Hrk. 28.11. 384. Thucyd. 1.89.2 (Persians retreating from Europe); Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 2; Corn. Nep. 2 (Themistocles), 5.3. 385. Yet even Xenophon, whose Anabasis demonstrated Persia’s military weakness (providing the groundwork for Alexander’s later invasion), respected Persia’s glorious past (fictionalized in his Cyropaedia). 386. “Barbarian” Asia opposed Greece’s greater glory (Val. Max. 4.6.ext. 3). The frequent exclusive prejudice for classical, rather than ancient Near Eastern, foundations for modern Western civilization (e.g., Weber, Sociology; see Oakes, “Weber’s Sociology”) follows too readily the classical Greek division of the world. 387. Closer to our period, Pliny E. N.H. 5.33.125 reported an earlier monument to Achilles near his tomb in the Troad; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11. 388. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lix. Still, Philostratus also recognizes the continuing power of the hero Hector (Hrk. 19.3–7, especially his help in 19.4 and vengeance in 19.5–7).

2338

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 42

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

summary statements (16:5), which many scholars take as markers of transition to the next phase in ministry.389 Also, a new stage in the story may be under way here, although the key issue is not Europe (an originally Greek notion, valuable for a Hellenistic empire) but the current empire, Rome. As already repeatedly noted, Luke’s first volume is framed by scenes in Jerusalem’s temple (Luke 1:5–22; 24:52–53), but his second volume is driven by the movement from Jerusalem (Acts 1–7) to Rome (28:16–31). As noted below, the voyage from the Roman colony of Troas to Macedonia would bring the apostles to the Via Egnatia, a Roman road that constituted a major link between Italy and Asia Minor in this period.390 Many scholars believe that by starting on the Via Egnatia, Paul was already signaling his interest in Rome, though conflict in Thessalonica might turn him southward (17:10). Moreover, from Luke’s salvation-historical perspective, the gospel’s spread was even more significant for history than Alexander’s conquests and cultural fusion. Given the culturally and geographically expanding movement of the narrative as a whole and the epic, salvation-historical dimension of that movement from Luke’s perspective, this transition could possibly evoke Alexander in reverse. It probably evokes at least the traditional divide between continents, showing that this “Asian” faith can reach all cultures. If one resists all of these conclusions by pointing out that Luke does not explicitly mention this division, one might infer that Luke does not regard continental divisions as significant. Some, noting Luke’s reticence to highlight explicitly this division that appears in other sources, think that Luke either lacks this interest or counters it.391 This conclusion is certainly a defensible one and could be correct. At the very least, however, it is certain that many Gentiles who listened to Acts would have heard the narrative’s movement the way they understood other movements from Asia (whether the “cult” of Cybele or Judaism), as that of an Asian faith establishing itself in Europe. (2) Between Asia and Europe?

Some scholars doubt that we should emphasize so much the division between Asia and “Europe” here, since Greek could be dominant in both Macedonia and urban Asia Minor and since Philippi and Troas were both Roman colonies.392 A stronger reason to doubt the distinction’s relevance here is that Luke does not mention it; the context applies “Asia” solely to the Roman province in the narrowest sense (16:6), and the title “Europe” appears nowhere in the nt.393 We should also keep in mind the serious danger of understanding these categories anachronistically. For example, Asia Minor and Greece now belonged to the shared cultural sphere of the Hellenistic fusion of Greek and “Asian” cultures; northern Europe, by contrast, was entirely outside the Hellenistic cultural sphere (though not outside its knowledge), like China or Meroë.394 Cultural spheres varied from one 389. Many scholars see 16:6–19:20 as a new “panel” in the expansion of the movement, among the six panels marked by summary statements; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:574–75. 390. Hammond, “Western Part of Via Egnatia”; on the Via Egnatia, see further Lolos, “Via Egnatia”; Rathmann, “Via Egnatia.” 391. Barreto, Negotiations, 120–24, esp. 124. 392. See Witherington, Acts, 486. Some, such as Hagner, Introduction, 339, do see movement from Asia to Europe here. 393. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 99–100. 394. In fact, northern Europe, such as Germany, was, in a sense, less in the Greco-Roman world’s sphere of valuable trade than India and China; though northern Europe was less distant geographically and afforded more direct contact, the contact was often confrontational. The Troad experienced hellenization as early as the late eighth century b.c.e. (Schwertheim, “Troad,” 956).

2339

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 43

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

period to another and cannot be identified with traditional continental divisions, which reflect ancient Greek geographic prejudices.395 The ancient Jewish population, central to the biblical story, by this period spanned both the Roman and the Parthian empires, thoroughly ignoring old Greek categories. Despite these important caveats, however, it remains the case that ancient readers who possessed even basic oral-cultural literacy would be well aware of the symbolic division between historic boundaries of civilizations represented by passing from Troas to Macedonia. Although the phrase “Asia” by itself in 16:6 does not imply “Europe” as a contrast,396 I suspect that many members of Luke’s real first-century audiences, familiar with the most prominent stories of Greek culture, would envision a transition between Asia and Europe when hearing of Troas and Macedonia in 16:8–9. This was especially the case for Macedonian and Achaian Gentiles conscious that the narrative heretofore had taken place mostly in Asia, originating with Judeans in the Roman province of Syria. Greeks divided the world into Asia (the civilizations to their east with which they fought bitter conflicts), Europe, and often (south of the Mediterranean Sea) Africa; the distinction continued in later literature, including Roman literature.397 Some Greeks and Romans even divided the world into just Europe and Asia, including Africa in Europe.398 In most extant contexts, because of the issues addressed by most Greek and Roman writers, the division between Europe and Asia was the effectively essential one.399 Some viewed this distinction as if it were as pervasive as that between Greek and barbarian (e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.268) or between heaven and earth (Varro L.L. 5.5.31). The distinction was geographic (purely in terms of ancient perceptions), not cultural; thus Asia included the Greek colonies of Asia Minor, though the Greek mainland was considered part of Europe.400 I noted above the Asian component in Hellenism, which in turn heavily impacted the culture of Rome itself; but the geographic boundaries remained. By Greek definitions, Judea was plainly in Asia, and its religion now invading Europe was an Asian religion. Romans, like Greeks, expressed both grudging respect for Asia (notably Parthia)401 and xenophobia (such as Juvenal’s complaint about the refuse of the Syrian river Orontes).402 As one source points out, Romans expressed their own “Eurocentric chauvinism,” as when Pliny the Elder calls Europe conqueror of the earth and “by far the loveliest portion of the earth” (N.H. 3.1.5).403 395. For the danger of mixing apples and oranges by confusing cultural spheres with traditional Greek continental divisions, cf. Usry and Keener, Religion, 41–44. 396. As noted, “Asia” in Acts 16:6 is the Roman province, not greater Asia. 397. E.g., Cic. Rosc. Amer. 31.103; Sall. Jug. 17.3; Vell. Paterc. 2.40.4; Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.49. 398. A view of some geographers noted in Sallust Jug. 17.3 (who regards Egypt as part of Asia, 17.4). The world’s primary division in Philo Mos. 2.20 is Europe and Asia, though he writes from Alexandria. Some texts mention just the two, but perhaps because only these are relevant (e.g., Eurip. Pirithous frg. 4.15–16; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.29; Libanius Anecdote 1.1). On the background and ancient understandings of the Europe/ Asia distinction, cf. also Olshausen, “Europe,” esp. 209. 399. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 250; Thucyd. 2.97.6; Manetho Aeg. frg. 35.3; Livy 34.58.2–3; Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.56; 11.10.63; Bell. civ. 4.17.134; Men. Rhet. 2.10, 417.13–17 (on excellent governors in both, esp. 417.14). 400. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 11.2.6. Asia Minor was only a small part of greater Asia, which included, e.g., Scythia (Ptolemy Tetrab. 2.3.60). 401. See, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 6.29.112–6.31.141. Still, Parthians were called “barbarians” (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 72.3; Jos. Ant. 14.343; War 1.264). 402. Juv. Sat. 3.62. 403. Trans. H. Rackham in LCL, 2:5; see also Warmington and Hornblower, “Europe.” Pliny the Elder wrongly viewed Europe as only a bit smaller than Asia and Africa combined in N.H. 6.38.210 and as roughly half the world in 3.1.5.

2340

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 44

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Luke’s perspective, however, can only be respectful, because the faith he recounts would be viewed by his audience as Asian. Luke-Acts reports the story of Jesus in Asia, uses lxx Greek, and otherwise would appear to Hellenistic historiographers as “Asian” historiography, just as did Josephus.404 Acts thus in a sense narrates the beginning of what some could have viewed as an Asian movement’s (spiritual) “conquest” in the reverse direction. Jews were considered Asian; the gospel coming from Asia to Europe reversed the Greek invasions of Troy and, more recently, Alexander’s invasion of Persia.405 Yet the movement would spread not by imperial conquest but by its agents suffering with a leader crucified by Rome.406 Asia’s sacrificially offered gift of the gospel to Europe was better in this case than hellenization or conquest—though this perspective might be hard to sell even in Rome, which had made peace with hellenization but where, as we have mentioned, Juvenal could compare Eastern cults to Syrian refuse pouring into the Tiber (Sat. 3.62). (3) A Mission toward Rome

Whether readers find persuasive an implicit boundary here between Asia and Europe, it is clear that here, as frequently elsewhere, the narrative progresses geographically. Another important distinction of Troy is that Romans counted it their ancestral, mythical home. Aeneas, a Trojan survivor of the Trojan War,407 was legendary ancestor of the Roman people, whose triumph over Greece would reverse the story line of the Iliad.408 Roman poets could associate Troy with Romans by means of Aeneas (e.g., Sil. It. 1.42, 126; 3.207; 8.199; 9.348), and the mid-first-century emperor Claudius exempted Troy from tribute because its refugees supposedly founded Rome (Suet. Claud. 25.3). Alexandria Troas (2 Cor 2:12) had been a Roman colony since the time of Augustus (Pliny E. N.H. 5.124).409 Though Rome was viewed as nursed by Europe (3.1.5), it claimed Asian ancestry. Paul’s ministry westward from Troas points to his ultimate mission (from Luke’s perspective) in Rome. Although the allusion is nowhere as explicit as the allusion to Socrates in Acts 17:19 (and certainly less explicit than connections with biblical figures), some members of Luke’s Greek audience might infer that Paul is something like an Achilles or Alexander in reverse, a new Aeneas. Even apart from any symbolic 404. See Balch, “ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ,” 152–53, 186. It was not without reason that in the heyday of historians wrongly calling mystery cults “oriental,” Nock, “Vocabulary,” 136, pointed out that Christianity was more “Oriental” in character than the Mysteries. 405. It was also more successful than the failed Persian invasion under Xerxes; it was not, of course, a military invasion but a cultural infiltration, an approach successful in the past (Hellenistic culture, though maintaining Greek as its dominant element, included cultural fusion). 406. Cf. postcolonial observations about the implications of a cruciform life and message in an imperial context, e.g., in Horsley, “Introduction,” 6 (cited and apparently followed by Moore, “Empire,” 12); Lopez, “Visualizing,” 91. Niang, “Seeing,” 170, contrasts Greek and Roman approaches to imperialism. For some recent sources on postcolonial interpretation, in addition to the several cited in Keener, Acts, 1:40n201, see those listed in Barreto, Negotiations, 46–47n67. 407. The Pamphylians also claimed to be descended from Trojan refugees of the Trojan War (Strabo 14.4.1, 3; Hdt. 7.91). Such appeals allowed groups to define a history for themselves in the dominant historical literature of Greece, yet with a different perspective that challenged Greek chauvinism. Rome’s victories in Asia in 190 b.c.e. strengthened its interest in this myth (Mannsperger, “Troy,” 972). Meanwhile, some Romans apparently eventually reacted against Greek valorization of the Macedonian Alexander (see discussion in Asirvatham, “Fervor”). 408. On the ideological significance of Troy in the relationship between Greece and Rome, see now also Erskine, Troy. 409. Conzelmann, Acts, 127; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 337. Antiochus surrendered Alexandria (Troas) to Rome after his defeat (Polyb. 21.13.3; 21.14.2); in 85 b.c.e., a Roman usurper betrayed Ilium’s trust (Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.53).

2341

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 45

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

nuances, two essential eastern routes to Rome converged in Troas;410 the Hellespont remained the traditional bridge between Europe and Asia. Anyone traveling westward to Greece or Rome from Asia Minor would most naturally travel from this location. Indeed, that Paul and Silas were staying in Troas may well indicate that travel westward was an idea they were at least considering,411 though Troas was a Roman colony and Paul in any case typically favored efforts in Roman colonies such as Antioch, Philippi, and Corinth.412 These elements will reinforce the narrative’s Romeward direction for the reader familiar with Paul’s later travel to Rome. Although it is not Luke’s focus, information that he later reports suggests that Paul and Silas started a church while waiting in Troas (20:6–8). Still, it is possible that Paul planted the church during the period summarized in Acts 19:10 or perhaps even as late as 20:1 (cf. 19:21); Paul’s letters claim that a door of ministry was opened to him at that time in Troas (2 Cor 2:12, from Ephesus; cf. 2 Tim 4:13).413 Troas consisted of different peoples forcibly united and made a Roman colony;414 whether the church reflected these disparate elements from the community or merely grew among one of them, as sometimes happened,415 we cannot say. Some scholars suggest that Luke was converted in Troas,416 but although this proposal is very plausible (since Paul would have been among the first to evangelize this region), it can be no more than speculation.417 Ancient sources report divinely given dreams in Troy (Plut. Luc. 10.3)418 and concerning Philippi (Val. Max. 1.7.1), as here, but this is likely coincidence, given the wide range of dream reports in ancient literature. iii. The Dream-Vision (16:9–10)

After the negative guidance of Acts 16:6–7, the team is happy for Paul’s positive guidance in 16:9. Newcomers in a town might well not have a random dream about evangelizing a nearby location, unless perhaps they had been discussing such a location already, and whether it was discussed or not, ancient audiences might well attribute the dream to divine intervention. (1) The Macedonian Man (16:9)

Who was the “certain Macedonian man” of 16:9? Proposals vary, and unfortunately no specific proposal is very persuasive. Some scholars have proposed Luke 410. See Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 91–92; cf. 101–2. 411. Cf. Bowers, “Route through Mysia,” more strongly. 412. Witherington, Acts, 479, notes the latter point against Bowers. 413. Could the “open door” refer to a lifting of a previous prohibition for ministry (Acts 16:6–7)? Paul, however, uses the expression elsewhere (1 Cor 16:9; Col 4:3), and Luke uses it in Acts 14:27, not here. From the tradition in 2 Tim 4:13, Blaiklock, Cities, 38, thinks that Paul was later arrested in Troas. 414. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92–93. 415. Note the persistence over decades of the Greek-speaking membership and leadership of the churches in Rome. 416. Witherington, Acts, 53n193; but he believes that Luke was either a Diaspora Jew or a synagogue God-fearer (54). 417. Would Paul have taken a completely new convert in the mission to Philippi? (When he takes Timothy, the latter’s conversion apparently stems from Paul’s earlier mission.) Would a new convert be among the interpreters of Paul’s dream in 16:10? Then again, we do not know how long Paul stayed in Troas and thus how long he could have mentored a new convert. Would Luke have embraced the message about Jesus elsewhere before meeting Paul in or near Troas, perhaps at a synagogue (cf. possibly Phrygia in 2:10)? It is difficult to say, but the beginning of the “we” in Troas suggests that he joined the group sometime after their arrival there. Conversion through Paul’s ministry thus appears likelier than not, yet remains uncertain. 418. Apollonius allegedly talked with Achilles’s ghost all night in Troy, though this was not a dream (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11).

2342

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 46

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

himself;419 but Paul and his colleagues already know him in Troas (the “we” begins in 16:10), and Luke is among the dream’s interpreters. Another suggestion is that he represents Alexander of Macedon,420 who might be recognizable from statues of Alexander undoubtedly visible in Alexandria Troas.421 Especially among pagans, ghosts sometimes appeared in dreams;422 Alexander was also said to appear in ominous dreams in his lifetime.423 This proposal concerning Alexander would certainly suit the possible allusion mentioned above, since Alexander was the most famous Macedonian;424 the invasion of Asia is now reversed. Although an apparition of Alexander might fit his selfclaims, divine associations would not be present here. Alexander permitted Eastern praise for his divinity,425 but Greeks and his fellow Macedonians found this veneration repugnant.426 Comparisons with Alexander do appear in ancient sources; thus Caesar lamented that he had failed to accomplish as much as Alexander (Suet. Jul. 7.1).427 (Often the comparisons of Alexander are with philosophers, who considered themselves his superiors,428 or Jewish sages.)429 Had Luke had Alexander specifically in mind, however, he could have clarified this (and easily strengthened his allusion) 419. Dunn, Acts, 218, mentions this as “a pleasing speculation (with a long pedigree)”; also idem, Beginning, 668–69 (emphasizing that it can be no more than speculation); elsewhere, e.g., Blaiklock, Acts, 123–24; Christensen, Canon, 59. Luke’s usage could prime some of this expectation of a particular character here. When linked to nouns involving persons (rather than more generically as in 5:24, 25; 10:23; 15:1; Luke 9:23, 49, 57; 18:9), “certain” usually specifies a previously unidentified particular person or persons (e.g., Acts 3:2; 19:1; Luke 7:2; 8:27; 10:25; 14:1, 2; 18:18, 35; 22:56), usually named in Acts (Acts 5:1, 34; 8:9; 9:10, 33, 36, 43; 10:1, 6; 16:1, 14, 16; 18:2, 7, 24; 19:24; 20:9; 22:12; 24:1; 25:19; Luke 1:5; 23:26). In this case, however, Luke may simply introduce a new character with no further mention in the narrative; cf. also application to hypothetical characters in Luke 10:30, 31, 33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1, 19–20; 19:12. 420. Barclay, Acts, 122. For εἰδωλοποιία, attributing speech to those now deceased, see Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 20; Aphth. Progymn. 11, “On Ethopoeia,” 44–45S, 34R. 421. Though later Platonists insisted that divine apparitions remained nondescript (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K114.3–4), beings in epiphanies generally assumed their familiar forms (Graf, “Epiphany,” 1122), and Alexander statues were apparently common in antiquity (Libanius Descr. 27.2). Indeed, two of the rare mentions of Macedonia in the lxx include Alexander (1 Macc 1:1; 6:2). 422. E.g., Hom. Il. 23.65, 83–85; Eurip. Hec. 30–34, 703–6; Plut. Sulla 37.2; Br. Wom., Mor. 252F; Pliny Ep. 7.27.5–11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A; see comment in the excursus on dreams at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:911–16). 423. Quint. Curt. 3.3.2–3. 424. On Alexander, see concisely Pearson, “Alexander”; Badian, “Alexander”; Koester, Introduction, 1:6–12; more fully, e.g., Wilcken, Alexander. For his less famous successors, see, e.g., Thompson, “Diadochi.” For abundant writings concerning him, see, e.g., Arrian Anabasis of Alexander; Ps.-Callisthenes Alexander Romance; Plut. S. Kings, Alexander, Mor. 179D–181F; Fort. Alex., Mor. 326D–345B. Many of the stories circulating concerning him were, however, untrue (with Strabo 11.5.5; 11.6.4). Augustus reportedly paid homage to his sarcophagus (Suet. Aug. 18.1); as son of Zeus, he conquered most of the world (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 388.8–9). 425. Cf., e.g., Diod. Sic. 17.51.1–2; Plut. Alex. 2.2–3.2; 27.5–11; 28.1; Arrian Alex. 7.29.3. See further the excursus on “divine” humans at Acts 10:25–26 (Keener, Acts, 2:1782–86). 426. E.g., Plut. S. Kings, Pytheas, Mor. 187E. For Alexander’s own supposed doubts, see Plut. Alex. 28.3; Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F. 427. An ideal governor could be a “second Alexander” (in epideictic rhetoric, Men. Rhet. 2.14, 426.23–24); impostors had also put themselves forward as new Alexanders (Lucian Book-Coll. 20). Some compared Germanicus’s tragic death with that of Alexander (Tac. Ann. 2.73). 428. Especially Diogenes, in, e.g., Val. Max. 4.3.ext. 4a; Plut. Alex. 14.2–3; Dio Chrys. Or. 4 (esp. 4.1, 3); Arrian Alex. 7.2.1; Diog. Laert. 6.2.32, 38, 60, 64, 68; also Crates in Diog. Laert. 6.5.93. For complaints about Alexander’s enslavement to glory, see Dio Chrys. Or. 4.4–5, 51, 60, 84, 118; for his failure to conquer his own emotions, see Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 113.29–31. 429. Especially Simeon the Just (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:9); cf. his dialogue with the elders in b. Tamid 32a. On Alexander and Judaism, see Marcus, “Alexander.” Alexander usually appears favorably in Jewish sources (Stoneman, “Traditions”; e.g., 1 Macc 1:1–4 [except for pride]; b. Sanh. 91a; Yoma 69a), though Jewish legends about the meeting may be fictitious (see Goldstein, “Alexander”), and he is also portrayed as valuing gold above human life (y. B. Meṣiʿa 2:5, §2; contrast Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1), not being the son of Zeus (Sib. Or. 5.7), and otherwise viewed negatively (Sib. Or. 3.381–87). A late Amora attributes to him special powers

2343

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 47

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

by simply naming him.430 If a specific Macedonian man is in mind, the Philippian jailer—perhaps the narrative’s first Philippian citizen convert—would make a likelier candidate, but there is no indication that Paul so recognizes the jailer. A generic Macedonian is likelier. Others have suggested that he represents the angel of the church in Macedonia (cf. Rev 1:20), though the church was not yet formed. One could make a stronger case, perhaps, that he was an angel of Macedonia, akin to other angels of nations (cf. Dan 10:20).431 Jewish people generally treated these spiritual powers432 as angelic authorities appointed by God,433 although, in some Jewish sources, God appointed them to lead the nations astray434 or they had become malevolent powers and would be judged at the end of the age.435 Although this way of looking at the world became common only in postbiblical Jewish sources,436 it certainly predates early Christianity (e.g., Deut 32:8 lxx; Dan 10:13–12:1; Jub. 15:30–32; 1 En. 89:59–90:19).437 This approach allowed Jewish people to demythologize polytheistic claims about spiritual powers, such as the gods of various nations, influencing the course of those nations.438 Some believed that they saw in their dreams superhuman figures that represented the spirit of a locale, for instance, of Africa, portending the dreamer’s future there (Pliny Ep. 7.27.2). After Apollonius dreamed of a tall old woman saying she was Zeus’s nurse, he figured that this represented Crete (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.34).439 (y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §3) and dominion over the earth (Num. Rab. 13:14). He heeds wise kings in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:1; Lev. Rab. 27:1. 430. If Luke were simply inventing names and places, this could have been the place for him to mention a Philip (more than Acts 6:5; 8:5–40; 21:8), also fitting “Philippi.” 431. Stuckenbruck, “Angels of Nations,” 31. In the dream in Dan 2:39–40, one of the kingdoms (from the standpoint of first-century interpreters, perhaps the kingdom of bronze) is part of a man (if bronze, then in 2:32, its belly and thighs); 10:20 explicitly refers to an angel as a prince of Greece (here Alexander’s kingdom). Bede Comm. Acts 16.9 (Martin, Acts, 199) applied the “legate” here to the angel of Macedon. 432. Philo speaks of “powers” as mediatorial manifestations of God, similar to Stoic (Diog. Laert. 7.1.147) or later Platonic (Rutenber, Doctrine, 17; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:217–26; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 161; as the background for Paul, Forbes, “Principalities”; idem, “Demonology”) thought; e.g., Philo Unchangeable 109–10; Conf. 136ff., 171, 174–75; Heir 170; Flight 69; Spec. Laws 1.47, 209; 4.187; QG 20; QE 2.18, 45, 65, 68. They seem to move between being attributes and being beings. In Jewish mysticism, cf. Scholem, Gnosticism, 33. 433. Jub. 15:31–32; 35:17; Mek. Shir. 2.112ff.; b. Ber. 16b–17a; Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 32:3; Pesiq. Rab. 17:4; 3 En. 29:1; 30:1–2. 434. Jub. 15:31. 435. 1QM XIV, 15–16; XV, 13–14; XVII, 5–8; Kobelski, “Melchizedek,” 123. The later rabbis often described these spiritual powers’ specific hostility toward Israel (3 En. 26:12; Sipre Deut. 315.2.1; Gen. Rab. 77:3; 78:3 [keeping in mind that Edom often stood for Rome]; Exod. Rab. 21:5; Lev. Rab. 21:4; Deut. Rab. 1:22–23; Song Rab. 2:1, §3; 8:8, §1) and judgment (e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:9, 27:2; Song Rab. 8:14, §1). 436. 1 En. 40:9 (Knibb; contrast Isaac); 61:10; 2 En. 20:1 (longer version); Test. Levi 3:8; Test. Job 49:2; 3 Bar. 12:3; Asc. Is. 1:3; 2:2 (but probably Christian material; cf. 1:4); Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 11:8; in early gnostic texts, e.g., Apoc. Adam 1:4; Hypostasis of the Archons. Angels could also be designated with terms of military rank, especially Michael as Archistrategos (e.g., Test. Ab. 14:1–5, 10, 12; 15:1, 9, 11; 16:8 A). Carr, Angels, 40, questions whether any of the language precedes early Christianity, the best possibility being in 1 En. 61:10 (though the Similitudes’ date is uncertain). Lee, “Powers,” thinks that Paul derives such terms from Jewish apocalyptic tradition but others from gnosticizing traditions; Benoit, “Angelology,” thinks that he borrowed the language but did not deal with how evil angels became evil. 437. Stuckenbruck, “Angels of Nations”; Collins, “Prince,” 662–63; cf. Caragounis, Mysterion, 157–61; Cullmann, State, 68. For the lxx of Deuteronomy, see Russell, Apocalyptic, 244–49; Peake, “Colossians,” 479; Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 18–19. 438. E.g., Plut. Fort. Rom. 11, Mor. 324B (on the guardian spirit of Rome); Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2 (for tutelary deities of nations); cf. Mattingly, Christianity, 19; Toepel, “Planetary Demons”; spirits of places in Rives, Religion, 19. The picture of YHWH’s heavenly court (possibly demythologizing the seventy gods in El’s Canaanite pantheon) may suggest that the idea of guardian angels of the nations predates Daniel and Deuteronomy lxx. 439. Cities were often personified as women, or depicted as the city’s representative goddess (cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 125; Ford, Revelation, 277; Aune, Revelation, 920–22; Ezek 23:44; Rev 17:3–5; 21:2; Sib. Or. 3.469).

2344

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 48

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

In Scripture, messages in dreams were often delivered by God440 or angels,441 as with waking forms of revelation.442 This observation need not, however, suggest that an angel is in view here: later dream-revelations often included people, even deceased people, among both pagans443 and Jews.444 Further, the Macedonian speaks not directly for God but for Macedonia and hence functions as a symbol rather than as an agent of the divine voice (and thus could be comparable to the animals in Gen 41:2–4; Dan 8:3–10, 19–25; or sheaves, stars, or corn in Gen 37:7, 9; 41:5, 22). Sometimes the person appearing in a dream or vision represented the group of people about whom the person provided guidance. Thus it was the apparition of a superhuman figure resembling a barbarian that dissuaded a Roman officer from further pursuing fleeing barbarians (Suet. Claud. 1.2). It was said that a shepherd apparition blew a Roman trumpet and crossed the river, thereby signaling for Caesar to follow (Suet. Julius 32). Much later in history, Patrick reportedly returned to Ireland to evangelize because he dreamed that some people in Ireland pleaded with him to do so.445 In the end, Luke probably simply means any Macedonian. “Certain” (τις) need not identify a particular known individual, especially given Luke’s style. This language often identifies even fictitious characters in Jesus’s Lukan parables (Luke 7:41; 10:30–33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:4, 8, 11; 16:1, 19–20; 18:2; 19:12). Ethnicity would not identify him, since descendants of Greeks and Macedonians were scattered throughout the cities of the East. His accent or, most likely, apparel might identify him as Macedonian,446 but Macedonians did not dress discernibly differently from hellenized residents of western Asia Minor.447 (Sometimes figures in visions might be labeled,448 but in more obvious cases, ancient statues were not.)449 Most important, the man’s request for Paul to come to Macedonia and help would identify the man as Macedonian.450 Macedonia made sense as a destination strategically; it had belonged to the empire as a province since 146 b.c.e.,451 and it provided a more strategic communication link between Rome and the East than did Achaia.452 Thrace had a smaller Jewish presence and was less hellenized, and the Macedonian 440. E.g., Gen 20:3; 31:24; 1 Kgs 3:5. There are also various symbolic dreams in which no particular individual speaks for God (e.g., Gen 37:7, 9; 41:1–7). A chief deity speaking in a dream carried more weight than other kinds of speakers (see Libanius Maxim 1.3). 441. E.g., Gen 31:11; cf. Matt 1:20. Also 4Q537 frg. 1, introductory line; 4Q544 1 10–14; 2 3–5. The angelic explainer of apocalyptic tours of creation also had an analogue in some pagan dreams (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 6). 442. E.g., Gen 16:9–11; 21:17; 22:11, 15; Exod 3:2. 443. E.g., Plut. Caes. 69.5; Val. Max. 1.7.5; 1.7.ext. 3; cf. also apotheosized heroes (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.31). Pythagoreans provided a philosophic framework for dreams from the dead (Diog. Laert. 8.1.32); Josephus seems to view spirits of the dead as hostile (Isaacs, Spirit, 33–34), a threat perhaps implied in the Roman cult of the dead. Some specifically sought revelations from the dead (Philost. Hrk. 33.36; 43.11–16; Currid, Egypt, 222). 444. E.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:23; y. Ḥag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2. 445. Shelley, History, 156; Cagney, “Patrick,” 12. 446. Farahian, “Vision,” 198. Ancients did pay attention to the apparel of apparitions (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 10.5); but when Ammon appeared to Alexander in a dream wearing a Macedonian cap, it was only for effect (Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.13). 447. McRay, Archaeology, 277, 279. 448. E.g., Rev 17:5; 19:12–13; later, Gr. Ezra 4:31. 449. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.91–92. 450. Bruce, Acts1, 311; Witherington, Acts, 480. 451. Bruce, Commentary, 327. For a concise survey of the history of Greece and Macedonia, see Watson, “Greece and Macedon.” 452. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 115.

2345

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 49

6/19/14 1:56 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

coast was probably a more common destination for ships.453 Although Macedonia had experienced steady decline before the Roman conquest, historians glorifying Rome’s conquest could summarize the peak of Macedonian power before moving on to Rome’s victory.454 Some scholars suggest that the plea455 for help emphasizes that Christ’s agents go only where welcome and hence “can scarcely be regarded as threats to the empire.”456 Most important, this dream climaxes a narrative of divine guidance (Acts 16:6–8), soon to be contrasted with pagan forms of supernatural revelation (16:16–18). As Paul and his companions soon face hostility in Macedonia (in every Macedonian city where their ministry is narrated; 16:22–24; 17:5–8, 13), they will have reason to remember the combination of negative and positive guidance that sent them this way. They come to Macedonia to “help,” as in the dream, but there is no guarantee of exemption from suffering. This experience also fits the direction that Acts will take in a few chapters, beginning to prepare both Paul (within the narrative) and Luke’s audience for what lies ahead. Paul’s Roman custody will be no accident but a trial that Paul faces deliberately because of his confidence in God’s leading (20:22–23; 21:11–14; cf. 19:21).457 (2) Paul’s Dream (16:9)

Some argue that this account of a dream is Luke’s creation, because Paul never refers to this particular dream or to making apostolic decisions based on such guidance.458 This skepticism may stem in part from the tendency to discount dream revelations in Western culture, a skepticism certainly not shared by Paul’s contemporaries (and a number of cultures today). Luke admittedly has good reason to emphasize such revelations (2:17), but this need not mean that he fabricates the occasions he mentions. Rhetorical practice included inventing divine dream reports for epideictic (not historical) use (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.4–10), but Luke does not create an extensive or rhetorically fashionable dream report, and we can be relatively certain that Luke knew that Paul did in fact have dreams. Paul’s own writings are clear that he had many visions, more, indeed, than Luke could report (2 Cor 12:1, 9; in view of 12:9, probably also 12:2–5); because Paul does not recount their content, these cannot be merely rhetorical dream reports. Further, because Paul’s letters never specify the content of any of them, doubting a particular dream attributed to Paul because he does not mention that particular 453. Riesner, Early Period, 293, though he emphasizes more heavily the mention of Greece and Macedonia, rather than Thrace, in Isa 66:19, which I think a very unlikely reason. 454. E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.39. 455. In light of the emphasis on other emotions in the surrounding narrative, the plea may have strong emotive force (cf. comment in Holgate, “Connections,” 152). 456. Spencer, Acts, 162. It is not impossible that Luke’s verb for “help” echoes the cognate noun in 2 Macc 8:20, where Macedonians received “help” from heaven (in one of just five or six passages in the lxx speaking of “Macedonians”), but this is not likely. The noun appears roughly sixty-seven times in the lxx (including seven times in 2 Maccabees), and Luke’s verb roughly one hundred times. The Gentile’s plea for help might echo the Gibeonites’ plea to Joshua’s army (“Help us”; Josh 10:6, countering the plea against Gibeon in 10:4); the two words “Help us” coincide exactly (only three times in this form in the lxx), but again the connection is not clear enough to offer much confidence (Luke could have reinforced the allusion with “come up” instead of “cross over,” though this language would have been problematic geographically). 457. On Luke’s apologetic for Paul, see Keener, “Apologetic”; idem, Acts, 1:223–24, briefly. The dream may also function as divine legitimation for the mission, as many scholars hold, though Luke’s audience may already affirm and appreciate the Macedonian mission. 458. Farahian, “Vision,” 199–200, counting this as a turning point in his ministry (but did he not have many missions?). It is possible that Paul’s probable discussions of the question of entering nearby Macedonia set the stage for his dream (Haenchen, Acts, 488), but this cannot be more than speculation.

2346

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 50

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

one is the weakest sort of argument from silence. A dream revelation is coherent with Paul’s claims, even if not specifically attested there, and if, before accepting it, we required specific attestation for each vision that Luke’s narrative attributes to him, we must ultimately dismiss every possible example of a category that Paul himself attests. Because of the subject of his narrative, Luke naturally stresses revelations for guidance in ministry (also with others, e.g., Acts 8:26, 29; 10:19); Paul’s letters are less specific about his guidance for ministry, but revelatory guidance should by no means be excluded (cf. 1 Cor 14:25, 37; some interpretations of Gal 2:2). In light of the conflicts that Paul and his companions would soon face in Philippi and Thessalonica (Acts 16:19–24; 17:5–10; 1 Thess 2:2), having already received assurance of divine guidance would offer a crucial encouragement.

Excursus: Dreams For a longer, fuller excursus on dreams (along with visions) see the excursus on dreams and visions at Acts 2:17.459 Here we note briefly that dreams can function as omens in many cultures460 and are sometimes factors in the rise of new religious movements.461 Dreams of various sorts were attributed to the gods,462 and people often sought dreams.463 Most often people sought revelatory dreams by means of incubation, sleeping within a deity’s sacred enclosure; this activity is known from Egypt, 464 Israel (Gen 15:12–13; 1 Sam 3:4; 1 Kgs 3:4–5),465 and Greece,466 especially for Asclepius sanctuaries.467 Dreams could be used to advance narratives, including in novels;468 but they were widely accepted as a means of divine guidance throughout the ancient world.469 In 459. Keener, Acts, 1:911–16. For dream guidance in various ancient sources, see, e.g., Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 353–55 (citing, e.g., Cic. Div. 1.121; Resp. 9.571d–572a; Suet. Jul. 32–33; Hdt. on Xerxes); on Greco-Roman dream interpretation, see further Klauck, Context, 204–9; Pilch, “Dreams”; for literature on dream interpretation in antiquity (from Homer to Byzantine sources), see the survey in Vinagre, “Terminologie.” 460. See, e.g., Firth, Tikopia, 282. For claims of revelatory dreams, see, e.g., Sithole, Voice, 40, 157–58; reports of conversions through dreams, Tandi Randa, interview, May 23, 2012; follow-up correspondence, May 27, 2012; Pankau and Siemon-Netto, “Revolution,” 45; Trousdale, Movements, 13, 82, 133 (citing 40 percent of conversions in some circles), 149–50, 177–78. See further discussion in Keener, Miracles, 875–84. 461. Lanternari, “Dreams.” 462. E.g., Xen. Anab. 3.1.11; 4.3.8; Sil. It. 13.640–42; Max. Tyre 15.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.5, 9–10, 23; Hrk. 6.2; 45.7; cf. Apul. De deo Socr. 150 (the intermediary daimones); Fronto Eloq. 1.13 (the Fauns inspire prophecies and sleep). 463. As noted above, some sought these from the dead (Philost. Hrk. 33.36; 43.11–16; Currid, Egypt, 222). 464. See Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 158–59, for the pre-Roman period, and 162–69 in the Roman period. In antiquity, see also Husser, Dreams (and cf. Seow, “Context”), noted in Monson, “Kings,” 100. 465. Elsewhere in the ancient Near East, see, e.g., Aqhat (AQHTA 1, in ANET 150); Legend of King Keret (KRTA 1, in ANET 143); Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra, 45–46; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 158–59; Jansen-Winkeln, “Healing Deities.” 466. E.g., the shrines of Aphrodite (Iambl. Bab. St. 9, in Photius Bibl. 94.75b) and Artemis (Strabo 4.1.4, here for spreading the cult). One might dream after sacrificing (Xen. Anab. 6.1.22). 467. E.g., Iambl. Myst. 3.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11; Vit. soph. 1.25.536; 2.4.568; Max. Tyre 9.7. For healing shrines in Egypt, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 271. 468. E.g., Heliod. Eth. 10.3; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.12; 2.8. 469. E.g., Pindar Threnos 7, frg. 131b (from Plut. Apoll. 35.120C); Val. Max. 1.7.1–8; 1.7.ext. 1–10; Plut. Cic. 44.2; the story of Epimenides of Crete (Max. Tyre 10.1; 38.3; cf. his long slumber in, e.g., Varro L.L. 7.1.3; Pliny E. N.H. 7.52.175 [doubting it]; Paus. 1.14.4; Alciph. Farm. 36 [Eudicus to Pasion], 3.38, ¶2); a hypothetical case in Hermog. Issues 64.16–22. Generally, see Bowersock, Fiction as History, 77–98 (citing, e.g., Galen 16.222).

2347

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 51

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

some reports dreams function as warnings of impending death or suffering.470 They also were thought to predict the future in other ways.471 Sometimes dreams were repeated, becoming more insistent until heeded (Tac. Hist. 4.83; Gen 41:1–7); here a single dream is sufficient to communicate to those seeking clarity. Dreams often were thought to provide guidance, as in Acts 16:9. Generals often depended on dreams before battles and in other situations, probably both in reality and in their postbattle propaganda as well as in later embellishments about them.472 Sometimes obeying dreams reportedly saved one’s life (e.g., Suet. Aug. 91.1–2). One might do what one did not wish in obedience to deities speaking in dreams.473 Dreams also could provide divine guidance for safe travel (Plut. Themist. 30.1, 3; Matt 2:12); for dissuasion from suicide (Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.97); for an invitation to full initiation (Apul. Metam. 11.22); for warnings to keep cultic mysteries secret (Paus. 1.14.3); for relocating religious functionaries;474 or for propagating a cult (Strabo 4.1.4). Dreams could also be used to legitimize a ruler and his conquest ( Jos. Ant. 11.325–39, on Alexander).475 Others were more skeptical, or at least more cautious. Pliny the Elder notes the debate over whether dreams foretell the future or are sometimes right merely by chance, warning that dreams influenced by eating or drinking are false—dreams are simply the mind resting.476 Moreover, other mammals also dream.477 Pliny the Younger may agree (Ep. 1.18.1) that dreams are from Zeus (citing Hom. Il. 1.63),478 but he warns that not all dreams are true (Ep. 1.18.2); since he himself was successful despite a threatening dream (Ep. 1.18.3–4), he encourages his correspondent to interpret his dream favorably (Ep. 1.18.5).479 Although most people believed that dreams foretold the future, Stoics did not believe that all dreams did so.480 Epicureans explained even apparently prophetic dreams in psychophysical terms.481 The approaches of hellenized Jews like Philo to dreams resemble Greek approaches.482 Josephus is certainly interested in dreams, highlighting the biblical report of Solomon’s (Ant. 8.22–25, 125–29).483 He reports premonitions of death or demise in dreams 470. E.g., for Clytemnestra (Aeschylus Lib. 32–36); Xerxes’s mother’s dream about Xerxes (Aeschylus Pers. 181–99); Cyrus (Xen. Cyr. 8.7.2); C. Gracchus (Val. Max. 1.7.6); Sulla (Plut. Sulla 37.2); Calpurnia for her husband Julius Caesar (Val. Max. 1.7.2; Vell. Paterc. 2.57.2; Suet. Jul. 81; Plut. Caes. 63.5; 64.3; cf. 68.2); Brutus (Plut. Caes. 69.5, 8) or Pompey (Plut. Caes. 42.1); a successful warning to Augustus (Vell. Paterc. 2.70.1); danger to novelistic protagonists (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.12–13). 471. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.101. 472. E.g., Alexander (Quint. Curt. 4.2.17; Plut. Alex. 24.3; 41.3–4; 49.3; Arrian Alex. 2.18.1; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.35; cf. Hermog. Issues 33); P. Scipio (Polyb. 10.4.5–10.5.5); Hannibal (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 1; Sil. It. 3.168–71); Sulla (Plut. Sulla 9.4; 28.6); Pompey (Plut. Caes. 42.1); Caesar (Val. Max. 1.7.1); and others (Val. Max. 1.7.3). 473. Thus Dio Chrys. Or. 59.3 on Odysseus reconciling with Philoctetes. 474. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 230; Klauck, Context, 64. In Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.34 a dream guides Apollonius to Crete ( Johnson, Acts, 286); in Plut. Alex. 24.3, a figure invites Alexander into Tyre. Serapis was said to speak regularly in dreams (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.12). 475. See Kim, “Dream.” Dreams degrading to an emperor could be deemed treasonous (Tac. Ann. 11.4). 476. Pliny E. N.H. 10.98.211. Others (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.37; y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5) also doubted the accuracy of dreams caused by wine; for further questions, see also the excursus on dreams and visions at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:911–16). 477. Pliny E. N.H. 10.98.212. 478. Pliny does accept the portent value of some dreams (e.g., Ep. 5.5.5). 479. Already Romans in the late republic exhibited more skepticism than in the middle republic (Harris, “Opinions,” noting the complexity of Roman views). 480. See Giangrande, “Dream” (suggesting that Xenophon followed such an approach in Anthia 5.8.5–9). 481. See Holowchak, “Lucretius.” 482. See Dodson, “Somniis.” On Josephus, see also Kim, “Dream.” 483. See Begg, “Dreams.”

2348

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 52

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(e.g., Ant. 17.345–46, 350),484 allowing skeptics their doubt but insisting that it was appropriate to recount such events in his history, given the reality of God’s activity in human lives (17.353). Often dreams were called night “visions,” as presumably here (in Acts 16:9) and in 18:9.485 Sometimes they could come to an individual in response to the prayers of several who were seeking guidance (Dan 2:19). As common as such revelations are in Acts, we lack clear examples in Jesus’s experience in Luke’s Gospel, probably because Luke expects us to understand that Jesus experienced God in a more direct way (see Num 12:6–8). (3) The Interpretation (16:10)

Sometimes one would recount the dream to others after waking (e.g., 4Q530 II, 4–5); whether Paul waited until morning, or whether all were praying together when the vision came, Paul shares it with his companions. Luke notes that “we” concluded that the Lord wanted them to minister to Macedonia.486 One possible meaning of this group examination is that just as tongues speaking needed to be interpreted in Pauline churches (1 Cor 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26–28), so the dream needed to be interpreted.487 Although Paul may be the team’s primary leader (cf. Acts 16:3; the singular in 15:41), decisions were apparently often shared or involved common input (on team leadership, see comment on Acts 13:1). Many people depended on professional dream interpreters;488 even the poor could usually depend, for a modest fee, on some specialists attached to temples.489 But dream interpretation was more democratic than other forms of prophetic activity because it could be done without fees.490 Stoics believed that wise people were capable of mantic dream interpretation.491 Dream interpretation handbooks appear in the first millennium b.c.e. and earlier in Egypt and Mesopotamia;492 in the Roman period, we have Artemidorus’s Oneirocritica from mid- to late second-century c.e. Ephesus (which laments the proliferation of other works on the topic, Artem. Oneir. 1.pref.). Later rabbis493 averred that sages could often interpret dreams, except for the unnatural ones caused by wine (y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5); the rabbis treated dreams like obscure riddles (4:6, §5).494 From a much earlier period, a “scribe” might be expected to be able to 484. As in Greco-Roman tradition; cf., e.g., Val. Max. 1.8.8 (an apparition). 485. E.g., Plut. Alex. 41.3; 49.3; Caes. 42.1; 68.2; Cim. 18.3–4; Demosth. 29.2; Philost. Hrk. 6.4, 7; Gen 46:2; Job 4:13; 20:8; 33:15; Dan 2:19; 7:2, 7, 13; cf. 4Q544 1 10; 4Q547 4 8. Greek tradition spoke of epiphanies both when people were awake and in dreams (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.24–25). 486. Dunn, Acts, 218, sees implied corporate testing of the vision here. 487. Ancients also sometimes depended on professional interpreters even for oracles (Aune, Prophecy, 44). 488. E.g., Aeschylus Lib. 37–41; Suet. Jul. 7.2; Artem. Oneir. passim; cf. other sources in Price, “Dreams.” In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, see, e.g., Sarna, Genesis, 218–19; Butler, Dreams. Eurydamas interpreted dreams in Hom. Il. 5.150. Some dream oracles included wordplays, like some other oracles (Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.35). 489. See Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 124. Cf., e.g., someone paying two drachmas to some temple functionaries after a particularly troubling dream (Alciph. Paras. 23 [Limenterus to Amasetus], 3.59). 490. Walde, “Dreams,” 717. Even plebeians could also interpret the Sibylline oracles (Livy 10.8.2). One could also hear interpretations less expensively from diviners in the marketplace, despised as they were by the elite (Artem. Oneir. 1.pref.). 491. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, pp. 98–99.20–21. 492. Kitchen, Reliability, 350 (citing P.Beatty 3 recto, from the thirteenth century b.c.e. and echoing older texts); early second millennium, ANET 495. 493. On rabbinic dream interpretation, esp. in b. Ber. 55–57, see Koet, “Droomuitleg.” 494. A rabbi could also supernaturally discern different interpretations for different persons who had the same dream (y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5), and a single, polyvalent dream could have a variety of different interpretations (discerned by different interpreters), all accurate (twenty-four interpreters in b. Ber. 55b).

2349

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 53

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

interpret dreams (4Q530 II, 11–12, on Enoch “the scribe”). Dream interpretation could be a divine gift (Dan 1:17). But correct interpretation would be essential, in any case. Most people recognized that one could misinterpret a true dream (e.g., Fronto Bell. parth. 6; Heliod. Eth. 1.18); some magi allegedly did so to please a doomed king.495 Another possibility is that just as prophecies needed to be tested (1 Cor 12:10; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22), so Paul’s dream needed to be tested. This questioning would fit well the recognition (noted above) that not all dreams communicated divine truth.496 Some people were skeptical of dreams’ revelatory value,497 but most people both affirmed the value of dreams and recognized that not all dreams were revelatory.498 If uncertain about a vision of a person, one might inquire of an oracle and be commanded to obey (Hdt. 4.15). Dreams could be ambiguous as a form of guidance; Paul and his colleagues had to interpret the dream somehow.499 Paul and his colleagues determined that God had “called” (προσκέκληται) them to evangelize Macedonia. God had earlier “called” Paul and Barnabas to evangelize among Gentiles (Acts 13:2), but here a general calling becomes more targeted as Paul and his current colleagues have ventured forth in the process of fulfilling the wider calling. iv. “We” Passages (16:10) 500

On several occasions, the narrator indicates his presence with the group by using the first person plural (16:10–17; 20:5–21:18; 27:1–28:16).501 These appearances of the narrator are hardly random; although they do not represent the most “important” or exotic scenes (where a fictitious witness would be expected to insert himself), they exhibit geographic continuity (as one would expect for a genuine witness) from Troas to Philippi (16:10–16),502 Philippi to Jerusalem (20:6–21:18), and Judea to Rome (27:1–28:16).503 Because the action focuses on Paul but not his companions in 21:19–26:32, but the “we” resumes when his companions in the same region are again described, there is reason to believe that the person included in the “we” remains in Judea throughout the up to two-year interim period (especially given the likely uncertainty of Paul’s departure schedule and unexpectedness of its repeated delay).504 It is no coincidence that the “we” narratives provide the most detailed accounts in Acts 495. Plut. Alex. 18.4; cf. Dan 2:9; divergent interpretations in Quint. Curt. 3.3.4–5. 496. For false dreams from the gods, see, e.g., Vit. Aes. 33. 497. Pythagoras reportedly placed little faith in dreams concerning his deceased father (Iambl. V.P. 28.148). 498. Plut. M. Cato 23.4; Alciph. Farm. 2 (Iophon to Eraston), 3.10, ¶3 (the LCL note cites also Plut. Table 8.10, Mor. 734D). Magicians could also generate false dreams (Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.5–8, esp. 1.5, 8). 499. Cf. Miller, Convinced, 107; on the potential ambiguity of this dream and the human element in its interpretation, in view of the coming troubles in Macedonia, see Miller, “Dream” (esp. 147, 151–52). 500. For a concise annotated bibliography, see Green and McKeever, Historiography, 140–43; see also the various explanations for the “we” source in Dupont, Sources, 75–112, esp. 75–93. 501. With, e.g., Campbell, “Narrator,” 406. Porter, Paul in Acts, 42–46, defines the sections more narrowly (on the basis of the explicit presence of the “we”) as Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–29; 28:1–16. But if a companion was traveling with Paul at these points, he must have been in the same geographic vicinity with Paul for the entire sections noted above. 502. Some scholars explain Luke’s long stay in Macedonia by positing that he was originally from there (Witherington, Acts, 490; cf. also Filson, History, 231); this solution is quite plausible, but not at all certain (any more than we should assume that Paul was from Antioch because he stayed there so long). Some compare the “we” of Acts 16:10 with the tradition that Luke was from Antioch (Farahian, “Vision,” 199), but even if the latter tradition is correct (which I doubt), where Luke was from and where Paul met him (technically, Troas, 16:10) are distinct questions. Philippi’s famous school of medicine (Witherington, Acts, 490) may have attracted Luke before or after this trip if he was a physician. 503. With others, e.g., Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 136. 504. Luke sometimes focuses on Paul even when we know that others accompanied him; note the mention of only Paul’s movement in 15:41–16:1, even though Silas was with him (15:40).

2350

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 54

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(the missionaries’ brief time in Philippi receives more detailed attention than eighteen months in Corinth and as much as two years in Asia [18:11; 19:10]);505 that scholars often attribute the many accurate details of travel in 21:1–3, 7–8 to a diary; and that Paul’s two years in Judea (21:17–27:1) are the most detailed portion of the book.506 Scholars have raised questions, however, as to how the “we” should be interpreted: is the narrator the book’s author or his source? (That the “we” represents either the author or his source remains the majority position,507 but it is not the only one.) Further, if the narrator claims presence, does the “we” imply that the narrator was historically present, or is it merely a literary device?508 Although readers would not normally pause to question the meaning of a “we” claim in other historical texts, many scholars find this necessary in Luke’s case because they doubt, for various reasons, that Luke was, in fact, Paul’s traveling companion. Lüdemann, for example, questions whether a companion of Paul would recount “Paul’s early days” so sparingly.509 But modern scholars criticize the sparseness of Luke’s detail on many other points as well, criticism that Luke could hardly have forestalled in his one-volume monograph. Paul (whose knowledge of his own ministry is naturally unquestioned) recounts very little of his early ministry in his letters, apart from his conversion (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13), his time in Arabia (Gal 1:17), and his escape from Damascus (2 Cor 11:32–33), most of which experiences do appear in Acts. Moreover, Luke reports in most detail the events where he claims to be present, and he does not claim to have known or traveled with Paul in the early period. Others doubt that Luke or his historical “we” narrator could have traveled with Paul, given the differences from Paul’s letters; but a traveling companion need not have known intimately all aspects of Paul’s mind most familiar to Pauline scholars,510 nor is he further from the epistolary Paul than eyewitnesses of other ancient historical figures often were from extant epistolary sources for their subjects.511 No one argues that Paul wrote the “we” sections.512 Surveyed below are the most prominent scholarly views concerning Luke’s “we.” (1) A Fictitious Literary Device

Some have argued that the “we” narratives are a literary fiction.513 Some who make this claim argue that other ancient literature sometimes employed the first person 505. That emotionally charged or traumatic memories are often preserved longer and more vividly (cf. Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 331–32) fits both events in Philippi and the voyage to Rome, among others, although, in retrospect, the entire time of being with Paul might be highlighted. 506. With others, e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 7; Neil, Acts, 22–23. For the rhetorical value of vividness, see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 143–44; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 88; Anderson, Glossary, 34–35, 40, 43; historians often elaborated their material to achieve greater verisimilitude (see Wiseman, “Lying Historians,” 335–36, on enargeia), but in contrast to rhetoricians, Luke never gives detailed depictions of scenery or even settings. 507. So Campbell, “Narrator,” 386, citing, e.g., Barrett, Acts, 2:xxv–xxix; Fitzmyer, Acts, 98–103; Peterson, Acts, 17. 508. For fuller surveys of the range of views concerning Luke’s use of “we” in Acts, see, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 185, 481–82; Lestang, Annonce, 48–58; more extensively, Wehnert, Wir-Passagen, 47–124. 509. Lüdemann, Christianity, 6. 510. See, e.g., Praeder, “First Person Narration,” 218; C. Williams, Acts, 22–30; Hanson, Acts, 24–27; Martin, Foundations, 68. Pelikan, Acts, 279 (citing Iren. Her. 3.13–14; see esp. 3.14.1) finds the “we” narratives helpful precisely in countering a Marcionite, exclusive emphasis on Paul’s testimony. 511. See Hillard, Nobbs, and Winter, “Corpus”; discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:231–33, 297–98. 512. A point emphasized in Keener, “Acts as Historiography.” 513. E.g., Pervo, Profit, 57; such a perspective need not logically follow from, but in view of ancient literary practice perhaps should follow from, Pervo’s understanding of the genre of Acts. Addressing a literary but not the historical question, Phillips, “Role Model,” 49–63, esp. 50, argues that regardless of the historical question, from a literary standpoint, it allows “Paul to become the primary role model for the readers of Acts”; the reader

2351

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 55

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

pseudonymously.514 On this view, mentioning “we” might draw the readers into the narrative, identifying them more closely with Paul or his traveling companions,515 or might provide the narrator historical authority because it sounds like firsthand testimony.516 Some think that the “we” points to Silas and Timothy517 (which would render Luke at least inconsistent in Acts 17:14–15; 18:5; 19:22) or to Paul himself, with whom the narrator, sure of his traditions, has identified.518 That “we” occurs alongside mention of Paul and appears only in certain locations during Paul’s ministry (not wherever Paul or these named companions are present) should put such grasping at straws to rest. A literary convention of pseudonymous presence for entire works can be documented,519 but most often in works that everyone recognized as pseudonymous.520 Sometimes a writer consistently assumes the role of a fictitious narrator, but normally pervasively throughout the narrative, as in Apuleius’s Metamorphoses or Petronius’s Satyricon.521 Novelists preferred first-person narration, but in a way that keeps the protagonist narrator central to the action, through most of the work.522 By contrast, Luke intrudes his presence only rarely,523 and he is not writing a novel.524 Like Luke, identifies with the “we” in Pauline, postapostolic times, far from the troubling “community of goods” in Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–35 (pp. 61–62); cf. Campbell, “We” Passages, for whom the “we” narrator helps validate Paul, functioning like Barnabas earlier (but then, why not cede this role to Silas [pace the lower estimate of him in 73n17]?). But while it is true that anonymous characters might facilitate reader identification (cf. Beck, Paradigm, 132–36; idem, “Anonymity”), this is simply not the primary purpose of first-person pronouns in histories, biographies, or other works expected to communicate largely factually. Jackson, “Conventions,” 24, emphasizes first-person usage in fiction, but his mention of the motive of vividness may be more important; in any case, fiction is not normally so sporadic in its use of “we” as Acts is (see discussion below). 514. Cf. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 202–3 (though Dibelius accepts an eyewitness source and Lukan authorship, 135–37). Most now recognize, however, that ancient sources do not support the claim of such a literary convention (Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 22). 515. Haenchen, Acts, 490–91; Puskas, “Conclusion: Investigation,” 35–36. Even granted that such invitation to participate is possible from a reader’s standpoint (see, e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 246–47), this approach need not claim that the “we” is fictitious (Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 101, 121–23, accepts both a literary function and the eyewitness claim). 516. Unreliable narrators were less common in antiquity than today (see Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 317, 480; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 169–70), except in comic works, such as some of Lucian’s parodies (A True Story; Icaromenippus; but Lucian writes tongue-in-cheek satire, not history) or Lucius early on in Lucian’s and Apuleius’s versions of the ass story (Lucian Lucius 4–5, 13–15; admitting the folly in retrospect, 56). 517. Haenchen, Acts, 490. 518. Conzelmann, Acts, 127. Oddly, he critiques Haenchen’s view because Silas and Timothy were with Paul elsewhere without the narrator’s shifting to first person, yet the same critique refutes his own argument. 519. E.g., the Cynic Epistles and Jewish apocalypses; for artistic reasons, also practice speeches in character. In some genres, however, false claims to authorship could constitute forgery. See the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:273–74, 403. 520. This is also true, obviously, when fictitious first-person dialogue is employed in speeches (see Anderson, Glossary, 33, on Rhet. Her. 4.55, 65; Quint. Inst. 9.2.31; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 37). Autobiography was usually a nonfiction form, but first-person narration does appear in Achilles Tatius’s Leucippe and Clitophon (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 69). Those who appeal to works such as apocalypses to justify pseudonymity in history inappropriately mix genres (see Keener, “Review of Lincoln”). 521. See also fictitious eyewitness claims in Merkle, “True Story,” 183–84; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 371 (e.g., Plutarch Dinner of Seven Wise Men); the plainly ironic, “mock” narrator in Lucian Phal. passim. Many scholars think Damis (in Vita Apollonii) a fiction to provide Philostratus’s source (see Klauck, Context, 170), but even if so, this offers no justification for supposing that Luke would create a fictitious source yet leave it unnamed and covering only a few chapters (omitting significant matters such as Jesus’s ascension). 522. Fusillo, “Novel,” 840. 523. Chance, Acts, 16, compares Luke’s only occasional and implicit eyewitness claim to Lucian’s demand that good historians avoid “exaggerated” eyewitness claims (Hist. 28–29). Indeed, among historians, some narrators such as Xenophon intrude less frequently than others, such as Herodotus and Thucydides (Dewald, “Construction,” 98); but Luke does so even less frequently. 524. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:62–83 (and, more broadly, 51–319).

2352

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 56

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

other historians introduced themselves more sporadically—and only when present. Most pseudepigraphic works selected narrators centuries before their own time.525 We do have examples of fictitious “we” claims in antiquity, such as in Lucius’s narration in Apuleius’s Metamorphoses, some of Lucian’s parodies, and the post-Pauline Pseudo-Clementines; these are fictitious, however, only because the narrative as a whole is fictitious.526 The author was clearly present in the narrative world; it is the genre that determines whether a “we,” like other elements in a narrative, is fictitious or factual.527 Further, pseudepigraphy was normally thoroughgoing, rather than sporadic through a narrative.528 Since Acts does not name its author or the narrator of the “we” narratives, the ancient convention of pseudonymity is not, in any case, relevant; we do not know of “implicit pseudonymity” in ancient sources.529 The “lack of suitable parallels in the novel accounts” can more easily be counted against the classification of Acts as a novel.530 Plümacher, who views Acts as a historical monograph, has suggested that the valuing of eyewitness experience in Hellenistic historiography led to a literary convention of the historian introducing himself fictitiously into the narrative. Given this convention, Luke’s “we” could be fictitious.531 It turns out, however, that no evidence exists for such a convention in ancient historiography, “a weakness that Plümacher has acknowledged.”532 A majority of scholars reject the literary-fiction approach. 533 As Porter notes, the literary-fiction interpretation is probably “the least satisfactory and least probable of the proposed solutions.”534 The narrator rarely intrudes in the narrative; the first person refers to Luke himself in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1, with no reason to believe that this first-person usage is fabricated (especially since he does not place himself among the major witnesses, Luke 1:2–3).535 Further, if Luke were simply inventing 525. E.g., Plut. Dinner 1, Mor. 146BC; 4Q537 (from Jacob); 1 Enoch; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch; etc. (see discussion of pseudonymity in Keener, Acts, 1:236n105, 273–74, 403). 526. Bindemann, “Verkündiger,” anachronistically uses “we” passages in the apocryphal acts to establish genre (suggesting a “divine man” conception in this source). 527. A poet identifying himself or herself in a poem was normally the real author (Roberts, “Sphragis”). The narrator’s persona in the rest of Luke-Acts may not sound like that of an eyewitness (so Sheeley, “Narrative Presence,” doubting that the “we” sections change this perception much), but as argued here, ancients would take literally the occasional “we” claims. For the genre of Acts, see Keener, Acts, 1:51–319. 528. A rare exception is Test. Ab. 12:1 A, shifting from the narrative’s consistent third person to a single “we” and “me” (Abraham), possibly suggesting a source for the ascent narrative but more likely a mistake, whether in the original or in the manuscript tradition. The exception may prove more consistent in 1Qap Genar and possibly Tobit (see Miller, “Redaction of Tobit”). 529. Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 561; Keener, John, 125. Droge, “Anonymously,” 496, sees the author as implying without explicitly (and deceptively) claiming to be the narrator, “subtly, and perhaps even playfully” invoking authority without forgery. He proposes (509) a new category of “oblique pseudonymity” or “implied authorship”—essentially the very sort of claim I dismissed as obviously unparalleled in John, 125. The only “analogies” he can cite for this strategy (510) are an implicit claim to Pauline authorship in Heb 13:23 (a minority interpretation of that passage); an eyewitness claim in John 19:35 (which the majority of Johannine scholars today do take as an eyewitness claim, though scholars debate whether it is the author’s own; see discussion in Keener, John, 111–12, 1154–55); the Gospel of Peter, a much later work (510–11); and some examples in Lucian (512–13) that I do not find persuasive as analogies. The sporadic appearance of the first person is better explained by the historical narrator indicating his presence than a fictitious one doing so. 530. Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 553. 531. Plümacher, “Wirklichkeitserfahrung,” as summarized in Campbell, “Narrator,” 387. Of course, even in fictional works, eyewitnesses carry more weight in the story world (Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1607), but this feature simply reveals how highly eyewitnesses were valued. 532. Campbell, “Narrator,” 388, citing Plümacher, “Wirklichkeitserfahrung,” 22, as well as Praeder, “First Person Narration,” 206–8, 210–14; Aune, Environment, 122–24. 533. Cf. Campbell, “Narrator,” 387–88. 534. Porter, Paul in Acts, 25 (for full critique, see 24–27); Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 560. 535. Witherington, Acts, 481–82. If one tries to distinguish the first person singular of the prefaces from the plural uses in the “we” narratives (e.g., Marguerat, Actes, 19), it should be noted that such a distinction

2353

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 57

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

the narrator’s presence, we would expect it throughout the book and on more consequential matters than, for instance, a voyage from Troas to Philippi (Acts 16:11–12). The first-person novels to which Acts is compared use the first person pervasively; if Luke were following a supposed novelistic convention, why would he add “we” so rarely, and often in less controversial sections rather than where an eyewitness might prove most helpful?536 Haenchen replies that Luke uses the fictitious “we” sparingly lest his work of history become fiction;537 but as we shall see, we lack examples of clear works of history that include such fictitious devices, especially in this period. We lack real evidence for much use of, much less any convention of, novelistic “we” claims in the historical genre.538 Thus Arthur Darby Nock, one of the most outstanding classicists of the twentieth century, found at most a single use of a fictitious “we” in continuous narrative except in obvious fiction; he concluded that the “we” narratives were genuine eyewitness reminiscences.539 Now nos, as it occurs twice in the narrative of Bellum Alexandrinum, which was possibly not written by an eyewitness, may well mean “the Romans,” and occasionally in Polybius there is a “we” which might represent an oversight in using a source.540 Nevertheless I know only one possible parallel for the emphatic use of a questionable “we” in consecutive narrative outside literature which is palpably fictional. . . . Since on stylistic grounds the hypothesis of a redactor is excluded, I think we must take these statements at their face value.541

Likewise Martin Hengel, one of the nt scholars most conversant with Greco-Roman sources, insists: The remarks in the first person plural refer to the author himself. . . . From the beginning, this is the only way in which readers—and first of all Theophilus, to whom the twovolume work was dedicated and who must have known the author personally—could have understood the “we” passages. “We” therefore appears in travel accounts because Luke simply wanted to indicate that he was there.542

This is not to suggest that historians included their presence in narratives with first-person more than third-person references; they did not.543 It is to suggest that would not be assumed without good reason by ancient (or modern) readers, that the narratives employ a plural simply because others are involved, and that the preface may suggest at least some measure of personal investigation by the author into (and certainly thorough acquaintance with) at least the events of his first volume (Luke 1:3), which fit the travel to and in Judea in Acts 21–26. For the prefaces prefiguring the “we” narratives, see Cadbury, “‘We’ in Luke-Acts”; Dupont, Sources, 167. 536. With Porter, Paul in Acts, 26; Porter, “‘We’ Passages,” 560; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 112–13; Hemer, Acts in History, 321; deSilva, Introduction, 299; Bock, Acts, 13–14. 537. Haenchen, “‘We’ in Acts.” 538. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 100–102; Witherington, Acts, 53–54; Hamm, Acts, 76–77; note autobiographic narration in Baum, “Wir- und Er-Stellungen.” 539. Nock, Essays, 828 (in reviewing Dibelius, see esp. 821–32; cited by various commentators, e.g., Maddox, Purpose, 7; Witherington, Acts, 59). 540. Nock cites A. Klotz as citing for this Polyb. 4.38.1, but he thinks it likelier “we Greeks” and views 1.79.12; 5.104.10–11; 11.31.6; 15.19.5; 24.12.4 (cf. 29.19.8) as lapses into straightforward speech (though we may note that the genuinely first-person references in these cases are mostly narratorial, in speeches, etc.). 541. Nock, Essays, 827–28. He finds Luke 1:3 still more convincing (828). Campbell, “We” Passages, 46, notes that historians usually described their participation in third-person terms; his own survey of their usage, however, indicates that they could use either (and Luke is not participating very actively, in any case). 542. Hengel, Acts and History, 66. Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 429, also appeals to much of the same passage. 543. See Campbell, “Narrator”; Jackson, “Conventions”; Keener, John, 105; and discussion below.

2354

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 58

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

where first-person reference occurs in works that purport to be primarily factual, the first-person claim also purports to be factual. Historical works did not fabricate the narrator’s consistent (and, still less, sporadic) presence for the sake of reader identification; reader identification might be a result, but readers would assume that “we” included the author. (Nor is it logical to assume at these points an internal narrator distinct from the author, given first-person use in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 and especially the first person’s sporadic appearance. 544 See further comment on the “travel journal” hypothesis, below.) Any ancient writers inserting themselves into the story world in a work of history invited vicious critique on the charge of writing bad history.545 Further, the appearance of “we” is, as observed above, geographically consistent, rather than introduced randomly or (most telling against a fiction claim) pervasively.546 The “we” group expands and contracts,547 and it varies even within the same narrative.548 Granted, novels could employ documentary techniques and subvert factual markers for their own purposes,549 but this genre category is not at all where the rest of Luke-Acts points.550 Biblical histories included examples of transitions from use of the third to that of the first person (Ezra 8:23–31; 8:35–9:15);551 those familiar with these works in Luke’s era considered them genuine history and the first-person usage, consequently, historically authentic. Luke does derive apologetic value from the places where his claimed eyewitness testimony is available; Luke was nearby during Paul’s abuse at Philippi and in Jerusalem and is intimately aware of how corruption prevented his swift vindication in Roman custody. Such points are helpful to Luke’s apologetic for Paul552 and make the “we” narrator an ideal person to have written the book. Nevertheless, had Luke been fictitiously claiming his presence wherever it could be useful, he should have been a witness of Paul’s innocence also in Thessalonica, Corinth, and especially Ephesus (see comment on Acts 24:5). He is not present even in the temple’s outer court to witness Paul’s “rescue” by the Romans. 544. On potential distinctions between authors and narrators (especially in modern texts) and for my argument against this occurring in the Fourth Gospel, see Keener, John, 111–12, 917–18, 1154–55. Campbell, “We” Passages, 45–46, 84, thinks that Acts’ author is anonymous (cf. also Pervo, Acts, 395); but given the dedication, Luke’s audience almost certainly knew his identity, and in the case of some other documents we may today lack the title (which could often identify the author, as in, e.g., Rev 1:1) that originally graced the outside of the scroll. Droge, “Anonymously,” 505, thinks it a “rare lapse of judgment” that Cadbury doubted the narrator’s anonymity, on the basis that Theophilus knew him; but I think Cadbury’s case much stronger (Droge takes “Theophilus” as symbolic; contrast the evidence cited in Keener, Acts, 1:657–58). 545. With Witherington, Acts, 482–83; for harsh critiques of historians for much lesser embellishments, see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:118, 124–26 (and cf. 195). Cf. the parody of narratives with absurd and pervasive “we” claims in Lucian True Story 5–9. 546. Fitzmyer, Theologian, 11–16; Kent, Jerusalem to Rome, 15; Christensen, Canon, 39; cf. Puskas and Crump, Introduction, 108. From this we may infer that Luke remained in Philippi ca. 50–58 c.e. 547. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 114–17. 548. Ibid., 118–20. 549. Alexander, “Fiction and Genre,” 381. Although Acts fits some novelistic expectations (394–95), the realistic setting and prefaces point in a different direction (396–99). 550. Note the sources in the Gospel and the prefaces of both, and see the extended discussion (and summary of scholarly consensus) in Keener, Acts, 1:51–319. 551. Johnson, Acts, 296. Some have suggested biblical style in the “we” narratives, but this may be no more evident there than elsewhere in Luke-Acts (cf. Rosner, “Biblical History,” 78). Some argue that the author and “we” narrator may differ because of shifting narrators in Ezra and elsewhere (Wehnert, Wir-Passagen; for Ezra, see esp. 152–54; in Daniel, 154–58). The investigation is a worthy one and Wehnert’s approach valuable in that regard, but Acts is much more cohesively edited than are Ezra or Wehnert’s other examples. 552. See Keener, Acts, 1:223–24, 237, 384, 393, 400, 428, 445–49; idem, “Apologetic.”

2355

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 59

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(2) Sea-Voyage Category of Fictitious Narratives?

One specific approach has been the claim that a fictitious “we” was conventional in Greek sea-voyage narratives.553 It is, however, problematic. Aside from the questionable relevance of this convention to the portions where the missionaries are not at sea (Acts 16:10, 12–16; 20:7–8; 21:7–17; 28:14–16),554 there simply was no such convention; first-person narration, like third-person narration, appears in all sorts of narratives, whether historical or fictitious, whether on land or at sea, and the historical nature of their claims nearly always comports with the genre of the works containing them.555 Unless one first demonstrates that Acts is a novel (which flies in the face of most of the evidence),556 one cannot argue that the “we” is fictitious or, still less, use its alleged fictitious character to (circularly) support the work’s fictitious character. Even among the purported parallels in sea voyages in antiquity, the first-person occurrences are normally singular rather than plural.557 By itself, such an observation need not weaken the view’s essential point. More problematic, however, is that if Luke were using a fictitious “we” as a convention in sea voyages, it is curious that “we” is missing in a considerable number of Acts’ sea voyages (13:4–5, 13; 14:20b–28; 15:39; 17:14; 18:18, 21–22).558 (Many other ancient sea voyages also lack this allegedly conventional feature of “we.”)559 The implied author, at least, makes a claim to have been present, and the reader would have assumed this presence.560 In short, even if there were a sea-voyage convention, it could not explain these narratives’ anonymity, the group’s plurality, or the narratives’ limitation to three sections.561 Most scholars have thus not found this approach persuasive.562 (See also comment on Acts 27.) (3) Travel Journal

Others have suggested that the “we” narratives reflect notes on a travel itinerary;563 its journal style suggests to some that it is an early source.564 Whether this putative 553. Ingeniously, Robbins, “We-Passages and Sea Voyages”; idem, “Land and Sea.” 554. Often the “we” does appear in Luke’s travel narratives, but this is because the narrator lacks reason to mention his presence when the focus is on Paul; only when he participates in the action, which includes all the travel scenes where he is present, is there reason to mention himself. 555. See Barrett, “Paul Shipwrecked”; Fitzmyer, Theologian, 16–22; Hemer, “First Person Narrative”; Hemer, Acts in History, 317–19; see esp. Praeder, “First Person Narration,” esp. 217–18 and (countering Robbins’s specific parallel claims) 210–14. 556. See Keener, Acts, 1:51–319, esp. 62–83, and sources cited there. 557. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 112–13. A number of Robbins’s parallels (Story of Sinuhe, Journey of WenAmon, and Epic of Gilgamesh) are first person singular and derive from a very different culture and era. “We” naturally appears for a plural group in the fictitious Lucian True Story 1.5–2.47, but in contrast to Acts, this narrative is explicitly introduced as pure fiction in 1.2–4. 558. Praeder, “First Person Narration,” 216; T. Smith, “Sources,” 73; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 111–12; Fitzmyer, Acts, 101; Witherington, Acts, 483. Distinguishing these third-person voyages from Acts 27 because they were not “adventurous” falters, since 16:11–12 was also not “adventurous” (T. Smith, “Sources,” 73). 559. Aune, Environment, 124, cites Hom. Od. 5.291–473; Virg. Aen. 1.34–179; Lucian Posts (Dependent Scholars) 1–2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.52–58; 8.15. A first-person sea-voyage narration appears in Hom. Od. 12.402–25, but because it belongs to a larger first-person narration. 560. Spencer, Philip, 248; Kurz, “Approaches,” 200; Aune, Environment, 124. 561. Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 123–24. 562. Note the summary in Campbell, “We” Passages, 9. Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 428, lists as examples Fitzmyer, Praeder, Thornton, and Porter. But see now Robbins, Beyond, 83–84. 563. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 2:xxvii–xxx (noting that most passages involve travel). Wedderburn, “‘We’-Passages,” thinks that Luke uses the “we” to identify his source, Paul’s traveling companion (through a disciple of this companion), where he knew that the companion had been present; but if this were the case, why would Luke use “we” instead of simply naming the source, as historians normally would have done? For full discussion of the itinerary view, see Dupont, Sources, 113–65. 564. See comment in Cadbury, Making, 60–61. Windisch viewed them as genuine rather than fictitious (“Tradition,” 304), though stemming from a postapostolic author (336).

2356

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 60

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

journal derived from the author of Luke-Acts or from someone else, however, is a different question from whether such a journal existed. A number of scholars believe that Luke (meaning the volume’s author) was not the source of the “we” material but that in it he drew on authentic material from a companion of Paul.565 A century ago Foakes-Jackson and Lake could claim that nearly all scholars viewed the “we” sections as the diary of a companion of Paul, though the view appeared in four main forms: (1) the diarist was also the compiler of Acts (i.e., basically Luke); (2) the compiler used the diarist’s material as his primary source for Acts 16–28; (3) the compiler found the “we” narratives already joined with other material in Acts 16–28; (4) the compiler added everything else from other sources to the diarist’s material.566 With source criticism generally more suspect today, scholars are more reserved about offering definitive views, but they still differ as to whether the author of Acts and author of the “we” narratives are one and the same. That a historical writer would make use of private notes or reminiscences is not unlikely, though since the time of Caesar Roman writers often published their own reminiscences directly.567 Some have argued that Ezra and Nehemiah, each primarily a biographic rather than autobiographic work, include first-person memoir sections (Ezra 7:11–9:5; Neh 1:1–7:5; Neh 12–13).568 If the writer was a named companion of Paul’s, the travel journal might then belong to Timothy or some other traveler.569 These cases do not, however, provide very good parallels, since the primary characters’ names in these earlier documents’ contexts leave no question about the first-person narrators’ identity.570 If we simply went by the primary character in the “we” narratives’ context in Acts, we would be driven to the position that Paul authored the “we” material571—a position impossible to defend, since Paul also appears throughout this material in the third person.572 The style and vocabulary of these sections, however, are Lukan (the itinerary being comparable especially to other itinerary material in Acts), suggesting that if a diary is in view, it is the author’s own.573 Some have endeavored to argue for these sections’ 565. E.g., Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:21; Barrett, Acts, 2:xxvii–xxx; Porter, Paul in Acts, 10–46; idem, “‘We’ Passages” (a written source possibly from the author but probably not); Kee, Every Nation, 189–90; tentatively, Sterling, Historiography, 326–27. Wehnert, Wir-Passagen (as noted by Campbell, “We” Passages, 8), argues for information from Silas. 566. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Internal Evidence of Acts,” 158–59. Source criticism could be very speculative; e.g., MacGregor attributed the first sections of diary extracts to Proto-Acts (Morton and MacGregor, Structure, 41). 567. See Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 313–14, esp. on Caesar’s Gallic War. Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 307, thinks that Luke’s “we” passages reflect partly literary convention and partly Luke’s sources. 568. Mentioned in T. Smith, “Sources,” 72. Following Torrey’s stylistic analysis, Albright, Biblical Period, 95, argues that (with rabbinic tradition) Ezra (i.e., the author of the “Ezra Memoir”) was also the Chronicler. Albright (113n197) notes that this suggestion fits expectations for a small agrarian community where scholars were few. 569. For Timothy, see Dockx, “Compagnon de Paul?” (viewing this section as Luke’s editing of Timothy’s diary); for the possibility of Silas, see Boismard and Lamouille, Actes, 1:21. 570. T. Smith, “Sources,” 72. 571. Ibid. 572. On various uses of “we” in Paul’s own letters, see, e.g., Watson, Second Corinthians, 8; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 105–7; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 184; sometimes including and sometimes excluding his audience (Filbeck, “Problems”). Some regard the “we” as sometimes including coworkers (e.g., MurphyO’Connor, “Co-authorship”; Milligan, Thessalonians, 132; Ellingworth, “‘We’ and ‘I’”; Müller, “Schriftstellerische Plural”; cf. Byrskog, “Co-senders,” doubting their literary collaboration); others deny any need for this recourse (Lyons, Autobiography, 14–15, though his data can be interpreted differently; 68–69); the literary plural for “I” was known (e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 58; Milligan, Thessalonians, 131; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 105; Cranfield, Romans, 1:65). But in any case, “we” never excludes the author. 573. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 99–100; Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 104, 136 (“so similar in fact that we have no justification for attributing them to different authors”); Hanson, Acts, 21; Stagg, Acts, 24; Fusco, “Sezioni-noi”;

2357

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 61

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

stylistic distinctiveness or at least to blunt the claim that they are stylistically Lukan. Stanley Porter, who provides the most thorough modern argument for this position, is a thorough scholar with whom I do not disagree lightly, but his arguments for a source separate from the author here seem open to question. Porter himself concedes Harnack’s argument for lexical and syntactical unity with Luke’s style but doubts that the corpus is sufficient for genuine stylistic analysis.574 Porter contends that Harnack’s estimated 111 hapax legomena in these sections are roughly two and a half times what appear in the rest of Acts.575 Many of these, however, are nautical terms in Acts 27, which Luke lacks occasion to use elsewhere.576 Once these terms are taken into account, the argument from vocabulary cuts better the other direction: twenty-one terms in the “we” material appear elsewhere in Acts but nowhere else in the nt (with seventeen further words only in the Gospel), and twenty-eight others barely occur elsewhere in the nt.577 Porter argues that these sections depict divine guidance in an understated way, that their visions do not directly include God or Christ speaking (16:9 vs. 18:9–10), and that Agabus’s prophecy in 21:11–14 differs from his portrayal in 11:27–28.578 He argues that they also portray Paul as a miracle worker (16:18; 20:9–12; 28:3–6, 8–9) but not in a flashy way as in some other accounts in Acts, such as 19:11–12. New Testament scholars, however, too often frame as contrasts what classicists or ordinary readers would frame as comparisons, and this danger of exclusive framing seems likely the case here. If 16:9 and 18:9–10 both depict divine guidance, is it not nitpicking to argue for different sources on the basis of their differences in detail?579 When miracle reports appear both inside and outside “we” sections, we can make any sort of distinction by narrowing the range of evidence too closely. 580 Is the viper hanging from Paul’s hand in 28:3–5 not flashy? The miracle summary in 19:11–12 is probably not eyewitness testimony, yet it summarizes many miracles; 28:8–9 (in the “we” material) provides another miracle summary. If “we” did not leave Philippi immediately after 16:17, “we” would have known of the rather dramatic earthquake as well (16:26). Since Paul reports that miracles occurred in Corinth (2 Cor 12:12) but Luke omits them there (Acts 18:1–18), should we argue that, in contrast to Porter’s suggestion, Luke outside the “we” sections plays down miracles? We simply lack sufficient material for such comparisons to carry significant weight. Guthrie, Introduction, 122; Witherington, Acts, 483–84; tentatively, Packer, Acts, 3. On the lexical style shared with the “we” passages in the rest of Acts, see also Droge, “Anonymously,” 507. 574. Porter, Paul in Acts, 35, including n. 85. Porter is cited favorably in McDonald, Story, 89 (on authorship note caveats on 90n70, 92–94). I responded more briefly to Porter’s case in “Review of Acts in Setting.” 575. Porter, Paul in Acts, 36. 576. My first time reading the entire way through the Greek nt, I was detained at inordinate length by vocabulary in only two places: the nautical terms in Acts 27 and the economic language in 2 Cor 8–9. 577. Witherington, Acts, 53, following Hawkins, Horae synopticae, 185–89; cf. also C. Williams, Acts, 5–7. 578. Porter, Paul in Acts, 51–55. 579. This might seem especially the case for one who argued that the “we” narratives are too short to admit stylistic distinctions from the rest of Acts (an argument noted above). One could similarly distinguish sources in Acts 2:38 and 10:44–48, which differ in sequence or, if including the angelic revelation of 27:23, this revelation from both 16:9 and 18:9–10. Similar kinds of minute distinctions have been used to support dividing the parousia into two stages (in a traditional dispensational schema) or other implausible cases. Likewise, others have wrongly read semantic significance into John’s use of variation in his vocabulary (e.g., ἀγαπάω and φιλέω; ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω), but it is probably simple literary variation (cf. Keener, John, 244–46, 316–17, 324–25). 580. This is all the more relevant if, as Porter argues (Paul in Acts, 96), Paul performed only seven clear individual miracles in Acts.

2358

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 62

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Porter’s other theological contrasts display the same weakness. He argues that this special source minimizes any special importance of the Jewish people;581 this claim probably would not hold true, however, if we counted not just verses that specify “we” but all those where the “we” is indicated as present (see 21:21–26, in light of 21:17–18).582 Porter contends that Paul speaks only nine verses in this material,583 but this claim is possible only because he excludes the speech to the Ephesian elders in 20:18–35 despite the presence of the “we” on that occasion (20:15; 21:1).584 Ultimately these theological contrasts are questionable even on a theoretic level; these are the sorts of contrasts one could raise between any randomly selected brief texts in Luke-Acts and the rest of the work by selecting details according to one’s planned scheme. If the passages are too brief to allow statistical analysis of style, as Porter claims,585 how can his selected eighty-two-verse version of the “we” narratives be used for theological contrasts? One might more easily argue that 1 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians cannot stem from the same author, given serious differences in their portraits of eschatology.586 A stronger claim could be offered based on the form-critical pattern Porter finds here: each “we” section reports “at least one sea voyage” and usually includes narrative on land as well. Each also “arrives at a destination that is the point of departure for the next ‘we’ section.”587 Yet this form naturally fits the travel circumstances described. The sea voyages naturally appear because the narrator is a fellow traveler who is otherwise not part of the action; if anything, he plays down his presence (when they are not moving) to keep the focus on Paul, as Xenophon minimizes his own presence when (as in the early part of the Anabasis and perhaps in his memoirs of Socrates) he was at most a minor actor.588 Likewise, Seneca the Elder is far more interested in reporting the orations he heard than in recounting his own role in the Controversiae; his role as a narrator with an excellent memory is more critical. The shift in locations suits Luke the author as well as any other historical personage waiting at these sites. Another stronger claim that Luke could employ a source here is the fact that Luke rewrites Mark in his own style and hence could do the same for a source here.589 But an argument that Luke has conformed material to his own style undercuts here the very point it hopes to prove: if Luke is such a careful editor of his sources (and he is), why would he allow another’s “we” to stand in his work, which his audience would 581. Ibid., 55–58. 582. This is, of course, in my reading of that narrative (see comment on Acts 21:17–26), not Porter’s. One may also compare the sensitivity to anti-Semitism in Acts 16:20–21, in a period (if not an incident) where the “we” was present. 583. Porter, Paul in Acts, 58–60. 584. Cf. also the speech of Acts 28:17–20, 25–28, when the “we” was at least in the same city (28:16), and the speech material in Acts 22–26, again despite “we” being at least in Judea (21:18; 27:1). Luke was not likely to mention himself at the moment Paul is speaking! Porter requires “we” markers in such direct proximity that it is difficult for a speech to meet his criterion. 585. Porter, Paul in Acts, 35n85. 586. If one insists that these are different letters, whereas Acts is a single document, one could contrast eschatological depictions in Phil 1:23 and 3:21, assuming (as is likely) the unity of Philippians. 587. Porter, Paul in Acts, 33–34. 588. Todd, “Introduction,” 376, doubts Xenophon’s presence claimed in Xen. Symp. 1.1 because he nowhere places himself in the narrative, but Todd admits (376–78) that nearly all the characters are attested elsewhere and the discussion fits the events of the time depicted. More persuasively, many doubt Xenophon’s presence there because he was absent during some of this period (Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 135); if one takes this view, this would constitute one of the rare exceptions. But no one doubts Xenophon’s presence during the journey depicted in the Anabasis. 589. Porter, Paul in Acts, 36.

2359

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 63

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

naturally assume included himself as the author (as “we” normally did and does in works)?590 Luke employs lxx style (e.g., in most of Luke 1–2) or rhetorical sophistication (e.g., the period in his Gospel’s preface) where he finds it suitable; he also cleans up Mark’s grammar. Would such a frequent master of his style rework his other sources so thoroughly yet retain a “we” from one source, which would surely confuse his audience, if it did not include himself? Sometimes a writer did apparently copy from a source something inappropriate in his work,591 but this was not common and, more important, is not a plausible explanation of “we” in Acts, which occurs throughout sections that are geographically connected. That is, Luke’s “we” is no accident, and hence it cannot accidentally reflect a source that excludes him. One former classicist puts it bluntly: Why should the writer have preserved mechanically the inappropriate pronouns from a narrative by a different, unidentified person? It is a phenomenon oddly out of step with the smooth “Lukan” unity we have observed, and is hard to square with arguments for redaction. And how could the reader understand it, if not as a claim, true or false, to authorial participation?592

Likewise, another scholar complains about the unlikelihood that Luke would not simply change the source’s pronoun, which assumes Luke “so immature and unskilled as to incorporate a source without making this editorial change.”593 No ancient reader without prior information would take “we” as simply designating some eyewitness source; on the basis of the usage of nearly every historical source in antiquity, readers would assume that it meant authorial participation.594 For example, when Philostratus suddenly introduces “we” and “us” (in Vit. soph. 2.21.604) for students of Proclus of Naucratis, it is because he himself did study with him (2.21.602). As Dupont, in his study of Acts’ sources, concludes, “Comparison with ancient texts which present the same peculiarity makes the significance of the procedure clear—the author wishes it to be understood that he has personally taken part in the events he is recounting.”595 Nor does Luke treat any of his other sources the way critics have supposed that he treated his “we” source; otherwise, we might expect “we” in the Gospel as well, where he claims to have eyewitness sources (Luke 1:2). “We” signals not simply any eyewitness source but the author’s presence. Given many scholars’ concern that Luke’s account deviates too much from the epistolary Paul, it is not surprising that many would work for solutions that separate the apparent eyewitness testimony in these sections from the author of Acts, by one explanation or another. As argued earlier, however, this concern is likely misplaced, since companions and friends did not necessarily replicate perspectives or interests, especially when those writers also were influenced by other teachers.596 Without that 590. Ibid., 37, claims that the “we” itself is evidence for a source, since no better explanation exists, but I believe that this answer begs the question by assuming what it purports to demonstrate (although Porter does offer other arguments for the source). 591. Possibly the claim in Iambl. V.P. 30.173 to have mentioned something earlier that, in fact, Iamblichus did not mention; but this claim could represent instead a simple lapse of memory. 592. Hemer, Acts in History, 315. 593. T. Smith, “Sources,” 70. See also, e.g., González, Acts, 4 (objecting to the unconvincing approach that treats material such as Luke’s “we” claim as if it would have remained indecipherable before the advent of modern code breakers). 594. Nock, Essays, 828; Hemer, Acts in History, 316. 595. Dupont, Sources, 167. 596. See Keener, Acts, 1:226–57, especially 250–57.

2360

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 64

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

starting prejudice, it seems more natural to read the “we” in the straightforward way we would read it in other sources. (4) Luke as Paul’s Traveling Companion

If Luke used a written source, it was likeliest his own notes.597 The one internal problem with this view is the probable loss of any papyrus material in the shipwreck in Acts 27:43–44, but this problem is hardly insurmountable. If Luke had recounted the story enough times, he might recall the details he reports with reasonable accuracy; nor is it impossible that the notes survived, at least sufficiently for him to be able to retranscribe them. Moreover, given custom and the vagaries of sea voyages, before the voyage he almost certainly would have left in Caesarea copies of the most critical notes covering events until that point. See comment on Acts 27:43–44. As already noted, ancient parallels do not support a specific convention of fictitious presence in historical works. Other sources, in fact, demonstrate that the use of “we,” in all or at least the vast majority of cases, signifies that the author claims to have participated in the events narrated.598 In most such cases, when dealing with history rather than novels, we are ready to grant that the writer was present on the occasions claimed. It is natural to read Luke here the way that we read other ancient sources and hence to assume that Luke claims to have participated in the events narrated in these sections.599 Thus, if Luke claims his presence falsely to gain historical credibility, as some suppose, then he would be viewed as gaining such “legitimacy” illegitimately, since other historians normally were present when they claim that they were (or risked scandalous exposure for a significantly falsified claim). Why should nt scholars be more suspicious (almost uniquely suspicious) of Luke than of most other ancient historians’ claims? This commentary’s introductory chapter on “Acts and Paul” (ch. 7) argued that Luke’s vision of Paul is not as divergent from Paul’s own as some have contended.600 (In the same chapter I also pointed out that a sometime companion of Paul need no more write narratives full of “Paulinisms” than most of our friends or acquaintances would write accounts of us that sound like our correspondence or even teaching.)601 Scholars who reasonably claim that Luke’s use of “we” here is a historical legitimating technique ought to also embrace the corollary that follows in most historical sources: the historian seeking to gain such legitimation, in the vast majority of cases, could do so because the historian was present on the occasions claimed. Historians and writers of memoirs often named eyewitnesses who provided some of their information.602 They were most impressed, however, with other historians who participated in some of the events they reported and could gain other information from 597. See, e.g., Dupont, Sources, 164–65; Fitzmyer, Acts, 103; Filson, History, 231; cf. Packer, Acts, 3. 598. With, e.g., Dupont, Sources, 167–68; Hanson, Acts, 23; as an autobiographic narration technique, see Baum, “Wir- und Er-Stellungen.” An authorial “we” or first-person-plural verb may mean “I” (e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 58; perhaps 2 Cor 1:4), but it always includes the author, whether it includes anyone else or not. 599. With, e.g., Cadbury, “‘We’ in Luke-Acts”; Dunn, Acts, x; Spencer, Acts, 12–13; Green, “Acts,” 755. 600. Keener, Acts, 1:250–57. 601. See Keener, Acts, 1:229–30, 256–57; cf. related discussion in Hillard, Nobbs, and Winter, “Corpus.” By way of modern analogy, I am confident that if someone wrote the story of my life, it would include mention of (perhaps only briefly, depending on the author) but not reproduce my scholarly work; and even if I wrote an autobiography it would read quite differently than any of my commentaries. My time doing ministry on the streets or other experiences would likely interest the majority of readers more. 602. E.g., Hermogenes in Xen. Apol. 2 (with reminders that he is conveying another person’s report in Apol. 10, 14, 27); again Hermogenes in Mem. 4.8.4; more relevant, sources named in, e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.53; Suet. Otho 10.1; Plut. Otho 14.1.

2361

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 65

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

trustworthy informants.603 Firsthand testimony was the most valuable (see comment on Acts 1:8), and historians and biographers were especially eager to mention their own direct knowledge of events in the (generally) few places where they possessed it.604 Thus, for example, Philostratus cannot mention his presence when referring to earlier sophists but mentions his interviews with the aged Damianus of Ephesus (Vit. soph. 2.23.606). Sometimes participants employed first-person language when noting their eyewitness testimony; some used third-person designations when they acted as primary characters in their narratives.605 Even when employing the third person, however, writers who inserted themselves into narratives were claiming their presence and direct knowledge of events or reports (e.g., Eunapius Lives 494). Unlike ancient Near Eastern historians, many Greek historians were more willing to speak in their own voice.606 Of course, even eyewitness informants often interpreted events according to their bias for one side or another (Thucyd. 1.22.2–3), and “altogether faithful” eyewitness accounts could diverge on public details that all the witnesses knew about (Arrian Alex. 4.14.3; cf. the Gospels’ Easter accounts). As in other historical documents, we should assume that the reporter of Acts’ “we” material was present, but as Plümacher notes, the reporter claims only “a walk-on role,” revealing only that he traveled with Paul.607 Many scholars have thus concluded that the “we” sections reflect Luke’s own memories or notes of his experiences with Paul.608 If Paul often was accompanied 603. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 6; cf. Jos. Life 357; Ag. Ap. 1.45–49, 56; perhaps Cic. Leg. 1.8. At greater length, see Aune, Environment, 81 (citing esp. Hdt. 2.99; Polyb. 3.4.13; 12.25g.1; 12.27.1–6; 12.28.1–5; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47); Meister, “Historiography: Greece,” 421; Byrskog, History, 153–57; Schepens, “Aspects,” 113–16 (on Polybius’s appreciation for direct experience, “living informants,” and sufficient background knowledge for interpretation); cf. Plümacher, Geschichte, 85–108 (Luke validating his character as historian by portraying himself as present); Droge, “Anonymously,” 496 (“a deliberate literary construct” to link the preface’s “I” with the voice of the narrative). Second-century Roman historians were more apt to focus on events outside their experience than were earlier historical writers from the East (cf. Kemezis, “Absence”). Marguerat, Historian, 24–25, treats the claim as an appeal to legitimacy of a group to which the narrator belonged (but does not identify the author with the narrator). That some would suggest that Luke fictitiously claimed to be present to provide historical validation is problematic, since this approach insists on being more skeptical of Luke than of other historians with numerous correspondences with history, and it fails for the same reasons (such as the rare appearance of the author) as other fiction theories. 604. E.g., Polyb. 29.21.8; Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 13.7; 17.1. Others also mention Polybius’s eyewitness testimony (Polyb. 39.2.2 [in Strabo 8.6.28]). Eyewitness testimony was also noted when one was reporting natural phenomena; Seneca the Younger often recounts various traditions but specially notes what he has seen himself (Nat. Q. 3.25.8). On eyewitness memory, see helpfully McIver, “Eyewitnesses,” 545–46. 605. E.g., Xen. Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4–6; Thucyd. 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Polyb. 31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; Caesar C.W. passim, e.g., 1.1; Gall. W. passim, 1.7; 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.17 (despite phrases such as “our own” and “our men,” 2.9); first person (when present, not at all important junctures) in Vell. Paterc. 2.101.2–3; 2.104.3; 2.106.1; 2.111.3–4; 2.114.1–3; 2.115.5; 2.121.3; 2.124.4. See more fully Keener, John, 918; the data helpfully surveyed in Campbell, “We” Passages, 28–42, 99–115; excursus below. A. M. Harmon, Lucian, LCL, 5:341n1, at Lucian Eunuch 10 thinks that Lucian mentioned his own participation but without naming himself (though this is unclear to me). Rabbis also could use roundabout third-person expressions for “I” at times (y. Ḥag. 2:1, §9; Ketub. 4:14, §1; Sukkah 5:1, §7; Šeb. 6:1, §9; Taʿan. 1:4, §1; 4:5, §11; cf. Isoc. Demon. 34; 2 Cor 12:2; Lyons, Autobiography, 69; Furnish, II Corinthians, 524). 606. See Machinist, “Voice.” 607. Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398. This observation weakens the argument of Campbell, “We” Passages, 90–91, for the narrator as a narrative “character.” 608. E.g., Dupont, Sources, 164–65; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 17 (from Witherington); Rackham, Acts, xv–xvii; Packer, Acts, 3; Neil, Acts, 22–23; Barclay, Acts, 6; Munck, Acts, xliii; Filson, History, 231; Thornton, Zeuge (as cited in Campbell, “We” Passages, 8); Arrington, Acts, xxxii; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 66, 82; Fusco, “Sezioni-noi”; Hanson, Acts, 21–24; Spencer, Philip, 249; Hemer, Acts in History, 312–34; Martin, Foundations, 67–68; Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 7; Barnett, Birth, 190–92; idem, “Paul,” 394; deSilva, Introduction, 299; González, Acts, 4; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 22–23; Hertig and Gallagher, “Introduction,” 4–5; Bock, Acts, 13–14; Peterson, Acts, 17 (“most scholars”); Schnabel, Acts, 669; Gilchrist, “Eyewitness Reporting”; Kurz, Acts, 14–15, 251–52; cf. also others, cautious but apparently affirmative,

2362

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 66

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

by coworkers (e.g., Rom 16:21; 2 Cor 8:23; 12:18; Phil 4:3; Col 4:7–11; Phlm 24; perhaps Gal 1:2), it is reasonable to surmise “that Luke had been from time to time in his youth a relatively junior member of this circle.”609

Excursus: Acts and First-Person Usage in Some Ancient Historians  610

Use of third- and first-person designations for authors or narrators varied somewhat among historians and within individual works themselves.611 One recent study offers a convenient survey of some of this usage. William Sanger Campbell offers the general and correct observation that ancient writings, in contrast to most modern ones, “refer to their narrators in first (singular and plural) and third person for both event- and narrator-level narration.”612 Focusing on usage in some key Hellenistic historians, Campbell helpfully surveys the diverse use of third- and first-person designations for authors or narrators in three ancient historians—namely, Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus.613 Although this survey is helpful, I believe, and argue below, that its reservations concerning Luke’s first-person usage for eyewitness testimony must be qualified.

1. Historians’ Use of Third and First Person No uniform rule existed for the use of the first and third person in histories, but dominant patterns emerge, rightly highlighted by Campbell. a. Third Person Not all historian/narrators were also actors within their narratives, and most who were did not appear throughout them (as Luke’s “we” does not). When they did, however, they more often appeared in the third person. Campbell notes that when describing themselves as actors in narratives, Polybius normally, and Thucydides always, designate themselves in the third person.614 Unlike e.g., Moffatt, Introduction, 294–97; Spivey, Smith, and Black, Anatomy, 241. The narrator’s presence is also the natural reading assumed by most translators (see, e.g., Wade, “Translating”). Campbell, “Narrator,” 386, notes the author and journal views of “we” as together the dominant position, although he himself demurs from this position. 609. Maddox, Purpose, 7. Cf. Keener, “Luke-Acts and Historical Jesus,” 617–19. 610. Much of this material is adapted from Keener, “Claims.” 611. Jackson, “Conventions” (1999), which I discovered too late to engage properly in my John commentary, offers an important contribution on this subject. In the 1990s (but finally published in 2003), I argued that “third-person authorial claims appear in antiquity alongside first-person ones” (Keener, John, 105), citing as examples Thucyd. 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Xen. Anab. 2.5.40; 3.1.4–6 and passim, and noting that “Polybius uses first-person claims when he was an observer (e.g., 29.21.8) but prefers third-person when he is an active participant in the narrative (31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; cf. 39.2.2).” (Xenophon’s Anabasis might have a pseudepigraphic attribution, however, as noted by Jackson, “Conventions,” 28.) 612. Campbell, “Narrator,” 389. I focus on the article rather than his larger book (“We” Passages) because the article, published in JBL, received an extremely wide audience. 613. Although Josephus is the only historian of the three from the period of the early empire, Thucydides remained widely read, and he and Polybius provided prominent available models for later historians writing in the Greek East. Likewise, historians of the early empire such as Tacitus did make use of a narratorial “I” (cf., e.g., Hist. 1.51, 59; 2.8, 17, 27; 5.2, 10, 19). 614. Campbell, “Narrator,” 390–91 (citing, e.g., Thucyd. 4.104.4; 4.105.1), 393 (citing, e.g., Polyb. 28.7.8– 13; 31.11.4–31.14.3), 402; for Polybius, see also Jackson, “Conventions,” 28.

2363

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 67

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

some later historians, Thucydides usually uses the third person even when referring to himself as narrator.615 When he is an actor in his narrative, Josephus usually designates himself by the third person in his War; by contrast, he identifies himself exclusively in the first person singular in his later autobiography (Life).616 Campbell’s proposal that the use of the third person in most of the sources may be designed to “increase the narrative’s sense of historical objectivity” seems a plausible explanation.617 Although Xenophon is not among Campbell’s examples, it may be noted that one of his works also depicts him only in the third person.618 Writers varied in usage on some points, however; he intrudes even as narrator only fairly rarely.619 Similarly, Julius Caesar also preferred to depict himself in the third person,620 although in ways that drew attention to himself far more than did other writers noted here. The pattern is thus a frequent one, even if it is not universal or complete. b. First Person Understanding use of the first person in most of these sources appears more complex. When historians used the first person, they did so most often, although not exclusively, at the narratorial level. Although not the subject of Campbell’s article, Herodotus frequently used the first person, especially as narrator.621 Thucydides, by contrast, distances himself from what he regards as Herodotus’s inappropriate editorial comments by mostly avoiding self-reference.622 Thucydides does use the first person singular a number of times for himself as narrator, but not as an actor in the narrative.623 The reason for the distinction between singular and plural forms of the first person in Thucydides is not as clear, although it fits a general pattern. Thucydides uses the first person plural only on the narrative level and only five times, and 80 percent of the time uses it with reference to “a grammatically superlative statement.”624 Campbell believes that Thucydides uses the first person singular especially to affirm the accuracy of his information625 and shifts to plural at times to prevent accusations that he exaggerates, especially in his superlative claims.626 Campbell’s explanation here is not certain and is somewhat less convincing than his explanation for third-person usage, but it remains plausible and may well be correct. 615. Campbell, “Narrator,” 391 (by name in Thucyd. 1.1.1; 2.70.4; 5.26.1). 616. Campbell, “Narrator,” 398. Jackson, “Conventions,” 25, wrongly presents Augustine as the source of first-person usage in autobiography (unless he simply means that Augustine was the primary influence on the usage in subsequent autobiography). 617. Campbell, “Narrator,” 391 (following Michael Grant), 402, and 404 (on ancient historians’ thirdperson usage more generally); also, earlier, Jackson, “Conventions,” 25. 618. Jackson, “Conventions,” 27. 619. Ibid., 27–28. 620. Ibid., 28; see Gall. W. 1.7, 10–20, 22, 24–54; 2.1–2, 4–15, 17, 19–21 and passim. The narratorial first person, however, remains in some works emphasizing Caesar (Gall. W. 2.24; 4.16–17, 27; 8.10, 44, 47, 48), to whomever it may be attributed (cf. 8 pref.). First person plural in such works can refer to “we Romans” (e.g., Gall. W. 2.24). 621. E.g., Hdt. 1.5.3; 1.15; 1.18.2; 1.22.2; 1.57.1; 1.75.1, 3, 6; 1.92.1; 1.95.1; 1.106.2; 1.130.3; 1.131.1; 1.137.1; 1.140.1–3; 1.169.2; 1.170.1; 1.171.2; 2.18.1; 4.197.2; 5.4.1; 5.9.1, 3; 5.22.1; 5.35.3; 5.36.4; 5.54.1; 5.62.1; 5.65.5; 5.66.1; 5.86.3; 6.19.2, 3; 6.39.1; 6.43.3; 6.53.1–2; 6.55; 9.95; 9.101.1. 622. See Jackson, “Conventions,” 26. 623. Campbell, “Narrator,” 391–92 (citing, and arranging topically, Thucyd. 1.1.3; 1.20.1; 1.21.1; 1.22.1–2; 1.23.5–6; 1.97.2; 2.48; 3.90.1; 3.113.6; 5.26.5–6; 5.68.2; 6.2.1). 624. Campbell, “Narrator,” 392 (citing Thucyd. 1.13.4; 1.18.1; 7.87.5; 8.41.2). Probably working manually rather than with access to the TLG, Jackson, “Conventions,” 26, lists only two of these references. 625. Campbell, “Narrator,” 391–92; cf. 402. 626. Ibid., 392.

2364

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 68

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Polybius’s usage is more diverse than that of Thucydides. Polybius consistently uses the first person singular when speaking as narrator;627 he uses the first person plural throughout the preface (1.1.1–1.5.5) and twice during events within his narrative.628 The first of these (36.11.1–4) begins in the third person, then shifts to “we” for the duration of the mission narrated.629 The epilogue also moves from the third to the first person when Polybius returns from exile (39.8.1).630 Why do such shifts occur? Careful to guard against critics, Polybius specifically explains the shifts as stylistic:631 first, excessive repetition of the same usage would bore the readers (36.12.2); second, it was inappropriate to speak about oneself too much (36.12.3), but sometimes there was no other way to represent the matter (36.12.4–5).632 In support of Polybius’s explanation, Campbell notes that Polybius mixes grammatical person, for example in 31.23.1–31.25.1.633 In the War, Josephus employs the first person “only sporadically,” except in the preface (1.1–30; see esp. 1.3).634 On the narratorial level he shifts to the plural only in phrases such as “as we said,” for which the “War never uses the first person singular . . . even in passages that otherwise employ first person singular of the narrator (e.g., J.W. 2.114).”635 Josephus occasionally mixes the first person singular and plural (War 7.454–55), and he mixes both with the third person in War 1.9–12.636 Rather than “literary aesthetics,” as in Polybius, Josephus’s War uses the third person when Josephus acts within the narrative and first person when he is speaking as the narrator. Campbell believes that the War, “generally speaking,” uses the “first person singular in passages dealing with factuality of the history and first person plural for conventional and other comments concerning the act of narrating.”637 Although the dominant association of first person with the narratorial level is evident in many sources, it is clear that Luke does not employ the same approach, since the “we” narrative’s first-person-plural verbs are never verbs of narration but instead only of action.638 This is an important distinction that affects how we should evaluate Campbell’s treatment of Luke’s first-person usage, below. 627. Ibid., 393 (noting on 394 Polybius’s emphasis in 3.4.13 that he was not just eyewitness but also participant). Whereas the narrator’s first person appears only five times in Thucydides, it appears about 678 times in Polybius (ibid., 394; cf. 403). 628. Ibid., 394. The far greater proportion of first-person usage on the narratorial level versus the event level is less important than the greater proportion of third- to first-person usage on the event level. Although historians usually indicate their presence in the third person within narratives (and therefore Luke’s preference for first- rather than third-person narration calls for comment below), that first-person usage appears far less often on the event level than on the narratorial level would not be surprising, in any case: most historians do not appear in most of their narratives. 629. Ibid., 394–95. 630. Ibid., 395. 631. Ibid., 396, puts it well: “literary and rhetorical aesthetics.” 632. Ibid., 395–96. Although not an actor within his history, Dionysius of Halicarnassus hastens to explain first-person usage in his introduction, noting that readers would not be pleased if he were praising himself (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1). On public distaste for self-commendation, see, e.g., Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Watson, “Boasting.” 633. Campbell, “Narrator,” 396, noting the mixing of the first singular and plural in 31.23.1, and then the first and third person in 31.23.2–3. 634. Ibid., 398. 635. Ibid., 399. 636. Ibid. 637. Ibid. 638. If Campbell’s distinction between singular and plural first-person usage holds for Josephus’s War— the quantity of evidence may be too limited to be certain, but the pattern is possible—it is less clear for the Antiquities (see the evidence cited in Campbell, “Narrator,” 401–2).

2365

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 69

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

2. “We” as a First-Person Historical Claim? No less a scholar of classical sources than Arthur Darby Nock opined that Luke’s “we” should be read like “we” in other ancient historians—a claim that included the author himself.639 By contrast, whereas Campbell’s survey of the data is helpful, one of the chief conclusions for which some will cite his article is problematic and of particular relevance for our discussion of the point of Luke’s historiographic use of “we.” a. Questioning “We” as a Historical Claim Although recognizing that the majority of scholars view Luke’s “we” as an eyewitness claim (whether from the author or his source),640 Campbell seeks to neutralize the traditional argument that “we” reflects eyewitness presence.641 He recognizes that, based on Polybius’s usage, Luke’s “we” passages “place the narrator character at the scene, an eyewitness to and a participant in the events narrated”; yet Campbell abruptly balks at the expected conclusion, protesting that Acts’ anonymity means that the “we” simply establishes characterization, not historical information.642 The evidence that he marshals, however, does not support this case, which depends instead on some illegitimate inferences not directly related to the data he cites. Campbell argues that the narrator does not emphasize his presence, claiming that he “does not say that at these points he has entered events personally, nor does the story itself suggest that this is the case.”643 Yet, as we have noted, Campbell himself recognizes that ancient writers could shift from third to first person or first person singular to plural at times without warning.644 An ancient writer who attributes action in the narrative to an actor identified in the first person normally does by that very attribution claim to enter events personally. The writer does not normally need to offer a further level of affirmation to insist that he means what readers would normally take his words to mean. The primary reasons for denying that Acts’ narrator claims to be present rest not on Campbell’s conclusions from analyzing other ancient historians but on his belief that Luke differs from these historians. That the narrator traveled with Paul is problematic, Campbell believes, because the narrator’s perspectives differ significantly from those in Paul’s letters.645 As noted in the introduction to this commentary, however, the differences are no more significant than we should expect for an author for Acts that was not Paul himself.646 639. Nock, Essays, 827–28 (against a fictitious “we”). 640. Campbell, “Narrator,” 386. The narrator’s dependence on witnesses (Luke 1:2) is necessary for much of the narrative in Luke-Acts, especially the Gospel, but does not preclude identifying the same first person in Luke 1:3 with the first-person narration in Acts, which covers only a small portion of the narrative (focusing on Paul’s important custody); see here also Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 428. 641. The first-person usage is thus “not chiefly a historical marker indicating the presence of the actual author of Acts or one of his sources” (Campbell, “Narrator,” 407, emphasizing a narrative role; the latter, however, need not be incompatible with a historical marker, since Luke is writing a history). Campbell himself concedes that his argument “does not mean that the author or his source could not have been an eyewitness,” only that this is not the primary point of the first-person usage (ibid., 406). Whatever Luke’s other literary intentions, however (and I am not primarily challenging Campbell on these points), a firstperson claim does indicate the narrator as the subject of the verbs in question—in this case, verbs that claim the narrator’s presence. 642. Campbell, “Narrator,” 406. 643. Ibid., 386. 644. Ibid., 389, 396, 399, 401. 645. Ibid., 387. 646. Keener, Acts, 1:226–57, esp. 250–57.

2366

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 70

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

b. Acts’ Anonymity? Much more central and explicit for Campbell’s argument against the author claiming to be present is his repeated suggestion that Luke differs from the other historians by his anonymity; his first-person usage therefore does not refer to an identity claim earlier in the narrative.647 Although the authors of three of the four works that Campbell examines do name themselves in the beginning of their works, such naming was hardly the exclusive, and certainly not the necessary, practice of ancient sources, including histories648 and biographies.649 In fact, Campbell himself expressly acknowledges that in one of the four works he investigates, Josephus’s Antiquities, the author does not name himself within the work.650 Works did not always explicitly identify their authors.651 That is, a work might remain anonymous so far as explicit intrinsic claims are concerned and yet not be anonymous at the assumed level of the real audience’s knowledge. As studies supporting relevance theory have demonstrated, some information in communication is implicit or assumed;652 readers of the Antiquities knew that Josephus was the author, and Luke’s ideal audience (including Theophilus) certainly knew who the “I” of his preface was.653 Although modern scholars do not know with certainty who Acts’ author was, Luke’s original audience probably did not suffer from the same predicament. Indeed, if we profess ignorance of the author’s identity, then for all we know Luke could name himself in the third person at points in the narrative (if, say, he was Silas or Timothy), though it seems more likely that he identifies his presence only in the first person plural. c. What Historians Meant by “We” For the questions of historiography, however, what matters most is the person to whom ancient historians’ first-person usage refers (to paraphrase a question about a different genre, “to himself or someone else?”; see Acts 8:34). As noted, historians varied somewhat as to whether they ever included themselves in the narrative in the 647. Campbell, “Narrator,” 387, 404–6. Campbell does recognize that the first-person-singular usage in the prefaces associates the narrator with the “anonymous” author (405). 648. The earlier historian Herodotus names himself in the third person (1.1 pref.), but this was not a universal standard. For a survey of prefaces only, some historical prefaces identify their authors only by speaking in the first person singular (Livy 1.pref.; Arrian Alex. pref.; Tac. Ann. 1.1; Hist. 1.1; Hdn. Hist. 1.1.1–6); the account of the foreign wars attributed to Appian identifies him as the author (pref. 15), but his Bell. civ. does not; Tac. Germ. 1 does not name the author (though the first person singular in, e.g., Germ. 2, 46 implies that he is known); cf. also Xen. Anab. 1.1.1 (though Xenophon appears as an actor later in the work); Sallust Cat. 1; Jug. 1. Cf. also Moles, “Time,” 112, noting Marincola, Authority, 250–52, 273–75. 649. Among biographical prefaces, Diogenes Laertius does not name himself, nor does Tac. Agr. 1–3 (though his first-person-singular usage in Agr. 1, 3 and mention of Agricola as his father-in-law in Agr. 2 are plain enough); Suetonius cites the testimony of his father, whom he names (Otho 10) in a biography that does not open by identifying himself (Otho 1). 650. Campbell, “Narrator,” 400, noting that Josephus identifies himself there only as author of the War. This identification, however, confirms that Josephus’s audience knew his identity. 651. One might respond that these historians or biographers did not participate in action in the books (perhaps questionable, in some sense, at times, e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.1), but that observation would lack bearing on the question of whether a work that fails to name its author in the preface is thereby an anonymous work, since there are no other reasons for asserting Luke’s anonymity. Extended to other genres (to broaden the base of evidence), it is clear that authors’ not naming themselves in prefaces, or in fact anywhere in their work, does not make their works anonymous. If one protests that the author was already known, is implied in first-person usage, or was identified in a title on the outside of a scroll, one could offer the same hypotheses, if one wished, for Acts. 652. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:23. 653. In addition to discussions of authorship and audience in this commentary’s introduction, see, e.g., Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 428; Jokinen, “Gospels,” 9.

2367

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 71

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

first person.654 Luke’s inclusion of himself in the first person therefore does not break historiographic protocol, even if, as is suggested below, he minimizes his role as actor more than many other authors minimized their own. It is important to notice authors’ differences in usage for the level of the narrator and presence within the narrative, but these differences affect only frequency of first-person usage within the narrative, not whom the first-person usage identifies. Campbell emphasizes that first person dominates at the narrator level and is rarer at the event level.655 This observation is true, but the primary issue from a historiographic standpoint (the nature of Luke’s historiographic claim) is not how often the author uses the first person within the narrative but what he means when he uses it. What is critical when asking who is included in Luke’s first-person usage is whether historians meant or did not mean themselves when they used the first person. Here the resounding answer of Campbell’s own evidence is that they did intend themselves, whether individually (in the first person singular) or as part of a group (in the first person plural). Thus one may note Josephus’s use of the first person plural in Antiquities: “The first person singular in Antiquities often serves to distinguish the author/narrator individually from first person plural references close at hand that associate him with the Jewish people.”656 That is, he speaks in his “we” passages as part of a group.657 Campbell concludes that in Luke-Acts, as in other works, first-person-plural usage shows the “narrator’s personal knowledge as eyewitness or researcher and, therefore, his credentials for telling the story accurately as Luke claims in Luke 1:3–4.”658 Authors employ the first person plural in various ways, sometimes including the addressees and sometimes excluding them, and occasionally as a collective or authoritative replacement for the first person singular;659 yet “we” nearly always includes the speaker. On a literary level, it states the obvious to point out that in Luke’s usage, the first person includes the speaker, just as other writers’ usage did; that was the point of using the first person plural. Whatever the genre of Luke’s work, speakers within his narratives include themselves in first-person-plural claims.660 Why should we suddenly interpret the expression differently when the narrator is the one speaking? That is, it is not the case that only the first-person usage (and still more narrowly, first-person-plural usage) for an actor within the narrative is relevant to Luke’s usage. Dividing narratorial and narrated uses of the first person effectively reduces the amount of evidence admitted, but on the point in question (that is, whether the first-person usage is self-referential) there is no significant difference in the material.661 Campbell 654. Sometimes for aesthetic reasons, as is explicit in Polybius, and as Campbell, “Narrator,” 402, allows as possible for Josephus’s Antiquities. 655.  Campbell, “Narrator,” 406. 656. Ibid., 400. The connection with Josephus’s people is explicit in Ant. 1.4; 20.259–60. Josephus does not appear at the event level in the Antiquities. 657. Campbell, “Narrator,” 402, also allows that Josephus’s somewhat greater variation of usage in this work might also be partly explained by literary aesthetics. 658. Ibid., 405. His observation of this function of the first person plural in Acts 16:17 (ibid., 407) is reasonable; certainly it has this effect. 659. See, e.g., discussions in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 184–85; Jackson, “Conventions,” 12; Filbeck, “Problems”; Ellingworth, “‘We’ in Paul.” For an example of “we” meaning “I,” see Dion. Hal. Demosth. 58; probably also Eurip. frg. 1066 (from Stob. 4.29.40). 660. Far more than one hundred times, occasionally very generally for humankind (Acts 17:28), but normally as part of a people (e.g., Luke 1:74; 3:8) or any other group (e.g., Luke 3:10, 12, 14; 4:23, 34; 5:5, 26; Acts 2:32, 37). This is also the case when Paul refers to himself and one or more of his ministry companions (13:32, 46; 14:15; 15:36; 16:28), fellow believers (14:22), or fellow travelers (26:14; 27:26). 661. Although undoubtedly not deliberate in this case, the introduction of categories irrelevant to the point of the discussion is a logical fallacy frequently deployed in contemporary scholarship to reduce evidence

2368

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 72

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

does not claim that any of his examples involve a fictitious “we”; rather, he argues that first person dominates the narratorial level. This observation does not help one construe Luke’s “we” as narratorial, however, since it always occurs with verbs at the event level. If the “we” is not fictitious, it must be taken as a claim to participation, just as it is taken where it occurs, on whatever level, in primarily factual writings. Likewise, whether in the singular or the plural, the historian’s first-person usage in these cases does include himself.662 (That is, the plural usage normally includes the historian, even though it is not usually limited to the historian.) Some historians, such as Diodorus Siculus, often use first-person-plural narration, perhaps even preferring it to the singular.663 Dividing the first-person evidence into singular and plural at most suggests some patterns of usage distinctive to particular authors, but a distinction in usage is not clear for all authors noted. The division effectively minimizes the evidence at hand, allowing one to speak of less evidence. Yet Luke has a very clear reason for preferring the plural of the first person: he identifies his presence only as part of a larger group, not as a primary actor within the narrative. A singular pronoun would require a statement of action distinct from one concerning the group. That is, Luke uses the plural because he belongs to a group, just as Josephus sometimes uses the plural because he belongs to a group.

3. Use of “We” instead of Author’s Name An important question separate from what Luke means by “we” is why he uses it. The narrator’s mention of himself within the narrative, using the first person plural, contrasts with the frequent historiographic practice of naming oneself as a participant only in the third person. Thucydides occasionally, and Polybius and Josephus usually, use first person at the narrator level.664 In Acts, however, the narrator’s first-person-plural verbs appear not at the narrator level but within the narrative (16:10–13, 16; 20:6–8, 13–15; 21:1–8, 10, 12, 14–17; 27:1–5, 7–8, 15–16, 18, 27, 29; 28:1, 10–14, 16). a. Other Meanings of the First Person Plural? Campbell suggests that if Luke wished to communicate his presence, he should have followed the example of Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus in using the third person.665 Yet the setting in which Luke uses the first person is what determines what he communicates with it. First-person-plural usage, Campbell suggests, need not mean presence. He notes that Josephus’s first-person identification with his ancestors “assuredly is supporting a position that the scholar wishes to dispute. In this case, the categories are relevant to some of Campbell’s discussion but not to his doubt that Luke’s “we” necessarily implies the narrator’s presence. 662. As noted above, Campbell, “Narrator,” 400, notes this group usage (on the level of narrator) in Josephus’s Antiquities. Elsewhere, e.g., the corporate perspective in Tac. Agr. 46. This is technically true even when the inclusion is merely a matter of editorial courtesy to diminish offense, as possibly in the corrected “we” of Tac. Hist. 1.1 (cf. Agr. 2). 663. I have not surveyed all of Diodorus, but he fairly often narrates in the plural (see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 11.56.1; 11.58.4; 11.59.1, 3, 4; 11.64.3; 11.89.1; 11.90.2, 3; 13.1.1; 13.104.8; 13.114.3; 14.2.3–4; 14.63.2; 16.5.4; 16.26.6; 16.40.4; 16.46.5; 16.50.8; 16.60.5; 16.64.3; 16.65.9; 16.93.3; 16.95.5; 17.1.2, 5; 17.5.1, 3; 17.6.3; 17.47.6; 17.63.5; 17.118.4; material after 10.18.6) and sometimes in the singular (16.26.1). This includes not only narration but on rare occasion a statement that suggests presence and research, as in 17.52.6. We should not expect to see him much as an actor on the event level. 664. Campbell, “Narrator,” 402. 665. Ibid., 406.

2369

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 73

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

not meant to signal Josephus’s historical presence among his Jewish ancestors.”666 But although Josephus is not making a claim of historical presence, he is identifying himself as part of the people, a claim that virtually no one disputes. Luke, by contrast, does make a claim of presence, but the distinction is based on the action or identification described, not on the use of the first person, which in both cases includes the author. Campbell may be right to conclude, In the histories analyzed, referring to the author/narrator as “we” gives a sense of corroboration to the narrative eyewitness’s version of the story. . . . Similarly, the effect of first person plural grammatical style in Acts is to cast the narrator character as a narrative eyewitness and participant in Paul’s mission and, in so doing, to emphasize his version of events.667

At the same time, Campbell argues, this usage “qualifies the narrator’s involvement by characterizing him as part of a broader eyewitness group.”668 As I argue below, this is indeed true on one level. His suggestion that the author appeals to the “we” to broaden corroboration for the account,669 though, seems questionable if we read the narrative as history; Paul, at least, has (on our dating of Acts) died, and it is not clear that the other witnesses would be locally available for consultation. His argument that Luke’s first person plural invites his audience into the narrative670 is possible but not certain, and here Campbell’s own distinctions become significant: an editorial or narratorial “we” may invite audience participation, but does a narrative “we” at the event level necessarily do so, if the audience recognizes most members of the group in question?671 Whether Campbell is correct here, however, is not germane to the historiographic question about the narrator’s presence, since a narrator’s claim to be present historically is not in principle incompatible with an additional literary purpose such as reader identification.672 Returning to the question of historical presence, what is more critical here is to note that we have no reason to believe (and Campbell does not specifically claim) that ancient historians introduced such an invitation to audience participation fictitiously. Since the actions Luke’s “we” depicts involve participation in the narrative’s events rather than narration, it remains a claim of genuine presence, for which the interpretive options are that it is either accurate or fictitious. This observation in a sense holds true not only for ancient historiography but also for ancient writings in general: if a writer claims to have been present, the claim is either true or false. If we deem it false, it is either because we expect it to be so, based on its presence in a work the genre of which does not make many historical claims (such as fiction), or because we have sufficient reason to believe that the author in 666. Ibid. 667. Ibid. 668. Ibid. 669. Ibid., 407, comparing this apparent practice in some other ancient sources. 670. Ibid. 671. Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 428, follows Prince, “Review,” in critiquing Campbell’s idea of the “we” taking Barnabas’s place as a supporter, noting that “we” disappears when Paul needs support the most. See esp. Prince, “Review,” 5: why is the narrator chosen as the witness, in spite of other witnesses within the narrative, and why only during divinely directed travel and not during the conflicts? (The other RBL review, Racine, “Review,” is more positive and focuses more on summarizing the work.) We might also add that Silas replaces Barnabas far more clearly and consistently than the “we” could. 672. As many today recognize, historical and literary approaches need not be incompatible (see, e.g., Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 14–15; Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 173; Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 16).

2370

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 74

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

question is lying in this case.673 There is not sufficient reason to believe that Luke is lying, given his relatively rare, inconspicuous, and geographically consistent use of the first person, and given the consistency with the epistolary Paul on the points one would expect for a writer other than Paul.674 b. Usage Varied Why would Luke use first person within the narrative when most historians used third person there? First, we may note that the practice of identifying oneself only in the third person was not followed invariably, even in some of the works on which Campbell’s study focused; there was some room for author variation (in contrast to the absence of a fictitious “we” claim).675 Campbell’s own evidence shows that occasionally Polybius used the first person at the event level.676 Some other historians, such as Velleius Paterculus, could mention themselves directly.677 Further, the majority of historians who did not directly participate in events could not mention themselves within the story’s events per se, but they could mention their acting in terms of their own research, inquiries, or eyewitness testimony of monuments and so forth. In these cases, they speak not simply as narrators but as those who acted in a way that is briefly narrated. This was already true of Herodotus, for example;678 when acting in concert with others, he could also speak of what “we” did in the first person plural.679 Dionysius of Halicarnassus notes that he acquired some information orally from learned men, “with whom I associated.”680 Occasionally Diodorus Siculus could also mention himself at the level of presence and research.681 Josephus’s Life, a work that covers some of the same historical ground as his War, employs the first person lavishly;682 other forms of biographic works also did not object to it.683 Suetonius, for example, casually includes self-reference in the first 673. Even a third-person historical narrator could “lie or exaggerate” ( Jackson, “Conventions,” 25); the point is that the norm and expectation for truth claims in factually based genres was that they be true. The exceptions are in ethopoeia, which is relevant in speeches but not in historical writing, or in a hypothetical “I” (such as 1 Cor 13:1–3), again, not relevant to historical writing (except where Israel speaks in the first person in some speeches, e.g., Deut 2:26–29; 26:5—again, not relevant to the present case). 674. See Keener, Acts, 1:226–57, esp. 250–57. 675. Campbell, “Narrator,” 403, particularly underlines author variation on the use of person at the narrator level, contrasting Thucydides and Polybius, although the differences are probably partly chronological. But some variation also exists at the event level within narratives, as noted above. 676. Ibid., 394–95 (on Polyb. 36.11.1–4; 39.8.1). Thompson, “Paul in Acts,” 429, also emphasizes this point—namely, that Polybius uses both third and first person partly for the purpose of literary variation—and that Polybius’s first-person narration, where it occurs, does include himself. 677. Vell. Paterc. 2.101.2–3; 2.104.3; 2.106.1; 2.111.3–4; 2.114.1–3; 2.115.5; 2.121.3; 2.124.4. 678. Herodotus sometimes notes his personal inquiry about or reception of accounts from his informants (e.g., 1.20; 1.51.3–4; 1.92.2; 1.105.3; 2.104.1; 3.55.2; 7.114.2) or suggests other research he did or when he himself was an eyewitness (e.g., 2.99.1; 2.127.1; 2.147.1; 2.148.1; 4.81.2; 4.195.2; 5.59; 6.47.1; negatively, 2.73.1). In most of these cases Herodotus’s use of first person does indicate his action and not simply his narrative perspective. 679. “We” measured in Hdt. 2.127.2; at the narratorial level, cf. 1.95.1; 6.55. 680. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.7.3 (LCL, 1:23). He does have far more occasion to mention himself at a purely narratorial level (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1; 1.5.1; 1.6.5; 1.7.1; 1.8.1; 1.90.2; 2.47.3; 9.60.1; 9.71.4). 681.  Diod. Sic. 17.52.6. 682. Campbell, “Narrator,” 398; see Jos. Life 1–3, 5–6, 8–17, 19–21, 27, 30–31, 41, 62–65, 68–70 and passim. Here Josephus sometimes identifies himself as part of a group or its experience with a first person plural (e.g., Life 15, 63); sometimes it may simply speak politely of Josephus himself (e.g., Life 22, 27–28). 683. E.g., Tacitus uses the first person in mentioning his relationship with his father-in-law, as noted. On biographies as historically related genres (because of their heavy dependence on information that was believed to be historical), see the sources noted in Keener, Acts, 1:56.

2371

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 75

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

person where it explains a source for his information.684 When Philostratus uses “we” or “us” (in his Vit. soph. 2.21.604) for students of Proclus of Naucratis, it is because he himself was among the students (2.21.602). Many other factually oriented works also seem to have lacked reticence to employ the first person.685 Most biblical historians do not claim their presence in the narrative, but exceptions appear in Ezra (chs. 8–9, alongside third-person usage in chs. 7 and 10)686 and Nehemiah (1:1–6 and passim, alongside third person in 1:1; 8:9; 10:1; 12:26, 47); these writers can shift to the plural “we” when traveling as part of a group (Ezra 8:31–32) or doing some other group activities (e.g., Neh 2:17–20; 4:1, 4, 6, 9). First-century Jews viewed Deuteronomy, one of the most widely cited works at Qumran and in early Christianity, as Mosaic, and its usage is interesting. It introduces Moses speaking in the third person (Deut 1:5), as we might expect from sources sampled above, but then allows him to elaborate a lengthy historical prologue in the first person singular (1:6–3:29); where the plural occurs, it is not limited to Moses but includes him as part of a group,687 including his participation on journeys (Deut 1:19; 2:1, 8, 13–14; 3:1, 29). Isaiah is introduced in the third person (Isa 1:1) and thereafter appears in both the first and third person;688 whatever this prophetic work’s editorial history, it was read in Luke’s day as a unified work. Likewise, Jeremiah is introduced in the third person ( Jer 1:1–3) and thereafter appears in both the first and third person;689 Ezekiel appears in the first person, except once in Ezek 1:3.690 Other Jewish literature sometimes uses the first person for a narrator’s involvement in narrative, whether pseudonymously (in pseudonymous literature)691 or in the name of the genuine author. This is the case, for example, in 1 Enoch692 and also in the Christian book Revelation, where the narrator participates on the level of events.693 684. See Suet. Aug 7; Cal. 19; Otho 10; Dom. 12. In this case he was not risking self-commendation, since he was not an actor within the narrative. 685. See, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.4, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26; 2.2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21; 8.sum. 10; 14.sum. 2; 15.sum. 25; etc. When Aulus Gellius was traveling with others in a group, he did not shy away from speaking of the group with the first person plural (nostros, 2.21.4). 686. Ezra 7:1, 6, 10–11; 10:1–2, 5–6, 10, 16. In this case, the first-person material may reflect a source, but first-century hearers would not necessarily assume this; at the same time, the mixed usage of Polybius could be relevant for the composition of Ezra, and is even more relevant for how a first-century audience would have heard the work. 687. In these cases Moses speaks as part of Israel, even in cases where he or some other individuals may not have specifically acted as a warrior (e.g., Deut 2:33–36). Moses nevertheless remains part of the group that acted corporately; in the case in Acts, the “we” narrator would not be part of the group that travels (especially given his sporadic mention of himself) unless he actually traveled with them. 688. For the first person, see Isa 6:1, 5–8, 11; 8:1, 3, 5, 11, 16–18 (a continuation of the same material that included third person in 7:3); possibly 24:16; 25:1; for the third person, Isa 2:1; 7:3; 13:1; 20:2; and the lengthy narrative unit in chs. 37–39. 689. For the first person, see, e.g., Jer 1:4, 6–7, 9, 11–14; 4:10; 5:4; 6:11; 10:23–24; 11:5–6, 9, 18–20; 12:1, 3; 13:1–3, 5, 8; 14:11, 13–14; 15:1, 10, 15–18; 16:1 and passim; for the third person, see, e.g., 7:1; 11:1; 14:1; 18:1; 19:14; 20:1–3; 21:1, 3; 25:1–2 and passim. While one cannot rule out the involvement of different editorial hands, it is possible that the author simply lacked concern for consistency, or even preferred variety. The most narrative portions may prefer third person, but even Jeremiah hearing from God is technically narrated on the event level. 690. First person in, e.g., Ezek 1:1, 4, 15, 24, 27–28; 2:1–3, 9–10; 3:1–4, 10, 12–16. Daniel appears in much of the book of Daniel in the third person, but in later sections he appears as narrator, with the two sometimes explicitly identified (Dan 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2; 10:2, 7; 12:5); in some contexts he is even introduced in the third person (10:1). Cf. also the speaker in Ecclesiastes (e.g., Eccl 1:12–17), though introduced in the third person (1:1–2). 691. Acts, which does not name its author, and whose author was presumably known to Theophilus, cannot be easily construed as pseudonymous. 692. E.g., 1 En. 1:2–3; 12:3; 13:3–4, 6–10; 14:2–4, 7–10, 13–16, 18–19; 21:1; 22:1; 23:1; 24:1; 41:1; 44:1; and passim. Enoch is first introduced in the third person in 1:1–2 and named with the “I” in 12:3; 19:3; 106:13; Enoch also appears in the third person in 12:1; 13:1 and passim. The work is composite. 693. Rev 1:9–10, 12, 17; 4:1–2, 4; 5:1–2, 4, 6, 11, 13; 6:1–3, 5–9, 12; 7:1–2, 4, 9, 13–14; 8:2, 13; 9:1, 13, 16–17; 10:1, 4–5; 10:8–11:1; 12:10; 13:1–3, 11; 14:1–2, 6, 13–14; 15:1–2, 5; 16:1, 5, 7, 13; 17:3, 6–7,

2372

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 76

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

It is thus plausible that Luke, writing at a fairly popular level to a biblically literate audience, would have seen no problem including first-person factual narration. c. Keeping the Focus on Paul More important for the narrator’s appearance solely in a group, however, is how this allows Luke to avoid entirely the risk of self-commendation (one of Polybius’s concerns, 36.12.3, noted above).694 If some writers used the third person to evade charges of drawing undue attention to themselves, even though readers knew that the authors spoke of themselves, Luke actually shifts attention away from any personal activity on his part even more by using the first person plural. Luke does not use firstperson narration often;695 when he does use it, although he is present as an actor, he never contributes individually to the narrative action.696 He thus would have no need to highlight or name himself, and describing his individual activity separately would have drawn attention to his activity rather than his historical function as a (limited) witness. Whereas some authors may have avoided the first person to avoid the appearance of self-promotion (sometimes even while obviously promoting themselves, as in Caesar’s case), Luke avoids self-promotion even more fully by blending his presence into the group of which he was at times a part. Luke is not using a conventional literary plural distinct from the singular only on the level of the convention; he has to use plural because he is part of a group. The reason that he does not depict himself as an actor in the narrative individually is that he is writing not about himself but about (primarily, in these sections) Paul and his mission.697 Luke minimizes mentioning himself more by including himself in “we” sections than by mentioning himself even in third person; he is present but never the focus of action. To mention himself more explicitly in the third person would require narrating an action of which he was the sole subject, unless he were to simply name each member of the group. As it is, he both indicates his eyewitness presence at some key events, particularly involving Paul’s controversial Roman custody, and keeps himself from the focus of activity. In this way, he affirms his role as reliable narrator without detracting from his focus.698

4. Conclusion The simplest solution is often the best, and the most obvious solution is sometimes the simplest. Historians most frequently depicted their participation within narratives 15; 18:1, 4; 19:1, 6, 9–11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11–12; 21:1–3, 6, 9, 15, 22; 22:1, 6, 8–10. John is twice identified with the first person (1:9; 22:8). 694. In view of cultural distaste for explicit self-commendation, George Lyons, in his discussion of Pauline autobiography, notes that “then, as now, in numerous instances where the self-assertive first person singular pronoun ‘I’ might have been expected, the plural ‘we’ appears instead” (Lyons, Autobiography, 68–69, quotation from 69). Even in philosophic discourse, one might offer his own view in the first person only rarely if wishing to emphasize the school’s tradition (see Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 14). 695. Often Luke also uses first-person-plural pronouns, perhaps for emphasis (in the nominative: Acts 20:6, 13; 21:7, 12; in other cases, 16:9–10, 15–16; 20:5, 7, 14; 21:1, 5, 11, 16–18; 27:1–2, 6–7, 10, 18, 20, 27; 28:2, 7, 10, 15). 696. As Hengel puts it, Luke indicates his presence, but “his personal experiences are uninteresting” (Acts in History, 66). 697. Campbell, “Narrator,” 407, suggests that the narrator “presents himself as a major influence in the determination” in Acts 16:9–10, which overstates the narrator’s role. But Campbell rightly goes on to qualify this statement by noting that the full group participates in the decision. 698. Campbell would likely agree on this point (“Narrator,” 40).

2373

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 77

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

in the third person, but when first person claims occur, on whatever level, they do include the author. Luke does not restrict (or, beyond his prefaces, use) the first person for his narratorial voice; the verbs in the “we” narratives explicitly depict the narrator within the narrative. Although Luke includes notice of his participation, however, his use of the first person plural minimizes focus on it far more than even third-person usage would have. He avoids needing to mention himself separately (by name, title, or first-personsingular pronoun) by simply including himself in group actions. The narrator reports no separate actions of his own, even though he apparently did share in the ministry (16:10, 17). His focus remains on Paul and, to a lesser extent, Silas, with a few other named characters.

3. Ministry and Opposition in Philippi (16:11–40) Ministry in Philippi represents a new stage in Paul’s mission. Since leaving Antioch, Paul and his companions on this journey have ministered merely among churches earlier founded by Paul and Barnabas (perhaps through prior contacts, as suggested earlier), afterward facing closed doors in new regions. (They may have founded a church in Troas, but Luke is silent about this or any other new mission successes on this journey so far.) Now Paul’s dream has led them to minister in Macedonia; they will need the strength of remembering that calling when, after an outwardly small success with a handful of marginal converts, they quickly face public judicial persecution. This passage develops a number of themes in which Luke also shows interest elsewhere. These include ministry to the socially marginal (Acts 16:13), a spiritual power encounter (16:16–18) challenging vested economic interests (16:19–21), and persecution for preaching the gospel (16:22–23).699 In this case Luke reports vindication following the persecution, especially in the earthquake of 16:26 (which leads to a new household conversion) and in the personal entreaties of officials in 16:39 (which leads to public reduction of shame, a positive and comic climax for Luke’s account of their stay in Philippi). It is clear from Paul’s letters that he faced unusual hostility in Macedonia, in both Philippi and Thessalonica, in contrast to Achaia. It is also clear that he was abused in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2); thus where we can most explicitly test Luke’s account, it passes the test. On many points, of course, we lack external corroboration, which is the case for most narrations of history from the past. Consistency suggests that we tend to give Luke the benefit of the doubt where we cannot test him if he passes the test adequately where we can.700 Nevertheless, some scholars, instead of assuming that Luke drew on solid information where we cannot test him the way he did where we can, are skeptical where we cannot corroborate him, and not simply on minor details (the sort that ancient writers seem to have welcomed divergence over). Scholars thus argue for different views on the reliability of this narrative. Some have argued that Luke had an anecdote about Paul’s beating, a legend about his miraculous 699. Some of the social dimensions are also noted by Suazo, “Poder.” Sourbut, “Philippi,” finds various helpful missiological and ministry models here. 700. On Luke’s usual reliability on major points, in addition to arguments in Keener, Acts, 1:51–319, and the many sources cited there (including Hengel and Hemer), some of it presented also in summary form in “Acts as Historiography,” see (too recent for inclusion in vol. 1) briefly Maier, “Historian.”

2374

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 78

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

release, and an account of Lydia’s conversion.701 More likely, however, Luke was an eyewitness to much of what is reported here, and received first- or secondhand reports of the rest immediately after it happened (see comment on Acts 16:10; cf. 16:40).702 Paul himself mentions miracles as well as beatings in his missionary work (Rom 15:18–19; 2 Cor 12:13; cf. Gal 3:5); a beating with rods (2 Cor 11:25); and public humiliation in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2). This was probably the account that “the Philippian church told about its own foundation.”703 An additional factor may support this verdict if my less-than-certain reconstruction of Luke’s audience is adopted. If my hypothesis that the church in Philippi was a central part of Luke’s ideal audience is correct, Luke would not have dared fabricate its foundation story (whatever perspectives he might have contributed). Nevertheless, it remains possible that, focusing on narrative action, Luke might condense the events of Paul’s sojourn (cf. “a given number of days,” 16:12; sojourn in a home, 16:15). a. Lydia and Her House Church (16:11–15) The first reported convert of the Macedonian mission (and hence Paul’s first reported convert in ancient “Europe,” if Luke has this geographic category in mind; see comment on Acts 16:8–9) was from Asia and already feared the God of Israel (Acts 16:14). Starting where the missionaries had points of contact was, however, good sense and would have been viewed as providential (as in 8:30). Ironically, it is persecution that will create the setting for Paul’s first reported Macedonian convert (16:28–34). i. From Troas to Neapolis (16:11)

Once certain of their new direction (16:10), the team sails to the island of Samothrace and on to Neapolis in Macedonia. Educated ancient audiences familiar with such sites and their rich historical and cultural associations may have appreciated Luke’s geographic details more than most modern audiences do. (1) Voyage to Macedonia

The geographical details would not be lost on the most informed elements of Luke’s audience.704 Whereas Luke mentions locations in passing, more detailed historians expanded on such locations and the light they shed on their account. Polybius recommended geographic digressions to prevent the narrative from being obscure to readers (Polyb. 1.41.6, introducing a digression in 1.42.1–7). Only such concrete “local descriptions,” including “landmarks, harbours, seas, and islands, . . . temples, mountains, and local names of districts, and finally differences of climate” (5.21.7–8 [LCL, 3:55]), could sufficiently acquaint hearers with locations mentioned (5.21.9). As noted, ancient readers may have found such travel reports, even in their more concise form, more interesting than would many modern readers. Letter writers remarked about their travels. Thus, for example, Cicero summarizes his recent travels, 701. Conzelmann, Acts, 133. Koester, Paul and World, 71–72, treats the exorcism story as legendary (“the common stock of stories” about Christian “miracle workers”), yet as will be evident from the excursus at Acts 16:16 (or more fully, my Miracles, appendix B, 788–856), eyewitnesses do report such experiences. 702. The “we” narrator was part of the group that stayed with Lydia (Acts 16:15) and thus would have surely heard the account. Indeed, because the “we” apparently remains in Philippi for several years further, the narrator probably would have known this initial story even had he not been present at the beginning. 703. Dunn, Acts, 220. 704. For other literature, cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc.

2375

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 79

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

including the number of days spent in each location; he complains about being unable to sail one day because of contrary winds (Att. 5.12).705 Travel was easier and more popular in the empire than in the centuries before or after it.706 Excepting winter (see comment on Acts 27:9), one could travel farther faster, hence less expensively, by ship than on land; the optimum speed by ship was a hundred miles per day whereas even mounted travelers by land traversed at most thirty miles in a normal day. Those who walked or who needed arrangements to rent means of transport might make fifteen to twenty miles a day.707 We can imagine that those who traveled would have much time for discussion; for Jews, this discussion would often involve Scripture.708 From a narrative perspective, however, Luke’s reports of earlier voyages may also foreshadow Paul’s fateful voyage in Acts 27;709 frequent travelers ran into storms sooner or later, and in Acts 27 Paul’s travel experience could not prevent his participation in a dangerous voyage. Why would the group sail from Troas? North of Cape Lectum, the Troad lacks a “good natural harbour” south of Troas. From an early period, the island of Tenedos, controlling the Dardanelles, proved strategic despite its poor harbor, but a sailor might have to wait there “for days or weeks” until winds changed. Tenedos is north of Alexandria Troas (though south of ancient Ilium).710 Alexandria Troas became prosperous in the centuries before Paul’s visit; its excellent artificial harbor offered the first adequate harbor close to the southern edge of the Hellespont—a secure shelter within a few miles of the mouth of the Hellespont.711 Ancient seafarers and other regular travelers had a highly sophisticated network of routes, organized according to season and weather. Two strategic routes crossed through Troas: the route from the region of Pontus on the Black Sea to Troas and then by sea to the west, and the imperial courier route from the west across Macedonia and then by sea to Troas. The sea route between Neapolis and Troas would have been among the busiest.712 If Troas was difficult for Paul’s companions to reach from Phrygia, their coming here may have suggested an interest from the start in moving westward, once they could have divine guidance (Acts 16:9–10). The travel time Luke reports in 16:11 is exceptional, probably suggesting a favorable wind and perhaps indicating that the time was now autumn.713 It was widely 705. Cf. Symm. Ep. 1.3.3; comment on Acts 20:13–16. If Luke was a physician (see the tentative discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:409–22, esp. 414–16), he undoubtedly approved the voyage; many doctors recommended long sea voyages for health (Casson, Travel, 130). 706. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 62–63. 707. Meeks, Urban Christians, 18 (following Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 258; Casson, Travel, 182–88); Jeffers, World, 37. The figures in Weeber, “Travels,” 871, are an optimum of 120 nautical miles per day by sea; 60–75 km. mounted; 30 and 40 km. for pedestrians. 708. See discussion of travel in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:582–89, esp. 589). Naval travelers might also hear songs along with the sea (cf., e.g., the rhythm for rowers in earlier rowing vessels, Ovid Tristia 4.1.7–10). 709. As elsewhere, noting a potential narrative connection is not meant to detract from Luke’s role as historian; virtually no one denies that Paul was a frequent traveler, including by sea (2 Cor 11:25). 710. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 87. 711. Ibid. It was begun through creating a basin 400 yards wide, then connected with the sea; Hemer notes further (87n27) that this harbor was the reason for this city’s founding. Ancients used natural harbors when they were available (Vitruv. Arch. 5.12.1), constructing artificial ones only when necessary (5.12.2); for the distinction, see also Libanius Descr. 8.2. 712. See Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 91–92. 713. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 186; Le Cornu, Acts, 876. Around the Hellespont, both southward currents and (for nine months of the year) winds blowing from the northeast would slow northward progress (Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 83–84, including 84n15). Presumably, Paul reaches Corinth in time to winter

2376

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 80

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

known that no ship from the Troad could reach southern Greece in a single night (Aeschylus Ag. 279–81); more relevantly, sailing directly across the Aegean (from Athens to Ephesus) took Cicero more than two weeks (Att. 5.12–13). The two days’ voyage to Macedonia in Acts 16:11 contrasts favorably with the five days’ voyage in the opposite direction in 20:6, when the spring winds were against the travelers.714 Readers understood that seasonal conditions and prevailing winds affected transport time; under the best sailing conditions, news could reach Alexandria from Rome in nine to twenty-five days, but poor weather could extend the trip to forty-five days, and news could take up to sixty-five days in winter.715 (2) Samothrace

The voyage from Troas to Neapolis was more than 150 miles. The island of Samothrace was the natural rest stop between Troas and Neapolis, being halfway between them.716 This location made its relationship with Troas a matter of occasional comment.717 Since passenger ships did not exist, passengers boarded any ships heading their direction;718 if Paul’s ship had business in Samothrace, his team might have switched ships in that busy harbor. But ships would more commonly have business in either the Troad or Macedonia, and so this ship probably merely harbored for the night; it was safer to anchor for the night than to remain at sea.719 Although the island of Imbros720 was nearer than Samothrace on the voyage, the latter was much more visible with its landmark high mountain toward the island’s center, Mount Fengari, also known as Mount Saos, well over five thousand feet (more than 1,600 m.) high, the Aegean’s highest peak.721 Those in Luke’s audience who had heard of the island probably knew something of the mountain’s high elevation (cf. Strabo 7, frg. 50a). Samothrace was well known, as was its proximity to Macedonia and Thrace (2.5.21; 7, frg. 47). It was also known for its wealth; in earlier times, Cilician pirates stole more than a thousand talents from its temple (2.7, frg. 50a).722 The island comprises sixty-nine square miles (178 sq. km.), with agricultural land but also many hills bearing more shrubs than trees.723 there (taking his stay in Philippi as much shorter than the year estimate in Jewett, Chronology, 59–61; others concur that Luke condenses Paul’s stay in Philippi, e.g., Koester, Paul and World, 71). Pervo, Acts, 401, notes that people viewed smooth voyages as “good portents”; this might also explain the slower voyage in Acts 20:6. Nevertheless, much of Paul’s reception in Macedonia is hostile, and seasonal winds explain the latter delay historically (and the entire “we” section offers a detailed itinerary). 714. E.g., Riesner, Early Period, 316; cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 186; Bruce, Commentary, 329; Witherington, Acts, 488. 715. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 379; Riesner, Early Period, 315 (citing the lower figures). 716. Commentators cite Livy 44.45 (who also allows for a day’s travel there); Pliny E. N.H. 4.23; see also Tac. Ann. 2.54. For more on Samothrace, see Lehmann and Lehmann, Samothrace: Excavations (including Lewis, Literary Sources); more briefly Fant and Reddish, Sites, 125–32; Külzer, “Geography”; Tsochos, “Religion”; Thorsen, “Samothrace.” 717. Thus it was said that the Trojans learned Samothracian Mysteries (Strabo 7, frg. 49). Several commentators point out Homer’s claim that Poseidon could view Troy from this peak (Hom. Il. 13.12). 718. Casson, Mariners, 209; see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 7.6 (where Dio is the only passenger in a fishing boat). 719. Cf. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 127. McRay, Archaeology, 281, also thinks the same ship likely for the entire voyage. 720. Athenians used this island for travel to the Hellespont, and it was under Athenian control in this period (Shipley, “Imbros”). 721. Most commentators (Abbott, Acts, 176; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 186; Bruce, Acts 1, 312; idem, Commentary, 329; Carter and Earle, Acts, 231; Longenecker, Acts, 255; Larkin, Acts, 234; Fitzmyer, Acts, 583; Witherington, Acts, 487n70). 722. Some claimed that the island was once called Μελίτη, Melite, because of its wealth (Strabo 7, frg. 50a; 10.3.19), but this would not be widely enough known to imply a connection with the island of that name in Acts 28:1. 723. McRay, Archaeology, 280.

2377

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 81

6/18/14 10:22 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The city of Samothrace, on the northern coast of the island that shared its name, was a free city.724 Its site is now called Palaeopolis, the “old city.”725 Ancients would not have used the modern harbor; ruins show that the old harbor was near the ancient sanctuary.726 Paul’s ship would thus have harbored on the north of the island, facing Macedonia. Harbors often included religious monuments,727 and given the proximity to the temple, some signs of veneration may have been visible in the harbor when Paul visited, although he may have arrived late in the day. Paul would have been voyaging before winter, when Samothrace endured heavy rain and snowfall, and hence he could have been visiting when the famous Mysteries were at their height.728 Samothrace was especially and widely known as a “sacred” island (Livy 45.5.3–8, 11–12), discussed for its famous sacrifices to Demeter and Core (Strabo 4.4.6) and especially its Mysteries.729 The cult of the Cabiri offered its initiates “protection, moral improvement, and the promise of immortality.”730 The precise identity of the Cabiri was debated, some identifying them with the Corybantes and Curetes and others (Strabo 7, frg. 50), though the Corybantes were most common (10.3.19, 21).731 Others associated them with Dionysiac frenzy, given their shared titles for cult attendants (10.3.7). The cult had two stages of initiation and conducted its activities at night.732 Although some scholars doubt whether we can know if Paul’s companions went ashore that night,733 it seems likelier that the group slept in the harbor during their probable nocturnal visit.734 If passengers were allowed to go ashore and if it was not already too late, some others might have desired to visit the sanctuary. The rites attracted many visitors and were conducted at various times of the year, though probably no major festival was occurring at a given time of the ship’s passage. The sanctuary was close to 724. Fitzmyer, Acts, 583; see Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.73. 725. McRay, Archaeology, 280. 726. Ibid. 727. Höckmann, “Harbours,” 1138, citing Jos. War 1.413 and noting the Helios Colossus of Rhodes. On that Colossus, see Polyb. 5.88.1; Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.41; Statius Silv. 1.1.104; Paus. 1.18.6; Lucian Z. Rants 11; Hist. 24; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21; cf. Lucian Affairs 7; for prior, more general usage, see Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.39–47; 34.19.78; Dickie, “Kolossos.” 728. McRay, Archaeology, 281, suggesting fall of 49 c.e. 729. Strabo 7, frg. 49; Val. Flacc. 2.439–40; Vell. Paterc. 1.9.4–5 (a suppliant in the temple); Plut. Alex. 2.1; Tac. Ann. 2.54; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.43; 6.20; Athenag. Plea 4; see further Cole, Theoi megaloi, passim; briefly, Tsochos, “Religion” (esp. for the myths; pp. 940–41 note the presence of Mysteries before the cult of the Cabiri); McRay, Archaeology, 279–80. The cult appears throughout the northern Aegean (Schachter, “Cabiri”) and may have even interacted with later Christianity in Philippi (cf. Verhoef, “Syncretism”). Cf. the Hellenistic head of Cybele found on Samothrace, related to this cult (Welch, “Statue Head”); apparently, earth (identifiable with Cybele) and sky represented Great Gods, the male and female principles (Varro L.L. 5.10.58). 730. Borza, “Samothrace.” 731. The identification, in Hippol. Ref. 5.3, of both naked statues in the Samothrace temple as the single primal man probably responds to a later gnostic interpretation. 732. Gill, “Religion,” 90–91. Night initiations were common in various Mysteries, as often noted (Ramsay, Teaching, 294; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 8; Klauck, Context, 86); see, e.g., Hdn. 3.8.9; Lucian Peregr. 28; Alex. 39–40; Philost. Hrk. 52.3, 10, 17 (common enough for obviously figurative uses, Eurip. Hipp. 106; Apul. Metam. 11.21; Heliod. Eth. 6.15; Hippol. Ref. 1.proem); for Eleusis, see, e.g., Cic. Leg. 2.14.35; Mylonas, Eleusis, 243–85, passim (for torchbearers, Epict. Diatr. 3.21.13; Lucian Lexiphanes 10; Downward Journey 22; Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2.1.4); for Osiris, Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53 (citing Plut. Isis 39, Mor. 366F); for Dionysus, see, e.g., Livy 39.8.4; 39.12.4; 39.14.4; Ovid Metam. 6.587–89; Val. Max. 1.3.1; Men. Rhet. 2.7, 410.23–25; Koester, Introduction, 1:364; Klauck, Context, 116. 733. McRay, Archaeology, 279. 734. Religious scruples aside, it would have made little sense to look for accommodations on land (with the ship probably leaving in the morning) unless someone was very seasick.

2378

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 82

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the northern coast735 and, as already noted, close to the harbor.736 Those who argue that the Cabiri of Samothrace (unlike elsewhere) protected only sailors tend to identify them with the Dioscuri737 (on which see comment on Acts 28:11). Initiation lists, however, reveal a number of slaves738 as well as citizens and freedpersons.739 Unlike some other Mysteries, these could be attended by anyone.740 Probably most of Luke’s informed audience, and Luke himself, knew of Samothrace in connection with the famous mystery cult of the Cabiri. As Judean residents for much of their lives, Paul and Silas would be less likely to know of the cult than Luke, but given the voyage’s length, they may well have heard observations about it from fellow voyagers; even sages and their disciples might make the various renowned islands on their itinerary a common topic of conversation on the voyage (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.15). Even for Luke, however, the known cults on the island are beside the point; the group had simply undertaken the standard route for their voyage. (3) Neapolis

As commentators regularly point out, Neapolis stood on the Via Egnatia, a road built during the Roman Republic (starting in 146 b.c.e.). This road proceeded westward through Philippi to Apollonia, and then (following the older route from Apollonia) to Dyrrhachium (modern Durrës or Durazzo, in what is now Albania) on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, from which travelers could voyage by ship to Rome. 741 (The paved road from Troas northward to Lampsacus742 became the eastern end of the Via Egnatia, connecting across the Hellespont with Thrace.743 The sea voyage to Neapolis, however, abbreviated the journey.) Although it began as a local road, it became a major link between Italy and Asia Minor in the Roman period.744 Many scholars believe that by starting on the Via Egnatia, Paul was already signaling his interest in Rome.745 Certainly most of Paul’s subsequent journey as far as Thessalonica remains on this road: Philippi (Acts 16:12, 40), Amphipolis and Apollonia (17:1), and Thessalonica (17:1). Only at Beroea does Paul depart from it.746 It was the best westward land route from Philippi available, and so even if he had planned to head south into Achaia afterward (instead of heading toward Rome), the route makes sense. Ancient itineraries provide distances between stops along the Via Egnatia, which correspond well with descriptions in Acts; from Neapolis to Philippi, it 735. Borza, “Samothrace.” 736. McRay, Archaeology, 280. Those who entered the sanctuary, west of the city, would pass through a marble gateway; many banquet halls were attached to the sanctuary (ibid.). 737. Graf, “Cabiri,” 863–64 (addressing other cult locations, 861–63); their assimilation may be more prominent later. See, e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.58. 738. Cole, Theoi megaloi, 38. 739. Ibid., 42 (noting that about twice as many Greeks as Romans were initiated). 740. McRay, Archaeology, 279. 741. On Dyrrhachium’s history, see, e.g., Cary and Hammond, “Dyrrhachium.” 742. On Lampsacus, see Schwertheim, “Lampsacus” (citing Strabo 13.1.18–19; Ptolemy Geog. 5.2.2); Wormell and Mitchell, “Lampsacus.” 743. French, “Roads,” 54; see further McRay, Archaeology, 282–83. Commentators generally claim Neapolis as the eastern end of the road (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 187; C. Williams, Acts, 193; Bruce, Commentary, 329–30), but these variations, in addition to depending on what one counts as the road in what period, reflect the practical question of whether to count the side across the water. 744. Hammond, “Western Part of Via Egnatia”; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:284. 745. E.g., Bornkamm, Experience, 15. 746. The historical Paul may have proceeded even farther than this, since he claims that he preached (presumably in person, but that the preaching was through a surrogate is possible) in Illyricum (Rom 15:19), “a province at the western end of the Via Egnatia even more thoroughly latinized than Philippi and Corinth” (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 155).

2379

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 83

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

was twelve miles, and from Philippi to Amphipolis, it was thirty-three miles.747 Parts of the gate on this road through which the missionaries must have entered Philippi from Neapolis remain.748 Neapolis (more accurately, Nea Polis),749 or modern Kavalla, existed by the sixth century b.c.e., losing its autonomy to become Philippi’s port under Macedonian rule.750 It was apparently a frequent destination from Troas,751 presumably especially because it afforded an overland journey toward Rome (Ign. Poly. 8.1).752 It marked the end of the Strymonic Gulf, on the north of the Aegean Sea (Strabo 7, frg. 32), and lay along the seaboard of the Strymon (7, frg. 36). Kavalla remains the best port on Macedonia’s southern coast today next to Thessaloníki (Thessalonica) and is safer even than Thessaloníki “for sailing boats.”753 Although the city lay on the shipping route between Asia Minor and the significant Macedonian port of Thessalonica (see comment on Acts 17:1)754 and hence sea transport to Thessalonica would have been simple to find, the group heads inland to Philippi instead (and only afterward to Thessalonica, by land). This suggests that Philippi was a destination of choice; they probably did not choose it just to save travel fare. ii. Philippi (16:12)

The vision specified only Macedonia (Acts 16:9), but the first strategic location in Macedonia was Philippi, which, like Troas, was a Roman colony and hence a visible part of the empire in whose heart the book of Acts will conclude. But Philippi, unlike other colonies in Acts, is specifically labeled a “colony” (16:12), underlining local patriotism and setting the stage for the debate over Roman identity that will follow (16:20–21, 37–38).755 (1) Philippi’s Prosperity and Past

Paul focused on the most influential urban centers on his route, of which Philippi was one. The city was on a hill, with woods to the north, marsh on the south as far as the sea, gorges on the east, and fertile plain on the west, with the river Strymon about 350 stadia distant across the plain (Appian Bell. civ. 4.13.105).756 Philippi proper, with a wall circumference of just two miles (3.4 km.), covered “only 167 acres (68 hectares),” with five to ten thousand residents;757 unlike other towns Paul targeted, Philippi was a center more of agriculture than of commerce.758 Nevertheless, many argue that it was the most prosperous city of the district, surpassing even Amphipolis, 747. Gill, “Macedonia,” 410. Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates ten miles (16 km.) from Neapolis to Philippi. 748. McDonald, “Philippi,” 788. 749. Both the earliest textual evidence and classical usage favor the use of two words here (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 444). The city title was, naturally, not uncommon (the most prominent bearer was the Neapolis that became modern Naples; Lomas, “Neapolis”; e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.2; 2.76.2). 750. Bredow, “Neapolis.” 751. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 384. 752. Thasos founded the city as its colony in the seventh century b.c.e. (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 83). Further on Neapolis (modern Kavalla), see ibid., 83–85; Gempf, “Neapolis.” 753. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 187. 754. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 83. 755. Barreto, Negotiations, 131. 756. Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.29 says that the Strymon flows from Mount Haemus, constitutes Macedonia’s border, and spills into seven lakes along the way. 757. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 65 (noting that the population included “Thracians, Greeks, Macedonians and Romans”); Schnabel, Missionary, 92 (following esp. Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:76). The figure may be higher; Ascough, Lydia, 25–26, suggests as many as fifteen thousand residents, of whom a minority were citizens. All these estimates belong to the same order of magnitude. 758. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46.

2380

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 84

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the district’s capital since 167 b.c.e.759 Some suggest that Amphipolis (Acts 17:1), a Macedonian city once in decline but now flourishing again, would have proved more strategic, and that it was in fact the destination of Paul’s ship that determined Paul’s prior mission in Philippi.760 In any case, Philippi, too, would be useful, not least (at least from the standpoint of Luke’s Tendenz) as a preparation for Rome. Gold mines near Mount Pangaeum also contributed to the city’s wealth (Strabo 7, frg. 34); Philippi’s gold mines also produced gems (Pliny E. N.H. 37.15.57). 761 Apart from a few individuals, however (cf. Lydia in Acts 16:14), the Macedonian church was relatively poor (2 Cor 8:2).762 Although this might stem partly from public intimidation, particularly effective on members of society concerned about their status (Phil 1:28; 1 Thess 2:2), poverty was widespread in Macedonia.763 As in most urban settings, the disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest residents would have been significant. Although less ancient than cities such as Troas or even Athens, Philippi was rich with pagan religious connections.764 In one version of mythology, Hades raped Persephone in the plain west of the city (Appian Bell. civ. 4.13.105); a hill near Philippi was named the Hill of Dionysus (4.13.106). Associations there included groups devoted not only to the emperor but also to Asiatic Cybele and Dionysus and to a Thracian deity.765 (2) Philippi and Rome

Philippi was more commonly known, however, for the decisive battle there where Cassius (Val. Max. 1.8.8) and Brutus (1.7.1; Suet. Aug. 13.1) were defeated in 42 b.c.e. (i.e., less than a century before Paul’s first visit); poets of the Augustan era remembered it as the place where Julius Caesar’s murder was avenged (Ovid Fasti 3.707–8).766 Philippi had been a smaller settlement, but after the battle of 42 b.c.e., Rome enlarged it (Strabo 7, frg. 41).767 Its strategic significance in the history of the empire made it a natural evangelistic step for one being prepared to reach Rome.768 Philippi was a Roman colony (Acts 16:12). Three towns in Macedonia were “free cities” (Thessalonica, Amphipolis, and Scotusa), but four held the even more extensive privilege of being Roman colonies—namely, Philippi, Cassandreia, Dion, and Pella.769 Marc Antony had founded a colony of veterans in Philippi after 42 b.c.e., but Octavian 759. Witherington, Acts, 488. 760. Schnabel, Missionary, 271. His observation about Philippi’s devotion to the imperial cult may be less relevant, given the pervasiveness of paganism in the Gentile world. 761. Despite the wealth from these mines, however (cf. figures in Diod. Sic. 16.8.6), Philippi’s local economy was apparently more agrarian (Errington, “Philippi,” 23). 762. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 376–77; Scott, Corinthians, 175; Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 219; Strachan, Second Corinthians, 133. But their “poverty” does fit the purpose of Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians there (cf. also Meeks, Urban Christians, 66). 763. Betz, Corinthians, 43, citing inscriptions. 764. On Philippi, see further Hendrix, “Philippi,” and sources cited there; Oakes, Philippians, 1–76; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 100–110; Blaiklock, Cities, 39–44; Ascough, “Recent Studies”; Schnabel, Mission, 1151–53. 765. Beare, Philippians, 9. 766. On this war, see Charlesworth, “Avenging,” 22–25; Vell. Paterc. 2.70.1. Many praised the valor of Cassius and Brutus, though this could be fatal under paranoid Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 4.34–35, noting this battle in 4.35). After the “battle of Philippi,” Marc Antony and Cleopatra withdrew to Asia (Strabo 17.1.11). 767. It was still not large by urban standards, not more than 600–800 m. from wall to wall on the east-west axis (Meeks, Urban Christians, 46). 768. For more detailed information on Philippi, see, e.g., Collart, Philippes; Elliger, Paulus in Griechenland, 23–77. 769. Gill, “Macedonia,” 405 (noting that Pella received treatment equal to communities in Italy, of which it was a legal part under the ius italicum; most commentators also assign this right to Philippi; Fitzmyer, Acts, 584; Witherington, Acts, 488).

2381

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 85

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

settled more there in 31 b.c.e., along with Antony’s supporters now excluded from Italy; Octavian named it Colonia Iulia Augusta Philippensis.770 Its “freedom” included both self-government and exemption from poll and land taxes.771 Colonies were legal extensions of Rome itself; more common in the western empire than in the east, in the latter they originally consisted especially of veteran settlements in the early empire.772 That Luke mentions specifically that Philippi was a colony (16:12) seems significant for his understanding of the city’s identity; he does not provide this explicit note for other colonies in his narrative, such as Pisidian Antioch. The term appears only here in the nt and is rare in Greek literature, being a transliteration of the Latin colonia.773 This information may appear because of his special interest in this city (16:12–40), where he himself apparently remained for the better part of a decade (20:6).774 It may, however, invite mention because of Philippi’s notable romanization. Their citizenship was a matter of central importance to the local Christians who were Philippian, hence Roman, citizens; Paul’s fate thus had implications for theirs (Phil 1:7, 29–30), and they understood what it meant to be citizens of a place where they had never lived (3:20).775 For Luke, it is relevant to the treatment accorded Paul and Silas: as officials of a Roman colony concerned with Roman citizenship (Acts 16:21), the magistrates will be horrified to discover that the missionaries are, indeed, Roman citizens (16:37–38). Many Romans settled there after Rome defeated Macedon in 167 b.c.e.776 Its epigraphy is primarily Latin; less than 15 percent of the more than four hundred inscriptions studied there are in Greek, and some of these may date from before its founding as a colony.777 By contrast, only 41 percent of Pisidian Antioch’s inscriptions are in Latin, roughly half the percentage in Philippi.778 Coins also were in Latin, and political and juridical systems followed the Roman model. Nevertheless, the architecture and art included many more Greek elements, and many Greeks lived there.779 Paul thus probably appeals especially to the Greek-speaking elements (such as, presumably, Lydia from Greek-speaking urban Asia);780 moreover, the jailer and the officials undoubtedly knew Greek whereas Paul was probably not yet strong in Latin despite his citizenship. (3) A “First” City

Luke’s description of the city as a “first” of the “district” has generated some confusion and considerable comment. Amphipolis was technically the first city of the district in which Philippi was situated,781 as presumably even Philippians recognized. To the well-attested reading “first city of the district” (the feminine adjective can 770. Fitzmyer, Acts, 584. For this title on its coins, see Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 187, and numismatic and epigraphic material cited there. 771. Fitzmyer, Acts, 584; Witherington, Acts, 488; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 19. 772. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 27; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 32; O’Rourke, “Law,” 175. Veteran colonies were discontinued in the early empire after Philippi’s founding as a colony. 773. Tajra, Trial, 5. 774. Cf. Carter and Earle, Acts, 232. 775. Ascough, Lydia, 25–26, estimates that roughly 30 percent of the population, about 4,200 out of 15,000 residents, were citizens of Philippi, hence Roman citizens. Hellerman, “Servants,” 88, similarly suggests perhaps 40 percent. Romanization nevertheless must have shaped much of Philippian life; for romanization as (in postcolonial terms) hybridization, see Stanley, “Hybrid,” 112. 776. Fitzmyer, Acts, 584 (citing Appian Bell. civ. 4.13.105–4.17.131; Dio Cass. 47.42–49). 777. Meeks, Urban Christians, 45, citing Levick, Roman Colonies, 161. 778. Meeks, Urban Christians, 45, citing Levick, Roman Colonies, 161. 779. Tajra, Trial, 6–7. 780. The πολίτευμα included noncitizens with some citizen rights, in contrast to the δῆμος, the body of full citizens (Meeks, Urban Christians, 36). 781. Gill, “Macedonia,” 411n85.

2382

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 86

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

refer to “city”), many scholars prefer to read conjecturally, “a city of the first district” (also feminine).782 Philippi did belong to the eastern, “first,” of Macedonia’s four μερίδες, or districts.783 The textual evidence, however, seems to render this reading questionable unless we think that either Luke wrote it wrongly (unlikely given his apparent continued association with Philippi) or early scribes misunderstood and “corrected” him. Some argue that this was simply the “first” city of Macedonia to which the missionaries came; this interpretation is possible if we count Neapolis as Thracian784 but seems too forced. Finally and more significantly, Luke omits the definite article (hence possibly “a first city”), and “first” was an honorary title, applied more broadly than to capitals alone.785 Thus Dio Chrysostom speaks of “leading” (πρώταις) cities (Or. 43.1).786 (In this case, we might also read μερίδος more broadly as simply “part” rather than technically “district.”)787 It is readily conceivable that Luke felt that Philippi warranted such a title, and he may have even appealed to its civic pride (cf. Acts 21:39), especially if, as suggested in the introduction,788 Luke not only lived for several years in Philippi but viewed the still mainly Greek-speaking church there as the heart of his ideal audience.789 As Dio told Apamea in Phrygia, your city “is inferior to none of the first rank [τῶν πρώτων]” (Or. 35.13). As a colony, Philippi was automatically superior in rank to Amphipolis, regardless of size.790 On the narrative level, highlighting Philippi’s distinctive status (since it is the only Roman colony that Acts specifically calls a colony) prepares for the patriotic backlash against Paul and Silas in Acts 16:20–21.791 iii. Finding the Sabbath Meeting (16:13)

If Paul and his colleagues were to start with the Jewish community as previously (Acts 13:5, 14), they would have to find it first. They would quickly learn that no 782. Lemerle, Philippes, 21n1 (noting that the suggestion predates Blass; in Festugière, “Lemerle,” 132); Metzger, Textual Commentary, 445–46, noting the majority of the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament; McRay, Archaeology, 284. Metzger himself seems right to demur, preferring simply “a leading city of the district of Macedonia” (Textual Commentary, 446; see also Ascough, “Civic Pride at Philippi”). 783. Livy 45.29; Hemer, Acts in History, 113; Bruce, Acts1, 313; Gill, “Macedonia,” 411; more tentatively here, Conzelmann, Acts, 130; cf. Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56. 784. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 152 (as one view, the other being its eminence). 785. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 130; Campbell, “We” Passages, 95; Peterson, Acts, 459–60. Certainly, Philippi was prominent (see, e.g., the summary in Reicke, Era, 231). 786. Various cities might compete for “primacy” (πρωτείων, Dio Chrys. Or. 38.24, where Nicaea held the honor but Nicomedia was striving for it; Dio questions the honor’s value, 38.29–30), i.e., to be a province’s chief city. 787. See Witherington, Acts, 489; for papyri showing that Macedonian colonists employed the term μερίς this way, see Yamauchi, Stones, 115. By this period, Macedonia’s four “districts” remained significant only for judicial purposes (Errington, “Macedonia,” 65). Since Philippi counted as Roman, its geographic placement in a technical “district” was less consequential to its status, in any case. 788. See Keener, Acts, 1:431–32. 789. Witherington, Acts, 489, suggests that Luke praises the city according to standard rhetorical convention (Men. Rhet. 2, 369.17–370.10; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.17–18, 21). Since such praise appears elsewhere only for Paul’s hometown of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), Witherington suggests with Ramsay that it might be Luke’s hometown (Acts, 489); see more fully for a form of this view Ascough, “Civic Pride at Philippi” (noting how common civic pride was; see also comment on Acts 21:39); idem, Lydia, 22 (viewing the Philippian “we” author’s civic pride as surmounting technical accuracy). This position is plausible, whether Luke originated there or merely resided there for many years. 790. Witherington, Acts, 490; cf. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 421 (not the capital but a leading town and colony). Still, Philippi was nothing to boast about compared with major cities such as Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome (Chrys. Hom. Acts 35); it was en route from Troas to the west, however, and Paul surely founded a church there (Phil 1:5, 30; 4:3, 15–16; 1 Thess 2:2). 791. See Gaventa, Acts, 236; Barreto, Negotiations, 127–30, 132, esp. 127.

2383

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 87

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

synagogue existed in the city, but they may have heard that some people practiced Jewish customs outside the city (apparently not common here; cf. 16:20–21). The most natural day for Jews or God-fearers to congregate was the Sabbath. Josephus claims that Moses commanded people to assemble every Sabbath to hear and learn the law (Ag. Ap. 2.175). The missionaries’ teaching on the Sabbath was for strategic reasons, but Luke may record it also for the parallel with Jesus, who often taught on Sabbaths (Luke 4:16, 31; 6:6; 13:10).792 (1) Locating the Gathering

In addition to knowing when to find God-fearers gathering, Paul and his companions also had some idea where to look for a gathering. Foreign cults that lacked critical mass to be established in a locale often were excluded from the city proper; thus, if the missionaries heard nothing of Jewish meetings inside the city, it made sense to look “outside the gate.”793 The Via Egnatia led from Neapolis, on the sea, across Mount Symbolum and through Philippi, crossing the river Gangites just more than a mile west of the city. It exited Philippi through a “colonial archway,” probably the “gate” to which Luke refers.794 Perhaps local restrictions or anti-Judaism (Acts 16:20–21) made any attempt at organized Jewish practice within the city, or any systematic settlement large enough to support orthodox practice, “not worth their while.”795 Many Judean teachers would have considered a town with such little Jewish practice (and hence insufficient critical mass to sustain orthodox food customs and so forth) inappropriate for Jewish settlers. Some Tannaim, for example, emphasized living where the law was studied (m. ʾAb. 6:9) or where at least ten male household heads lived.796 Later rabbis debated how many Jews needed to be present for God’s presence to be among them; for prayer, many supported a minyan of ten, though God’s presence was available for smaller numbers studying Torah (b. Ber. 6a).797 Even if the arrangement was not completely orthodox, even Tannaim would allow some tolerance for proselytes living in the Diaspora (t. Šabb. 8:5), and Jews would naturally allow still more for God-fearers. Archaeological evidence does show an increase in foreign (especially Egyptian) cults, which may have provoked some resentment among local Roman citizens, proud of and eager to assert the colony’s Roman identity (see comment on Acts 16:20–21); most of the deities worshiped locally were Roman, including the emperor.798 Probably because there was no conventional synagogue in Philippi, whether as a special building or in a house (see comment below),799 the missionaries heard or (as the language here might support) surmised that if any people were practicing 792. It is probably also implied in Luke 14:1, as in the parallel in Mark 3:1–2. One might invite a rabbi for dinner (ʾAbot R. Nat. 11, §27 B; y. Ter. 8:7, §6; Urbach, Sages, 1:434), and naturally a visiting one after a synagogue meeting (cf. Jeremias, Parables, 126), though also other guests, especially the poor, might be invited to dine on Sabbath eve (Koenig, Hospitality, 16). 793. Witherington, Acts, 490. Contrast their previous experience with “gates” and religion in 14:13. 794. Carter in Carter and Earle, Acts, 233. 795. Judge, Pattern, 67. 796. This sufficed for a congregation (m. Sanh. 1:6), and God’s presence would be available for this number (m. ʾAb. 3:6). 797. For the quorum of ten, see, e.g., b. Ber. 6ab; Meg. 23b; y. Meg. 4:4, §5; cf. Reicke, Era, 121; 1QS VI, 3, 6; perhaps CD XIII, 1–2; m. ʾAb. 3:6. Le Cornu, Acts, 688, says that women could count for the quorum. 798. Klauck, Magic, 64. 799. There was a Jewish presence in Macedonia at least later (see sources in Stern, “Diaspora,” 160n1), and eventually even Jewish graves (attested two to three centuries after Paul) and a late third- to early fourthcentury synagogue in Philippi (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 102); but we lack concrete evidence concerning this period. See comment on Acts 17:10–12.

2384

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 88

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Jewish ways, the best place to discover them would be near a body of flowing water.800 Some Diaspora synagogues were near water;801 archaeologists found a large basin at the synagogue in Priene and a fountain in the massive Sardis synagogue’s forecourt.802 Josephus reports that synagogues near a seaside fit ancestral custom (Ant. 14.258). Some rabbis opined that God spoke in the Diaspora only in pure places near water (Mek. Pisha 1.64). (For a discussion of ancient holy-site theology, see the introduction, above, to Acts 7 [Keener, Acts, 2:1346–50].) Records reveal that two synagogues at Arsinoë in Egypt consumed about double the amount of water that the local baths did (CPJ 2:220–24, §434).803 When lacking access to their prayerhouses, Egyptian Jews met at the shore at dawn (Philo Flacc. 122). Pagans also often preferred wellwatered sites for their shrines,804 especially when ritual baths would be necessary.805 Water was important for rituals. Diaspora Judaism expected handwashing before prayer: “when they had washed their hands in the sea, as is the custom of all Jews, and had offered prayer to God” (Let. Aris. 305 [Hadas, 219]).806 Aseneth washed hands and feet when converting to Judaism (Jos. Asen. 14:12, 15); Judas and the army purified themselves before the Sabbath according to custom (2 Macc 12:38); Judith washed herself in a spring before prayer each night ( Jdt 12:7–8).807 Pagan practices may have influenced Diaspora, and after it Palestinian, Judaism in this regard. Handwashing before meals was a widespread custom (Mark 7:2–4; Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.3);808 Gentiles washed hands with water before prayer (Hom. Il. 9.171) and could also use river water for libations (Philost. Hrk. 53.9).809 Before sacrifices the participants washed their hands with spring or river water.810 The superstitious person might wash hands and sprinkle himself or herself before going out (Theophr. 800. See Dunn, Acts, 218–19. For preference for flowing over stagnant water for sacred purposes, when possible, cf., e.g., Eurip. Hypsipyle frg. 752h.29–32; m. Ter. 5:6; ʿEd. 1:3; 7:3–4; Mikw. 2:3ff.; 3:1–4; 4:1–5; 5:1–6; t. Mikw. 2; ʿEd. 1:3; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; Did. 7.1–2; see more fully Keener, John, 510. 801. Sanders, Judaism, 224; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 399–400. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 191, cite P.Tebt. 86 (second century b.c.e.) for a prayerhouse by the water but wrongly think that the Jewish “custom” is simply “a Christian guess” (cf. Tert. Fasting 16; Nat. 1.13). 802. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 259. See evidence cited in Sukenik, Synagogues, 49–50; the waters apparently for Diaspora visitors in Theodotus’s synagogue in Jerusalem (Deissmann, Light, 440, followed by Yamauchi, Stones, 113). 803. The CPJ editors allow that both purification and their function as boardinghouses may be reasons (CPJ 2:221; cf. CIJ 2:333, §1404). This water was pumped by a wheel (CPJ 2:220) and hence was not rainwater as in Judean regulations for a mikveh (see Keener, John, 510–11). This evidence is also cited by Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 191 (in P.Lond. 1177.57). 804. E.g., Polyb. 34.9.5. 805. Many temples and cults employed lustrations; see, e.g., “Temple Program” 285ff. (ANET 332); Epict. Diatr. 3.21.14; Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381D; Apul. Metam. 11.1; Wild, Water, 129–48; for fuller discussion, see Keener, John, 442–43. 806. Cf. Sib. Or. 3.591–93; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31; Jub. 21:16; m. Yad. 1:1–2:4; b. Bek. 30b, bar.; Ber. 11b; 15a; 60b; Exod. Rab. 22:3; Safrai, “Religion,” 830, citing Sipra Sh. 8; Sipra Mezora Zabim 6; m. Miqw. passim; before meals, y. Ber. 6:6, §1; cf. also b. Šabb. 39b, bar. The first-century “houses” debate in m. Ber. 8:2 presupposes a restricted form of handwashing by pouring. Cf. also the later Islamic custom before prayer in Qur’an 5.6. 807. Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 260. 808. Before prayer or other important purposes, e.g., Hom. Il. 6.266; 24.304–5; Od. 2.260–61; 12.336–37; Hesiod W.D. 724–26, 737–41; Lysias Or. 6.52, §§107–8; Virg. Aen. 2.717–20; for explicit reference to ritual and other water being poured over hands, e.g., Hom. Il. 9.174; 24.302–3; Od. 1.136–38; 3.338; 4.52–54, 216; 21.270. On handwashing, see also comment in Keener, John, 512; idem, Matthew, 409. 809. On libations, see Hom. Il. 1.462; 6.258–60; 9.175–77; Od. 2.431–32; 3.333–34; Hesiod W.D. 724; Eurip. Hyps. 118–19; Ap. Rhod. 1.435–36; Val. Max. 2.6.8; Pliny E. N.H. 14.23.119; Arrian Alex. 1.11.6; 6.3.2; Pliny Ep. 10.96.5; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.10; 5.10; Philost. Hrk. 1.6; 33.36; 53.9; 58.5. The image was familiar in Philippi (Phil 2:17). 810. Klauck, Context, 16.

2385

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 89

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Char. 16.2); handwashing could not wash away bloodguilt (Plut. Sulla 32.3; Matt 27:34). One could wash hands by having someone pour water over them.811 (2) Which River?

Commentators most often identify the river with the Gangites (also Angites), a tributary of the Strymon River. The Gangites was about one and a quarter miles, or 2.4 kilometers, west of the city, near a gate marking the pomerium’s boundary.812 The larger but more distant Strymon was better known, but on the view taken here of Luke’s ideal audience, a large number of his hearers may be in this area and thus may also be familiar with the Gangites (or whatever body of water is in view). According to one myth, Heracles made the river Strymon unnavigable to punish it for lack of cooperation (Apollod. Bib. 2.5.10); in another, the Strymon was where Orpheus mourned his wife, Eurydice, in Thrace (Statius Silv. 5.1.3).813 Scholars have proposed three major locations. First, Paul Collart suggests the Gangites riverbank, “just west of a colonial arch,”814 which could sound like Luke’s “gate.” The arch was 10.77 meters high, and its opening 4.95 meters in width.815 Travelers could reach this site by the main road, since Appian (Hist. rom. 4.13.106) claimed that the Via Egnatia passed “through this arch near where the road forded the Gangites.”816 The major objection to this location is that the Gangites is approximately 1.5 miles (2.5 km.) from the city (3 km. = 1.9 mi. west of the forum)817—more than a Sabbath day’s journey from the city (i.e., beyond 2,000 cubits, or 880 m.; m. ʿErub. 4:3). This objection is far from fatal,818 but it has led to other proposals. Thus A. J. Festugière and Paul Lemerle propose the nearer “creek,” the Krenides, though it hardly qualifies as a “river.”819 In support of this site, the cool water of the Krenides flows near “the Krenides Gate in the city’s west wall,”820 easy walking distance from the middle of town.821 The pavement of a Roman road reaches the edge of the stream, and some Roman officials’ tomb monuments lay there, suggesting much use.822 Still, one might expect the women to select a site less in use (no one else observed their 811. 2 Kgs 3:11; Hom. Il. 9.174; Od. 1.136–38, 146; 2.260–61; 3.338; 4.52–54, 216; 12.336; 21.270; Apollod. Bib. 2.7.6; Athen. Deipn. 9.408CD. 812. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 190; Haenchen, Acts, 494; Bruce, Acts1, 313; Conzelmann, Acts, 130. 813. Although Greeks settled in the fertile Thracian areas around the Strymon centuries earlier (Plut. Cim. 7.1–3), much of its surroundings remained remote; a century after Paul, an emperor founded a Thracian city on the river (158 c.e.), but it seems to have faded back into obscurity as a village afterward (IGBulg 4.2263; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 29–30). 814. McRay, Archaeology, 286. 815. Ibid., 287. The Roman arch probably is from the first half of the first century (and hence was standing in Paul’s day), still visible in the nineteenth century (Finegan, Apostles, 103). 816. McRay, Archaeology, 286–87. 817. Finegan, Apostles, 103; McRay, Archaeology, 287. 818. Although Luke respects the tradition of such limits on the Sabbath in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12), Diaspora Jews and converts (and certainly God-fearers) may not have usually been so fastidious, and meeting by water may have been more important. That it was beyond a Sabbath day’s journey is probably not information that Luke would have volunteered, since Paul and Silas traveled as well. That they later met a diviner en route (16:16; the owners were Romans [16:21] and hence may have acted within the city walls) does not require us to suppose that they were close to the city, since Luke does not say how far they had advanced, when they encountered her, from where they were staying on that occasion. 819. Lemerle, Philippes, 133 (cited in Festugière, “Lemerle,” 133; Fitzmyer, Acts, 585). The semantic range of the term ποταμός includes “stream” (BDAG). 820. McRay, Archaeology, 287. 821. Finegan, Apostles, 103, says that it was “some 1,300 ft (400 m)” from the forum, along the Via Egnatia to the west gate; McRay, Archaeology, 287, says that the Krenides was “1 kilometer (about .5 mile) from the forum.” This could make the walk beyond the wall to the Krenides longer than that to the gate (depending on where they started) but not necessarily by much. 822. Finegan, Apostles, 103.

2386

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 90

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Sabbath), farther from public view. In favor of the site, locally the Krenides is called “the River of Lydia”823 (though this tradition could easily date to Philippi’s Christian period and stem from inference). Once reaching the Krenides, the Via Egnatia turns north and runs by the stream’s east side until passing a swamp, then crosses the stream to proceed west through Philippi’s plain to the large Gangites River.824 Third, some scholars propose a location to the east of the city, through the Neapolis Gate. Just outside this gate stands the bed of an older stream with a fourth-century church; just inside the gate stood another fourth-century church, dedicated to Paul. These churches may suggest recollection, in Constantine’s period, of Paul’s ministry here.825 Because Paul’s visit led immediately to the start of a church, the memory of the site may well have been preserved continuously if the first generation cared about preserving these details. But given our current limitations of evidence, the choice among these three alternatives is not a simple one. If forced to choose today, I would prefer the first alternative, the Gangites, but, given the breadth of the semantic range of ποταμός, only tentatively (with the Krenides as a second choice). A place of “prayer” (also in 16:16) could, as often in ancient sources, be a title for a synagogue (see extensive comment on Acts 1:14). That the missionaries expected to find a “place of prayer” (προσευχήν, Acts 16:13, 16; see comment on Acts 1:14) thus could mean that they anticipated finding a “synagogue.”826 This is not Luke’s usual term for synagogues, and Luke avoids his usual term for a synagogue (6:9; 9:2; 17:1, 10, 17),827 perhaps because those gathered and their setting might not constitute what one normally expected in a synagogue (e.g., apparently only women were gathered, 16:13). We would hardly expect to find a formal synagogue this far from the city proper (especially if we think of the Gangites) and belonging to a city that hosted only a few women practicing Judaism.828 Luke may use προσευχή to imply a regular gathering without specifying that they owned a building here.829 Whatever the term means, the group continues to start with Jewish gatherings (which again apparently influences where they will stop in 17:1) for both strategic and theological reasons (see comment on 13:5). Further, whatever the term means, it may be that the missionaries found less than what they had anticipated, given the use of νομίζω here (which in all other instances in Luke-Acts refers to a false supposition; Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:27; 17:29; 21:39).830 It remained a meeting place, however, even after some of the women became believers (Acts 16:16). 823. Ibid.; McRay, Archaeology, 287. 824. Finegan, Apostles, 103 (noting that this was the plain where Romans fought the battle of Philippi in 42 b.c.e.). 825. Ibid., 103–4; McRay, Archaeology, 287. The lack of baptistery may suggest that baptism was conducted in the stream, still flowing at that time (Finegan, Apostles, 104). 826. As in, e.g., Jos. Life 277; see discussion in Reimer, Women, 85–90; comment on Acts 1:14. For a synagogue here, see Munck, Acts, 161; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 191; Brooten, Women Leaders, 139–40 (who is right that women were not barred from synagogue services, but her other points are weaker); Reimer, Women, 83; Arnold, “Acts,” 371 (noting epigraphic evidence for a Philippian synagogue, but also that it is likely from the early third century). 827. Distinguishing this usage from Luke’s by attributing it to a source (Brooten, Women Leaders, 139–40) hardly works if, as I have argued, the “we” material is from Luke himself. 828. Conzelmann, Acts, 130; Bruce, Acts1, 314; Witherington, Acts, 491; Fitzmyer, Acts, 585; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 156. 829. A place near a river may not have been an ideal gathering place for women, including those who could buy property; Cicero lambasts the morality of a woman who procured land near where men bathed in the Tiber (Cael. 15.36). 830. The textual questions surrounding the verb and noun, however, are complex (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 447, for the questions; cf. Bruce, Acts3, 70).

2387

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 91

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

If they chose a more distant site (e.g., the Gangites), the walk to the site was likely at least pleasant. Athenaeus reported the natural beauty around Philippi; most areas in the empire had five- or twelve-petaled roses, but Philippi was said to have hundred-petaled roses, which Philippians acquired from Mount Pangaeus for their gardens (Deipn. 15.682B). iv. Speaking to Women (16:13)

Although the visionary invitation to Macedonia featured a Macedonian man (16:9), Paul and his colleagues find their first hearing among women, and the specified example among them is not Macedonian.831 Nevertheless, in faith the missionaries know what to do. When they found the place of prayer, Paul and Silas “sat down.” This was the appropriate posture for teachers, at least in Palestine (Luke 4:20),832 though perhaps also natural for the dynamics of a small group. Speaking with the women in a group would not have been considered inappropriate; women certainly attended synagogues,833 and we currently lack evidence that synagogues segregated them in this period.834 The verb λαλέω does not imply that the speakers were not evangelizing; it includes this sense in Acts, although it extends beyond it.835 In small groups, the discussion would be informal; even in large lectures, appropriate questions were accepted.836 Since “we” spoke, the interchange here was probably fairly conversational, the sort of dialogue one might expect in something like a smaller household setting.837 Although only Lydia is named, it is possible that one of Paul’s letters provides the names of two other women, who were co-laborers from early in his ministry there: Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2).838 Luke rarely reports names of converts (even the Philippian jailer remains anonymous), and he might have additional reason to avoid their names, even if the Philippian church is central to his ideal audience, if serious conflicts later arose among them (Phil 4:2–3) and persisted. (1) Women’s Status in Religion

For a much more thorough treatment—presupposed here—of women in antiquity, including on their valued roles in religion, see discussion in the introduction.839 The 831. Gaventa, Acts, 236. 832. See, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 18:5; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 45–46; Safrai, “Education,” 968; comment on Acts 13:14–15. 833. See esp. Brooten, Women Leaders, 140–41. 834. See Brooten, “Segregated”; idem, Women Leaders, 103–38; Safrai, “Segregated”; comment on Acts 1:14. 835. Chance, Acts, 283, rightly suggests that Luke’s audience would construe his message in light of Paul’s previous preaching in Acts and also that Luke’s lack of explicit elaboration here further underlines the elements of his narrative that are more explicit. 836. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.3; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 38.25–26; 4, p. 42.34–35; 16, p. 101.20–21; 17, p. 106.20– 21; Plut. Lect. 11, Mor. 43BC; Table 2.1.2, Mor. 630BC; Aul. Gel. 8.10; 12.5.4; 18.13.7–8; 20.10.1–6; Diog. Laert. 7.1.19; t. Sanh. 7:10; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A. In larger lectures, this was more polite after the discourse (e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.26.2; 16.6.1–12), but many were not hesitant to interrupt (Rhet. Alex. 18, 1432b.35–40; 1433a.14–18; Dio Chrys. Or. 15.26–32; Plut. Lect. 4, Mor. 39CD; Demosth. 6.3; 8.5; Cic. 16.3; Pliny Ep. 3.9.25; 3.20.3; 9.13.19; Lucian Dem. 14). 837. Luke usually employs the first person plural for travel rather than for another main action; we must thus take seriously his participation here (as also in 16:10). 838. Some have identified one of these women with Lydia (as the “Lydian woman”; Johnston, Ephesians, 46; Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 63; cf. Beare, Philippians, 144). One could also view these names as symbolic to avoid embarrassing the individuals; but the church would know who they were, and writers could provide names when exhorting reconciliation (cf. Cic. Att. 1.3; 1.5; 1.10). Their Greek names may suggest that they were merchants there (Meeks, Urban Christians, 57); even if neither was Lydia herself, they may have belonged to Lydia’s circle, perhaps to her original prayer group (Acts 16:13–14). As Paul’s fellow workers (Phil 4:3), they were likely converted early in Paul’s ministry there, which would fit this hypothesis, given the centrality of the prayer group in Paul’s ministry there (Acts 16:16a). 839. Keener, Acts, 1:597–638.

2388

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 92

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

women would normally be discussing Scripture together; it is likely that if a more trained Jewish teacher was present, they would defer to him (as a synagogue does in Acts 13:15). This might be all the more so because of gender, though even in more restrictive circles women could instruct other women.840 In mixed company, most ancients preferred men as teachers.841 Later rabbis thought that women should not read Torah842 (although we cannot know whether this reflects local or general practice).843 A later rabbi prohibited even hearing a woman’s voice (y. Ḥ al. 2:1, §10), though his view was certainly not representative. The cult of Isis allowed for women’s involvement, but even there men may have held higher roles and, outside Athens and Rome, typically outnumbered them.844 Prejudice against women’s participation was not at all thoroughgoing; different sectors of urban society held different views, and degrees of prejudice also differed according to the roles assigned.845 In Stoic ideals, daughters should receive the same education as sons (Mus. Ruf. 3–4).846 Thus the first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus points out that both genders have reason (3, p. 38.26–27) and that women and men both need to learn to live well (p. 40.6–7) and require management skills for their respective affairs (p. 40.10–12).847 He argues from nature that animal trainers train both male and female dogs and horses (4, p. 44.1–4) and opines that most work can be done by either men or women (p. 46.27–31),848 with virtue needed for all (3, pp. 40.17–42.11; 4, p. 46.31–37; 48.1–26).849 Women were apparently prominent in Pythagorean communities.850 Greek religion also praised women’s piety (Iambl. V.P. 11.55–56), and women’s petitions to the gods in troublesome times were noteworthy (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.39.1).851 Some rites, including in Rome, were specifically limited to women.852 Women also sometimes held priesthoods, since, like men, they could sometimes afford to pay for them,853 840. Cf., e.g., Jer 9:20; Titus 2:4; Clem. Alex. Strom. 3.53.3; for other activities with other women, see, e.g., Xen. Lac. 1.4; perhaps 4Q271 3 13–14 (if the reconstruction is accurate). Cf. modern Islamic custom in Pizzuto-Pomaco, “Shame,” 44. 841. See Keener, Acts, 1:629–37, esp. 634–37. In summarizing these characteristics of ancient Mediterranean culture, I hope that it can go without saying that I am reporting, not agreeing with, these convictions (see Keener, Paul, 70–132). 842. Le Cornu, Acts, 688, cites b. Meg. 23a. 843. Brooten, Women Leaders, 95, points out that we know little of women in the Greek Diaspora. She cites t. Meg. 4:11 (which forbids women to read in public) and m. Sukkah 3:10 (which “grudgingly allows” them to read the Hallel privately). 844. Kee, Origins, 91; Banks, Community, 129 (though cf. the reasonable warning that even epigraphic evidence is not free from male bias, in Matthews, Converts, 26). By comparison, however, the Samothracian Mysteries (see comment on Acts 16:11) had very few women initiates (Cole, Theoi megaloi, 42). 845. See, e.g., Cameron, “Neither Male nor Female,” 61. 846. Most other Stoics shared such convictions (cf. Lact. Div. Inst. 3.25). 847. Women would manage the household (Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.10–12; p. 42.27–28; 4, p. 44.14; cf. 1 Tim 5:14; Apul. Apol. 87). 848. Though men were more fitted by nature for hard labor and women for weaker activities such as spinning (Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 46.8–23), any of these works could be interchanged in some situations (46.23–31). 849. He does not insist that women should have technical philosophic knowledge, since they have fewer opportunities to use it (Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.21–23); he also expects them to fulfill their culturally assigned tasks (3, p. 42.16–17). 850. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 82 (citing [83–85] Ps.-Melissa Letter to Kleareta and Ps.-Theano Letter to Eubule). 851. Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 31, opines that women were more inclined to Hellenistic religious practices than were men; this inclination may, however, depend on the rites involved. For women’s religious involvement in classical Greece, see, e.g., Eurip. Melanippe 5–19. 852. E.g., Cic. Att. 1.12–13; Fam. 1.9.15; Plut. Cic. 19.3–4; 28.2; Caes. 10.1–3; Juv. Sat. 2.87–92. 853. See Pleket 13 in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 157, §159.

2389

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 93

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

though in this period these offices often provided honor for the benefactor and patronage to local communities rather than executive authority.854 Asian Jewish women855 sometimes held titles such as “ruler of the synagogue” (e.g., CIJ 2:10, §741, in Smyrna; 2:20, §756, in Caria).856 A wealthy proselyte sponsor could become “mother of a synagogue” (1:384, §523, in Rome). In some locations, we even read of women Jewish elders, though they were the minority (notably one woman each from Thrace and Crete, and several inscriptions from Venosa in Italy);857 some women were also synagogue rulers.858 Mishnaic restrictions on public religious activity859 do not reflect the social reality of all ancient Judaism. Early Judaism, like paganism and early Christianity, included a mixture of tendencies regarding gender.860 Women’s freedoms varied geographically,861 and in Macedonia they traditionally exercised more independence than in much of the empire, certainly more than in Greece;862 for example, Olympias, Alexander’s mother, was famous for her wit (e.g., Aul. Gel. 13.4). This must have been even more the case in Philippi with its Roman, as opposed to Greek, influence, since Roman women had been advancing in social and economic power in the early empire.863 This was also likely true in Macedonian religion.864 Women played a prominent role, including as priestesses, in the cult of Diana in Philippi865 (though this point is less significant, since Greek women in general often played prominent roles in cult).866 That Luke mentions women specifically in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts 17:4, 12) probably also points to their relative freedom and prominence in Macedonian religion.867 (2) Women and Judaism

Luke portrays Lydia and presumably the other women gathered on the Sabbath as at least interested in Judaism.868 In general, Roman women found non-Roman 854. Gardner, Women, 67–68. 855. This may be relevant to Lydia; although the text does not specify whether she became a God-fearer in Asia or in Macedonia, the larger number of Jews in the former makes it likelier there. 856. See esp. Brooten, Women Leaders, 5–33, although clearly they were the minority (and there were probably multiple people filling the role, p. 27); for ἀρχηγός, see 35–39; for mention of priestly families, 73–99. Frey speculates that the title was likely “purement honorifique” (CIJ 2:20); he also doubts that women ever filled the role of “archon” (1:lxxxix), but his skepticism is excessive. The Smyrna inscription appears also in Goodenough, Symbols, 80. 857. Brooten, Women Leaders, 41–55, esp. 44. 858. Ibid., 5–33. 859. See Wegner, Chattel, 146. 860. See Gundry-Volf, “Gender,” 186–88; Sirach was misogynist (188–94); Philo was patriarchal but allowed transcendence of gender through disembodiment (195–201); Joseph and Aseneth and Paul are more progressive voices, though still mixing elements (201–9). 861. Perhaps more in pastoral settings, such as in Longus Daphnis and Chloe; note their (second- and third-century c.e.) participation in the cult of Silvanus (Dorcey, “Women”). For similarities in antiquity despite regional variations, cf. Mullins, “Secular Roles.” 862. As is regularly acknowledged, e.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 58. See, e.g., Wiseman, “Macedonian Family.” 863. See Keener, Acts, 1:609, 622–23; cf. also Appian Hist. rom. 3.11.1; Mommsen, History, 548; Carcopino, Life, 84–85; Pomeroy, “Women in Egypt,” 318; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 130, 138; Meeks, Moral World, 62; Winter, Wives, 113, 123–24; Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 244–47. This stemmed especially from the growth of the sine manu marriage arrangements, in which the wife remained subject to her father (with whom she no longer lived) rather than to her husband (Verner, Household, 39). 864. Plut. Alex. 2.4–5 complained about Macedonian women’s addiction to Orphic rites and Dionysiac orgies (Pomeroy, Goddesses, 122), but Greek cults played a small role in Roman Philippi. 865. Abrahamsen, “Reliefs,” passim, esp. 108–30; idem, “Women at Philippi”; idem, “Rock Reliefs.” The Isis cult in Philippi proved especially tenacious through the fifth century c.e. (107). 866. Kearns, “Women in Cult.” 867. Carter and Earle, Acts, 233. 868. Ascough, Lydia, 88–90, tentatively suggests that Lydia, while devout, may not have worshiped Israel’s God before Luke’s redactional activity. But Luke is our only relevant source, and the setting of a Sabbath gathering seems clear enough in this source.

2390

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 94

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

religion more attractive than did Roman men,869 and Gentile women proved more attracted to Judaism than men were.870 This was, presumably, partly because women did not have to undergo circumcision871 but also because they were less bound by status obligations of household and civic cults. Thus Josephus claims that most Gentile women in Damascus were Jewish sympathizers (War 2.560–61).872 Josephus reports that a Jewish merchant eager to make converts in Adiabene started among women of King Izates’s household (Ant. 20.34) and only through them came to know the king and that another Jewish man had led the king’s mother into Judaism (20.35). Nero’s wife Poppaea was an influential Jewish sympathizer;873 Agrippa II also procured favor for the Jewish people through Nero’s mother, Agrippina.874 Five of seven proselytes in early Roman inscriptions are women;875 other locations, though not as dramatic, reflect the same trend. Whereas only 40 percent of tomb inscriptions concern women, they constitute 50 percent of the proselytes and 80 percent of the God-fearers in these inscriptions.876 On God-fearing women, see also comment on Acts 13:50; on God-fearers in general, see comment on Acts 10:2. It is only reasonable to suppose that the Christian message spread widely through women as well; although Celsus writes polemic,877 his accusation that Christianity spread through women is likely.878 Women, while going about their business, could talk in shops and homes to other women and children with probably very little interference from those who purported to control the culture.879 (3) Focusing on Women

Not everyone would have viewed favorably this practice of targeting women, at least if those winning converts belonged to a competing religion (cf. 2 Tim 3:6–7). Juvenal complains about women attracted to Eastern cults, including the Egyptian cult of Isis (Sat. 6.511–29) and Judaism (6.542–47).880 Opposition to women’s participation in Dionysiac Mysteries in republican Rome,881 to their susceptibility to a Jewish 869. See Matthews, Converts, 25. Roman literature generally portrayed women “as more susceptible to foreign influence” (McCoskey, Race, 163). 870. With Reimer, Women, 97–98; Heine, Women, 83–84; cf. already Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 18 (from Witherington). 871. More for physical reasons (with, e.g., Leon, Jews of Rome, 256) than the psychoanalytic ideas that some (e.g., Rubenstein, Paul, 70) have proposed. Given inscriptions using the feminine proselyta, which Kee acknowledges, his uncertainty whether women could become proselytes (because they could not be circumcised; Origins, 88) is unwarranted. 872. See Stern, “Diaspora,” 142. 873. Jos. Ant. 20.195; Life 16; Bailey, “Matriarchs,” 155–56; Williams, “Θεοσεβής.” She proved less helpful, though not deliberately so, in Jos. Ant. 20.252; on Poppaea as Nero’s mistress, see also, e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.13; for the report that Nero killed her, see Suet. Nero 35.3. 874. E.g., Jos. Ant. 20.135 (though Josephus dislikes Agrippina; see 20.151–52). 875. Leon, Jews of Rome, 256. 876. Riesner, Early Period, 351; similarly, Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 25. Proselyte inscriptions constitute only 1 percent of all Jewish inscriptions (Diaspora Setting, 25), but the sampling from diverse locations should be fairly representative. 877. Lieu, “Attraction,” suggests, indeed, that ancient claims emphasizing women converts to Christianity tell us more about rhetoric than statistics. But as noted above, hard statistics show more female than male God-fearers in Judaism, an even higher percentage than with proselytes (Riesner, Early Period, 351). 878. MacDonald, “Role of Women,” 184. 879. Ibid. 880. Often noted (e.g., Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 34). 881. Cf. Livy 39.8–19, esp. 39.18.9; Val. Max. 1.3.1. From at least the time of Euripides’s Bacchanals, many associated Dionysiac practice especially with women (Apollod. Bib. 2.2.2; Statius Theb. 7.649–51; 9.479–80; Lucian Sat. 8; Dion. 1–4; Peregr. 2; Philost. Elder Imag. 1.18; 2.17; Callistr. Descr. 2; Otto, Dionysus,

2391

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 95

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

scam artist during Tiberius’s reign,882 and to their potential exploitation through the Isis cult in the mid-first century883 made Romans wary of such cults undermining traditional Roman family values.884 (Romans had their own cults specially designed for women;885 it was not women’s involvement in religion as such but their participation in non-Roman religion that was problematic.) Some scholars suggest that a few women converts would not represent an impressive token of success for a first-century Jewish preacher.886 Although this may be true regarding the typical, expected ancient perception, Luke seems to delight in mentioning women converts (Acts 16:13; 17:4, 12)—again an acceptable practice if he wrote especially for Christians in the more gender-progressive region of Macedonia. Teaching women eager to learn appears also in Luke 10:38–42 (cf. 8:2–3; 23:49, 55).887 This is the more noteworthy when we consider the reaction against such “successes” in much high-status society. One element in Juvenal’s assault on Eastern cults was his suspicion that women proved particularly susceptible to them (Sat. 6.540–41, 548–50);888 a major element in Roman anti-Semitism was resentment over the success of Jewish proselytism, especially among Roman women.889 Women’s support of Pharisaism invited criticism of that movement.890 That popular preachers apparently appealed to women did not seem to bother these movements’ adherents (e.g., Paul Thec. 3.7), but it became a significant tool of criticism for their opponents (e.g., 2 Tim 3:6; Iren. Her. 1.13.1, 3–6), especially when the women were of high status (Iren. Her. 1.13.3).891 That apologists could positively cite high-status women supporters as favorable propaganda892 may suggest that whether they employed women’s support for or against a movement depended primarily on the prior perspective of those evaluating it! 142; Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 114–15; Klauck, Context, 120). In the Mysteries more generally, cf. Juv. Sat. 6.314–41; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 75–78; Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 114–17. 882. Jos. Ant. 18.81–84. 883. Jos. Ant. 18.66–80. For Roman mistrust, see, e.g., Val. Max. 1.3.4; 7.3.8; Juv. Sat. 6.489; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 223. But the Isis cult emphasized chastity (Apul. Metam. 11.19) and reinforced many domestic ideals (see, e.g., Horsley, Documents, 1:20, §2; cf. Heyob, Isis, 76, 80; Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 69–70). In a later period’s apologetic at least, they also supported Rome (Apul. Metam. 11.17). Even in the Isis cult, women remained a minority, though they constituted more than one-third of the adherents in Roman inscriptions (Heyob, Isis, 81–83). For the cult’s gradual acceptance, see Grant, Gods, 34. 884. Keener, Paul, 140–46; more succinctly, Kee, Origins, 91. 885. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 205–6. For a variety of women’s rituals, both Greek and Roman, see Kraemer, Maenads, 11–42; on women’s activity in religion, see also Mullins, “Religious Roles”; for a Roman festival exclusively for women, see, e.g., Plut. Caes. 9.3. 886. Stendahl, Paul, 29. 887. Spencer, Acts, 164, contrasts the responses of the women here and that of the crowds in Acts 16:22, the private sphere of the prayer-place and home (16:13, 15) and the public sphere of the marketplace (16:19). Women were associated especially with the private, domestic sphere, though this was less true in Macedonia than elsewhere (the extreme was classical Athens; see Gould, “Position in Athens,” 50; Keener, “Head Coverings,” 443; for qualifications in practice, see, e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 3). 888. See discussion in Carcopino, Life, 131. 889. On some Romans’ resentment of successful proselytism, see, e.g., Parkes, Conflict, 25–26; on resentment of Roman women’s attachment to Judaism, see, e.g., Keener, Paul, 142; on Roman male concern with such cults’ unduly emancipating their wives, see, e.g., Matthews, Converts, 27. 890. Ilan, “Women to Pharisaism.” 891. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 239–40; Ilan, “Women to Pharisaism”; cf. Lucian Runaways 18; against gnostics, see Iren. Her. 1.13; Klauck, Context, 488; Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 116. Interestingly, Tertullian lavished such criticism on gnostics but later joined the Montanist movement; gnostic feminism is often clearer in the critiques than in the gnostics’ own documents, underlining that the charge was often used as a slander. Opponents of the new cults may have exaggerated women’s involvement and innovation (Meeks, Urban Christians, 24–25). 892. See Matthews, Converts, 29–50.

2392

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 96

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

The message of the historical Paul might well have proved appealing to relatively independent women of status. Paul’s letters show that, despite some conservative social tendencies (especially where others’ sensitivities might be involved, 1 Cor 11:4–6, 16; 14:34–35),893 he was among the more progressive voices of his era in encouraging women’s vocal participation in religious discourse (Rom 16:1–7; 1 Cor 11:5; Phil 4:2). That is, on the range of views publicly articulated in his day, Paul was among the more progressive, though he does not articulate a modern egalitarian position (or, by definition, any modern position), and women were prominent in his churches.894 He also agreed in principle with the philosophers who (again in principle) affirmed gender equality on matters that transcended traditional roles (Gal 3:28). Given the unabashed mention of women coworkers in Paul’s letters, including Philippians (Phil 4:2), and the movement’s susceptibility to external critique for appealing to women, Luke’s report about Lydia here is surely historical.895 The first named convert of Paul’s first missionary journey was a Roman governor; although Luke likes to balance male and female figures in his narrative, were he simply inventing converts he could have invented someone of higher rank as the first named convert of this second narrated journey. v. Lydia’s Response (16:14)

As a “God-fearer,” Lydia was probably a Gentile adherent less than a full convert;896 although we cannot specify the ethnic status of the other women gathered, such a small group would have likely been happy to welcome a fairly prosperous inquirer even if most of them were ethnically Jewish.897 Given the group’s gender composition, however, the proportion of Gentile sympathizers might be fairly high (see comment on Acts 16:13). A higher proportion of the evidence relates to Gentile women of status as God-fearers than as proselytes.898 Whereas high-status women sympathetic to Judaism opposed Paul in Antioch (Acts 13:50), he proves more appealing to this class of women in Macedonia (16:14; 17:4, 12).899 (1) Lydia’s Conversion

Whereas Paul’s first named convert on the first missionary journey Luke narrates is a Roman governor, the first named on this journey is, as noted above, Lydia.900 Luke 893. Some scholars treat these passages, especially the latter one, as interpolations. My comment here presupposes Keener, Paul, 19–235; cf. idem, “Subversive Conservative.” In this work, see more fully idem, Acts, 1:597–638, esp. 601–2. 894. Cf. Cameron, “Neither Male nor Female”; Keener, Paul, 237–57; see esp. idem, Acts, 1:597–638. 895. Although viewing the “we” material as redactional, Sterck-Degueldre, Frau, also views Lydia as a historically genuine person converted in Philippi (cf. also Sterck-Degueldre, “Frau”). Contrast Bonz, Past as Legacy, 167, whose verdict regarding Lydia’s historicity rests on viewing the narrative as epic (though even epics drew characters from tradition and the rarer epics of recent events, such as Lucan’s Civil War, could use historical characters). Contrast also Matthews, Converts, 93, who argues against historicity by lack of her mention in Philippians (an argument from silence, as she admits; Paul names only about three members of the church!) and “the symbolic richness” of her name. But “Lydia” was a common enough nickname (and given name) for women from Lydia (addressed below). A novel could employ realistic names in symbolic ways (for etymological or other associations; see Jones, “Names,” on Heliodorus’s Ethiopian Story), but this approach does not work well for historical works such as Acts, full of actual personages—Peter, Paul, Agrippa, etc. 896. With Bornkamm, Paul, 60; see full discussion at Acts 10:2. 897. Converts and inquirers were normally welcome, in any case, but this might be especially true for an isolated minority. 898. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 123. Men of higher status also more often became God-fearers than proselytes (Blue, “House Church,” 178; see comment on Acts 13:43). 899. Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 128. 900. The journey has already encountered some difficulties (16:6–7), and Paul will face hostility all the way through Macedonia. The first named convert being a woman (and one from Asia Minor, not Macedonia)

2393

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 97

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

claims that the Lord “opened Lydia’s heart,” as he elsewhere credits God with giving the ability to believe (13:48);901 “opening” was also used to express the idea of enabling understanding by explanation or supernatural intervention (Luke 24:31–32, 45; Acts 17:3; cf. the cognate in Acts 14:27; 26:18).902 Jewish people could use the phrase for God’s opening hearts to his law.903 Paul himself affirmed that encountering the Spirit (1 Cor 2:4–5; Gal 3:2; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 2:13) and the gospel (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:14) was part of saving faith.904 Wives were expected to adopt their husbands’ religion,905 though it often happened otherwise, including with Jews ( Jos. War 2.560) and Christians (1 Cor 7:12–16; Phlm 10; 1 Pet 3:1).906 As suggested below, Lydia might have been a widow, but this remains only an educated guess. (Luke does not, after all, name her as such despite his emphasis on widows elsewhere; but elsewhere he employs widows as examples of the marginalized whereas here Lydia fits his theme of more prominent women.) (2) Lydia’s Freed Status?

Some scholars think that Lydia’s name suggests that she was a freedwoman.907 The name is hardly restricted to servants: a Sardian named Julia Lydia and an Ephesian named Julia Lydia Laterane (I. Eph. 424a) were of high station.908 “Lydia” was a common name in Rome.909 That Luke’s Lydia was a freedwoman, however, is at least a reasonable guess, not at all implausible (though compare below for discussion of her possible status instead as a widow). Many purple-dye merchants in Rome were freedwomen in this period;910 freedwomen in the East also frequently sold luxury items such as purple dye.911 Less securely, the temporarily attempted imperial monopoly on purple soon after this period suggests to some that she may have been an imperial freedwoman.912 This proposal, however, is speculative, especially if the Thyatiran industry used not Tyrian murex but the less expensive dye from the roots of the madder plant.913 It is also by no means clear that the monopoly existed at this time. contrasts starkly with the conversion of a governor. Luke would not have sufficient incentive to invent Lydia’s conversion, especially as the first narrated conversion in Macedonia; but mentioning her fits his interest in balancing male and female characters (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:598–605). 901. Cheng, Characterisation, 181–82, notes that God opening Lydia’s heart fits divine initiative toward God-fearers elsewhere in Acts. 902. In this context, God is also able to “open” prisons (Acts 16:26–27). 903. 1QS XI, 15–16; cf. 4Q434 1 II, 3–4; most commonly in prayer, e.g., Ps 119:18; 2 Macc 1:4; 1QHa IX, 23; XV, 41; XXII, 31; cf. the idea in Deut 29:19; 30:6; but the meaning in 2 Cor 6:11 is different. In a later period, when philosophic determinism was an issue, John Chrysostom balanced this claim: “We need God, to open the heart; but God opens the hearts that are willing” (Hom. Acts 35 [NPNF 11:220–21]). 904. Paul also certainly believed in baptism, as here (Rom 6:3–4; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27); though Paul may appear less emphatic about it in its literal sense than Luke (1 Cor 1:13–17), Luke also regarded Spirit baptism as paramount (Acts 10:44–48). On Paul’s theology of baptism, see, e.g., Beasley-Murray, “Baptism”; for Luke’s theology of baptism, see comment on Acts 2:38. 905. Plut. Bride 19, Mor. 140D; Balch, Wives, 99; Meeks, Urban Christians, 30 (though also noting the difficulty of enforcing this expectation). 906. In early Christian sources, it is nearly always the Christian wife who is married to a non-Christian husband (Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 42–43). 907. Horsley, Documents, 2:27, §3; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 71. Ascough, Lydia, 51, allows this hypothesis as one possible explanation for how she acquired her means but also notes other possibilities (esp. an inheritance from her father or widowhood). 908. Gill, “Élites,” 114. 909. E.g., Hor. Odes 1.8.1 (cf. 1.25.8; 3.9.6–7, 20); Mart. Epig. 11.21; 11.71. 910. Gardner, Women, 238–39; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 71; Horsley, Documents, 2:27, §3. 911. Meeks, Urban Christians, 24; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 200. 912. Witherington, Acts, 492 (following Horsley, Documents, 2:26, 28); he suggests that the imperial agents of Phil 4:22 may include Lydia, “away in Rome on business.” 913. Horsley, Documents, 3:53, §17; Blue, “House Church,” 186n258; Yamauchi, Cities, 54.

2394

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 98

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(3) Lydia’s City

More important is that Lydia is from Thyatira,914 a Lydian city.915 Perhaps, then, her name functioned even as a nickname for her once she left the region of her origin (“an ethnic cognomen, ‘the Lydian woman’”),916 though its commonness as a name (including in Lydia) prohibits us from elevating this speculation to a high level of probability.917 Slaves often were given names related to their geographic provenance, and so this view would accord well with the position that Lydia is a freedwoman.918 Since Roman women normally were called by their father’s cognomen, many scholars argue that she was a Greek, part of the class of “Greek-speaking merchants who have settled in Philippi alongside the Italian, agrarian colonists.”919 In many Roman colonies, Greeks and others living there probably outnumbered Roman citizens;920 many lived in Corinth, Antioch, and Lystra, and probably a smaller but significant percentage lived in Philippi. Since Greco-Roman writers rarely used a woman’s personal name unless she held significant status, Lydia probably held some social status.921 Certainly a foreign merchant would lack high status with the aristocracy (though we probably have a known exception even for this trade in Philippi, as noted below), but she might have more wealth and status (by the standards of the empire as a whole) than the average resident of Philippi.922 Thyatira shared many elements of the broader religious culture;923 for example, it had its own imperial cult.924 Coins depicted the local tutelary deity, Apollo Tyrimnos (also Tyrimnus, Tryimnaeus), holding the emperor’s hand.925 Thyatira had a Jewish community.926 Thyatira was also known for its craftspeople and merchants, with their strong guilds.927 Such guilds would have worshiped the emperor, just as in Asia’s other associations.928 Bordering Lydia and Mysia, Thyatira was strategically located for trade.929 It was known for dyes and dyer guilds, attested by at least seven inscriptions (e.g., CIG 3496–98).930 Although the number of inscriptions preserved is not dramatic, “more trade-guilds are known in Thyatira than in any other Asian city.”931 914. Further on Thyatira, see below; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 328–31; Yamauchi, Cities, 51–54. 915. A later probable Jewish settler in Philippi was from Smyrna, where many Jewish people also lived (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 102). On the region of Lydia, see, e.g., Kaletsch, “Lydia.” 916. Hemer, Acts in History, 114 (noting the possibility, since it is attested both as a “regular” and “an alternative” name). Cf. one Syrus, a slave from Syria (Lucian Tox. 28). 917. Sardis, mentioned above, was capital of the ancient kingdom of Lydia. For Lydia, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.30.110–11 (Sardis, 5.30.110). 918. Horsley, Documents, 2:27, §3. 919. Meeks, Urban Christians, 62; Witherington, Acts, 491. 920. Jeffers, World, 208. 921. Witherington, Acts, 491–92. 922. I explore the question of her social status briefly below; but Luke might think of her status in the Philippian church (cf. Acts 18:26). 923. More distinctively, stelae from Lydia show many confession texts (Gordon, “Sceptre”). 924. Klauck, Context, 324 (though not specifying when Thyatira received it). 925. Caird, Revelation, 43; Hemer, Letters, 116. Some scholars argue that the emperor was worshiped in this city as Apollo, son of Zeus (e.g., Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 193). 926. CIJ 2:17–18, §752; Stern, “Diaspora,” 151 (citing CIG 2.3509, the same inscription); see most extensively (for all Lydia, especially Thyatira) Kraabel, “Judaism in Asia Minor,” 155–97. 927. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 89–90; Yamauchi, Cities, 53. 928. Harland, Associations, 115–36. 929. Aune, Revelation, 213; cf. Strabo 13.4.4; for commerce and industry there, cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 422. 930. See, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 114; Reimer, Women, 99–100; cf. Ryan, “Lydia”; earlier, already Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 18 (from Witherington). For the prosperity of its dyers’ guild, see, e.g., Magie, Roman Rule, 1:48n80. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 94, claims that Thyatira “was renowned for its purpledyeworks.” For trade guilds in Lydia more generally, see, e.g., SEG 29 (1979); Horsley, Documents, 3:54, §17. 931. Ramsay, Letters, 324. Trade guilds are, of course, important elsewhere (in Judea, see thoroughly Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 684–85, including t. Sukkah 4:6; ʾOhal. 4:2; B. Meṣiʿa 2:24), but they were of

2395

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 99

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Purple couch covers were a famous product in another Lydian city, prosperous Sardis.932 Thyatiran purple, however, was imitation purple (now called “Turkey red,” still used there today), from the root of the local madder plant rather than the murex shellfish.933 Other evidence indicates that Thyatira’s dyes made their way to Macedonia. A second-century stela in Thessalonica attests another purple dealer from Thyatira in Macedonia (IG 10.2.1.291).934 Philippi itself apparently honored a purple dyer935 from Thyatira as a benefactor and citizen of Philippi (CIL 3.664.1).936 Thyatira also had ancient ties with Macedonia; Strabo, identifying the city Thyatira that is near Sardis and Pergamum, notes that it was said to be founded by Macedonians (13.4.4). Jewish sympathizers from Asia Minor might well have learned of Judaism through contact with other purple dyers there, since at least in Hierapolis (in Phrygia, near Lydia) Jewish members of that profession seem to have been abundant; many Jews there belonged to its associations of purple dyers and tapestry makers. So many Jews were members of these guilds that they “were made responsible for memorial ceremonies for deceased Jewish members on Passover and Pentecost!”937 That these guilds also contained Gentiles demonstrates that Jews were well integrated into, and welcomed into, the city’s economic life in that region at least.938 (4) Lydia’s Occupation

It was common to name people by their occupation; tombstones often listed their honoree’s profession939—for example, a “worker in wool and maker of felt” (ILS 7558, from Rome) or “dealer in cloaks and skins” (ILS 7580, from Milan).940 It is thus not surprising that Luke identifies Lydia by her profession as a seller of purple or of purple cloth (cf. Acts 9:43; 10:1). Like embroiderers and fullers, who also decorated cloth, dyers were among the common professions in this period;941 some cities, however, were better known for this craft. In Palestine, weaving wool was mostly restricted to women at home, but even there dyeing was relegated to specialists.942 (On artisans more generally, see comment on Acts 18:3, regarding the work of Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila.) Most textiles were produced in homes, but more-precious ones could be produced in factories and exported.943 Most business in the empire was purely local,944 special importance in Asia (for Jewish dyers’ guilds at Phrygian Hierapolis, see Applebaum, “Social Status,” 716–17, citing CIJ 2:36, §777); for commerce in Asia Minor, see Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 76–96. 932. Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 132. For more on dyeing in Lydia, see Pliny E. N.H. 7.56.195 (Horsley, Documents, 3:53, §17). 933. Ramsay, Letters, 325–26; Yamauchi, Cities, 54; Hemer, Acts in History, 114; Blue, “House Church,” 186n258; Schnabel, Acts, 680. Ovid Metam. 6.8–9 speaks of “Phocaean purple,” presumably from near Smyrna. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 93, notes the coccus plant near Cilicia, used for purple dyeing (citing Pliny E. N.H. 16.32; also styrax [storax], N.H. 12.125). Coccus may refer to the coccus insect that fed on the kermes oak; the insect could be crushed for dye. 934. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 191; Hemer, Acts in History, 114–15; Gill, “Élites,” 115; Ascough, Lydia, 80. Purple wool was also prominent in Miletus (Yamauchi, Cities, 122). 935. This part of the text is reconstructed, but enough letters remain to make this reading probable. 936. Yamauchi, Cities, 53; Hemer, Acts in History, 115; Gill, “Élites,” 115; Ascough, Lydia, 80. 937. Kraabel, “Synagogue and Community,” 181, citing CIJ 2, §§775, 777. See already Lightfoot, Colossians, 11, 22. 938. Kraabel, “Synagogue and Community,” 181. 939. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 117. 940. Available in Sherk, Empire, 229, §173, I and J. 941. See Lewis, Life, 136, based on the papyri. On dyeing textiles, see briefly Pekridou-Gorecki, “Dyeing,” and her sources. 942. Goodman, State, 56, citing Jos. Ant. 18.314 (on the weaving, though this is in Mesopotamia) and m. B. Qam. 9:4 (on the dyeing). The Josephus reference has been applied to scale armor (Cohen, “Asinaeus”), but it is based on a supposed Aramaic lapse that is, at best, uncertain. 943. See Koester, Introduction, 1:77. 944. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 76.

2396

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 100

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

but large businesses also had trade agents abroad. Given the emphasis on textiles in Thyatira, some scholars see Lydia as the local “business agent for the luxury textile industry based in Thyatira in Asia Minor.”945 Whether slave or free, one could work as another’s agent.946 Views regarding women keeping shops and regarding their activity in the market varied from one part of the empire to another (see Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.2–5), but many women were engaged in business.947 Many were merchants in the eastern empire, including some Jewish women.948 Slave women (and, of course, freedwomen) could act as managers just as slave men could.949 On the manufacturing side, women as purple dyers appear in the region of Lydia as early as Hom. Il. 4.141–42,950 and textile work employed especially women.951 More relevant for Lydia as a seller of purple or purple cloth, the feminine form for purple dealers appears in CIG 2519, confirming that women were involved in this trade.952 Inscriptions from late republican and early imperial Rome indicate that both men and women of freed families were retail traders in purple; some of the women may have begun as slaves and continued after achieving freedom. The extant evidence is not sufficient to determine if they competed with the patrons who established them.953 Some women mentioned in Paul’s letters have been thought to be businesswomen (Rom 16:1–2; 1 Cor 1:11).954 Certainly we may infer some women of at least moderate means in first-century Diaspora churches (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3);955 the mixture of women from different social strata probably also helped feed the conflict over head coverings in Corinth (1 Cor 11:2–16).956 (5) Lydia’s Economic and Social Status

Philippi’s Roman citizens, proud of their status, would regard foreign traders as part of the plebs urbana.957 But status inconsistency was common, and merchants often achieved a different kind of status due to wealth (when they achieved wealth).958 How well-to-do would Lydia have been? This depends partly on the nature of the purple she was selling (see excursus below) but partly also on the nature of her work. Many scholars argue that Lydia must have been a person of means as a seller of purple.959 Others, however, object that though purple could be expensive, its sellers would not necessarily share the status of its buyers. Spencer, for example, warns, “Textile 945. Judge, Pattern, 36. 946. Cf. perhaps ILS 7600, from Rome: “Thymele, Marcella’s dealer in silk” (Sherk, Empire, 227, §172); for slaves as business agents, e.g., Cic. Fam. 13.45.1; for freedpersons, see Lampe, “Patrons,” 489; for slaves and freedpersons, Meeks, Urban Christians, 57; for freedpersons and clients, Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 66. Cf. some interpretations of 1 Cor 1:11 (Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 397; Fee, Corinthians, 54; for slaves or freedpersons, Meeks, Urban Christians, 59). 947. Gardner, Women, 233–37, esp. 234. For women working, see discussion at Acts 18:3. 948. Arlandson, Women, 73–82; see comment on Acts 18:3. 949. Gardner, Women, 233. 950. Bruce, Commentary, 331; Barrett, Acts, 783. 951. Reimer, Women, 100–101. Textile work was long and laborious; even spinning wheels did not predate the later medieval period (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 116). 952. Barrett, Acts, 782. 953. Gardner, Women, 238–39. 954. E.g., Fee, Corinthians, 54; cf. Meeks, Urban Christians, 60; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. On women in commerce, see Gardner, Women, 233–37; Balch, “Families,” 274; Winter, Wives, 174–76; idem, Left Corinth, 199; comment on Acts 18:3. 955. Verner, Household, 168, 180; Best, Peter, 125. 956. Keener, Paul, 30–31; idem, “Head Coverings,” 446. 957. Reimer, Women, 112. 958. On status inconsistency, see, e.g., Lenski, “Status Crystallization.” 959. Meeks, Urban Christians, 62; Heine, Women, 84; Yamauchi, Stones, 115.

2397

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 101

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

work—traditionally a woman’s domain—might bring a measure of profit but was not typically regarded as a prestigious profession in the ancient world. Purple dyeing was particularly stigmatized as a smelly, ‘dirty’ process involving the use of animal urine.” Dye houses usually were restricted to “remote zones outside the city.”960 In his view, Lydia probably manufactures the cloth as well as sells it, so that she probably “lives and works as well as worships outside the city gate” and hence is among the lower classes.961 John Chrysostom notes that Paul was not ashamed of her status, paralleling Paul’s stay with her with Peter’s stay with a tanner in Acts 9:43.962 The text, however, identifies Lydia only as a seller, not a dyer herself; the dyes or dyed fabrics could be shipped to Philippi for her business to sell.963 Wholesalers, like dyers, were not of high status; often they were slaves and freedpersons.964 But they were part of an upwardly mobile urban class;965 further, as early as the late republic, slaves could wield considerable power as business agents.966 And sellers of purple would probably have higher status and income than many others. Purple dealers often became members of civic councils967 (though this was most likely in their own cities). For Luke and his audience steeped in the Septuagint, purple was associated with luxury (Luke 16:19) and hence likely evokes significant status, one of Luke’s interests.968 Granted, she would not be wealthy as a mere business agent or seller of fabric, but merchants of fine goods would be perceived by most as of higher status (and income) than ordinary artisans (cf. 18:3) would be. One could be financially secure without belonging to the extremely rich elite (the true elite would not be engaged in trade but have leisure for politics).969 The overhead expenses of trading in purple (or any substance not locally produced) required some means, whether the means were hers directly or those of owners in Thyatira.970 Presumably, she owns a home large enough to host the missionaries (apparently including Timothy and Luke; cf. “us” in 16:15) without displacing her “household” (16:15), which may well include servants.971 The debate on Lydia’s status is partly semantic. Lydia was not elite, and she would be despised by the elite; but the truly elite were a small fraction of the empire (albeit larger in Philippi than in, e.g., rural Galilee), and most of the empire consisted of rural peasants.972 By some estimates, 20–30 percent of Philippi’s population consisted of peasant colonists commuting to the countryside, 20 percent further were slaves, 15–30 percent further belonged to the urban poor, and only 1.5–5 percent belonged to the elite. Lydia 960. Spencer, Acts, 165, citing Plut. Per. 1; Pliny E. N.H. 9.60, 64; Mart. Epig. 1.49.32; 4.4.6; 9.62 (for the full force of Martial’s humor, cf. Ker, Martial, LCL, 1:233n3; 2:121n1; for the double-dyeing to which he refers, cf. Friedländer, Life, 2:175); for the odor, see also Croom, Clothing, 23. On the manufacture of purple dye and cloth, see Reimer, Women, 102–5. 961. Spencer, Acts, 165, comparing the role of Simon the tanner in Acts 9:43. 962. Chrys. Hom. Acts 35. 963. Merchants transported luxury goods, including dyes, over great distances (e.g., Rev 18:11–12; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 71; Casson, Mariners, 198–206; Bauckham, Climax, 352–66). 964. Reimer, Women, 105–9. She argues (112) that this was probably a “subsistence occupation.” 965. For freedpersons in general as an “upwardly mobile” group in this period, see, e.g., Jeffers, World, 232–33; for freedpersons in business, see, e.g., ILS 7486 (Sherk, Empire, 228, §173F). 966. Cf. Cic. Fam. 13.45.1, recommending the slave of a close friend who did banking in Asia. 967. Gill, “Élites,” 114–15 (citing an example from Hierapolis in Phrygia). 968. See Lang, “Neues.” 969. Winter, Left Corinth, 187. 970. Both overhead and profits were probably less for “imitation” Thyatiran purple. 971. Admittedly, the needs of such traveling teachers were probably simple (cf. 1 Cor 4:11–12; Paul may have also worked in Philippi [lacking other means; cf. Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:9]), like those of philosophers needing hospitality (Socrates Ep. 2, to Xenophon). 972. See discussion at Acts 3:2.

2398

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 102

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

belonged instead to the estimated 30–45 percent of the population employed in services; of these, the majority were Greek, like her.973 From an aristocratic standpoint, virtually all trades were despised.974 Reimer, who emphasizes that Lydia’s trade was despised, allows that she may have even had some servants.975 By the standards of average urban dwellers, Lydia probably had ample financial means, even if being a foreigner affected her perceived social status among more long-standing residents of Philippi. This portrayal best suits Luke’s consistent interest in persons with occupations of relatively high status. Though Luke emphasizes that the rich cannot be saved (Luke 18:24–25; cf. 3:11; 12:33; 14:33) without divine intervention (18:26–27), he frequently reports the conversion of people of means, who sometimes sacrificed or risked much for their conversion (19:8–9; 23:50–52; cf. Acts 8:27–39; 13:12).976 All four of Luke’s accounts of “household” conversions (Acts 10:2, 24, 44–48; 11:14; 16:15, 34; 18:8) probably concern households of ample means (by the standards of most of the population),977 with at least one of the “households” explicitly including servants (10:7).978

Excursus: Purple 

979

Because purple was associated with Dionysus, whose cult Euripides centers in Lydia, MacDonald argues that Lydia was a Christian maenad (cf. 16:16) and that Luke made her nonecstatic for his audience.980 Given the wide spectrum of information about purple in antiquity, however, using this minor association of purple as a focus for interpreting the passage seems unwarranted.981 Because Lydia was from Thyatira, it is possible that her dye is from the madder plant in Asia Minor rather than from the murex shellfish.982 As a cheaper, “imitation” 973. Ascough, Lydia, 25–26. Greeks, whom he estimates at some 7,800 in Philippi, probably composed more than half the population (which he estimates at 15,000); he estimates Greeks involved in service groups at 28 percent of the population, or about 4,200. 974. See comment on Acts 18:3. 975. Reimer, Women, 112. 976. He may then presuppose divine intervention in such cases. 977. See further Malherbe, Social Aspects, 73. 978. For households including servants, see comment on Acts 10:2. The suggested distinction between οἰκία (a building) and οἶκος (household) does not hold here, since οἶκος has each meaning once in the same verse (see comment on Acts 10:2; 12:12). 979. On dyeing and the principal colors (from red to purple), see further, e.g., Pilch, “Colors”; on purple, see further Danker, “Purple”; Croom, Clothing, 26–28; Reid, “Purple”; Hünemörder, “Purple”; Doumet, Étude; Ziderman, “Identification.” 980. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 109–10. Had the association between the location of Lydia and Dionysus worship (109) been important, Luke could have set the scene there; nor was this geographic association paramount by this period (in contrast to, e.g., Cybele’s association with Phrygia). Cf. now also MacDonald, “Poetry,” 466–67 (drawing more widely on Luke’s treatment of ecstasy). My skepticism on a connection between Lydia and maenads should not be interpreted as skepticism that Luke draws on Euripidean imagery at some points (e.g., Acts 5:39). 981. This is not to deny the possibility of Lydia’s involvement in the local Bacchus cult, prominent in Philippi, before her conversion (although she was a foreigner, not a local Roman citizen), but to deny that Luke provides evidence for this, and especially to deny that her Thyatiran origin or purple selling points to this. If she had a prophetic role as a Christian, Luke would not need to suppress mention of this datum (Acts 2:17–18; 21:9), although he might also not stress it if prophecy was too pervasive to require such explicit mention (1 Cor 14:31). Matthews, Converts, 73–74, also finds Euripides’s Bacchanals in the background, though because of Lydian women (rather than purple) and not as directly as Otto Weinreich had. 982. Yamauchi, Cities, 54; Blue, “House Church,” 186n258. See discussion above.

2399

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 103

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

dye, this product would have provided less income than the Tyrian variety, though it would have remained a luxury product (i.e., unavailable to the poor).983 (Some ancients observed that dyers could sell to women dyes “of whatever quality” provided there was no competition.)984 Whatever the case with Lydia historically, however, Luke’s audience will probably assume, unless very knowledgeable in the Lydian dye industry,985 that Luke means here by “purple” what he means elsewhere: he deliberately uses it to characterize the wealthy (Luke 16:19).

1. Tyrian Purple Purple had a long history as a status symbol in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean worlds.986 Archaeological evidence attests work in purple dye in Phoenicia as early as 1700 b.c.e.;987 its use continued in the Christian era (e.g., purple dyers in 602 c.e., P.Grenf. 2.87). Most educated ancients were aware that Tyrian purple came from the sea988 and from shellfish.989 It came especially “from the Mediterranean whelks Murex brandaris, Murex trunculus, and Purpura haemostoma, which were crushed to release the dye fluid for the vat.”990 Some of these murex shellfish were up to a foot long and 4 inches wide (Pliny E. N.H. 9.41.80); ancients identified different varieties of purple shellfish (9.52.102–3).991 Because these shellfish secrete purple only when alive, they were often captured while alive, or crushed while alive (9.60.126). After workers collected the shells, they used iron tools to break them up, forcing out a purple liquid that dries rapidly unless honey is mixed with it (Vitruv. Arch. 7.13.3). It takes an enormous amount of shellfish to produce even a gram of the dye.992 In addition to Tyre proper, the old Phoenician city of Sarepta, a port in the Roman period, was known for its purple-dye industry.993 Although Tyrian purple was the best and most famous kind, some forms of purple were produced in other locations,994 including Lydia, Phrygia, Egypt, and even Macedonia’s Philippi and Thessalonica.995 Nearly half the residents of Bulis (in Phocis, 983. Cf. also the dyeing of expensive document covers with juice from purple berries (purpureo . . . vaccinia fuco, Ovid Tristia 1.1.5, if meant literally). The kermes insect provided a shade from red to “Tyrian,” and some flowers also resembled the murex (Pliny E. N.H. 21.22.45); on vegetable dyes, see 22.3.3–5. 984. Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.4 (LCL, 5:263). 985. Even if Philippian hearers remembered or continued to know Lydia, they might not know the details of her business at the time of her conversion. Possibly Luke feels free to name her because she no longer lived in Philippi (if Christians continued to face prejudice there; cf. Phil 1:28–29), though that is speculation. 986. See the thorough study of Reinhold, History of Purple. On its early use, see also Forbes, Technology, 4:114–22. 987. Ziderman, “Purple Dyeing.” For dyeing as a developed and significant art in Egypt, see Pliny E. N.H. 35.42.150. 988. Aeschylus Ag. 958–60 (hence will never run out); 1 Macc 4:29. 989. E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.76; Ach. Tat. 2.11 (recounting its legendary discovery); Philost. Hrk. 53.22. For these “purple-shells,” see Athen. Deipn. 3.88 (following Arist. Hist. An. 5.544). 990. Wild, “Dyeing.” 991. Further on purples, see Pliny E. N.H. 9.60.125–9.65.141. In 9.60.125, Pliny addresses the habits of purples (purpurae), which are like murexes (murices). 992. Croom, Clothing, 27, estimates ten thousand shellfish. 993. Khalifeh, “Sarepta,” 489. Through its history, Sarepta sometimes belonged to Tyre, sometimes (as in Luke 4:26) to Sidon (Salles, “Sarepta”). 994. Cf. “Phocaean purple” (Ovid Metam. 6.8–9, near Smyrna); “Laconian purple” (Hor. Odes 2.18.7–8, in southern Greece). Cf. the purple-dye industry near the border of Israel and Phoenicia in the ninth century b.c.e. in Karmon and Spanier, “Remains.” 995. Epigraphic evidence cited by Horsley, Documents, 2:25, §3. The mussels and seashells were common in the Mediterranean, but Phoenicia produced the best (Dupont, Life, 260).

2400

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 104

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

near Corinth) were purple-fishers for the dyeing carried out in Corinth.996 Further, “lichens and bedstraws also gave purple, and a cheap version was commonly achieved by overdyeing woad (blue) with madder (red).”997 Pliny the Elder opined that the best purple in Asia came from Tyre, the best in Africa from the Libyan island Meninx and on the ocean’s Gaetulian coast, and the best in Europe from around Sparta in Achaia (N.H. 9.60.127).998 In Macedonia, the purple-dyeing industry flourished in nearby Thessalonica, “supplied with dye-bearing mollusks by the fisheries of the district.”999 The wealthy may have preferred more distant imports (though more from Phoenicia than from Thyatira), but Lydia would certainly have competition from other sellers. Ancient literature associates purple especially with Tyre1000 and Phoenicia.1001 Phoenician traders earned a reputation for greed in business (e.g., Hom. Od. 14.288–90; Philost. Hrk. 1.3); purple dye was a significant element of their luxury trade. Poets could also speak of purple from Punic dye (Prop. Eleg. 4.3.51), given Carthage’s Phoenician associations. Long after Tyre’s fortunes as a great mercantile city declined, Pliny the Elder complained that “the entire renown of Tyre now consists in a shellfish and a purple dye!” (N.H. 5.17.76 [LCL, 2:279]).

2. Status Symbol It was common knowledge that purple (like blue in earlier times)1002 was expensive, rare, and highly valued.1003 Purple symbolized great wealth1004 and, for some writers, excessive extravagance.1005 The wealthy paid more than a thousand denarii for a pound of the finest Tyrian wool doubly stained (though just more than a third of that price for less valuable purple hues).1006 An entertainer might steal a purple-dyed napkin to sell it for much money.1007 In Diocletian’s later maximum-price edict, purple silk sold for more than twelve times the price of white silk, and roughly two thousand times the price of wool from Tarentum.1008 Martial mocks a buyer who acquired a “Tyrian cloak” “cheaply” for ten thousand sesterces—because the buyer will not 996. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 125. 997. Wild, “Dyeing.” Vitruv. Arch. 7.14.1 notes the use of madder to produce purple. He also points out (7.13.1–2) that climate conditions affected purple dye, so that it was dark in the far north, red in the far south, violet in the east and west, and bluish elsewhere. 998. People also explored North African coasts for murex and purple (Pliny E. N.H. 5.1.12). 999. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46. 1000. Hor. Sat. 2.4.84; Virg. Aen. 4.262; Georg. 3.17, 307; Petron. Sat. 30; Mart. Epig. 2.29.3; 8.10; 8.48.1; Juv. Sat. 1.27; Sil. It. 15.116; Prop. Elegies 3.13.7; 3.14.27; 4.5.22; Char. Chaer. 8.1.14; 8.6.7; Apul. Metam. 10.20. Cf. perhaps 2 Chr 2:14. See also discussion in Jensen, “Royal Purple.” 1001. E.g., Paus. 5.12.4. For Sidonian purple, see Hor. Ep. 1.10.26. 1002. See Haran, “Image,” 202; Greenspan, “Blue”; cf. Haran, Temples, 158. Access to blue was limited before Hellenistic times (Forbes, Technology, 4:110); Romans obtained much blue from indigo from India (Pliny E. N.H. 33.57.163–64; 35.37.46); for another version of blue, see Vitruv. Arch. 7.11.1. 1003. Livy 27.4.10; sea purple, i.e., genuine purple, in Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 124.9. 1004. E.g., Hor. Odes 2.18.7–8; Petron. Sat. 38, 54; Sen. Y. Phaed. 387–88; Pliny E. N.H. 9.60.124; Epict. frg. 11; Plut. Bride 30, Mor. 142C; Mart. Epig. 4.28.2; 5.8.5; 8.48.1; Juv. Sat. 4.31; Lucian Portr. 11; Jos. Ant. 18.191; Test. Ab. 4:2 A; Sib. Or. 8.74; cf. the expensive “Tyrian tapestries” (Hor. Sat. 2.4.84). 1005. E.g., Plut. Table 3.1.2, Mor. 646B; Pliny E. N.H. 9.53.104–5; cf. the parody in Lucian True Story 2.12; for its lack of genuine profitability, see Dio Chrys. Or. 3.93. Imperial restrictions on lavish use suggest attempts to control wasteful fashions (see Friedländer, Life, 2:176). 1006. Friedländer, Life, 2:175. Cf. the “double-dyed” purple “inner tunic” in Apul. Flor. 9.18. 1007. Alciph. Paras. 10 (Stemphylochaeron to Trapezocharon), 3.46, §4 (humorously). 1008. Toner, Culture, 137. Although the prices are many times higher than they were in the first century, the relative cost vis-à-vis other items is probably comparable.

2401

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 105

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

pay up (Epig. 8.10). Purple often appears together with gold as a sign of wealth.1009 A wealthy wedding might lead to a golden couch with purple sheets (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.8);1010 a wealthy young man might wear a purple garment with a gold fringe (Athen. Deipn. 4.159d); a king might send as bribes a purple robe with a gold crown (1 Macc 10:20); a member of the nouveau riche might wear a Tyrian cloak and a gold ring ( Juv. Sat. 1.27–28).1011 Walking on purple cloth (Char. Chaer. 3.2.17) or purple stones (Jos. Asen. 2:2/3) was a sign of great extravagance. Purple was also valued for wall decorations (Vitruv. Arch. 7.13.1). In this period the use of purple to signify status or wealth was clearly widespread. Thus Artemis might be expected to wear a purple tunic (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2); the semidivine Protesilaus, a specially divine hue of purple (Philost. Hrk. 10.5). Senators wore purple stripes on their togas (e.g., Juv. Sat. 1.106);1012 Roman knights wore purple coats on the Ides of July (Val. Max. 2.3.9a); a general could wear purple (1.8.8). Juvenal complains of freedpersons who advanced to a higher class and wore Tyrian cloaks (Sat. 1.27). A wealthy courtesan likewise would typically dress in purple (Rev 17:4; cf. 18:16).1013 Those with Cynic sympathies opined that purple or gold-and-purple garments were appropriate only for hetaerae (high-class prostitutes).1014 Rulers typically were viewed as wearing purple (e.g., Hor. Odes 1.35.12), including in Homeric Achaia (Hom. Il. 8.221),1015 Macedonia (Polyb. 10.26.1),1016 Persia,1017 Egypt,1018 and Judea (1 Macc 10:62, 64; 14:43)1019 and in rabbinic parables.1020 One born in the imperial palace might have purple “swaddling clothes” (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 371.19), and ancients often spoke of royal or imperial purple.1021 Naturally, the emperor wore purple.1022 Shortly after Paul’s ministry in Philippi, the emperor Nero tried to restrict purple dye for imperial use but failed (Suet. Nero 32.3).1023 The purple trade finally became a state monopoly only during the reign of Alexander Severus in the early third century c.e.1024 When a guest suggested that his host had enough purple to make an imperial robe, the host was punished under the suspicion of imperial ambitions.1025 Because of its great cost, some other locations, 1009. E.g., 1 Macc 14:43; Jos. Asen. 2:8/14–15; Lucret. Nat. 5.1423; Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.2; Apul. Metam. 10.20. Cf. also 1 Macc 4:29; 1 En. 98:2; Sib. Or. 3.658–59; Exod 28:5–8, 15, 33; 39:2–8; Judg 8:26; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; Esth 1:6; 8:15; Song 3:10; Jer 10:9; Dan 5:7, 16, 29; Rev 17:4; 18:12, 16. 1010. The idea is not likely Xenophon’s invention, though he is writing a novel; cf. “the Tyrian nuptial couch” ( Juv. Sat. 10.334). 1011. Cf. the wealthy sophist’s purple tunic, gold ring, and other elaborate apparel in Apul. Flor. 9.18–21. 1012. Pliny E. N.H. 9.60.127. That the purple was limited to stripes may suggest the expense (Friedländer, Life, 176). 1013. Ps.-Melissa Letter to Kleareta (quoted in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 83); Lucian Hall 7. For courtesans’ bright-colored clothing, see, e.g., Tac. Dial. 26. 1014. See Ps.-Melissa Letter to Kleareta (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 83). 1015. Cf. Achilles’s purple rugs in Hom. Il. 9.200. 1016. The wearer in Sib. Or. 3.389 may be Alexander (so Collins in OTP 1:370 n. s2). 1017. In Greek reports or surmises, e.g., Char. Chaer. 6.4.2; 8.1.14; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.14; cf. Cyrus in Cic. Senect. 17.59. The Persian palace at Susa allegedly contained five thousand talents’ weight of purple, preserved with honey (Plut. Alex. 36.1). 1018. So for Joseph in the Hellenistic romance in Jos. Asen. 5:5/6; for Pharaoh’s gift to Sarai in 1Qap Genar XX, 31. 1019. The purple was exclusively royal in 1 Macc 14:43–44; no one else was permitted to wear it (14:44). 1020. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:7; 15:3. 1021. Appian Hist. rom. 12.1.5; Fronto Eloq. 1.12; Hdn. 4.1.3; 6.8.5; cf. 5.5.3. 1022. E.g., Fronto Eloq. 1.12. 1023. See Yamauchi, Cities, 53; cf. Croom, Clothing, 27. Some kings, notably those in Pergamum, already ran their own textile factories before Roman rule (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 120). 1024. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xliv; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 77. 1025. Croom, Clothing, 27, citing Amm. Marc. 26.8.8.

2402

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 106

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

such as Thessaly in northeastern Greece, later tried unsuccessfully to procure the dye themselves in defiance of the imperial monopoly (Philost. Hrk. 53.22).1026 The monopoly ultimately brought one of the eastern Mediterranean’s most ancient mercantile traditions to an end; the knowledge of extracting genuine purple vanished with Constantinople’s demise in 1453; Pope Paul II then “decreed that the robes of cardinals would henceforth be dyed in the imitation purple derived from the insect cochineal.”1027 Some philosophers critiqued and others accepted the use of purple; a purple robe signified Empedocles’s wealth (Diog. Laert. 8.2.73). Seneca criticizes the extravagance of purple (Dial. 12.11.2) and uses a purple robe and applause to symbolize what ambition wrongly seeks (Ep. Lucil. 69.4). Purple robes and anointing with myrrh could symbolize luxury contrasted with the simplicity of the Cynic lifestyle;1028 a Stoic philosopher could protest that a simple cloak was no worse than a purple or crimson one (Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 124.15).1029 A Cynic might go further, complaining that purple dyers ought to eat the shellfish instead of exploiting them for dye (Lucian Cynic 11). Someone renouncing Stoic philosophy could demonstrate it by wearing purple (Lucian Hermot. 86). Given the foul odor and texture associated with many purple dyes,1030 wealthy desire for purple could be driven only by concern for status. vi. Lydia’s Hospitality (16:15)

It is not clear from Acts 16:14–15 that any of the other women in the group immediately embraced Paul’s message at this time, but this may simply represent Luke’s technique of focusing on specific individuals in narratives (as opposed to his more general summary statements). In any case, it is Lydia’s converted household (16:15a) that provides the foundation for the church in Philippi (following Jesus’s instructions in Luke 10:5–7). That she was “faithful” might connect her as a Gentile convert with Timothy’s Jewish mother, recently mentioned (Acts 16:1), underlining the observation that common faith unites Jewish and Gentile believers (15:9–11). That she “urges” the group to stay with her household reflects hospitality conventions and the honor of displaying hospitality (see the excursus on hospitality below) to those esteemed in one’s circle, but it also reflects her appreciation for the new message she has received (cf. παρεκάλουν in 13:42). (1) A Property Owner

Lydia’s “home” could be simply a mezzanine apartment (see comment on Acts 18:3) or belong to an apartment building more generally (see comment on Acts 28:16). Given Luke’s usual usage and his apparent portrayal of her means, however, many think it likelier that she owned her own domus—that is, house—probably a 1026. That Rome punished Thessaly for this illegal trade indicates that the allusion comes from no earlier than 222–35 c.e. (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xliv). 1027. Yamauchi, Cities, 54. On the widespread use of such insect dye in red food coloring in the modern West, see, e.g., http://www.businessinsider.com/how-cochineal-insects-color-your-food-and-drinks -2012-3?op=1, accessed March 30, 2013. 1028. Max. Tyre 1.9, without criticizing it; cf. Fronto Eloq. 1.12, again without criticism. 1029. The term for the latter, φοινικίς, was probably originally associated with Phoenicia. “Purple” covered a much broader spectrum of colors than is the case today (Dupont, Life, 260; cf. Mark 15:17, 20; John 19:2, 5; with Matt 27:28). 1030. Croom, Clothing, 23.

2403

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 107

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Roman house with an atrium.1031 As someone owning a home, Lydia had probably been in Philippi for some time.1032 Given the poor housing accommodations of most urban people in the Roman world, given the size of Paul’s party (at least four), and especially given the gender most often associated with ancient homeowners, Lydia’s property ownership is significant. (For her economic status, see discussion above.) Many “financially solvent home owners . . . were ripe for conversion”1033 and would certainly be welcome in a movement that grew especially through what resembled associations meeting in households (see comment on Acts 2:42).1034 Perhaps because on average they tended to be less educated (hence less suspicious) than men, wealthy women were sometimes favored targets of unscrupulous teachers seeking to expand their revenue.1035 Members of foreign cults might not be unscrupulous, but they would be no less grateful for financially stable patrons, male or female;1036 and as noted above, women seemed more socially inclined or free to support such cults. We frequently learn of women engaged in financial dealings.1037 Women could own property, and this was the case not only if they were divorced or widowed. Though they were a minority, many held property,1038 and the new marriage arrangements in the early empire allowed wives to retain their own property excepting the dowry.1039 We read of an estate belonging to the wife of a living wealthy man (Cic. Verr. 2.3.22.55), and of a mother’s will that divided property equally among her children and left money for her husband that exceeded the dowry (CIL 6.10230).1040 Nearly a third of houses recorded were at least partly owned by women.1041 (Aristocratic men also regarded some wives as capable partners in managing households in a manner that yielded profit.)1042 Lydia’s home was ample enough to provide hospitality and hence would provide the initial base for evangelizing Philippi (according to Jesus’s instructions in Luke 10:5–7).1043 In contrast to, for example, many one-room Galilean homes or Roman tenements, Lydia’s ample home would surely include separate quarters for men and 1031. See Ascough, Lydia, 29–33 (on 31–32 comparing a homeowner in the service industry in Acts 10:6 and a woman in 12:12–13). Such a house, presumably in the Roman style (because of Philippi’s colony status), probably had plastered walls, painted with “pastoral scenes,” myths, and so forth, and floor mosaics (34). Cf. Martha’s welcome, apparently into her own home, of Jesus and his disciples in Luke 10:38. 1032. Ascough, Lydia, 19. 1033. Blue, “House Church,” 182. 1034. Households provided social networks for kinship and patron-client relations (Meeks, Moral World, 111–12; cf. idem, Urban Christians, 75), so that a message could be spread relatively privately. Social networks mattered even for philosophic conversion (Eshleman, “Affection”). 1035. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 239–42 (including Lucian Runaways 18; Iren. Her. 1.13.3; 1.23.2, 4); cf. 1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6; for others targeting wealthy women, Juv. Sat. 1.38–39. 1036. For religious patronage, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.4.2; 4.1.5; for synagogues, CIJ 1:522, §722; 2:99–100, §861; 2:332–35, §1404; Luke 7:5; Overman, Crisis, 115; White, Origins of Architecture, 1:77–85; Trebilco, “Communities,” 568; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 48. 1037. Horsley, Documents, 2:28–29, §3, cites as examples P.Wisc. 2.54; P.Oxy. 44.3198, 3202; 45.3242.185– 87; BGU 13.2222, 2223, 2224, 2343; CPR 5.2.9; P.Mich. 13.662, 664, 669. 1038. Arlandson, Women, 69–73 (including the Jewish woman Babata); see esp. Saller, “Mater familias” (noting their authority over their dependants). 1039. By remaining under her father’s authority, the daughter escaped that of the husband (Verner, Household, 39). 1040. The inscription is available in Sherk, Empire, 242, §184; for inheritance from a mother in a novel, see Ach. Tat. 1.3.1. 1041. Barker, “Census Returns,” in Horsley, Documents, 4, p. 93, §21. Greek practices in Egypt would say more about typical arrangements outside Egypt than traditional Egyptian ones would. 1042. Philod. Prop. col. 2.3–9 (regarding this as “common knowledge” [trans. Tsouna, p. 17]); cf. Prov 31:10–31, esp. 31:11–12, 23. 1043. With Matson, Conversion Narratives, 143. The home need not have been as lavish (with wall paintings and floor mosaics) as elite homes (described in Jeffers, World, 54).

2404

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 108

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

women.1044 Women who acquired wealth, whether by inheritance or by business dealings, achieved social influence despite the generally subordinate social power of their gender in antiquity.1045 How Lydia came to own property is a matter of dispute. If she was married and her husband simply is not mentioned, the missionaries’ stay in her home would cause little scandal,1046 but her invitation to them to stay in her home is unusual, since by cultural expectations the husband should have offered (or at least joined in offering) it (Acts 16:15). Moreover, one would expect Luke, given his apologetic emphasis, to mention the husband’s role if he could; though Luke could have gender-progressive interests (cf. Luke 8:2; 10:38–42), he can also mention supporters’ husbands (8:3). More unusual still is the exclusive focus on Lydia (again in 16:40) if her husband was part of the household that was baptized. Especially if the “household” includes only workers or servants,1047 she could be single and either a freedwoman or separated from her father (by distance or his decease). Often it is suggested that Lydia was a widow, which could leave her as head of a household.1048 Widowhood would not necessarily provide abundant resources; many argue that Roman law normally permitted (Roman) widows to inherit no more than 10 percent of their husbands’ fortunes,1049 though some women did achieve wealth this way.1050 But such limitations were less relevant in this period.1051 Moreover, widowhood did provide a greater degree of independence, so that what a woman controlled was her own.1052 A woman was permitted to act without a guardian if she was freeborn and the mother of three children (or freed and the mother of four).1053 1044. As expected in homes of sufficient size; see, e.g., Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; Heliod. Eth. 6.1. For Galilean homes, see, e.g., Freyne, Galilee, Jesus, 153; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 84; on Roman tenements, see comment on Acts 28:16. 1045. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 115–16 (though noting that their status remained lower than that of comparable men); Pomeroy, Goddesses, 139. 1046. Cf. Rebekah’s invitation (due to approaching nightfall, as in Luke 24:29; Gen 19:2–3; Judg 19:20) in Jos. Ant. 1.250, as part of a larger family. Cf. perhaps analogously conservative religious culture in more recent times (e.g., Whitefield, Journals, 439). Apuleius expresses no embarrassment even about residing for a year in the home of a widow, whom he afterward married (though he notes that it was at the son’s invitation, Apol. 72–73). 1047. Reimer, Women, 111, opts reasonably for workers, mostly women; this is probably the best guess. Baptism of her “household” therefore “provides no information about the baptism of children or infants” (Conzelmann, Acts, 130, against Jeremias; see comment on Acts 10:2). Yet Barrett, Acts, 652, goes too far the other direction in doubting (because of the silence of such passages) that baptism was always practiced. Luke’s conversion accounts provide only samples of each component of conversion in any given case (e.g., repentance or faith). 1048. Ramsay, Pictures, 179; Ryan, “Lydia”; Bruce, Acts1, 314; more tentatively, Witherington, Acts, 493. Ascough, Lydia, 35–45 (esp. 45), notes that Lydia may have been a divorcée, but offers a significant case that she was “more likely widowed,” with at least three to four surviving children (legally necessary to retain substantial means), and that this is the status “most naturally assumed” by ancient readers. 1049. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 112 (noting that some women did become wealthy from inheritances left by their fathers). Classical Athenian law allowed a widow to inherit if there were no sons, but the nearest relative then had to marry her (Isaeus Aristarch. 5); the widow also inherits in the declamation law in Quint. Decl. 247 intro.; 306 intro.; 347.2, 6. The Voconian law allowed only half the estate to go to a woman (Quint. Decl. 264 intro.). 1050. Gill, “Élites,” 115, gives the example of Eumachia of Pompeii, patroness for the guild of the fullers. Various cultures made provision for daughters to inherit; cf. Num 27:7; Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 3.61, pp. 147–51; 3.64, pp. 157–59. 1051. Ascough, Lydia, 51, notes that laws permitted women more freedom regarding inheritances from the Augustan and Claudian periods. She could have acquired means as a freedwoman, through an inheritance, or through divorce or (more commonly) widowhood (ibid.). 1052. On widows’ independence in Roman law, see, e.g., Lintott, Romans, 97–98. Hellenistic Jewish historians took note of women when they began to act independently, sometimes as widows (see Sievers, “Women in Hasmonean Dynasty,” esp. 144–45). 1053. Horsley, Documents, 2:29–31, §3, cites P.Oxy. 12.1467; P.Mil.Vogl. 6.269; SB 12.11233; P.Wisc. 2.58; P.Coll.Youtie 2.92; P.Mich. 13.663. In CPJ 3:9–10, §453, an apparently Jewish woman owns land, but her son acts for her (October 19, 132 c.e.).

2405

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 109

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Of the 32 percent of homes at least partly owned by women, more than half were owned by a woman without a husband; of these, some were widowed but the majority were divorced.1054 For this reason, some scholars suggest that Lydia was divorced.1055 A woman divorced without suspicion of serious personal fault might return to her father’s house, retaining her dowry; when her father died, she “might . . . become an almost free woman” and eventually undertake business dealings herself.1056 If she was freeborn, ultimately the best we can offer are guesses with varying degrees of probability, her possibly divorced status commanding merely a higher degree than some other guesses.1057 If she was a freedwoman acting for patrons in Thyatira, she could also exercise independence and control resources (on freedpersons and their status and access to resources, see the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9).1058 (2) Scandalous Hospitality?

Despite cultural inhibitions, accepting hospitality in a woman’s house would not appear scandalous under all conditions (particularly if she was much older1059 or if her household included family members who could be trusted to prevent any misbehavior). Paul does not, after all, come alone, but he comes with companions. That Carneades the philosopher had a woman caring for his needs seems to have generated no scandal (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 5); they were both unmarried,1060 and Carneades was not being slandered. That Luke notes Lydia’s initiative (cf. 28:14) and grounds her insistence in trusting her faithfulness to the Lord, and that other invitations seem lacking, should mitigate criticism; her request that they accept hospitality fits some cultural conventions (see, e.g., Luke 24:29). Such intergender hospitality could, however, prove scandalous for anyone looking for grounds to criticize the new movement. First, it could prove scandalous because teachers who drew too many women followers were generally criticized on the suspicion of sexual indecency. 1061 A man could not be convicted of adultery even if caught in a home alone with an unmarried woman (he could be prosecuted only if she was married), but she could be slandered as a prostitute (Cic. Cael. 20.49).1062 A man’s occasional visits and then meals with a woman could be believed to lead ultimately to an open affair (Isaeus Philoct. 21). 1054. Barker, “Census Returns,” 93; Blue, “House Church,” 185n255. 1055. Barker, “Census Returns.” One concern that Blue (“House Church,” 185) raises with this study is the supposedly unique situation that either spouse could divorce there (following Taubenschlag, Law of Egypt), but this was also the case in Greek and Roman Law (Keener, Marries Another, 51–52; Buckland, Roman Law, 117; O’Rourke, “Law,” 181; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 64; Rawson, “Family,” 32). 1056. Dupont, Life, 109–10. 1057. Cf. Schnabel, Acts, 680, suggesting that she may have been “widowed or divorced,” without excluding other options. 1058. Keener, Acts, 2:1304–6. 1059. Even in this case, wealthy older women were sometimes accused of providing younger men upward mobility in return for sexual favors ( Juv. Sat. 1.38–39). 1060. Greek and Roman views of sexual immorality were much less concerned with most forms of unmarried intercourse than was Judaism (see, e.g., Keener, “Adultery,” 10–11), and so, apart from ridicule, observers had less reason to be concerned even if they had thought she did more than feed him. By contrast, a married woman could arouse suspicion by associating with men (e.g., Eurip. El. 343–44; Livy 34.2.9; 34.4.18; Val. Max. 6.3.12; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.13–14; m. Ketub. 7:6). For the sexual double standard in antiquity, see Philost. Vit. soph. 2.25.610; Robinson, Criminal Law, 59; Peterman, “Marriage”; Winter, Wives, 19; Wagner-Hasel, “Roles: Greece,” 742; Baugh, “Marriage,” 111; in some other, more recent, cultures, see, e.g., Nukunya, Kinship, 70–71; Stephens, Family, 246; Schapera, Life, 20–21, 205–7. Early Christian teachers opposed the double standard (Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 201 [Bray, Corinthians, 60]). 1061. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 239–40, as noted above. Dionysus was so criticized, but he destroyed the complainers (Diod. Sic. 3.64.2; cf. 4.2.6). 1062. Even public banquets with married women whose husbands were not present could raise the suspicion of adultery (Cic. Verr. 2.5.31.81).

2406

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 110

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Honorable women were to avoid the grounds for such accusations.1063 Given the presence of the “household” and that at least four men are boarding at the same time (Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke), the charge could be refuted. But even orators in courts slandered when they could get away with it, and gossip outside a court does not even permit an answer; the group would thus presumably need to be careful to remain together (including the at least two remaining missionaries1064 after Paul and Silas’s arrest). Very conservative circles might consider it offensive for a man even to speak with a woman under most circumstances.1065 Some warned of the moral dangers of women’s presence (Sir 42:12–14; cf. 25:24); even to sit with another’s wife could lead to desire and destruction (9:9). Sharing gossip with women—according to some, even one’s wife—could lead to destruction (m. ʾAb. 1:5).1066 Any married woman who was in private with a man other than her husband would be suspect.1067 Probably most people would not be this conservative (especially given the importance of genuinely hospitable local accommodations), but given the importance of avoiding unnecessary offense (1 Cor 10:32; 2 Cor 6:3), such choices could involve risk. Second, those thought to depend on women’s support could be criticized on these grounds; as noted above, this happened to the Pharisees in Judea 1068 and to the Jewish movement as a whole in the Diaspora. Given the number of respectable women patrons in this period, however, this view cannot have been pervasive. Luke has already noted that Jesus had women followers who supported his ministry (Luke 8:2–3),1069 a matter confirmed by earlier tradition (Mark 15:40–41) despite the risks such claims posed for a minority movement.1070 There was also significant biblical precedent (cf. 1 Kgs 17:13–24; esp. 2 Kgs 4:8–11). Some scholars view this behavior as an example of Paul’s progressive behavior on gender.1071 Although I find this approach appealing, it is possible that a primary motivation here is simply that accepting such hospitality was much better than the alternative. Given the frequent identifications of inns as brothels (see comment below), this may have been the best arrangement available.1072 Women’s participation in patronage and benefaction was well known (including in Luke’s account of the Christian movement; cf. Acts 9:39; Luke 8:3).1073 Women are rarely, if ever, attested as members of professional guilds (collegia), perhaps because of their small numbers, but they are known as patrons of guilds.1074 Various dedicatory 1063. E.g., Cic. Att. 1.13; Plut. Caes. 10.6; b. Ber. 43b; cf. Isoc. Demon. 17; m. ʾAb. 2:1; 3:10; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 1:10–14; 6:6; Ber. 3:3; y. Šeqal. 3:2. False accusations were scandalous (Cic. Phil. 2.38.99; Deut 22:17–18). 1064. At least Luke and Timothy; we do not know if others also accompanied the group. 1065. Cf. Eurip. El. 343–44; Theophr. Char. 28.3; Livy 34.2.9; 34.4.18; Val. Max. 5.3.10–12 (in Harrell, Divorce, 31); m. ʾAb. 1:5; Ketub. 7:6 (leading to divorce); t. Šabb. 1:14; b. ʿErub. 53b. 1066. Rabbis thought that honorable men should not converse with women in the street (b. Ber. 43b, bar.), some even claiming this for one’s wife or relatives (b. Ber. 43b). 1067. Y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:3, §1; Soṭah 1:1, §7. 1068. Ilan, “Women to Pharisaism”; Sanders, Figure, 109. 1069. Given Luke’s apologetic for Paul (see Keener, Acts, 1:223–24, 445–49; also idem, “Apologetic”), Luke’s mention of women traveling with Jesus may have helped protect Paul’s reputation here. 1070. Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 376; Gnilka, Jesus, 179; Stanton, Gospels, 202; Witherington, Women, 117. As Witherington, Women, 117, points out, this is hardly likely an invention of the early church. Some, such as Joanna, may have had more mobility (Koenig, Hospitality, 33). 1071. Jewett, Male, 145–46. 1072. Hock, Social Context, 29, suggests that an inn was the likeliest place for Paul’s stay (“for a certain number of days,” Acts 16:12), though people also sometimes boarded in gymnasia or temples (citing for temples Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.40; 5.20; 8.15; Diogenes Ep. 37.1–2; Ach. Tat. 8.7.2). 1073. See, e.g., Pomeroy, Goddesses, 200; Hemelrijk, “Patronesses.” 1074. Gardner, Women, 239–40. Further on women as patrons of guilds, see Pomeroy, Goddesses, 200–201.

2407

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 111

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

inscriptions attest to the prevalence of benefactresses in Roman Greece.1075 Perhaps most relevant, they were at least sometimes patronesses of synagogues.1076 As noted above, Nero’s wife Poppaea was an influential Jewish sympathizer;1077 Agrippa II also procured favor for the Jewish people through Nero’s mother, Agrippina.1078

Excursus: Patrons, Clients, and Reciprocity By offering Paul and his company hospitality and apparently by allowing her home to be the initial meeting place for a religious association (Acts 16:40) after the more informal gatherings by the river (16:13–16), Lydia fills the role of patroness (a role familiar also from one of Paul’s letters from near this region, Rom 16:1–2). She is not a patron in the technical Roman political sense of seeking clientele to follow her during her business day to augment her honor, but she functions as the new group’s benefactor (a patron, in the common English sense of the term). Because Philippi was a Roman colony, it is helpful to explore briefly the function of patrons in Roman society, especially in their more general role as benefactors. This excursus also informs other mentions of patronage in this commentary (esp. at Acts 19:31).

1. Benefactors and Patrons Public benefactors tended to sponsor glamorous public works yet provide low wages for workers.1079 This is related to, but different in some respects from, patronage1080 in its more technical sense.1081 Romans generally preferred the close connections provided by patron-client relationships, although the Greek model of benefaction began to replace this model in the second century.1082 Patronage, which grew from Roman political alliances in the republic,1083 is often said to have become one of the dominant forms of social exchange in the empire.1084 During the empire, the emperor absorbed the broader political dimension of patronage, calling his freedmen, soldiers, and the plebs his clients and treating the ruling 1075. E.g., Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 24, §48 (Pleket 5); 243–44, §232 (CIL 10.6328 = ILS 6278). Honorary inscriptions praise women especially for benefaction; see Forbis, “Image.” Perhaps 5 to 10 percent of association patrons were women (Meeks, Urban Christians, 24). 1076. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 201 (noting two clear examples); White, Origins of Architecture, 1:81, on a patroness from the region of Lydia (our Lydia’s homeland). For women patrons in house churches, see Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 194–220. Gr. Anth. 7.728 concerns a pagan priestess who was patroness of many younger women. 1077. Jos. Ant. 20.195; Life 16. On Josephus’s portrayal of high-status women lovers of Judaism (Poppaea, Fulvia, and Helena), see also Matthews, “Ladies’ Aid.” 1078. E.g., Jos. Ant. 20.135 (though Josephus dislikes Agrippina; see 20.151–52). 1079. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 61. On benefaction, see comment on Acts 4:9; also, briefly, comment on Acts 19:31. 1080. On patronage (with various approaches), see, e.g., Friedländer, Life, 1:195–202; Carcopino, Life, 171–73; Lampe, “Patrons,” 488–94; deSilva, “Patronage”; Crossan, Jesus, 59–65; Malina and Pilch, Letters, 382–85; Shelton, Romans, 11–15 (for imperial Rome, 13–15). In early Christianity, see Elliott, “Patronage”; for an intertextual reading from a Hispanic perspective, see Agosto, “Social Analysis.” 1081. See further Joubert, “Exchange.” 1082. Gehrke, “Euergetism,” 155. 1083. Cf. Lintott, “Cliens,” 451. Thus one who is campaigning should promise whatever he can safely fulfill (Cic. Handb. Elec. 45); keeping two patrons both happy with one’s obligations was no easy task (Fam. 7.29.1–2). 1084. Joubert, “Patronus” (arguing in idem, “Dionisius,” that this emphasis stems from Augustus’s time).

2408

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 112

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

class likewise without the title;1085 his patronage is reflected in his responsibility for the grain dole and occasional grants of money.1086 Meanwhile other elite people still had clients1087 who would be seen in public with the patron.1088 They no longer needed political support from the masses, but they augmented their honor by the early-morning crowds at their door, the clients following them during their daily business and applauding for their speeches.1089 Clients in the narrowest sense would follow the patron around during his daily business as paid retainers whose numbers and company augmented the patron’s honor.1090 The patron-client model was especially a Roman model; the Greek East emphasized reciprocity more.1091 But patronage language does appear in Roman colonies such as Corinth and Philippi;1092 though Lydia is probably not a citizen, she would be familiar with the local model. Moreover, the Roman model of patronage influenced how Romans practiced benefactions even as benefactors of towns in the countryside.1093 We focus here, however, on the more general nature of the relationship between benefactors and beneficiaries, which Roman patron-client literature well illustrates.1094 Despite distinctions, the benefaction and patronage models overlapped.1095 We also read of patrons or benefactors of temples or religious associations.1096 Such sponsorship often helped groups and their members to eventually move into the social mainstream.1097 Many Diaspora synagogues depended on such patrons.1098 1085. Lintott, “Cliens,” 452; cf. Lampe, “Patrons,” 493–94; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 78–80; Lewis, Life, 196–97. 1086. Stambaugh, City, 134; see esp. Res gest. 15.1–24.2 (Sherk, Empire, 45–47, §26). 1087. Tac. Ann. 3.55.2; Hist. 1.4. 1088. Lintott, “Cliens,” 452, citing Suet. Vesp. 2.2; Mart. 2.18; 3.46. 1089. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 151–52 (citing, e.g., Mart. Epig. 2.68; 3.7; 8.42; Tac. Ann. 3.55). Cicero moved his house to make it more accessible to the crowds of visitors (Plut. Cic. 8.3–4); for coming in early morning to pay respects, see also Statius Silv. 4.9.48–53; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; Lucian Slip 1; cf., for legal advice, Hor. Sat. 1.1.9–10. For clients’ or protégés’ attending when the patron spoke in court or gave a reading, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.6.6. 1090. Stambaugh, City, 93, 199–200; Lintott, “Cliens,” 451; Winter, Left Corinth, 188–89; see, e.g., Tac. Agr. 40. 1091. Harrison, Grace, 15. See especially MacGillivray, “Patronage,” 46–54, 80, who considers the language of patronage inappropriate in the East. On the lack of evidence for patronage in ancient Judaism, see 54–80 (including literary sources in 54–67 and epigraphic sources in 71–80). 1092. Harrison, Grace, 16. 1093. E.g., Pliny Ep. 4.1.4–5 (he is the town’s patronus, 4.1.4); CIL 6.1492 (in Sherk, Empire, 248, §193, from 101 to 102 c.e.); cf. Pliny Ep. 9.15.1–2. On patrons of rural communities, see also MacMullen, Social Relations, 4–5, 47, and passim; Lampe, “Patrons,” 493; for patrons (benefactors) of local Egyptian cults, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 77–82; in late antiquity (offering a precursor for relations between medieval serfs and lords), see Krause, “Patrocinium” (esp. 618). 1094. The civic-benefaction inscriptions of the Greek East concern primarily public benefactions (though Romans could engage in such benefactions as well; Clarke, “Italy,” 472), for which reason I have drawn on the Roman model even though Lydia was not herself Roman. 1095. Thus Mus. Ruf. 19, p. 122.24–27, emphasized benefiting many and (122.29–30) investing in making friends through benefaction rather than in a house. 1096. E.g., Pliny Ep. 3.4.2; cf. Gr. Anth. 7.728; Chow, Patronage, 64–68; White, Origins of Architecture, 1:30–31; in Egypt, CIJ 1:xciv–xcv. 1097. See White, Origins of Architecture, 1:58–59. 1098. Ibid., 1:77–85; Kasher, “M’srt”; Katzoff, “Suffragium” (on Exod. Rab. 37:2); Brooten, Women Leaders, 151; cf. the proselyte patronus in CIJ 1:340f, §462; προστάτης, 1:71, §100; 1:284, §365. Rabbis were also well aware of patrons (y. Ber. 9:1; Midr. Pss. 4, §3), as were other Jewish sources from the East (CPJ 2:20–22, §148, on a former slaveholder as πάτρων, in 10 b.c.e.; later, Michael in Apoc. Sed. 14:1). Problems with the patronage model may have also affected Paul’s churches, especially in Corinth (which had the most Romans in leadership; cf. various suggestions in Kirner, “Apostolat”; Carter, “Big Men”; Winter, Left Corinth, 184–86).

2409

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 113

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

2. Reciprocity in and beyond Patronage A patron might well feel obligated1099 by a client’s requests or affection.1100 More obviously, a client or other beneficiary would be obligated by loyalty to the benefactor.1101 Whoever takes the initiative puts the other in his debt, so that even a potential benefactor might need to show gratitude to one who sought out his “friendship.”1102 Thus a patron who received too much praise from beneficiaries might show gratitude by bestowing yet more benefactions to avoid being outdone.1103 An Eastern benefactor might insist that the city had already provided sufficient honors1104 and that he was “indebted” until he could repay them with enough “thanks” (χάριτας).1105 The emphasis on reciprocity existed in the East before the East knew the Roman model of patronage,1106 continued alongside it,1107 and as a principle was applicable to all relationships in some form,1108 including among peers.1109 Repaying favors was necessary1110 and constituted an investment in the future, since the beneficiary could receive more when needed (Sir 3:31). Too large a gift might create problems, however, since the receiver could not adequately reciprocate1111 and this reduced the receiver’s honor.1112 Failing to receive or to reciprocate gifts would turn friendship into enmity.1113 Reciprocity revealed gratitude, and gratitude was an essential part of the beneficiary’s obligation.1114 Recommendations often promise the recommended person’s gratitude;1115 that the recommendee is a grateful person could be an incentive to invest 1099. The language of debt was quite common in discussions of benefaction (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148); obligation was central to Roman ethics and was important in Roman law (Winter, Left Corinth, 130–31). 1100. Pliny Ep. 6.6.3, 5–6; 6.26.2; 6.34.2 (also noting the display of generosity involved). 1101. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.1.4; 1.9.9; 11.10.1; 11.11.1; 13.3.1; 13.22.2; 13.25.1; 13.26.4; Pliny Ep. 4.4.2–3; cf. 7.19.10. 1102. So Pliny Ep. 7.31.7 (noting that one who begins the process has no further debt till the favor is remunerated), though this is Pliny’s personal rhetorical appeal. Pliny himself describes his seeking a favor from someone as readily becoming indebted to him (2.13.1). 1103. E.g., Pliny Ep. 4.1.4–5. On avoiding being outdone by the other, hence speaking as if competing to show affection and give benefit, see Cic. Fam. 12.30.3. 1104. Dio Chrys. Or. 44.2. 1105. Dio Chrys. Or. 44.4; that the term for “thanks” is also that for “generosity” (“grace”) is not a coincidence. 1106. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 5.5.33; 6.1.47; 6.4.7; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1422a.32–38. All humanity included in just behavior the repayment of benefactors (so Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.36–1422a.2). While rejecting scholars’ overuse of patronal language, MacGillivray, “Patronage,” 81, readily affirms the widespread use of more general reciprocity conventions in antiquity. 1107. Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 4.9.7; Fronto Ep. graec. 4.2; Jos. Ant. 19.184. 1108. E.g., Statius Silv. 4.9; Marshall, Enmity, 1–13; deSilva, Honor, 99–100; cf. Aune, Revelation, 623. In Mediterranean culture in general, see Herzfeld, “House,” 79–80. 1109. E.g., Publ. Syr. 71; Pliny Ep. 1.4.2; 1.19.3; 2.9.5–6; 9.8.1; Alciph. Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7. 1110. Thus Pliny the Younger implies his willingness to reciprocate by asking for the sort of favor that, he announces, he would gladly have done for the addressee had the situation been reversed (Ep. 3.2.1). The reciprocity had to be in favors, though, not in money (e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 10). 1111. Pliny Ep. 6.32.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5 (esp. 5.6, 8). Pliny Ep. 5.2.1–2 thanks someone for a gift and apologizes that he cannot yet reciprocate. Caelius complains that Appius could not reciprocate a gift and hence became an enemy instead (Cic. Fam. 8.12.1; on the despicability of betrayed benefaction, see comment on Acts 4:9). 1112. Xen. Cyr. 5.5.34. 1113. Marshall, Enmity, 18–20. 1114. Cf., e.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.4.7; Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 5.2.1–2; 9.8.1. Some went so far as to deify great benefactors (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.19). 1115. Cic. Fam. 13.22.2; cf. Pliny Ep. 7.31.1, 7; for the promise of the gratitude of both the recommender and the beneficiary, see Pliny Ep. 3.2.6; promising the requester’s gratitude, 4.13.10. Letters might also attest to gratitude after the favor (as in 7.15.3; Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 9.1).

2410

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 114

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

one’s resources in the recommendee.1116 Ingratitude was a terrible offense meriting punishment.1117 Worse than murderers, adulterers, and traitors are the ungrateful, Seneca declares, for ingratitude is the evil from which others spring!1118 Laws even allowed the reversal of major benefactions because of ingratitude.1119 Patrons counted on reciprocity toward their benefaction in terms of public honor, especially when it could be reciprocated in no other way.1120 The recipient ought to honor the patron or benefactor as widely as possible,1121 and the normal response to benefaction was honor or praise.1122 Greek aristocrats competed for honor by public benefactions; Roman patrons sought honor by benefiting clients, to whom they were obligated.1123 Ideally, the beneficiary should always remember the benefactor’s kindness, but the benefactor should forget it and fail to mention it.1124 Benefactors should give without thought of remuneration, even to the ungrateful; beneficiaries should consider themselves indebted and not expect further favors if they prove ungrateful.1125 Still, those who showed gratitude showed themselves worthy of more benefactions.1126 Although beneficiaries might wish to conserve more of their own honor by not admitting their need for benefactions, the appropriate behavior was to advertise the benefactions, thereby bringing honor to their benefactors.1127 Entering the relationship with its obligations was voluntary, but violating the conventional protocol of the relationship left one open to public censure.1128 The ethic of reciprocity entailed mutual obligations in patronage and other expressions of generosity. Although obligations were mutual, they ultimately included a larger network of “friendships.”1129 Thus, when a governor is “obligated” to a physician for helping him, he appeals to the emperor to give him a reward that the governor cannot offer;1130 a letter of recommendation obligated both the writer and the recommended beneficiary to the proposed benefactor.1131 It also obligated 1116. Cic. Fam. 13.22.2. 1117. Jos. Ant. 19.361; Lucian Fisherman 5; cf. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 36. On ingratitude, see the more complete documentation in the note at Acts 23:17–18. 1118. Sen. Y. Ben. 1.10.4 (also referred to by Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148). Stoics more generally condemned the “ungrateful” (ἀχάριστον) who was interested neither in returning a “favor” (χάριτος) nor in bestowing one (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, pp. 80–81.21–23). 1119. Val. Max. 2.6.6; Suet. Claud. 25.1; Buckland, Roman Law, 88. Later, under Constantine, a son’s emancipation from potestas (Buckland, Roman Law, 130). 1120. Pliny Ep. 7.18.5; 9.30.1–2. Earlier, Arist. N.E. 8.14.2, 1163b 1–5 also saw the needier party’s obligation as honoring the benefactor (deSilva, Honor, 114). Thus Pliny the Younger cancels a debt of a hundred thousand sesterces as a sign of generosity (Ep. 2.4)—but derives honor from this act of benevolence. But clients could also be expected, when possible, to leave the patron something in their will, at least if they had so promised (Val. Max. 7.8.5, 8); this suggests that they might offer back what they could. 1121. Sen. Y. Ben. 2.22.1; 2.23.1; 2.24.1 (cited by deSilva, Honor, 114); for honoring benefactors, see also, e.g., Iambl. V.P. 21.100; also thousands of honorary inscriptions (cf., e.g., Harrison, Grace, 315; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815; in a synagogue, e.g., Kroll, “Greek Inscriptions”). 1122. E.g., CIL 14.409; ILS 6146 (in Sherk, Empire, 240, §182); Apoll. K. Tyre 17. 1123. Engels, Roman Corinth, 87. 1124. So Demosth. Cor. 268–69 (but he does, in fact, mention his own benefactions [Cor. 268], while promising not to mention them). 1125. So deSilva, Honor, 117–18 (noting [118] that the point was “not perfect systematization but virtuous conduct”). Apollonius wants no remuneration for his benefaction (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 48); on continuing to give to the ungrateful, see, e.g., Fronto Nep. am. 2.9. But against wasting resources on ingrates, cf. Lucian Tim. 35. 1126. Pliny Ep. 2.13.9; Sir 3:31. 1127. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149. 1128. Chow, Patronage, 32; cf. Cic. Fam. 8.12.1. 1129. Friends help their friends’ friends (Pliny Ep. 3.2.1). 1130. Pliny Ep. 10.11.1. 1131. Cic. Fam. 13.3.1; Pliny Ep. 2.13.1–2; 4.4.2. The recommender was also obligated, out of sensitivity to the benefactor’s reputation, not to recommend indiscriminately (Cic. Fam. 13.48.1). On letters of

2411

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 115

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

the recommended to the recommender, whose letter was itself a benefaction.1132 By helping the recommended person, a recommender notes, “[You will show] that I love him and you love me.”1133 Or the recommender suggests that the benefactor help the proposed beneficiary because “I love him” and “he loves me”1134 or because “he loves me” just as “I love you.”1135 The point in such instances was not that such debts be avoided, like monetary debts today; rather, all parties in the letters seem eager to enter into such debts (or at least to portray themselves as eager).1136 Such eagerly expanding networks of generosity created political bonds but were also helpful in rendering the larger society more cohesive,1137 except insofar as these friendship networks also entailed corresponding group enmities.1138 By receiving a favor from another honorable person, one displayed one’s friendship and hence participated in that honor; thus Pliny’s many and tedious requests to the emperor are for Pliny’s honor and posterity as well as for the benefits themselves.1139 The ideal patron-client or benefactor-beneficiary relationship required both “grace” and “faith” or “loyalty.” “Grace” (χάρις) included the giver’s generosity or benefactions.1140 The same term applied to thanks or gratitude, what the beneficiary reciprocates toward the benefactor.1141 “Faithfulness” or “loyalty” (πίστις) was an essential virtue in this as in other relationships.1142 A king (the most powerful and hence most productive sort of benefactor)1143 depended on the “loyalty” (πίστις and its verb cognate)1144 and “loving” (ἀγαπάω)1145 of the friends who surrounded him, which he would best secure by choosing them wisely and by strengthening them. 1146 recommendation and friendship, see Marshall, Enmity, 91–101; for the reciprocity implied, see 117–20; on letters of recommendation, see also comment at Acts 9:2. 1132. E.g., Pliny Ep. 2.13.9. Cicero’s letters of recommendation often ask the recipient to prove to the recommended one how good a recommendation Cicero had written and how effective was his benefaction (e.g., Fam. 13.19.3; 13.20.1; 13.26.4; 13.30.2; 13.35.2; 13.36.2; 13.44.1; 13.45.1; 13.46.1; 13.49.1; 13.58.1; 13.77.2; 13.78.2). 1133. Cic. Fam. 13.47.1. 1134. Pliny Ep. 2.13.7. 1135. Pliny Ep. 3.2.4. “Love” (friendship) is a factor in recommendations. The recipient of a favor might tell the recommender that the benefactor acted only because of the recommender’s love for the beneficiary (Fronto Ad verum imp. 1.5). 1136. Marshall, Enmity, 117, notes that such recommendations were meant “to enhance the friendship between the recommender and the recommended.” 1137. Cf. Sen. Y. Ben. 1.4.2, who regards reciprocity of favors as the primary social bond (deSilva, Honor, 96). 1138. E.g., Pliny Ep. 3.9.25; cf. Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 164–69. Even to gain a friend, however, one could not join in enmity against another friend (Cic. Handb. Elec. 45). Benevolent-patron ideology helped alleviate exploitation (Oakman, “Countryside,” 159). 1139. So Pliny Ep. 10.12.2; 10.13. Others likewise sought Pliny’s friendship because this would bring them honor, a sentiment that Pliny appreciated (6.18.2). 1140. See Harrison, Grace, 2, 50–53, 63, 72–84, 166–209; deSilva, “Patronage,” 768; Danker, Corinthians, 117–18; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815; Lucian Par. 58 (χαριζόμενοι); Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.8–9, 15. 1141. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 44.4; Harrison, Grace, 40–43. 1142. In friendship in general, see, e.g., Isoc. Demon. 1; Val. Max. 4.7; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; Phaedrus 3.9.1; Char. Chaer. 3.5.7–8; Sent. Syr. Men. 25. It was also praiseworthy toward a patron (a freedwoman in Suet. Calig. 16.4). A client who proved trustworthy might even become the patron’s heir (Cic. Fam. 13.46.1). 1143. Cf., e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23. 1144. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.86, 88. Cherishing ties such as of clientage and kinship was a topic of justice (Rhet. Her. 3.3.4). Roman ethics treated fidelity (especially to one’s word) as fundamental to justice (Schiemann, “Fides: Law,” 415, citing Cic. Off. 1.23); naturally, πίστις gained heavy moral connotations in Roman Christianity (Büchli, “Fides,” 417). 1145. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.89. 1146. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.89, 128.

2412

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 116

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

One could likewise praise a patron for his πίστις—that is, his trust­worthiness, dependability.1147

3. Problems in Patronage The desire for honor could get out of control; an institution that once had more benevolent intent had often degenerated into fawning by the mid-first century.1148 In contrast to the Greek emphasis on equality, Roman patronage was openly asymmetrical, a greater helping a lesser.1149 Given the benevolent patriarchy model,1150 that some clients complained about having to grovel1151 is hardly surprising. Thus Lucian, who himself paid morning respects to his own patron,1152 lampooned patrons who kept their clients waiting outside until finally emerging in glorious raiment; such a patron “thought that he was conferring happiness and bliss upon those who greeted him if he proffered his right hand or his breast, to be covered with kisses.”1153 Lucian mocked parasites who flattered patrons for favor,1154 but he was merely continuing a stock character in comedy.1155 A generation or two earlier, in the late first century, Martial complained that he had problems with his patron doing nothing for him1156 and jibed that one Gaius had given him advice instead of a loan.1157 Juvenal also indicates problematic patron-client relations;1158 a client neglected for months becomes ecstatic when offered the lowest-ranking place on the lowest-ranking couch.1159 One form of reciprocity concerns hospitality.1160 In terms of the larger Philippian society, Lydia was Paul’s benefactor, and she was something of a patron (though she needed no honor or political support, in contrast to the Asiarchs in Acts 19:31). Yet her activity differs from typical expectations for aristocratic patrons (probably in part because she was not an aristocrat).1161 Association with Paul brings her (like the Asiarchs) the risk of public dishonor, the antithesis of the normal Greek and Roman purpose for benefaction. That she perseveres in her commitment to discipleship (16:40) demonstrates the sincerity of her conversion.1162

1147. Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, lines 4–7 (p. 107; πίστεως in line 7). For loyalty (fides) to a client, see Tac. Dial. 10. 1148. Lee, “Unrest,” 125–26. Tensions did exist, however, much earlier (e.g., Hor. Ep. 1.7). 1149. Chow, Patronage, 31–32. 1150. Possibly born in its contemporary form from imperial propaganda in Augustus’s era (Lewis, Life, 196–97, citing Virg. Aen. 6.851–53). 1151. Lee, “Unrest,” 126, citing Juv. Sat. 3.151–53; 7 passim; Lucian Salaried Posts in Great Houses. 1152. Lucian Slip 1. 1153. Lucian Men. 12 (LCL, 4:95). In Nigr. 21, some of the rich require obeisance or let their representatives receive clients in their place; clients may stand for hours. In Nigr. 22, the latter rise at midnight, traverse the city to find themselves locked out by the patron’s servants, and endure being called dogs, all for a dinner they may not like. 1154. E.g., Lucian Par. passim (esp. 58, noting that the rich act as their “benefactors”). 1155. Brown, “Parasite.” 1156. Mart. Epig. 1.112; 2.118. Martial undoubtedly provoked laughter, but presumably he either knew his patron to be a person of exceptionally good humor or knew where to find another patron. 1157. Mart. Epig. 2.30.1–5. He pleads for clients’ rights in 10.34. 1158. E.g., Juv. Sat. 3.122–25. 1159. Juv. Sat. 4.15–18. 1160. E.g., Pliny Ep. 1.4.2–3; cf. Pliny Ep. 4.1.6. 1161. Comparison with benefactors of cult associations from her social and economic bracket would probably produce closer correspondences. 1162. Some scholars argue that Luke, though valuing benefactors (e.g., Luke 1:3; 8:3; Acts 18:7), differs from the usual expectations of benefaction and patronage in that donors cannot count on their gifts buying “influence in the community” (Heen, “Patronage,” 458).

2413

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 117

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Excursus: Hospitality Hospitality is critical in many traditional societies,1163 though it is perceived as more difficult, and often unsafe, in most modern urban contexts. It appears as a central virtue in traditional Mediterranean culture,1164 no less than the pervasive emphasis on honor and shame;1165 this is also true of the Middle Eastern culture in which most biblical stories before Acts take place.1166 Hospitality was both a sacred duty and a privilege for the host, especially if the guest was a particularly honorable person.1167 It is no surprise, then, that Luke uses such a strong term (παρεκάλεσεν, “exhorted,” “pleaded,” 16:15) for Lydia’s desire for the missionaries to board with her, given her esteem for them as God’s messengers.1168 When she entreats them to stay (cf. 18:3) if they have judged her “faithful to the Lord” (i.e., genuine in her faith in Jesus), she cannot mean that all true believers should share the privilege of having the evangelists stay with them. She is offering an argument with an implied plea for a special privilege; her home will be the base from which the true God’s agents will evangelize Philippi (Luke 9:4; 10:5–7). Perhaps her insistence that they stay with her is partly for their protection, in view of the situation for Jews in Philippi (cf. Acts 16:20) that she already well knows (cf. Judg 19:20).1169 Another God-fearer’s insistence regarding hospitality was earlier accepted at the risk of scandal (Acts 10:48);1170 this time, however, God’s agents are far from any Pharisees (Luke 15:2) or any dominant-culture church (Acts 11:3) that would criticize them on religious grounds. Insisting on a guest staying at least one night to rest was good form (Hom. Od. 3.345–58; Luke 24:29); in extreme cases, the guest might have to protest several times to be able to leave ( Judg 19:4–9; Tob 10:6–10).

1. Inns One undesirable alternative to accepting hospitality in Mediterranean antiquity was the need to stay in an inn.1171 Although some inns were nicer than others,1172 high-status people avoided them when possible (though on long journeys this might not prove possible); hospitality in the town houses or villas of wealthy peers was always preferable.1173 1163. See, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 277 (cf. sexual hospitality, 192); Choge, “Hospitality.” 1164. E.g., Cic. Part. or. 23.80; Off. 2.18.64; Epict. Diatr. 1.28.23. For discussions of Greek and Roman hospitality, see Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 522–24; Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality”; Arterbury, Hospitality; Jipp, Visitations, 59–170; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 95, cites also Mathews, “Hospitality”; Riddle, “Hospitality.” 1165. Herzfeld, “House”; on its reciprocal value, see esp. 78–79. 1166. See Felber, “Hospitality”; Wiesehöfer, “Hospitality”; for current Middle Eastern practice, see, e.g., Eickelman, Middle East, 234–36. 1167. Cf. Paul’s granting his hosts the privilege of showing him hospitality (Rom 15:24, 28; 1 Cor 16:5–7); to refuse to accept hospitality was an insult to the host’s generosity (Cic. Att. 12.36). 1168. Cf. Diogenes Ep. 37, where Diogenes’s host in Rhodes urges him to come (but this is after Diogenes has shamed him for not meeting him on his arrival). 1169. See Reimer, Women, 117–25. 1170. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 66–67. 1171. Though not desirable, some in the East, especially in Asia Minor, were better than those in the West (Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 393). For pleasant accommodations, see, e.g., ILS 6036 (Pompeii); for a kind innkeeper, Iambl. V.P. 33.238. On inns, see further Kleberg, Hôtels; Friedländer, Life, 1:290–93; Casson, Travel, 197–218. 1172. There were exceptional luxury inns in which people of status might board (see Harris and Schuster, “Lap of Luxury,” on the Agro Murecine near Pompeii; cf. further Stambaugh, City, 179, on other luxury inns in Pompeii). 1173. Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759; Stambaugh, City, 179.

2414

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 118

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Full-scale facilities called mansiones were stationed at about a day’s journey apart, with smaller bed-and-food mutationes (where government couriers changed horses) roughly every ten miles; government agents had first priority, but others could stay there.1174 If a traveler could not afford or reach these, he or she might have to stay “at a boarding house or wayside inn (hospitium, deuersorium, caupona, stabulum)”; archaeology confirms the frequent literary portrait of “dilapidated and unclean facilities, virtually non-existent furnishings, bed-bugs, poor quality food and drink, untrustworthy proprietors and staff.”1175 Inns and boardinghouses often provided no more than a bed and candle.1176 Towns provided a wider range of lodging, “from luxurious villas converted for use as comfortable hotels to very cheap dives, the walls covered with graffiti and the beds infested with bugs.”1177 In a later novel we read of some philosophers staying at an inn near Rome’s city gate (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.39). Inns were necessary way stations for travelers,1178 but they had a poor reputation1179 and were a choice of last resort.1180 Partly because the culture as a whole stressed free hospitality, people resented the exorbitant prices innkeepers charged guests when they could get away with such prices.1181 Innkeeping was considered a disgraceful trade, and the provision of prostitutes at inns led to innkeepers being “classed with lenones (pimps).”1182 Many people considered them dangerous;1183 sometimes they were even suspected of murdering guests.1184 But it appears that some valued honesty, as in one inscription from near Philippi.1185 Inns could function as taverns on the ground floor,1186 and one could procure better wine there than in the countryside.1187 Because lower classes often lacked culinary facilities in their upper-story apartments, such taverns, or popinae, became noisy hubs of lower-class social life. Most residents of cities lacked means to cook their own food; taverns were where they could acquire hot food as well as loud entertainment. Remains from the Italian city of Pompeii illustrate their popularity: the town of twenty thousand had nearly “140 inns and bars, or about one per 145 of the population.”1188 A traveler who wished entertainment and a full meal rather than a 1174. Rapske, “Travel,” 14–15 (noting that local communities maintained these stations). 1175. Ibid., 15; on bad lodging for the poor, see Juv. Sat. 3.190–211; cf. also the bedbugs in Acts John 60–61 (for discussion of the story and its possible background, see, e.g., Plümacher, Geschichte, 171–90). Presumably, hygiene was less predictable at such institutions, where reputation and return visitors were not primary issues; whereas I found hospitality in homes very generous in rural Nigeria, it took a few weeks to recover from the bed in a particular inn infested with voracious bugs. 1176. Rapske, Custody, 233. 1177. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 38; cf. Stambaugh, City, 179–82; Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759 (further noting that one would provide one’s bedding and that safety was also in question). 1178. Goodman, State, 61. 1179. Moffatt, Hebrews, 224, citing Plato Laws 11.918D; cf. Moffatt, General Epistles, 153. 1180. A person of means could avoid them (Gen. Rab. 71:10). 1181. Moffatt, Hebrews, 224. Alciph. Paras. 17 (Acratolymas to Chonocrates), 3.53, esp. ¶4, may associate greed with an innkeeper; in Dio Chrys. Or. 72.2, innkeepers wear their belts girded high up. Toner, Culture, 29, cites graffiti complaining that an innkeeper keeps the pure wine, selling an obviously watered-down version to the guests (citing CIL 4.3948). 1182. Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759; cf. Reden, “Work,” 743; in the second millennium b.c.e., cf. Hess, “Joshua,” 19. Although aristocratic owners lost no status, people viewed as contemptible all their subordinates (“Inn: Antiquity,” 820). 1183. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 13, cites here Apul. Metam. 1.8; cf. also the robbery in b. Taʿan. 21a; the demonized oil in b. Sanh. 101a. 1184. E.g., Cic. Div. 1.27.57; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 10; cf. Hermog. Issues 32–33 (a theme that Heath, Hermogenes, 67, identifies also in Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.13; Calpurnius Flaccus Declamations 40). 1185. ILS 7479 in Sherk, Empire, 237, §178E. 1186. Cf. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 201; Stambaugh, City, 200; Casson, Travel, 212–15. 1187. Appian Bell. civ. 1.8.72. 1188. Toner, Culture, 109.

2415

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 119

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

snack bar would go to a popina, which functioned as a nightclub, gambling den, and brothel; the institutions had a poor moral reputation.1189 More notoriously, inns usually doubled as brothels, with sexual partners available especially in the rooms.1190 A sample of a low-class brothel-inn includes “tiny cubicles, erotic paintings, and boastful graffiti.”1191 Maidens to kiss were available at inns (e.g., Virg. Copa 33), and inns often advertised their sexual services on signs.1192 Probably many of the prostitutes who stocked these institutions were throwaway babies raised as slaves;1193 inns used both slaves and freedwomen for this task.1194 Classical Athenians referred to the running of inns and brothels as a disreputable trade (Theoph. Char. 6.5) and despised (μισεῖτε, “hate,” Aeschines Tim. 188) brothel keepers. The same disdain for brothel keepers appears in the first century (Dio Chrys. Or. 7.133) and later (Hermog. Inv. 1.2.103). The Qumran scrolls associate the evil woman (perhaps personifying folly) with inns (4Q184 1 6). Josephus ranked innkeepers with prostitutes and female slaves (Ant. 3.276); he views Rahab, whom Scripture called πόρνη ( Josh 2:1; 6:17, 23, 25), as an innkeeper ( Jos. Ant. 5.8). Later Jewish tradition claimed that Balaam had Balaak prepare inns and stock them with prostitutes and discounted food (Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 24:14). The later church allowed priests to eat at such roadside institutions only when travel left them no alternative.1195 In contrast to the hospitality of individuals, the purchased lodging of inns invited no reciprocal obligations.1196

2. Greeks and Hospitality1197 Greeks regarded Zeus as special protector of strangers or guests1198 and as patron deity of hospitality.1199 Hospitality invited the favor of the gods (Pindar Ol. 4.12–15, probably referring especially to Zeus), and injustice to strangers invited Zeus’s anger 1189. Casson, Travel, 212–13, 215–17. 1190. See Stahlmann, “Brothels,” 790 (citing CIL 9.2689 = ILS 7478; Dig. 23.2.43.pr.); Casson, Travel, 206–7; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 192, 201; Friedländer, Life, 1:293; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 393; cf. Höcker, “Prostitution,” 60. In the ancient Near East, see Renger, “Inns,” 817 (citing Middle Assyrian Laws §14; Hamm. 110). Speaking of the “lustful tavern” (salax taberna, Catull. Carm. 37.1), one poet threatens to scribble obscene graffiti about the prostitutes’ patrons over the tavern’s front (37.9–10). Some rabbis worried about bestiality in such places (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1). 1191. Stambaugh, City, 182, who notes that the graffiti include the claim to have urinated on the bed because there was no toilet (CIL 4.4957). CIL 9.2689 preserves a dialogue (perhaps a joke) in which an innkeeper is settling a bill: one-sixth of an as (i.e., about 1 percent of a denarius) for wine, one as (one-sixteenth of a denarius) for bread, two asses (one-eighth of a denarius) for food, eight asses for the girl, and two for the mule’s hay (the traveler then complains about his feeding the mule so much). 1192. E.g., SIG3 1251 = IG 14.24; CIL 4.1679 (Sherk, Empire, 211, §165). 1193. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 140; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 59; cf. Gardner, Women, 132; Mart. Epig. 9.6.7–8; for captives sold into prostitution, see Apul. Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8 A. 1194. Stambaugh, City, 208. 1195. Casson, Travel, 218. 1196. Cf. Pliny Ep. 6.19.4 (insisting that one’s claimed locale not be treated as if merely an inn). 1197. In Greek novels, cf. Arterbury, “Hospitality.” In general, see the excellent work by Koenig, Hospitality; and, thorough and excellent but discovered too late in my process of writing for me to interact with it adequately, Arterbury, Hospitality. 1198. Hom. Od. 9.268–77; Pindar Nem. 5.33; Ol. 8.22; Eurip. Cycl. 355; Ap. Rhod. 2.1131–33; 3.193; Lucian Tim. 1; Gr. Anth. 7.516; Vit. Aes. 139; this is transferred to the Roman Jupiter (Ovid Metam. 10.224). All strangers come from Zeus (Hom. Od. 6.207–8; 14.57–58). 1199. Hom. Il. 13.624–25; Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.29; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.39 (cf. 1.41); 12.75; Lucian Affairs 7; Heliod. Eth. 2.22. A deity himself appears as a host in Philost. Hrk. 5.5–6; cf. Israel’s God at the eschatological banquet (see Koenig, Hospitality, 46n2).

2416

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 120

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.28–31).1200 Showing hospitality was one expression of fearing the gods (Hom. Od. 9.176); one who does not fear the gods might doubt an obligation to show hospitality (9.273–78), but face Zeus’s vengeance (9.478–79). Rome’s annual festival called the lectisternium emphasized hospitality, inviting people to open their homes and provide food to the many passersby.1201 Showing hospitality to visitors was a moral obligation,1202 and the virtuous displayed it immediately, not keeping a stranger waiting long at the door.1203 One must provide good food and drink for even unexpected guests (Hom. Il. 9.199–220; Luke 11:6); poor hospitality could be satirized (Apul. Metam. 1.26; Lucian Lucius 1–2). Ideal hospitality might treat the guest as oneself (Pliny Ep. 1.4.2–3; 6.28.3). Even Roman and Greek architecture reinforced the point; patrons’ homes were designed to be open to the clients, and all large homes had space to welcome guests.1204 Wellto-do travelers could depend on the estates of members of their own class whom they knew or who were known to their friends; their hosts could count on the favor being returned when they were traveling.1205 Hospitality included lodging, food, and often being helped on one’s way,1206 and three days was a normal stay, with up to a week being acceptable.1207

3. Hospitality Connections and Obligations People were obligated to cherish hospitality ties.1208 Some believed that such ties should persist even beyond death (Eurip. Temenidae frg. 736). So securely did hospitality establish covenant ties that two legendary warriors refused to fight each other because one’s ancestors had entertained the other’s as guests (Hom. Il. 6.212–31, esp. 224).1209 Cicero wrote letters of recommendation for his guests, one who had stayed with him for a year (Fam. 13.19.1)1210 and another who had proved a man of gratitude (13.25.1). Likewise, Pliny the Younger had to respond to the Baeticans’ pleas because of hospitality ties (Ep. 3.4.5). One owes friendship and kindness to a host 1200. In a well-known fable, when the eagle was human, it failed to be hospitable and hence died of hunger because of its bent beak (Demet. Style 3.157, commenting on Arist. Hist. Anim. 9). 1201. Willis, “Banquets,” 144. 1202. Hom. Od. 4.26–36; cf. Libanius Maxim 2.2. Among types of friendship, “hospitality” (ξενίαν) is “friendship with strangers” (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5 L, pp. 36–37.1). For Greeks, it related to their emphasis on equality and individualism (Engels, Roman Corinth, 86). 1203. Hom. Od. 1.118–20, 123–24; cf. Lucian Lucius 1–2. The great lengths to which Telemachus goes in Od. 1.113–35, ignorant that the visitor is Athena, resemble Gen 18:3–8. 1204. See Winter, Left Corinth, 135, 186–87 (following Owens, City, 145); deSilva, Honor, 193; contrast the emphasis in Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 150. Tacitus claims that the noble Germans were so hospitable that their doors were open to anyone (Germ. 21). 1205. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 38. 1206. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing, for lodging and food, Lucian Lucius 7; Casson, Travel, 209–18). 1207. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing Did. 11.5; Lucian Affairs 8–9; Lucius 3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.23; 5.10), noting that Paul observed this rule in Acts (Acts 9:9; 20:6; 21:4, 7; 28:14). In Lucian Lucius 3–4, Lucius consents to stay for three days but (Lucius 4) is, in fact, secretly eager to stay longer, if necessary, to satisfy his curiosity; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.23 concerns the hospitality of an Indian king. 1208. E.g., Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Fam. 13.36.1; 13.73.2. There were even rituals to confirm a relationship established by hospitality (Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality,” 531). 1209. Cf. ties of hospitality to the third generation in Cic. Fam. 13.34.1. A prisoner of war had previously been a guest-friend of Marcius, and so Marcius granted his freedom (Plut. Coriol. 10.3). 1210. Such lengthy hospitality continues to be practiced in some regions. After my wife (then my fiancée) was a refugee in the rainforest of her nation of Congo for eighteen months, she spent eight more months outside her country as we awaited a visa for my country. During those eight months a Cameroonian family graciously housed her because we shared a mutual friend who recommended her on my behalf.

2417

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 121

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Cic. Verr. 2.2.47.117); for a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catull. Carm. 64.176). Hospitality with possessions creates an obligation of friendship to look out for one another’s interests (Lysias Or. 18.10, §150). One who had once been in another’s house could plead for the other’s help on the basis of the relationship that this signified (12.14, §121). Betrayal of hospitality ties violated a sacred trust; all but the most wicked would shrink from injuring those who had been guests at their table,1211 and betraying a host was deemed equally reprehensible.1212 Those who eat together at a table should not betray friendship even by so much as slandering one another.1213 Outsiders evaluated, praised, or criticized lands and cities by how hospitable they were to strangers.1214 Philippi proved inhospitable to Paul as Gibeah or Sodom did to others (Gen 19:4–9; Judg 19:22–30), with a foreigner like Lydia filling the role of Lot or of the Ephraimite worker (Gen 19:2–3; Judg 19:16–20). Both Lydia and her guests would understand the permanent mutual commitment they incurred by accepting her hospitality.

4. Hospitality in Judaism Because Lydia was a God-fearer, Jewish hospitality conventions are particularly relevant, though they do little to change the general picture above. Hospitality was no less central among Jews than in other Mediterranean practice.1215 Jewish travelers would find it especially helpful in towns with Jewish inhabitants; it was extended particularly to members of one’s own group—for example, distant relatives (Tob 5:10–15) or those who spoke the local language (Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.1). It is even said that Essenes did not need to take provisions when they traveled because they could count on hospitality from fellow Essenes wherever they went.1216 A visitor to a town “knew, or could easily learn, where to find immigrants and temporary residents from his own country or ethnos” or those who shared one’s trade; “these were the two most important factors in the formation and identification of neighborhoods.”1217 Some synagogues apparently had guest rooms to lodge travelers.1218 Hospitality to strangers was among the basic acts of charity that Judaism expected (the others included visiting the sick and comforting the bereaved).1219 The more lavish the hospitality, the better (Gen 18:4–8; Tob 7:8–9),1220 but one should offer 1211. Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hesiod W.D. 327; Eurip. Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Stheneboea frg. 667; Ap. Rhod. 3.377–80; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy 25.16.6; Quint. Curt. 8.2.3; Libanius Speech in Character 10.1. Such betrayal incurred divine wrath (Hom. Od. 21.26–28; Livy 39.51.12; Tac. Ann. 2.65; 15.52). Cf. Acastus’s avoidance of harming his guest directly despite his belief that the guest has wronged him (Stenger, “Peleus,” 695, citing Hesiod Cat. W. E. 209). 1212. Eurip. Heracl. 1034–36 (even in subsequent generations); Cic. Pis. 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid Her. 17.3–4; Tac. Hist. 3.41. (These sources are fewer than for the host, probably because hosts more often held more power.) 1213. Aeschines Embassy 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catull. Carm. 64.176). 1214. E.g., Eurip. Cycl. 125 (the Cyclopes prove the antithesis of hospitality, 126–28); Pindar Ol. 13.3; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.22, 24–25. Cf. also some interpretations of 2 Kgs 2:23–24 (Gordon, Near East, 200); Luke 11:5 (Bailey, Poet, 122–24; Scott, Parable, 87). 1215. See Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. ʾAb. 1:5, 15; 3:12; Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 524–25. 1216. Jos. War 2.124–25; Hippol. Ref. 9.15. 1217. Meeks, Urban Christians, 29 (listing as examples the Jewish sections of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome; Philo Flacc. 55; Embassy 155). 1218. E.g., y. Meg. 3:3, §5; for the archaeology, see Sukenik, Synagogues, 49, 69–70; Koenig, Hospitality, 17; Blue, “Influence,” 476. 1219. Van Unnik, “Teaching of Good Works,” 96–97. 1220. Cf. Test. Job 10, esp. 10:1–4. Job’s hospitality is probably modeled after that of Abraham in Gen 18 and Jewish tradition.

2418

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 122

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

whatever one had, no matter how humble.1221 The greatest example of hospitality in ancient Judaism was Abraham, and many traditions developed the portrait in Gen 18:2–8.1222 Travelers carried letters of recommendation from known individuals so that they could be deemed trustworthy by hosts who did not know them personally (see comment on Acts 9:2). One important form of Jewish hospitality was that toward traveling sages,1223 a practice relevant for understanding both the Gospels and some of Paul’s lodging in Acts. The rabbis believed that people were morally obligated to serve the sages, including providing food (ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56 B). Because much of the responsibility for hospitality, especially food preparation, fell on the mistress of a home, later rabbis accepted hospitality only if the wife was trustworthy regarding tithing (t. Demai 3:9).1224 Jesus often depended on hospitality (e.g., Luke 4:38; 5:29; 10:38; 19:5; 22:10–11), and he instructed his agents to do so (9:4; 10:7–8); denied a lodging (κατάλυμα) in 2:7, he receives one in 22:11.

5. Accepting Hospitality Asking a person from whom one was learning to come and stay or receive hospitality appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; 24:28–29), and so it is not surprising for the reader here.1225 Early Christians also expected hospitality on their travels and emphasized this virtue repeatedly in their writings (Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; 3 John 5–8; Did. 11.1–3; 12.1–2).1226 Both in his letters (Rom 15:23–24; 16:23; 1 Cor 16:6; Phlm 22) and elsewhere in Acts (Acts 9:11; 21:4, 7–8, 16; 28:14) Paul depended on hospitality.1227 Most people wanted an honored person to visit their homes1228 and felt honored to lodge or entertain such a guest;1229 they considered it an honor to entertain a noble friend as a guest, and a sorrow if the friend had to be housed elsewhere instead.1230 Refusing to stay in someone’s house when in the city could be construed as rude;1231 whenever visiting Ephesus, Cicero stayed with Curtius Mithres, “as much at home in his house as in my own” (Fam. 13.69.1). Thus, for Paul to refuse Lydia’s insistence 1221. Cf., e.g., Matt 10:42; Eurip. El. 357–63. 1222. See Koenig, Hospitality, 15–20. See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Heb 13:2; Jas 2:16, 21. 1223. Koenig, Hospitality, 16–17; Safrai, “Education,” 966. Hospitality toward sages appears in b. Ber. 63b (cf. 47b, bar.). A rabbi who was offered hospitality by no one once had to spend the night in a schoolhouse, which was, unfortunately, haunted (b. Qidd. 29b). 1224. For more positive roles of the hostess, see Safrai, “Home,” 762–63 (citing b. B. Meṣiʿa 87a; Ber. 10a; Taʿan. 23b). 1225. For the hospitality of shared meals in Luke-Acts, cf. also briefly Ashworth, “Hospitality.” 1226. Fee, Timothy, 44, adds Aristides Apol. 15; Lane, Hebrews, 512, adds Lucian Peregr. 16. 1227. For Paul’s numerous hosts and supporters, see Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 130; for his housing arrangements, see esp. Hock, Social Context, 29–31. On the hospitality theme in the nt, see Koenig, Hospitality; in Luke-Acts, see also Denaux, “Theme,” 255–63. Although I have not found corroboration of the view (in Malina and Pilch, Acts, 215) that a guest held a “quasi-female” status, all favors invited reciprocity; yet hosts who recognized Paul’s spiritual status would likely reckon themselves recipients of the greater favor. 1228. Lucian Affairs 9. I have also observed this desire in some traditional African societies emphasizing hospitality, in contrast to Western society (which tends to regard hospitality obligations as burdensome unless the guest is an intimate friend or of peculiarly high status); cf. Choge, “Hospitality.” 1229. Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4. 1230. Eurip. Alc. 1039–41. 1231. Cic. Att. 12.36. Cf. comment on Acts 20:16. One could thus request hospitality with confidence (e.g., Pliny Ep. 5.19.7–9) and accept an invitation as if granting an honor (e.g., 6.14.1–2; cf. Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6; Phlm 22).

2419

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 123

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Acts 16:15) would be “a serious breach of etiquette.”1232 On the size of homes and their use for religious meetings, see comment on Acts 12:12–13. Another reason also compelled Paul to accept hospitality here. Jesus instructed his agents to stay wherever they were offered hospitality (Luke 9:4; 10:5–8); like Jesus himself, they had no other place to lay their heads (9:57–58).1233 This home would be their home base for spreading their message elsewhere in the community (10:5–7). Those who received them, knowing their mission, embraced their message (10:5–7), since one limit on hospitality was to reject those considered deceivers or untrustworthy (Sir 11:29, 34). One Tanna warned that it was praiseworthy to extend hospitality to sages and their disciples but not to Gentiles or the sinful (Sipre Deut. 1.10.1); Greeks also did not require hospitality for the impious (Aeschylus Suppl. 927). One should not show hospitality to false teachers (2 John 10–11). b. Exorcism of a Powerful Spirit (16:16–18) Paul’s ministry in Philippi offers an example of his Gentile mission and fits Acts’ theme that nothing can hinder the gospel (Acts 28:31).1234 The passage also illustrates how Jesus’s ministry is carried into a new context. Just as Jesus silenced demons’ superhuman “testimony” to his identity (Luke 4:34–35), so here does Paul. Just as Jesus faced suffering for challenging established religious and perhaps economic interests as well as spiritual powers (cf., e.g., Luke 8:32–37), so did Paul. This passage emphasizes that the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of new churches are worth the endurance of suffering (as the response of God’s servants acknowledges in Acts 16:25).1235 It also offers divine vindication for God’s servants, although even Luke, despite his generally upbeat narration, does not always believe that this vindication comes in the same way (cf. 7:54–60). i. The Slave and Her Exploiters (16:16)

That the missionaries continued to go to the place of prayer means, presumably, that they were welcome in this Jewish or quasi-Jewish group (in contrast to some other Jewish groups, such as in 17:5); probably these Diaspora women who attended also considered it a privilege to have authentic Judean teachers among them. Both Acts and Paul’s writings suggest that, from his perspective, Paul left local Jewish gatherings only under duress (Acts 17:3–5, 11–13; 18:4–7; 19:8–9; 2 Cor 11:25). That the new group continued to meet at the prayer site outside the city gate (Acts 16:13) may suggest a level of restriction or potential hostility in Philippi (confirmed in 16:20–21). This location may, however, have been only one possible meeting site; groups could normally meet freely in patrons’ homes, particularly if the patron held some status.1236 Although Lydia was not a citizen of Philippi, her resources were 1232. Witherington, Acts, 493, who thinks it would also question the genuineness of her conversion; sharing possessions (and hospitality) shows genuine conversion in Luke-Acts. Gillman, “Hospitality in Acts 16,” rightly notes that both Lydia and the jailer demonstrate the reality of their initiation by hospitality (cf. Luke 10:7–8, 10–11; Matt 10:40–42; though we should not assume that this never happened in the period depicted in Acts 13–14, a narrative less detailed than here). 1233. That some disciples retained their homes is clear (Acts 12:12–13; see Kim, Stewardship; Tannehill, “Ethics,” 119–20). 1234. With Hintermaier, “Grundlage.” 1235. For sample applications, see, e.g., Rakotojoelinandrasana, “Gospel in Adversity” (for an African context, especially in Madagascar). 1236. See Witherington, Acts, 487n68.

2420

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 124

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

probably sufficient to minimize suspicions of subversion if friends met in her home (cf. 16:40), whether to practice their traditional form of Judaism or its Christian form. That the slave girl (παιδίσκη) was young reinforces the allusion to the mantic girl at Delphi (discussed further below), with whom Luke’s further description probably makes a connection. (In the broader milieu, it might be relevant that children were also often thought more susceptible to inspiration.)1237 In Luke’s larger narrative, the slave girl may contrast with the true prophetic women, daughters, and youth and especially with the “female servants” (δούλας) in 2:17–18. A servant girl (παιδίσκη) exposed Peter as a follower of Jesus (Luke 22:56), and he denied it (22:57). Later, positively and by contrast, another servant girl (παιδίσκη; her name naturally preserved by tradition because she was part of the Christian community) revealed Peter and was disbelieved (Acts 12:13–15); here the servant girl reveals Paul to non-Christian hearers but by negative means. In contrast to Peter’s first (and negative) encounter with a παιδίσκη, Paul does not deny that he is Jesus’s follower; he acts only as Jesus did in silencing demons (Luke 4:35, 41).1238 That the slave girl had multiple owners (pl. κυρίοις) could mean that they were a husband and a wife,1239 but ancient practice also allows us to accept that it could refer to joint ownership by others, whether relatives or not.1240 Luke himself is aware of this kind of situation (Luke 16:13;1241 for animals, 19:33). Owners could divide shares in slaves, their children inheriting in the same proportions. Slaves could also be rented, with each owner receiving a share of the deposit.1242 Thus, for example, a man could make money off slave children who provided entertainment for banquets (Xen. Symp. 2.1). Joint ownership of a slave woman sometimes led to conflict or even violence in antiquity (Lysias Or. 4.1, §100); one owner charges that another paid only half the money but now refuses to share the woman (4.8, §101), though both paid equal shares (4.13, §101).1243 (On slaves, see the lengthy excursus at Acts 12:13,1244 which is intended to supply background for the present passage as well as for Acts 12:13.) If the slave girl belonged to several priests or a corporation, all Romans (16:21), their cumulative status and hence their influence in bringing charges (16:19–21) would be even greater than singly.1245 Her own ancestry would not be from the Roman 1237. Stamps, “Children,” 197. 1238. Of course the contrast is limited: the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter, later cast out demons (Acts 5:16), as did Philip (8:7). 1239. In a Roman colony under Roman law, these Romans (Acts 16:21) would distinguish the property of husbands and wives (Plut. Rom. Q. 7, Mor. 265E; Gardner, Women, 74; cf. even in Judea for a woman of means in Cotton and Greenfield, “Property”; despite ideals in Mus. Ruf. 13A, p. 88.13–14; 14, p. 94.8–9; Plut. Bride 20, Mor. 140F). But this distinction would prove inconsequential in the practical sense of commanding slaves. 1240. Jewish law recognized cases (possibly theoretical) of persons who were half free and half slave or jointly owned by two persons (m. ʿEd. 1:13; Giṭ. 4:5; Pesaḥ. 8:1; t. Ker. 1:17; b. ʿArak. 2b; B. Qam. 90a; Giṭ. 43a; Ḥag. 2a; Qidd. 90a; Yebam. 66a); divisions of estates at inheritances could encourage such situations (cf. P.Grenf. 1.21; for divided estates, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 264 intro.). For joint ownership of objects in Roman jurisprudence, see Schiemann, “Communio”; Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 105. 1241. The Aramaic use of “mammon” (see Black, Aramaic Approach, 139–40; Hengel, Property, 24; Jeremias, Theology, 6n2; Flusser, Judaism, 153; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:643) probably suggests authenticity in this Q saying (Matt 6:24). In the few cases where slaves were shared, their situation could be uncomfortable (Klauck, Magic, 65), and apparently, they did prefer one master to the other (Groenewald, “Mammon”; Beare, Matthew, 183); see esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 66.13–14, with a saying similar to Jesus’s; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 15. Keeping two patrons pleased could also prove difficult (Cic. Fam. 7.29.1–2; deSilva, Honor, 116). 1242. Reimer, Acts, 153. 1243. For a similar conflict reported in Cicero, see Klauck, Magic, 65. 1244. Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42. 1245. Rapske, Custody, 119.

2421

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 125

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

colonists, since she was a slave. Further, the Roman colonists pursued Roman religion, which tended to focus on other sorts of divinatory practices, whereas prophecy of the sort associated with Delphi was a more Greek phenomenon.1246 Romans could consult her, but she was probably culturally and linguistically Greek. She brought her owners ἐργασίαν, “business,”1247 hence profit. Given the fees for oracular consultation at stationary shrines,1248 their profits were no doubt handsome. Luke opposes trafficking in spiritual things for a profit (8:18, 20; cf. 3:6; 20:33–35). Perhaps eager to avoid confusing biblical and Christian prophecy with the pagan forms of prophetism, Luke avoids his usual term προφητεύω,1249 which appeared often in the lxx even though a cognate was often used to describe the Pythian priestess at Delphi.1250 Instead he prefers a term (μαντεύομαι) used in the lxx exclusively for pagan or false prophecy.1251 Μαντεύομαι appears frequently in pagan prophetic usage and nowhere else in the nt.1252

Excursus: Pythoness Spirits Although the expression πνεῦμα πύθωνα can sometimes be used more broadly for an “oracular spirit,” especially in later sources,1253 the language’s most common and traditional use would probably recall more specific associations for much of Luke’s audience. Most commentators recognize the Delphic background of Luke’s comment here.1254 Although a “python” itself would normally be a negative image,1255 Greeks viewed it positively in any context related to prophecy. “Spirit of a pythoness” would entail a spirit like the one that possessed the Pythia, Apollo’s oracular priestess, with what was considered highly reliable prophetic information.1256 1246. See Salles, “Pythies et sibylles.” 1247. Barrett, Acts, 785. He follows Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 252, who cite, e.g., P.Lond. 906.6; P.Fay. 93.7. 1248. See Aune, Prophecy, 30. 1249. With, e.g., Boring, Sayings, 41. 1250. Her titles were πρόμαντις (Hdt. 6.66; 7.111, 141; Thucyd. 5.16; Lucian Hermot. 60; Paus. 3.4.4) and προφῆτις (Plato Phaedr. 244A; Eurip. Ion 42, 321; Aune, Prophecy, 28). Other cult staff included two permanent prophetic priests (probably the προφῆται of Plut. Gk. Q., Mor. 292D) and five ὅσιοι (Aune, Prophecy, 28). 1251. Deut 18:10; 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Kgs 17:17; Mic 3:11; Jer 34:9 (27:9 mt); Ezek 12:24; 13:6, 23; 21:26, 28, 34; 22:28. Cf. also Jos. Ant. 6.330. 1252. See Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134. Apollo himself was sometimes a μάντις (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. E Delph. 2, Mor. 385B; 6, 387B; cf. PGM 6.11–13); but Hermes appears as “the prophet” in PGM 5.410. We could also translate τέχνη (“art”; Plut. E Delph. 6, Mor. 387B) as “skill” or “craft” or “expertise.” 1253. See Kauppi, Gods, 29–33, esp. 29 (for “late” sources, including the Vulgate for Lev 20:27), 30 (citing Plut. Obsol. 9, Mor. 414E; later, Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.16.3; Rec. 4.20.4), arguing (30–32) very tentatively against Reimer’s link (Women, 154–56) to the Delphic oracle. I believe that Kauppi’s more specific alternative of “necromantic women” (Gods, 33), however, rests on evidence far too slender to bear its weight (30, citing the later scholiast on the first-century grammarian and lexicographer Erotianus). 1254. E.g., Bruce, Acts1, 315; idem, Commentary, 332; Reimer, Women, 154–55. For Delphi’s immediate association with Apollo in ancient thought, see, e.g., Lucian Sacr. 10; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.43. 1255. Whether because snakes were often negative (see comment on Acts 28:3–4; Keener, “Brood of Vipers,” 6–8) or because it called to mind an earlier rhetor who betrayed Greece to the king of Macedon (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.37). 1256. Weaver, Epiphany, 256–58, suggests that mention of a python spirit may evoke Apollo’s conflict with Python here. Evocation of such a power encounter is attractive here and could serve a function similar to the inversion of such a myth in Rev 12:1–9 (see, e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.14–442.1; Caird, Revelation, 147–48; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 192; Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” 111). But it should be noted that the spirit is identified here not with Python but with Apollo, who took his title, an approach quite different from Rev 12.

2422

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 126

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

1. Pythian Apollo The “pythoness” title ultimately goes back to the story of Apollo’s defeat of the giant serpent Python.1257 Apollo then allegedly established the Pythian Games to celebrate the event (Ovid Metam. 1.445–47).1258 Literature frequently designated Apollo as “Pythian,” associating him with this victory and/or with the Pythian oracle he controlled at Delphi.1259 Although other deities were sometimes associated with prophecy,1260 Greeks and Romans associated especially Apollo with this “art.”1261 Educated Diaspora Jews would have had no trouble understanding Luke’s association;1262 they were also aware of Apollo’s association with prophecy1263 and his oracle at Delphi.1264 Their basic background knowledge about surrounding Greek religion should hardly surprise us; many Jews knew of Greek mythical themes, such as the “Titans”;1265 Josephus even occasionally demonstrates his good Greek with the phrase “by Zeus.”1266 When Josephus reports someone’s mocking Antigonus by calling him “Antigone,” alluding to a Greek tragedy (War 1.353), he expects his audience to understand his allusion. Some Diaspora Jews even adopted Greek myths, just as they appropriated for their own use the Greek prophetic genre of Sibylline oracles. Thus Orpheus’s pupil Musaeus became instead Moses, now Orpheus’s teacher.1267 Job supposedly named a daughter “Amaltheia’s Horn” (i.e., the 1257. Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1 (alleging that he then took control of the oracle); Ovid Metam. 1.438–44; Lucan C.W. 5.80; Lucian Dance 38; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.14–15; 441.32–442.1; on Pytho, see further 441.15–442.1, esp. 441.19–20, 25–26; Prop. Eleg. 4.6.5; Orph. H. 34.4; cf. further van Henten, “Python,” 669–70; Geroussis, Delphi, 10. Varro L.L. 7.2.17 alludes to Python’s tomb at Delphi. On this event, cf. also Junk, “Python”; for the dragon-slaying myth more generally, see Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 192–94; Benson, “Dragon”; Keener, Revelation, 315–16. 1258. For the games, see also, e.g., Soph. El. 49; Pindar Pyth. passim; Ovid Metam. 1.448–67; Strabo 9.3.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.15; Epict. Diatr. 3.4.11; Suet. Nero 25.1; Lucian Anach. 9; Book-Coll. 8–10; Max. Tyre 1.4; 34.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43; Iambl. V.P. 10.52. For the “Pythian melody” honoring Apollo at the games in classical times, see Casson, Travel, 79. 1259. E.g., Aristoph. Wasps 869; Pindar Ol. 14.11; Cic. De or. 1.45.199; Leg. 1.23.61; 2.16.40; Livy 23.11.3; Val. Max. 7.1.2; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119; Paus. 3.15.4; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D; Strabo 9.3.2; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.6; Orph. H. 34.3; Heliod. Eth. 2.26–27; Sib. Or. 11.315–18. His shrine is associated with the “Pythian” (Isaeus Dicaeog. 41–42); so also his Delphic priests (Lucian Phal. 1.1). Locational epithets rarely spread, and so this connection with an old title for Delphi is significant (cf. Davies, “Pythios”). 1260. E.g., Hermes (PGM 5.410, 419–21; Orph. H. 28.4); Dionysus (Eurip. Bacch. 298–99); Orpheus (Philost. Hrk. 28.9–11; Vit. Apoll. 4.14); fauns (Fronto Eloq. 1.13); see excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909, here esp. 909). Cf. also the worship of Athena (Geroussis, Delphi, 27–28) and Dionysus at Delphi (Plut. E Delph. 9, Mor. 388E [LCL, 5:221]; Parke, Oracle, 335–46), though Apollo was paramount (Parke, Oracle, 325–28). Associating a particular deity with divination fits a polytheistic system (e.g., the traditional Yoruba deity Orunmila; Mbiti, Religions, 232), though many spirits can be used to divine (Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxiii). 1261. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.72; Aristoph. Birds 716; Cic. Tusc. 1.30.73; Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Val. Flacc. 1.5–7, 228–34; Plut. E Delph. 1, Mor. 384EF; 6, 387B; Artem. Oneir. 2.35; Apul. Metam. 2.25; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.23–24; 2.17, 441.1; 442.9–23; Heliod. Eth. 2.26–27; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 13.9. For his association with musical inspiration, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.256; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 437.20–21; 442.24–443.12; Gr. Anth. 2.266–70; he is linked with the Muses in, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 37.3.5; Statius Theb. 6.355–56; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 32.56–57; Marc. Aur. 11.11. 1262. Nor did early Christians; see Chrys. Hom. Acts 35. 1263. Philo Embassy 109–10. It is false prophecy in Sib. Or. 4.4–6. 1264. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.162; cf. Ant. 3.139; Ag. Ap. 2.131; Philo Embassy 69; Posterity 113. 1265. Jdt 16:7; Sib. Or. 1.307–23; 3.121–25; cf. Delcor, “Mythe” (among Greeks, see, e.g., Hesiod Theog. 717–19). Likewise, many Jews were familiar with Eastern paganism such as “Ishtar” (Incant. Text 43.6–7; cf. 53.12). 1266. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.255, 263. 1267. Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.3. Josephus also compares Essene beliefs with Greek myths (War 2.155–58), though this would likely have horrified the Essenes.

2423

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 127

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

cornucopia).1268 Pagan symbols in Jewish art include cupids, fertility symbols, griffins, and Pegasus; astral symbols modeled after pagan models (including Helios); centaurs (on several later Palestinian synagogues); and Gorgons.1269 Luke’s expectations for his audience’s familiarity with Greek religion are in fact quite modest by comparison with those of many of his contemporaries.

2. The Delphic Pythia The specific title “Pythia” (pythoness)1270 referred to Pythian Apollo’s priestess and mouthpiece at Delphi;1271 this oracle appears widely in ancient literature.1272 Only a virgin from Delphi qualified for the role, but in the oracle’s heyday the sanctuary might keep two or three ready.1273 The Pythia’s pronouncements were widely regarded as accurate,1274 and literature testifies to individuals1275 and nations1276 inquiring from and obeying the oracle.1277 In more remote times the Pythia gave utterances only one day a year; her activity was more frequent (at least monthly) in more recent times, though most inquirers on most days depended on the casting of lots.1278 In most sources, the Pythian priestess would prophesy from a tripod seat. 1279 Plutarch claims that she went into mad ecstasy but returned to calm sobriety after leaving “her tripod and its exhalations” (Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B [LCL, 9:367]). He describes (Obsol. 9, Mor. 414E) the Pythian spirits by a term that came to mean acting as a “ventriloquist,” making one’s voice seem to come from elsewhere, but probably originally meant “pregnant” with the deity, perhaps at least implying speech with a strange voice.1280 Plutarch, however, elsewhere reports the view that the inspiration came only to her mind, so that the voice and all physical features 1268. Job 42:14 lxx; Test. Job 1:3 (both reading the Hebrew term for “horn,” ‫קרן‬, in light of Greek conceptions). Cf. Job’s brother, “Nereus,” in Test. Job 51:2 (OTP 1:867)/51:1 (Kraft, 82). 1269. Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8. Goodenough surmises (4:209) that Jews used their symbols as “substitutes for pagan symbols similarly used.” 1270. E.g., Isoc. Paneg. 21; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.12; Epict. Diatr. 2.20.27; Plut. Solon 4.2; Thes. 36.1; Gk. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; 19, Mor. 295DE; Borr. 3, Mor. 828D; Paus. 1.22.8; 2.2.7; 2.18.2; 2.29.7; 3.2.4. 1271. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Lucan C.W. 5.86–101. Cf. Geroussis, Delphi, 12–16. 1272. E.g., Soph. El. 32; Oed. tyr. 242–43; Tac. Ann. 12.63; Philost. Hrk. 28.8. For further discussion of the oracle, see, e.g., Amandry, Mantique; esp. Parke, Oracle; cf. more recently McGinnis, “Oracles”; on the Pythia, Decker, “Pythia,” 291–93; Frateantonio, “Promantis.” 1273. Klauck, Context, 186. The use of virgins was widely known (e.g., Lucian Astr. 23). Delphians appear arrogant in Vit. Aes. 124–42. 1274. E.g., Hom. Od. 8.79–80; Hdt. 1.65, 66–67; Cic. Div. 1.37.81; Plut. Demosth. 19.1; Lyc. 6.5; Gk. Q. 19, Mor. 295DE; Strabo 9.3.2, 11–12; Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 1.3; 2 (Themistocles), 2.7; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.15; Iambl. V.P. 2.3, 5. Cf. the uncomfortable prophecy to Nero, which he received either passively (Suet. Nero 39–40) or with hostility (Lucian Nero 10). 1275. Apollod. Bib. 2.4.12; Plut. Solon 4.2. 1276. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 108–9; Livy 5.14.3; 5.15.12; 5.16.8; 23.11.1; Val. Max. 8.15.3; Plut. Thes. 36.1; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 38, §11D. See Corinthians in Paus. 2.2.7; others in 2.18.2; 2.29.7. Delphi cultivated this reputation yet prioritized some cities’ access (Frateantonio, “Promanteia,” 4). 1277. On the need to obey the oracle, see further Plut. Borr. 3, Mor. 828D; Gk. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; for examples of obedience, see also Paus. 3.2.4; 5.13.6; 8.23.7; 8.42.5; 9.23.3; 9.33.4. Heracles once tried to force an answer (Apollod. Bib. 2.6.2). 1278. Aune, Prophecy, 30 (following Amandry, Mantique, 81–85; Parke, Oracles, 80–81). Plutarch postulated an overall decline in oracles, partly through the decline in Greece’s population (though he also believed that lesser δαίμονες rather than gods now appeared, Obsolescence of Oracles [Moralia, LCL, 5:348–501]). 1279. E.g., Callim. Hymns 4 (to Delos), lines 89–90; Lucian Z. Rants 30 (jesting that Apollo cannot prophesy without his tripod); some people in Iambl. Myst. 3.11 (others claimed a four-footed stool); for a figurative allusion, Lucian Critic 10. Aune, Prophecy, 28, thinks that the tripod probably represented Apollo’s throne. 1280. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 192; Aune, Prophecy, 40–41; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 131; Fitzmyer, Acts, 586; Witherington, Acts, 494. In this period, people typically attributed ventriloquism to divine or demonic

2424

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 128

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

stemmed from the woman.1281 Valerius Maximus claims that Appius forced the Pythia to descend to the innermost part of the sacred cave, from which, while definite answers are sought for those who consult, the breath of the divine spirit is deadly to those who give the replies. So, driven by the impulse of the power she had seized, the girl prophesied the fate of Appius in a terrifying sounding voice and obscure riddles.1282

Others also described this inspiration. Apollo’s power “impregnated” and then inspired the Pythia (Longin. Subl. 13.2). The priestesses prophesy when they are “ecstatic” (ἐκστῶσιν) and afterward remember nothing (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D).1283 Seated on the tripod, the Pythia is filled with the divine breath (Dio Chrys. Or. 72.12 [LCL, 5:187]). She is possessed by a divine spirit and the divine fire from the cavern.1284 Some claimed that there were different kinds of inspiration and that the power of the earth inspired (incitabat) the Pythian priestess at Delphi as nature’s power inspired the Sibyl.1285 A δαίμων filled her before she prophesied; these spirits were associated with other important oracles (including Dodona, Ammon, and Claros) as well (Max. Tyre 8.1).1286 A Jewish source speaks of the Pythia’s frenzy (Sib. Or. 11.315, 318). Lucan paints this frenzy most graphically, although he certainly exaggerates;1287 he depicts full possession, Apollo controlling the virgin priestess’s soul and lips (C.W. 5.97–101). Without signs of stirring and divine frenzy, she could be feigning her inspiration; when genuinely possessed, however, her voice would fill the whole cavern; her hair would bristle, and the wreath would rise from her head (5.148–57).1288 Apollo “forced his way into her body,” banishing her thoughts as he seized possession of her; her head tossed, her hair bristled, things were overturned, and the fire of Apollo’s wrath burned inside her. This possession tortured her from within, yielding frenzy and foaming lips, inarticulate panting and groans, wailing, and finally articulate speech (5.165–93). inspiration (van Henten, “Python,” 670, citing Origen Princ. 3.3.5). Apollo’s voice comes from the cavern in Val. Max. 7.1.2. For strange voices in possession accounts today, see discussion below. 1281. Plut. Or. Delphi 7, Mor. 397C; for Apollo using the priestess’s body to reveal his thoughts, see Or. Delphi 21, Mor. 404E. Plutarch has some specialized knowledge of Delphi because of his priesthood there (see Jaillard, “Plutarque et divination,” esp. on Mor. 438AB). 1282. Val. Max. 1.8.10 (Wardle, 60). Other sites also provided subterranean encounters with a δαιμόνιον (e.g., Max. Tyre 8.2); cf. the oracular chasm for Orpheus in Philost. Hrk. 28.9. 1283. For lack of memory in spirit trances today, see, e.g., Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Field, “Possession,” 3, 6. 1284. Iambl. Myst. 3.11. 1285. Cic. Div. 1.36.79 (cf. Iambl. Myst. 3.11: at Colophon, the prophetess drinks water from a sacred fountain). Some ancients believed that the subterranean exhalations that once inspired the Pythia no longer worked (Cic. Div. 2.57.117), although, in the first century c.e., Pliny the Elder compares them with other unusual vapors supposed to arise from the earth (N.H. 2.95.207–8). Many scholars doubt the claims of “mephitic vapours” (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317); cf. Pytho’s association with the “earth” (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.16–17). 1286. For δαίμονες and other oracles, see, e.g., Plato Symp. 202E; Apul. De deo Socr. 6.133 (Trapp, Maximus, 69n1). On Clarus, see Robert and Robert, Décrets; Potter, “Claros”; Klauck, Context, 193; archaeological reports summarized in Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 148–49; note also the Apollo oracle at Korope in Thessaly (Klauck, Context, 193–95). 1287. This is Lucan’s dramatization, and Lucan himself claims that this was an unusual event (C.W. 5.166– 67; see Klauck, Context, 187–88). Yet even some magical divination practices may have sought to generate altered states of consciousness (Quack, “Efficacy”). 1288. Firth, “Foreword,” xii, notes cases of faked trances but also notes that genuine trances (those that the “possessed” person genuinely believes) are common (cf. also Verger, “Trance,” 64–65; Beattie, “Mediumship,” 166–67).

2425

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 129

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Possession trance often appeared to outsiders as madness when witnessed outside the cultic context.1289 Plato envisions four kinds of ecstasy, one of the most important being prophetic, associated with Apollo (Phaedr. 265B); although also linked with the geographically unattached Sibyl and Bacis, prophetic ecstasy was primarily linked to oracle locations, especially Delphi, Didyma, and Claros.1290 Virgil associates this prophetic ecstasy with divine possession (Aen. 6.77–80).1291 (For fuller discussion of ecstasy in many forms of prophetic inspiration, see the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18.)1292 The sort of madness (μανία) that came from the gods was superior to sanity (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 53, §17D). Being prophetically seized by the divine was periodic rather than continuous (e.g., Arrian Alex. 4.13.5–6). The δαίμονες spoke “through human bodies, just as the pipe-player Ismenias used his skill to produce notes from his pipe” (Max. Tyre 9.1 [Trapp, 77]). (Some Christian writers argued that Christian prophecy, unlike “possession,” was controllable.)1293 Nevertheless, the Pythia’s speech was intelligible, not gibberish (see comment on Acts 2:4).1294 That her utterances were obscure allowed for professional interpretation, which was useful for the temple’s cultic staff, who could benefit from the fee involved.1295

3. Apollo’s Oracles beyond Delphi Some later Platonist philosophers suggested that some beings were called “Apollo” merely because they were subordinates belonging to the chain of beings of which Apollo was the head.1296 Of perhaps greater relevance for Acts 16:16 (whose portrayed events transpire far from Delphi, which was near Corinth), “Pythian” was not limited to Delphi when applied in a broad sense;1297 as Apollo’s epithet, it could be extended to other locations where Apollo acted. Thus Josephus claims that Herod the Great built a Pythian temple for the Rhodians (Ant. 16.147). Though Pausanias reports “Pytho” as the title for Delphi (Paus. 10.6.5),1298 he mentions an altar (5.15.4) and a ruined sanctuary (8.54.5) elsewhere dedicated to Pythian Apollo. The intelligibility of reference to Pythian Apollo outside Delphi is helpful to remember, given the prevalence of Roman civic religion in Philippi, notably for Silvanus, Diana, Jupiter, and some other Roman deities, alongside the cult of the goddess Bendis (from nearby Thrace).1299 1289. E.g., Alexander, Possession, 98–99 (citing Eurip. Bacch. 241; Plato Phaedr. 47), 115 (specifically on the Pythia); cf. Mbiti, Religions, 227. A few people opined that deities were not localized in their temples and hence did not need to be approached there (Lucian Dem. 27). 1290. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800; on Delphi and other oracles, cf. also Huffmon, “Oracular Process.” Alexander the false prophet seems to imply that his own prophecies are more accurate than these more famous cult centers (Lucian Alex. 43); Lucian himself was unimpressed with any of them (Dial. G. 244 [18/16, Hera and Leto 1]). 1291. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800. 1292. Keener, Acts, 1:886–909. 1293. 1 Cor 14:32; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 29.2 (Bray, Corinthians, 118); Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 262 (ibid.), 270 (ibid., 144). 1294. See Witherington, Corinthians, 54–55 (following Fontenrose, Oracle); cf. Maurizio, “Pythia’s Role.” 1295. Klauck, Context, 189–90. 1296. Proclus Poet. 6.1, K147.7–10, 21–25. Proclus used this claim to distinguish the immoral actions of some Apollo figures in Homeric poetry from the genuine deity, who was perfect. 1297. Reimer, Women, 156, cites Plut. Or. Delphi 17 for a Pythia uttering oracles outside oracular shrines. 1298. This was its ancient title, in Hom. Il. 2.519; 9.405; Od. 8.80; 11.581. 1299. Reimer, Women, 152; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 156 (noting esp. Elliger, Paulus in Griechenland, 50). On the worship of Apollo in Greece, see, e.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 15–16; esp. Burkert, Religion, 143–49; on Bendis in Thrace, see Parker, “Bendis.” Apollo was one of the few Olympian deities to retain his Greek name in the Roman pantheon.

2426

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 130

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Apollo himself was associated with a variety of mantic sanctuaries;1300 these included the “politically inept” oracle at Didyma south of Miletus, which in a later era urged Diocletian “to persecute Christians and apparently was forced to recant later.”1301 None, however, was as famous as the one at Delphi (though Delos had long been associated with Apollo).1302 The Apollo sanctuary was the primary attraction at Delphi.1303 Although Sibyls were not Pythian, they apparently often arose “near oracles of Apollo, the god who was believed to inspire them.”1304 (On Sibyls, see comment at Acts 2:17–18 on prophetesses in antiquity.)1305 Apollo’s frenzy might completely overpower (the original) Sibyl (Virg. Aen. 6.77–102). The utterances of these women were highly regarded and might contribute to the sort of climate in which the slave girl would find a fertile hearing. Apollo was also the deity thought to have inspired Cassandra in the period of the Trojan War;1306 she might be thought to rave ecstatically.1307 Some scholars note that Luke includes exorcised women elsewhere,1308 but only the mention of some women’s deliverance (Luke 8:2, not narrated) and the deliverance of the physically afflicted woman in 13:11–16 qualify. Luke includes more demon-possessed men, and so he does not connect demonization with gender (although this specific spirit, a pythoness spirit, is connected with gender through its allusion to the Pythia). For the most part, however, although Apollo might be titled “Pythian” anywhere, “Pythia” referred to the priestess at Delphi. Apollo’s oracle at Claros did not even use female prophetesses or priestesses,1309 though it employed a female πρόμαντις as a medium.1310 (The Delphic sanctuary may not have used the Pythia in the earliest 1300. See, e.g., Aristoph. Birds 716 (Ammon, Dodona); Strabo 17.1.43 (among the Branchidae); Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6 and Iambl. Myst. 3.11 (Colophon). For consultation oracles’ connections to local shrines, see further Aune, Prophecy, 24. On Apollo, including associations with music, prophecy, and healing, see further Graf, Apollo. 1301. Grant, Gods, 63; see also Potter, “Didyma” (who also notes that Constantine closed it and executed its priests); Lact. De mortibus persecutorum 11.7; Euseb. P.E. 4.2.11; Life of Constantine 2.50. For the Apollo sanctuary at Didyma, see Tuchelt, “Didyma” (OEANE), 160; cf. idem, “Didyma” (BrillPauly); Yamauchi, Cities, 129–34; on a popular level, Stark, Ionia, 158–70; for a survey of archaeological reports, Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 154–55. 1302. Apollo was associated with Delos from an early period (Hom. Od. 6.162) and in the first (Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.66) and second (Lucian Sacr. 10) centuries. On Delos, see, e.g., Catling, “Delos”; Kalcyk, “Delos”; on Delphi, see, e.g., Morgan, Hornblower, and Spawforth, “Delphi.” Jews lived there ( Jos. Ant. 14.213), and educated Diaspora Jews knew the myths (Philo Eternity 120–21; cf. Sib. Or. 3.363; 4.92). 1303. Maass, “Delphi: Topography,” 216–21; cf. more generally Rocchi, “Delphi: Organization”; for Delphi’s location and history, cf. McGinnis, “Center.” 1304. Aune, Prophecy, 37 (following Nikiprowetzky, Sibylle, 4). On pagan Sibylline oracle collections, see Klauck, Context, 200–204. 1305. Keener, Acts, 1:883 (and briefly 901); note also sources cited there. 1306. E.g., Sen. Y. Troj. 34–37; Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54. 1307. Sen. Y. Troj. 34. 1308. Pilch, Healing, 99, citing Luke 4:38 (not explicit); 8:2–3; and 13:11, 16 (and an impossible connection with 8:58 [sic: 8:55]). 1309. Tac. Ann. 2.54, contrasting Apollo’s oracle at Delphi; in contrast also to Zeus’s oracle at Dodona (Aune, Prophecy, 28, following Buresch, Klaros, 36, against Iambl. Myst. 3.11). Dodona’s was traditionally the other most prominent sanctuary (Philost. Hrk. 28.8; cf. Hom. Od. 14.327–28; 19.296–97; Justin 1 Apol. 18; for its association with Zeus, e.g., Hom. Il. 16.233; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.24; Philost. Elder Imag. 2.15; more extensively, 2.33); see further Strauch and Höcker, “Dodona”; Graf, “Dodona.” Lucian Icar. 24 portrays Zeus of Dodona complaining about the successful Delphic competition. Paul may have been near Dodona if he stayed in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), but (pace McRay, Archaeology, 340) it is unlikely that he would have gone 40 mi. north simply to visit a pagan sanctuary. 1310. Aune, Prophecy, 28 (contrasting the oracular male μάντις, titled προφήτης, used for responses to inquiries). In myth, a woman (“Manto,” daughter of Tiresias) also founded this oracle (Epigoni frg. 4, from scholiast on Ap. Rhod. 1.308b; cf. also Käppel, “Manto,” citing Eurip. Phoen. 834ff.).

2427

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 131

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

period, but this was many centuries before.)1311 The Pythia might serve for life and was required to remain chaste.1312

4. Apollo’s Prophecies Sometimes Apollo’s prophecies came to pass years later and only metaphorically (Plut. Alex. 37.1). Often the Pythia’s answer was obscure,1313 and so the receiver did not understand it without another’s help (Apollod. Bib. 3.15.6). (Sometimes this obscurity may have been a way for the oracle to hedge its bets,1314 but it did typify ancient oracles.)1315 In a famous story reported by Herodotus, Croesus found the Delphic oracle the most accurate of all oracles and hence depended heavily on it (Hdt. 1.47ff.); he misunderstood the oracle, however, and the empire that he brought to an end by fighting Cyrus was his own (1.86).1316 The more cynical critics blamed Croesus’s loss on the oracle’s deliberate ambiguity.1317 The philosophically inclined interpreted the Delphic oracle (which had approved Socrates’s wisdom)1318 through this perspective: Delphic Apollo “is no less a philosopher than a prophet” (Plut. E Delph. 2, Mor. 385B [LCL, 5:203]). Dio Chrysostom claimed that the Delphic temple respected maxims of the ancient sages even more than the Pythia’s utterances (Or. 72.12 [LCL, 5:187]). On the basis of the etymology of Pythagoras’s name, some averred that his ideas came from the Pythia or that he was as infallible as the Pythia (Diog. Laert. 8.1.21); Pythagoras’s followers received his teachings like Pythian oracles (Πυθόχρηστα, Iambl. V.P. 31.213).

5. Hostility toward the Oracle Jewish teachers and Christians viewed the Pythian oracle less favorably.1319 The Jewish Sibyl warned that she was no “oracle-monger of false Phoebus [Apollo], whom vain men called a god.”1320 Rabbis spoke of some occult prophets who merely spoke through their own mouths, but of others speaking for the dead, with “a Python” 1311. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445. 1312. Ibid. 1313. E.g., Klauck, Context, 189; Iamblichus Letter 5.7–8 (Stob. Anth. 2.2.5). 1314. Cf. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317. Certainly, a few ancients thought so; see esp. Lucian Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Alex. 48; most entertainingly, Z. Rants 28–31. 1315. Keener, John, 856–57. “Ambiguity” was “the idiom of prophecy” (Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445, doubting the “hedging of bets”). See comment on Acts 21:4. 1316. Isoc. Paneg. 31 also counts it the most trustworthy of authorities; Cic. Tusc. 1.47.114 claims that Delphic Apollo has the gift of prophecy beyond all other gods. 1317. Lucian Z. Rants 43; Alex. 48. 1318. Some cited the Pythia’s claim that Socrates was the wisest man (e.g., Paus. 1.22.8; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119–7.34.120). Cf. the Delphic maxim “Know yourself,” commonly repeated (Plato Alcib. 1.129A; Charm. 164E–165A; Lovers 138A; Xen. Mem. 3.9.6; 4.2.24; Diod. Sic. 9.10.2; Epict. frg. 1; Plut. Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; Dinner 21, Mor. 164B; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; 21, Mor. 394C; Hippol. Her. 1.15) and alluded to (Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.11; 1.18.17; Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 35). Many viewed it as one of life’s most basic truths (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. Apoll. 28, Mor. 116CD; E Delph. 2, Mor. 385D; Or. Delphi 29, Mor. 408E; R. Col. 20, Mor. 1118C); see further discussion in Keener, John, 236–37. 1319. An early to mid-second-century b.c.e. inscription from Delphi mentions both Pythian Apollo and some Jews (CIJ 1:512, §709), though it is difficult to know what, if anything, to make of this connection. 1320. Sib. Or. 4.4–6 (OTP 1:384). Pagans viewed the Sibyl as inspired by Apollo (Paus. 10.12.6; OTP 1:384 n. a; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 320). Sib. Or. 3.441 also seems to oppose Apollo, but 11.315–18 seems to appeal to “Pytho” for oracular verification. According to myth, Apollo took the epithet “Phoebus” when the Titan Phoebe transferred the Delphic oracle to him (Antoni, “Phoebe,” 146).

2428

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 132

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

speaking from such a prophet’s armpits.1321 (On “false prophets,” see discussion at Acts 13:6.) Second-century Christians were well aware of the Pythian and other oracles.1322 Some Christians believed that pythons prophesied, but they cast them out as demons.1323 A pagan hearer of Luke’s narrative, for whom python spirits were positive or, at worst, neutral, would find baffling the exorcism recounted here in Acts.1324 The slave girl’s message sounds simply like a “recognition oracle,” a kind of divine legitimation “nearly always uttered without solicitation.”1325 But the exorcism made perfect sense on monotheistic Jewish and Christian presuppositions. It is not surprising that John Chrysostom read the narrative as a confrontation with Apollo, here recognized as a demon (Hom. Acts 35).1326 Even some pagans questioned fortune-telling1327—for example, the philosopher Favorinus (Aul. Gel. 14.1, on fortune-telling from astrology)—or mocked the value of foretelling the future if Fate made it inevitable (Lucian Z. Cat. 12–13). Some also entertained the possibility that the Delphic priestess could falsify oracles.1328 More commonly, many pagans were aware of charlatan prophets with a profit motive;1329 a fee was also a prerequisite for oracle consultation at the shrines.1330 Generally, however, consultation with the gods before acting was considered pious, as in Judaism and Christianity, though the method was different (see comment on Acts 16:6–7).

Excursus: Demons and Spirit Possession

1331

The present excursus serves not only Acts 16:16 but also 19:13 and the summaries suggesting many encounters in 5:16; 8:7; and 19:12. The Greek term δαιμόνιον had a wide range of meaning, but the negative aspects of this range made it one of the most suitable terms for hostile spirits in early Judaism. A wide range of opinions 1321. Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.3.3. Cf. similarly m. Sanh. 7:7; Sipre Deut. 172.1.2–4. Demons could foreknow the future (Test. Sol. 5:12; 20); Satan could inspire speech (Test. Job 41:5). 1322. Justin 1 Apol. 18; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.6. 1323. Conzelmann, Acts, 131, cites Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.16.3. 1324. With Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 140; see esp. Brenk, “Exorcism,” on the divergent perspectives. 1325. On this kind of oracle, Aune, Prophecy, 257; in the ancient Near East, see Ross, “Prophecy,” 9; Hayes, “Prophetism,” 404–5; ANET 281; in Egypt, 446–48; cf. Wilson, “Prophecy,” 10. Thus, e.g., many followed Apollonius because Apollo’s oracles had praised him (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1). Contrast the often “banal” forms of questions offered many oracles in Klauck, Magic, 67. 1326. Bede also favored the Apollo connection (Comm. Acts 16.16, probably following Isidore of Seville Etymologies 8, 9, 21), though he also notes another view (from Jerome De nominibus hebraicis/Liber nominum [Lagarde, 148, 22]). 1327. Such sentiments may inform the approach of Luke’s first audience; cf. Stogiannos, “Πνεῦμα Πύθωνα” (also surveying and classifying ancient divination methods). 1328. Once the Pythia was allegedly bribed to prophesy falsely, but a snake immediately killed her (Diog. Laert. 5.91); Plut. Mal. Hdt. 23, Mor. 860CD, protests Herodotus’s implication that the Pythia was persuaded to deceive; for bribing the Pythia, see also Paus. 3.4.3–5. Mart. Epig. 9.42.4 wishes them not to speak falsely. The oracle of Apollo in Miletus could tell falsehood (Apul. Metam. 4.32–33). 1329. Witherington, Acts, 494, cites Lucian Alexander the False Prophet; Apul. Metam. 8.26–30. Lucian Alex. 9 mocks the superstitious easily taken in by charlatans who divine with sieves and the like. 1330. Aune, Prophecy, 30. From an Israelite perspective, this was normally negative (Mic 3:11), though perhaps acceptable if the fee was voluntary and modest (1 Sam 9:7–8); for many Christians, it marked a false prophet (Did. 11.12). 1331. I have adapted and greatly expanded some material from Keener, Matthew, 283–86, and addressed this material briefly in “Comparisons,” 3–4; much more fully in Keener, “Possession”; and at greatest length in appendixes A and B of idem, Miracles, 769–856. For more-detailed studies, see also Yamauchi, “Magic?”; Ferguson, Demonology.

2429

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 133

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

about demons existed in early Judaism, a repertoire that expanded as centuries passed (demonology came to the forefront especially in late antiquity). Demons’ most direct attack on an individual was through possession. Various prophylactic methods were meant to ward off demonic attacks of diverse kinds, but in the case of possession, a cure took the form of exorcism. Although commands were sometimes employed in exorcisms, as with Paul, they usually belonged to larger incantations and often accompanied various rituals (such as fumigation). Anthropological studies permit us to place possession behavior in ancient texts in a wider context, since such behavior appears in a wide range of societies. Although some expressions of possession vary from one culture to another, some common features, particularly on the neurophysiological level, appear.

1. Daimones Greeks could picture gods1332 or other spirits1333 entering a person. The Greek term translated “demon” is not in itself negative,1334 and the meaning of the term evolved over time.1335 It could refer to the spirits of the deceased,1336 including those of prominent heroes of the past;1337 it could involve good or ill fortune;1338 it could denote a particular deity1339 or even deity more generally.1340 One could even pun on multiple senses of the term.1341 On a popular level, Greeks close to 1332. Hom. Il. 17.210–11. 1333. Epict. Diatr. 1.14.14. 1334. For a survey of Greek views on demonology and daimones, see esp. Ferguson, Demonology, 33–67 (beginning [33–35] with the three views in Plut. Obsol. 10–15, Mor. 415A–418D); cf. more briefly Ferguson, Backgrounds, 184–86; Alexander, Possession, 259–65. On the Greek term δαίμων, see further Sánchez, “Daimones”; Burkert, Religion, 179–81; LSJ. 1335. See Rives, Religion, 18 (citing Apul. De deo Socr. 13–16); Riley, “Demon,” 236. In Heraclitus, the daimon shapes the person’s character (Darcus, “Daimon”) or generates one’s ordered speech (idem, “Logos”); for Empedocles, the divine mind parallels the human daimon (idem, “Phren”). Following Plato more closely than did Neoplatonists, Plutarch viewed the daimon as a higher component of the soul (Brenk, “Doctrine”); Franz, “Daimons,” shows how Stoic and Middle Platonic views of spirits developed and how spirits related to “self.” For a collection of relevant texts, see Cotter, Miracles, 75–105. 1336. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.54; Max. Tyre 9.6; Apul. De deo Socr. 152–53 (or even the human mind of a living person, 150); Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.25–27 (when consoling the bereaved); PGM 4.1965–69; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; perhaps Dio Chrys. Or. 25 (but this appears more novel and may be a rhetorical exercise); see further discussion in Bolt, “Daimons,” 76–96. Platonists expected more matter-bound souls to hover around tombs (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K119.16–23 [esp. 20], citing Plato Phaedo 81D). Even many intellectuals believed stories of ghosts (Pliny Ep. 7.27.1–14), though others lampooned them (Lucian Lover of Lies 29–32). Lucian doubts spirit stories generally (Lover of Lies 16–20, 29–31), including those explicitly concerning daimones (Lover of Lies 13, 16, 29). Although the Furies often appear (e.g., Ovid Tristia 4.4.70), Cicero attributes them to one’s feelings of guilt (Pis. 20.46–47) or employs them figuratively (Att. 10.18). 1337. Pythagoras was thus a daimon (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 50), as were Achilles (Max. Tyre 9.7) and Protesilaus (Philost. Hrk. 43.3). The deceased golden race had become benevolent daimones (Hesiod W.D. 121–23). Divinized heroes with oracular or healing sanctuaries could be so described (Apul. De deo Socr. 154, including Amphiaraus, Osiris, and Asclepius). 1338. Dio Chrys. Or. 23.6; Char. Chaer. 6.2.9; Philost. Hrk. 12.1 (cf. Burkert, Religion, 180). The application to ill fortune (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.11, 419.18, 32) lent itself to the increasingly pejorative sense of the term (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 134). 1339. E.g., I. Eph. 1255 (ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, the “good daimon,” linked here with Artemis); Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9 (personified jealousy). 1340. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; Epict. Diatr. 3.22.53; for “supernatural,” see, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 25.4; 48.19; 55.4. Socrates was accused of having introduced new “divinities” to Athens (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11, δαιμόνια καινά; see comment on Acts 17:18); his own spirit-guide is also called a daimon (Plut. Alc. 17.4; Sign Soc. 10, Mor. 580C; Apul. De deo Socr. 157; Apol. 27; Socrates Ep. 1; for modern views, see, e.g., Kleve, “Daimon”; cf. Brickhouse and Smith, “Sign”), which was a deity (Xen. Mem. 1.1.2; 1.4.2, 10, 13; 4.8.1, 5–6). 1341. Lucian Lover of Lies 32 (meaning “supernatural” but in the context of a ghost story).

2430

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 134

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the early Christian period applied the term increasingly often to the many forces intermediate in character between deities and nature.1342 (They were thus highly useful for magic,1343 and even some Jewish texts mention protagonists exploiting the usefulness of “demons.”)1344 Greeks often applied the term to deities such as the Olympians,1345 but more commonly to lower, superhuman spirits and demigods or deified mortals1346 and sometimes even as the equivalent of the Roman genius.1347 In time, philosophers who believed the heavenly deities to be transcendent assigned instead to daimones the actions depicted in the poets’ more immanent view of divinities.1348 Not everyone concurred with this intermediary category between deities and mortals, but it was widely held.1349 Probably reflecting Diaspora Judaism’s common adaptation of broader religious vocabulary, Josephus freely employs this Hellenistic language for the divine.1350 In Middle Platonism, humans could become heroes, daimones, and finally divine; or in some views the daimones could also regress back into mortal bodies and eventually face death.1351 They were intermediaries connecting and communicating between the divine and human realms.1352 As in other sources, daimones were associated with 1342. See Nilsson, Piety, 170–72; Sánchez, “Daimones.” This was especially true in Middle and later Platonism; see, e.g., Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37; Apol. 43; Flor. 10.3. 1343. E.g., PGM 4.1965–69; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.5; Aune, Prophecy, 45; Nilsson, Piety, 171; Smith, Magician, 97–99; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 140–41; perhaps Philost. Hrk. 25.13; for use of a spirit guide occasioning accusations of magic, see Apul. Apol. 27 (on Socrates). From a (hostile) Jewish perspective, see 1 En. 9:6–7; L.A.B. 34:2–3; Test. Jud. 23:1; b. Sanh. 67b; cf. Gaster, Scriptures, 85 (on CD XII, 2–3, if we take ‫ האוב‬as “ghost”; cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 21). Those who used demons magically sometimes had trouble getting rid of them afterward (Klauck, Context, 229). 1344. See Solomon in Test. Sol. 22; b. Giṭ. 68ab; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1. It was said that a demon helped God’s people (b. Meʿil. 17b if, as is very likely, this is a demon; Gen. Rab. 63:8) and that one spirit sought local people’s help driving away an evil spirit (Lev. Rab. 24:3); later rabbis sometimes learned from and cited demons (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 110a), and some considered particular categories of spirits, whether in the house or in the field, to be benevolent (Gen. Rab. 24:6). Cf. the Watchers coming, like the Greek Prometheus (cf. Ach. Tat. 3.8), to teach (Jub. 4:15). Jewish magical texts (or syncretistic texts employing Jewish motifs?) appealed to angels and deities (Goodenough, Symbols, 2:153–295). 1345. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.561 (Hera); Orph. H. 17.8 (Poseidon); 50.2 (Dionysus); 73.1–2 (Zeus). Nilsson, Piety, 172, notes that the definition shifted between Homer and Plato. 1346. E.g., Plato Epin. 984DE; Isaeus Menec. 47; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1; Plut. Isis 26, Mor. 361A; Obsol. 10–22, Mor. 415B–422C (e.g., 13, Mor. 416E); Sign Soc. 24, Mor. 593D; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 98.18–19; Artem. Oneir. 2.40; Paus. 9.22.7; Max. Tyre 8.6; 9.2; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; 341.1–4; Ach. Tat. 3.10.1; Diog. Laert. 8.1.32; Philost. Hrk. 48.15; Iambl. Myst. 1.5, 20. Sometimes one could translate the term in more than one manner, e.g., in Char. Chaer. 3.1.4; 6.2.9; cf. Circe in Philost. Hrk. 25.13; a sea daimon who loved a mortal in Hrk. 45.2 (on uses in Philostratus, see Puiggali, “Démonologie”). 1347. Epict. Diatr. 1.14.12, 14; Plut Mor. 564F (in Betz, Dirkse, and Smith, “Numinis,” 225); Apul. De deo Socr. 151; the LCL translation of Diog. Laert. 8.1.32; cf. the popular view that everyone had either a good or a bad daimon (Dio Chrys. Or. 23.6; he notes [23.9] that this is not his own view; cf. again 4.79–80, 83). A daimon could be a beneficial guardian spirit (as in Iambl. V.P. 2.10). On the genius (often as an individual’s tutelary deity), see Maharam, “Genius”; Belayche, “Actors,” 279; the view was widespread (as noted in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.1). 1348.  E.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 145–46. 1349. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.77.3. Such intermediate powers contributed to the “demonizing of religion” (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 134). 1350. Isaacs, Spirit, 33–34 (though noting that Josephus also applies it to demons more strictly in War 7.185). 1351. Klauck, Context, 424; see categories of daimones in Dillon, Middle Platonists, 317–19; daimones as among “superior classes” of souls (with heroes) in Iamblichus (Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 15). Some Stoics also allowed that the soul rose to the heavens (Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3) before its ultimate resolution back into the primeval fire (Marc. Aur. 4.21). 1352. Max. Tyre 8.8; 9.2 (see further Trapp, Maximus, 67, on 9.1–7); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 424, §144D (citing Plato); Apul. De deo Socr. 133. Maximus believed that there were many of them (Max. Tyre 8.8, citing Hesiod W.D. 252–53 for thirty thousand). Iamblichus believed that all apparitions were daimones (Myst. 2.10).

2431

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 135

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

oracles, filling, for example, the Delphic priestess before she spoke.1353 Because these intermediary spirits could be either good or bad, however, the semantic range overlaps with the negative usage. Thus at times,1354 and increasingly in a later period,1355 the term could refer to an evil spirit.1356 In the early empire, such views seem to have flourished around Palestine and among Arabs.1357 These views may well have come from farther east. Persian demonology, which included massive numbers of evil demons, bears some resemblance to the common Jewish and Christian perspective,1358 though none of the relevant sources come from the Parthian period (250 b.c.e.–250 c.e.).1359 Many Jewish people believed that the gods of the pagans were demons, in any case;1360 more generally, some Middle Eastern religions demonized the deities of those they supplanted.1361 Such demons could prove hostile.1362

2. Jewish Demonology1363 Demonology is rare in the ot,1364 and a renewed focus on demons (already an interest in surrounding cultures) may have been occasioned by the experience of the exile.1365 A variety of Jewish conceptions of demonology developed, probably most of them overlapping at the level of popular religion, although it is difficult to know at what period various strands originated. In Josephus, some deadly demons are spirits of wicked persons that enter and kill the living.1366 In 1 Enoch, many evil spirits are 1353. Max. Tyre 8.1 (Trapp, Maximus, 69n1, cites also Plato Symp. 202E; Apul. De deo Socr. 6.133; Plut. Face M. 944cd and esp. Obsol. 415a ff.); Apul. De deo Socr. 134–37. 1354. E.g., Val. Max. 1.7.7 (switching here from Latin to the Greek κακὸν δαίμονα; it tormented one at night as a portent of impending death). 1355. E.g., P.Grenf. 2.76.3–4 (from 305 to 306 c.e.); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; 4.20; Porph. Marc. 11.201–2; 19.322; 21.331–33, 336–39; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.5. 1356. Much later, Iambl. Myst. 2.3 classifies angels as benevolent, demons as unpleasant, and heroes as kinder than demons. 1357. Lucian Lover of Lies 16–17 (not using the term but depicting possession and exorcism); for Egypt and exorcism, 31 (cf. 33). 1358. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 18, 96, 195, 232. Many have assumed that Judaism simply adopted the Persian perspective (e.g., Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Teaching,” 287); as we note, however, the phenomena are fairly transcultural. 1359. Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 118. Among the Persians, “demon” could involve one touched by madness (cf. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 53). 1360. Ps 106:37 (esp. lxx); Bar 4:7; 1 En. 19:1; Jub. 1:11; 22:17; 4Q243–245 line 18; Sib. Or. 8.43–47; Test. Job 3:3; Test. Sol. 5:5; 6:4; Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2; cf. perhaps 4Q560 I, 5; 4Q491 A 15 8–10; 2 Bar. 10:8. In the early Christian movement, e.g., 1 Cor 10:20 (cf. Deut 32:17); 2 Pet 2:4 (if it associates fallen angels with Titans); Rev 9:20; Justin 1 Apol. 5; Athenag. Plea 26; Tert. Apol. 23.5–6. 1361. Gordon, Civilizations, 246–47; Alexander, Possession, 19; for fallen angels, cf. the fallen gods of Enuma Elish, the Greek Titanomachy (see, e.g., West, “Introduction,” 27), and the Hittite account in Gurney, Aspects, 15. 1362. Cf. Char. Chaer. 3.1.4; 6.2.9, though these may be divine. 1363. For a fuller survey of early Jewish demonology, see Ferguson, Demonology, 69–104, who treats especially “intertestamental” texts (74–81), Philo and Josephus (who employ the full range of the Greek δαίμων) (81–86), and rabbinic sources (86–93). Briefly, e.g., Kotansky, “Demonology,” 270–71. Naturally, the conceptions are more diverse than the summary here allows me to detail; even the Qumran scrolls and Jubilees, which reflects a similar worldview, may have some differences (Noack, “Qumran and Jubilees,” 200; Ibba, “Spirits”), though Jubilees was probably authoritative at Qumran (see Hopkins, “Status”). 1364. Akkadian and Arabic cognates do confirm the lxx interpretation of Lev 17:7 (cf. Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37) as referring to demons (as my colleague Emmanuel Itapson persuaded me). An experience resembling other accounts of possession by a hostile spirit appears in 1 Sam 16:14. But such references are rare. 1365. Cf. Propp, “Demons” (attributing it to disillusionment with the covenant’s control over ill fortune; it could also be attributed, however, to a wider acquaintance with alternative paradigms). 1366. Jos. War 7.185. In Josephus, they are usually souls of the dead (Ferguson, Demonology, 85).

2432

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 136

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

spirits of the deceased giants;1367 later rabbis thought that such spirits became more powerful after the flood generation.1368 For some later rabbis, demons impassioned by Adam and Eve used them to reproduce more demons.1369 Some Jewish traditions may have adapted Greek concepts, envisioning avenging spirits resembling the Greek Furies (Sir 39:28);1370 in some other early texts, however, less hellenized views surface—for example, angels of destruction appearing to be spirits serving the evil prince of darkness.1371 A few texts may also reflect the later Platonic notion1372 of demons as disembodied souls.1373 Magical texts reflecting folk religion specify, among other types of demons, groups such as “liliths.”1374 Some texts also call demons “unclean spirits.”1375 Demons were associated with various afflictions, from which deliverance could be sought.1376 Demons also occasionally were associated with particular or specialized sins,1377 such as demons of deceit associated with witchcraft and divination,1378 jealousy,1379 promiscuity,1380 arrogance,1381 lying,1382 and anger.1383 Named demons appear early;1384 1367. 1 En. 15:9; 16:1; cf. the spirits that impregnated their mothers in Philo Giants 6, 16; the Greek Titanomachy (e.g., Hesiod Theog. 717–19; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.31–32), of which various Jewish sources show awareness (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.121, 155; cf. Jdt 16:7). For demons in Jewish apocalyptic sources, see the collection of material in Cotter, Miracles, 106–19 (also noting the absence of exorcisms in these texts, probably due to their genre, 119). 1368. Lev. Rab. 5:1; their idolatry rendered them susceptible to demons (Gen. Rab. 23:6). 1369. So Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; b. ʿErub. 18b; Gen. Rab. 24:6. 1370. God also sends demons as agents of destruction in later texts, e.g., Tg. Onq. on Deut 32:24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 28:24. 1371. 1QM XIII, 11–12; perhaps y. Šebu. 6:6, §3. (On the angelology of the War Scroll [1QM], see Yadin, Scroll of War, 229–42.) 1372. Cf. Dillon, Middle Platonists, 317–19. 1373. Philo Giants 6, 16; Gen. Rab. 7:5 (in this case, simply nonembodied because the Sabbath prevented God from completing creation). But angels, too, could be viewed as bodiless (Test. Ab. 3:6; 4:9; 9:2; 15:4, 6; 16:2 A). 1374. E.g., 4Q510 1 5 (singular, but listing various kinds of demons); Incant. Text 1.6, 8; 3.14; 6.11; 10.2; 11.1–3, 9; 12.2, 8; cf. Isa 34:14; 2 Bar. 10:8 (among the desert spirits); a modern Yemenite amulet in Hes, “Role,” 376; in older Canaanite religion, see Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 131. For headless demons, cf., e.g., PGM 2.11; 5.98, 125, 145–46; 7.233, 243, 442; 8.91; 102.5; Test. Sol. 9:1; Dickie, “Headless Demons.” For satyrs (cf. Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15), see Sipra A.M. pq. 9.188.3.6 (demythologized). Modern cults also sometimes delineate types of spirits—e.g., in Umbanda (Pressel, “Possession,” 335) and others (Colson, “Possession,” 70–72). 1375. Test. Sol. 3:7; cf. Jub. 10:1; Mark 1:23; Luke 8:29; see comment on Acts 5:16; cf. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 134–38. “Unclean” might signify “evil,” as perhaps in 1QpHab VIII, 13. 1376. See Eve, Miracles, 174–216. In other cultures, see discussion below. 1377. E.g., Test. Reub. 2:1–2; 3:3ff.; Test. Jud. 16:1–4; earlier, in the Qumran scrolls, see Tigchelaar, “Names of Spirits.” Cf. specializing spirits in the Middle Platonic tradition in Max. Tyre 8.8; 9.7; Apul. De deo Socr. 133–34; πνεῦμα can, however, include psychological dispositions (Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 39). Angels, too, could specialize (e.g., the angel over repentance in 1 En. 40:9). In one modern discussion, see Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 142. They appear in the Zoroastrian Dēnkard (Yamauchi, Persia, 439–40), but this was probably not compiled before the ninth century c.e. (410). The association appears in both Hinduism and contemporary Indian charismatic Christianity (Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 290). This is probably not the point of 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:7. 1378. Test. Jud. 23:1. 1379. Test. Sim. 2:7; Test. Dan 1:6. 1380. Test. Dan 5:6. 1381. Test. Dan 5:6. 1382. Test. Dan. 2:1; 5:5. 1383. Test. Dan 2:1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3. Cf. also destroying demons against Israel, “Wrath,” “Anger,” etc. (Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 9:19). 1384. 4Q560 1 I, 4; Penney and Wise, “Beelzebub”; Penney, “Devil,” 41–51; cf. Mark 5:9. See the possible incantation against Resheph (pestilence?) in 11Q11 V, 5, on some readings, but the Hebrew may read “heavens.” On the origin of many demon names, see, e.g., Barton, “Origin” (though he omits Mastema). Other traditional religions also may have named demons, spirits, or malevolent forces (e.g., Umeh, Dibia, 197–200; in bori cults, see Echard, “Possession Cult,” 71–80), although most are not known by name in some cultures (Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 117).

2433

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 137

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

one persistent name in Jewish texts is Lilith.1385 Demons also could cause physical afflictions, as at times in the Gospels,1386 or even kill people.1387 Demons could specialize in causing facial blisters (the demon of oil) or headaches, or rule those who imbibe excessive alcohol.1388 Some sources suggest a special unleashing of demons in the eschatological time before the end.1389 One kind of evil spirit dwelt in reed stalks,1390 and others might be found in palm and other trees;1391 various trees and bushes harbored various sorts of demons,1392 as did most vegetables.1393 Demons might be found in ruins,1394 in bathhouses,1395 and in graveyards,1396 and elsewhere. Apparently, however, they could not attack anyone in the holy city of Jerusalem.1397 Rabbis reportedly learned some of these traditions from reports offered by demons themselves,1398 a source, one might think, of dubitable veracity, however firsthand its information.1399 Later rabbis thought that some kinds of demons could look like people;1400 demons could see people but not the reverse, and angels could see demons without the reverse being the case.1401 Some felt that particular demons might prove helpful.1402 But in virtually all streams of ancient Jewish tradition, of course, such spirits were subject to and recognized God’s sovereignty.1403 Demons could also be arranged in ranks or legions.1404 1385. See 4Q510 1 5; some identify with her the evil figure in 4Q184 (Baumgarten, “Seductress”; White Crawford, “Folly”). In late talmudic and especially medieval texts, “Lilith” becomes a frequently mentioned demon, eventually queen of the female demons (see Morel-Vergniol, “Ève . . . et Lilith?”; Gaines, “Lilith”; lilin were night spirits). Cf. the demoness Agrath in b. Pesaḥ. 112b (Eve, Miracles, 290–91). 1386. Test. Sol. 1:1–4; 18; Midr. Pss. 17:8; Luke 13:11; Kotansky, “Demonology,” 271–72. Schwab, “Psychosomatic Medicine,” suggests that the demonological explanation for sickness in medieval times reduced psychosomatic treatments; still, one would expect exorcism, at least, to have worked in many of these cases. Curses invite sicknesses in various societies, later cured by exorcism (see MacNutt, Power, 74–75, in this case a Christian exorcism in Colombia). Many traditional South American societies affirm possession illness (without possession trance), which is thought to be cured only by exorcism (Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 20–21); see fuller comment at Acts 10:38. 1387. Tob 3:8 (Sarah’s first seven husbands); Jos. War 7.185; Num. Rab. 12:3; for regular demonic attacks against humans, not necessarily lethal, see 1 En. 69:12; cf. Tr. Shem 2:9. Satan is an “angel of destruction” in y. Šebu. 6:6, §3. 1388. Alexander, Possession, 32. 1389. 2 Bar. 27:9; perhaps relevant to their prevalence in the Gospels as the kingdom is at hand (cf. Alexander, Possession, 249; Hultgren, “Stories,” 133). For the possible linking of exorcism with eschatology, cf. perhaps Test. Sim. 6:6; with the kingdom, 4Q510 1 4 (Vermes, Religion, 130). 1390. Gen. Rab. 56:6. 1391. B. Pesaḥ. 111a, bar.; 111ab. 1392. B. Pesaḥ. 111b. 1393. B. Sanh. 101a, bar. 1394. B. Ber. 3ab. For spirits haunting abandoned places, cf. also Lewis, “Possession,” 191. 1395. T. Ber. 6:25 (by implication); b. Ber. 62a; Qidd. 39b–40a; Šabb. 67a; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1 (Solomon heating his baths with demons); Song Rab. 3:7, §5. 1396. See, e.g., sources in Alexander, Possession, 29; cf. Mark 5:2–3; the association may refer simply to madness or lack of sense in t. Ter. 1:3; b. Ḥag. 3b. One could hear spirits of the dead talking in graveyards at night (b. Ber. 18b). Because of their association with the dead, spirits remain associated with burial grounds even in some cultures today (Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 147). Antisocial behavior, such as running through the forest, appears in other cases of possession behavior (e.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227). 1397. ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A if the translator has correctly construed the original. 1398. B. Pesaḥ. 110ab. 1399. Perhaps obtained by interrogation; cf. Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–36. 1400. B. Giṭ. 66a; Satan in Test. Job 23:2. Others resembled Greeks’ monsters (e.g., the late Apoc. Zeph. 4:2–4; for pagan monsters, see, e.g., one of the Furies in Statius Theb. 1.103–9). 1401. Pesiq. Rab. 6:5; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A. 1402. B. Meʿil. 17b; Gen. Rab. 24:6; 63:8. 1403. Jub. 49:2; CD VIII, 2–3; 1Qap Genar XX, 16–17; 1QM XIV, 9–10; Test. Adam 1:1; Num. Rab. 14:3; cf. VanderKam, “Traditions,” 245; Pr. Jos. 7. Cf. Islamic Somali tradition in Lewis, “Possession,” 192. 1404. Test. Sol. 11:3 (if not modeled after Mark 5:9 or Eph 6:12, this may be modeled after angelic ranks; 1 En. 69:3; 75:1; 2 En. 21:1; 22:2, 6 J; 33:10; 3 En. 5:2; 3 Bar. 11:4, 6, 8; Gr. Ezra 1:4, 7; perhaps 2 Kgs 6:15;

2434

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 138

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

3. Possession Greeks and Romans believed that mantic ecstasy often involved possession by a deity.1405 The presence of the numinous could generate dread and trembling.1406 Such madness might be sent by a deity and result in the killing of loved ones;1407 after a bout of madness, one might have no recollection of the mad behavior.1408 Madness was routinely associated with daimones.1409 A ghost might be thought to impart epilepsy, which was viewed as a form of divine possession.1410 As noted above (excursus on the pythoness), Lucan claims that Apollo forced himself on the pythoness, invading her body and replacing her thoughts; her head tossed, her hair bristled, things were overturned, and the fire of Apollo’s wrath tortured her from within, yielding frenzy, foaming lips, inarticulate panting and groans, wailing, and finally articulate speech (C.W. 5.165–93). We should not read too much into Lucan’s epic poetry. Archaeology shows that despite literary references, no “mephitic vapors” beneath the Delphic tripod inspired the Pythian priestess.1411 Nevertheless, neither should we attribute the depiction of her possession behavior altogether to Lucan.1412 Although lacking Lucan’s elaborate description, both earlier and later sources indicate that she is possessed by a spirit1413 and goes into mad ecstasy.1414 Jewish people believed that demons would enter people, forcing them to do what the demons desired.1415 For further discussion of possession behavior, including for the pythoness, see “NonJewish Sources” in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18.1416

4. Prophylaxis against Demons In popular culture, people sought various means of protection from hostile spirits; though much of our documentation comes from one or more centuries after the 4Q529 lines 2–3). One could host multiple spirits (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:2; four in Lewis, “Possession,” 212; seventeen in Abdalla, “Friend,” 38; multiple spirits in Rahim, “Zar,” 144; Last, “Bori,” 51; a medium could host multiple spirits in succession in Firth, Ritual, 306). For hierarchies of spirits in some Islamic cults, see Abdalla, “Friend,” 41–42. 1405. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800 (citing, e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.77–80); Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1. Thus one might think Dio mad, but he warns that the alleged madness may be (prophetically) inspired by a daimon (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.4). 1406. Suet. Aug. 6. 1407. Strelan, Strange Acts, 103, citing Diod. Sic. 4.11.1; see Eurip. Herc. fur. passim. 1408. Ach. Tat. 4.17.4; but contrast Dan 4:36. Lack of recollection also characterizes many of those described as “possessed” today (e.g., Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Field, “Possession,” 3, 6). 1409. Nilsson, Piety, 172. Chrys. Hom. Acts 17 also cites similarities between the possessed and the intoxicated (referring to their eyes but perhaps also alluding to a lack of personal motor control). 1410. Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.7. Many ancients believed that epilepsy involved (divine) possession (though Hippocratics ascribed it to physical causes; see Capps, Village Psychiatrist, 92). Epilepsy is now understood to be neurologically based. It is distinguished from demonization in Matt 4:24 (though if Matt 17:15 presupposes Mark 9:17–18, Matthew might allow the view that spirits could sometimes cause symptoms that appeared similar; he has redacted the spirit out even there but mentions a “demon” in Matt 17:18). For one African query about the relation between the two, cf. Ikeobi, “Healing,” 67–70. 1411. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317; Klauck, Context, 187; now esp. Lehoux, “Drugs”; contrast McGinnis, “Faults” (citing ethylene); on the ancient view, Green, “Possession and Pneuma.” 1412. As some appear to do: Klauck, Context, 187–88, noting that it depends solely on Lucan C.W. 5.116–20, 161–74, 190–97 and that Lucan himself claims that this possession was more powerful than ever before (C.W. 166–67). Also others (e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 278–79). 1413. Val. Max. 1.8.10; Max. Tyre 8.1; see further comment on Acts 16:16. 1414. Plut. Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B (regaining tranquility afterward); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D. 1415. Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2. 1416. Keener, Acts, 1:886–89, and esp. 897–902.

2435

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 139

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

first century (the heyday of emphasis on demonology is the third century and later), enough evidence attests that demons were a matter of practical concern to popular folk religion already by the first century. A foul-smelling fish product could drive off a demon in Tobit (Tob 6:17; 8:3);1417 in Josephus, a particular root was useful for driving off deadly demons from an afflicted person (War 7.180, 185).1418 Amulets were widespread in the ancient world;1419 common enough during the republic,1420 they became even more widespread under the empire.1421 Magical practices designed to protect against the influence of demons in Sassanian Babylonia (third to seventh centuries c.e.) crossed religious boundaries, as popular syncretism naturally does.1422 Superstition readily crossed folk boundaries and then would eventually permeate more sophisticated systems as well; for example, Mesopotamian rabbis’ fears about even numbers rendering one susceptible to demons1423 reflect a broader ancient superstition.1424 A Jewish charm might mention hostile demons from which a person needed exorcism.1425 Later magical amulets in Israel1426 and incantation texts guaranteeing protection from specific demons1427 indicate how widespread such views became: beginning no later than the third century, many rabbis thought that the very air around them was crowded with demons,1428 a view more widely shared in the culture.1429 Demons were thought to attack people,1430 but at least the rabbis often viewed them as mortal.1431 Before the first century, some Jews believed that particular medicines could protect people from evil spirits,1432 and later rabbis used various folk remedies to ward off such spirits;1433 some might even hope for warriors to protect them.1434 Sages came to urge proper precautions against demonic assaults. Drinking water at night rendered one susceptible to demons;1435 going out on particular nights of the week was dangerous;1436 different demons exercised their dangers during different times of the year.1437 1417. For Tobit, see the discussion in Eve, Miracles, 218–32. Foul odors against demons (Tob 6:17; 8:3) also appear in some traditional cures of more recent times (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 196, though this is not exorcism). Cf. also fumigation in Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 118; Colson, “Possession,” 71; Lewis, “Possession,” 199. 1418. For medicines to protect against demons, see also Jub. 10:1–14. 1419. MacMullen, Enemies, 103–4; in pre-Hellenistic Egypt, Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 275; for numerous examples of Jewish prophylaxis against spirits, see, e.g., Alexander, Possession, 34. 1420. Varro L.L. 7.6.107. 1421. Nilsson, Piety, 167; cf. Greek magic against demons in Betz, “Fragments.” 1422. Gordon, “Incantations,” 231. 1423. B. B. Meṣiʿa 86a; Qidd. 29b; Pesaḥ. 110a, bar. 1424. Virg. Ecl. 8.75; Plut. Rom. Q. 102, Mor. 288D. 1425. PGM 4.3007–86 (e.g., 3039–40). 1426. E.g., Rahmani, “Amulet.” 1427. Incant. Text 17.1–2; 19.2; 34.1, 6; 47.1; earlier, see 4Q510 1 4–7; 11Q11. 1428. B. Ber. 6a; Num. Rab. 11:5; 12:3; Deut. Rab. 4:4; Pesiq. Rab. 5:10; Midr. Pss. 17:8. Demons often could fly (b. Giṭ. 68b; Num. Rab. 12:3; Deut. Rab. 6:6). 1429. Pythagoras (Diog. Laert. 8.1.32) and Heraclitus (9.1.7) both reportedly believed that the air was filled with daimones and souls of the deceased; so also Philo Giants 9; the powers in Conf. 174; angels in Wolfson, Philo, 1:366–85. In Middle Platonism generally, see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 288. Cf. spirits in the air in PGM 1.179–81; 4.3043–44; 12.67. 1430. 1 En. 69:12; Tr. Shem 2:9. 1431. ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A; b. Pesaḥ. 110a; 111b; Lev. Rab. 24:3; perhaps Jub. 10:5; cf. Alexander, Possession, 33. Cf. the Titans in Sib. Or. 3.156–58, but here they were just humans anyway. 1432. Jub. 10:10–13. 1433. B. Ber. 6a. 1434. Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3. 1435. B. ʿAbod. Zar. 12b, bar. For special dangers at night, see, e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 191. 1436. B. Pesaḥ. 112b, bar.; cf. unlucky days in, e.g., Aul. Gel. 5.17; Ovid Fasti 1.8, 45–48; Plut. Alc. 34.1; Cam. 19.1; Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67; Iambl. V.P. 28.152 (see Keener, John, 496; Rüpke, Religion, 108–12). 1437. Num. Rab. 12:3.

2436

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 140

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Rabbinic piety suggested that prayer could render many demons impotent or destroy them, though dealing with such demons was never pleasant.1438 Other pious acts, such as the erection of the tabernacle, could destroy demons;1439 fear of God could protect one from them.1440 As early as Qumran, Jewish people prayed for protection against demonic activity;1441 in later sources, the protection sought in the Aaronic benediction included protection from demons.1442 Although Paul’s sample extant letters do not articulate a full demonology, what they do include suggests that they presuppose one, although the extent of its overlap with contemporary understandings is not specified (see, e.g., 1 Cor 10:20; Rom 8:38).1443

5. Exorcism Most texts about exorcism come from after the first, and often even after the second, century c.e. Although, to some extent, this reflects the proliferation of the demonic worldview in a later period,1444 it also likely reflects the slowness of the elite (sources of most of our literature) to address popular beliefs and experiences that were already concerning the masses more widely.1445 In addition to being expelled from people, demons also had to be removed from haunted houses, often by appeasement of a ghost or burial of its bones there.1446 One of the earliest pagan reports of wonder-workers casting out demons is placed in second-century Palestine. In this satirical account, the victims “fall down and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam,” but then the wonder-worker heals them and takes a good bit of their money.1447 The exorcist asks the demon through which body part it entered, and it answers either in Greek or in another language; the exorcist then adjures the spirit (cf. Mark 5:7) and threatens it, thus compelling it to leave. The unreliable narrator claims to have seen one smoke-colored daimon emerge.1448 Origen’s Celsus attacks Jesus as nothing more than a cheap magician of the Egyptian sort in the market, who for a few obols would drive away people’s demons, cure diseases, and teach esoteric doctrines.1449 Beyond this, few extant stories of pagan wonder-workers feature exorcisms apart from Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius, which probably draws on Christian as well 1438. B. Qidd. 29b. 1439. Num. Rab. 12:3; Pesiq. Rab. 5:10. 1440. Gen. Rab. 36:1. 1441. 11Q5 XIX, 13–16; cf. songs for warding off demons in 11Q11 II–V; cf. Jub. 19:28. God was protecting his people, who kept his covenant, against such demons (1QM XIV, 9–10). 1442. E.g., Sipre Num. 40.1.5; Num. Rab. 11:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 6:24. This is an intertextual reading employing Ps 91:11. 1443. Cf. Eph 1:20–2:3; 6:12; Col 2:15; discussion in, e.g., Adeyemi, “Θέσεις”; Paige, “Demons,” esp. 211; see also Adewuya, “Reading”; Darko, “Response.” 1444. The majority of magical papyri do stem from the later period. 1445. Cf., e.g., Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 6. Thus Abrahams, Studies (1), 110, doubts, on the basis of Tannaitic literature, that possession and exorcism were common in first-century Palestine, despite acknowledging the demonology of 1 Enoch (which is, in fact, much earlier). 1446. E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.27.7–11; Lucian Lover of Lies 31; cf. a haunted schoolhouse in b. Qidd. 29b. One African scholar reports a (disembodied) spirit that attacked anyone who tried to live on the property that a deceased man had left to his widow (Mbiti, Religions, 113). Cf. also the Chinese exorcism from a haunted house in Währisch-Oblau, “Healthy,” 89–90; another Asian account in Yung, “Case Studies,” 142; exorcising a curse from a house in India in Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 293. 1447. Lucian Lover of Lies 16 (LCL, 3:345); cf. Mark 9:20 for foam. 1448. Lucian Lover of Lies 16. Someone claims to see hundreds of spirits, and to see them all the time, by means of a ring secured from an Arab (Lover of Lies 17). 1449. Origen Cels. 1.68 (noted in Eve, Miracles, 347).

2437

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 141

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

as other widespread miracle stories of the day.1450 Apollonius, confronting a youth scoffing at his teaching, identifies the demon in him and orders it out.1451 In a way quite different from the early Christian accounts, he identifies a blind beggar as a demon and orders it stoned, despite the beggar’s pleas; but once it is dead, it turns into a giant dog.1452 A homosexual demon, the ghost of a man betrayed by his wife, was pursuing and possessing an attractive boy, threatening to kill him if exorcism was attempted. But Apollonius sent a threatening letter and the demon desisted.1453 (Other texts also speak of sexually interested spirits.)1454 Another source claims that Porphyry cast a demon from a bath.1455 But pagan exorcism is clearly earlier than such literary sources.1456 Exorcism is attested more strongly and from an earlier period in Jewish sources,1457 which came from the East,1458 though exorcism (in contrast to the mention of demons) is still quite rare in these other sources compared with its occurrence in the Gospels.1459 The earliest Jesus traditions also recognize other exorcists (Matt 12:27// 1450. Blackburn, “ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,” 192. The commonalities are often observed (e.g., Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 121–25; Strelan, Strange Acts, 103, citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.14; 3.38; 4.10, 25, 40). 1451. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20 (probably dependent on earlier models from the Gospels despite differences). 1452. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.10. 1453. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38. Cf. Asmodaeus, who killed Sarah’s first seven husbands, in Tob 3:8; 6:14; homosexually inclined spirits in PGM 2.55–56; PDM 14.68, 287 (cf. also PGM 1.86; 5.376–7.544). In traditional religions, the supposed correlation between possession and male homosexual behavior may appear but is not common (see Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxv), sometimes appearing in societies that associate possession with women (e.g., Lee, “Possession,” 143–44). 1454. Elsewhere Apollonius combats a phantom vampire who had seduced a young philosopher so that she could kill him (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.25). On the sexual interests of spirits in early Judaism, cf., e.g., 1 En. 6:2; 16:2; 69:5; 106:5–6, 13–14; Jub. 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; CD II, 16–18; 4Q180 1 7–9; 1Qap Genar II, 15–16; Test. Reub. 5:6; 2 Bar. 56:12; Test. Sol. 4; 5:3; 6:3; Apoc. Ab. 14:6; 2 En. 18:5; Gen. Rab. 24:6; Incant. Text 1.12–13; Wolfson, Philo, 1:384–85; Alexander, “Sons of God”; Delcor, “Mythe.” Cf. also Greek deities raping or seducing mortals, e.g., in Soph. Searchers 212–15; Eurip. Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24; Alope frg. 107; Antiope frg. 223.72–77; Archelaus frg. 228a.15–16; Danae frg. 1132.26–34; Andromeda frg. 136 (Stob. Ecl. 4.20.42); Menander Heros frg. 2 (Stob. Ecl. 5.20a.21); Apollod. Bib. 1.5.1; 1.7.8–9; 1.9.3; 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 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 Athen. Deipn. 8.334b); frg. 11 (from Philod. 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; Sil. It. 13.615; Lucian Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Paus. 8.25.7–8; Parth. L.R. 15.3; Ach. Tat. 1.5.5–7; Apul. Metam. 6.22; Libanius Speech in Character 27.3; Narration 1; 4.1–2; 17; 31; 32; 39; 41. Cf. one type of medieval incubus, in Lugt, “Incubus,” 177. For spirit spouses and intercourse today, cf. Mbiti, Religions, 111; Firth, Ritual, 319–21; Horton, “Possession,” 35, 38–40; Crapanzaro, “Mohammed,” 162–64; Rosny, Healers, 185; spirits “riding” their “horses,” their “spouses,” in Montilus, “Vodun,” 3 (cf. spirits mounting persons as “horses” also in Michel, Bellegarde-Smith, and Racine-Toussaint, “Mouths,” 82); spirits that entice shamans sexually (Sandner, “Psychology,” 281); sexually excessive spirits in Stoller, “Change,” 277–80. 1455. Eunapius Lives 457; the event probably occurs in Syria. Like Philostratus, Eunapius (late fourth century) and Porphyry (234–ca. 305 c.e.) are both much later than the first century. 1456. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185, cites, e.g., Plut. Table 5, Mor. 706E; Lucian Lover of Lies 16. 1457. E.g., Jos. Ant. 8.46–48 (on Josephus, see further Eve, Miracles, 339–43); in Qumran sources, see, e.g., 4QPrNab (4Q242) 1–3 4; perhaps 4Q243–245; 4Q552–553; 4Q560 (see Wise, “Introduction to 4Q242,” 266); cf. Leicht, “Mashbia‘”; on the limited Qumran evidence, cf. Kirchschläger, “Exorzismus”; Eve, Miracles, 343–45; Lichtenberger, “Spirits,” 19–21. Some apparently used “healing” as appropriate language for exorcism (11Q11 II, 7; 1Qap Genar XX, 21–29; cf. Tob 12:3, 14; 4Q242 4 1; Jos. Ant. 8.45). See further sources and discussion in Koskenniemi, Miracle-Workers, 290 (who includes also 11Q11; L.A.B. 60:1–3; and what he views as related ideas in Jub. 11:15–22; Apoc. Ab. 13:4–14; Liv. Pr. 4:10). 1458. On the Middle Eastern origin of exorcism stories, see further Williams, Miracle Stories, 23–25 (noting [24] that exorcism stories appear in Greco-Roman setting only later, for which he cites Plut. Table 7.5.4; Lucian Lover of Lies 16; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20); McCasland, Finger, 65–82 (on the rareness of GrecoRoman accounts, 65–70). 1459. Eve, Miracles, 244. Eve argues (255–59) that early Judaism exhibited little interest in forming narratives about exorcists, but this verdict could also reflect the limitations of our evidence. See the broader early Jewish context of Gospel exorcisms in Eshel, “Exorcist.”

2438

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 142

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Luke 11:19).1460 It might include smoking out a demon with a special substance,1461 invoking other spirits to expel it,1462 or even laying on one’s hands in prayer.1463 As in paganism,1464 the visible proof of departure by some outward act often remained important.1465 Solomon1466 and, to a lesser extent, David1467 were associated with exorcism or authority over demons for a long period of time. A pre-Lukan writer reports how Abraham cast out a demon that Pharaoh’s magicians could not.1468 Most scholars believe that Jesus, historically, gained a reputation as an exorcist,1469 although the Gospels omit most magical exorcism techniques dominant among other exorcists, such as rings, roots, incantations, and so forth.1470 Exorcism is connected closely with the gospel of the kingdom, as a concrete manifestation of the deliverance it brings.1471 Some later Gentile polytheistic accounts borrow from the Gospel accounts.1472 Christian exorcism shares some other aspects in common with some Jewish exorcisms,1473 but it especially transformed them by using Jesus’s name.1474 Justin complains that Jewish exorcists, like Gentiles, depend on “fumigations and incantations,” but unlike Christians, who successfully employ the name of Jesus; no other name could accomplish the same effects.1475 1460. On early Christian attestation of other exorcists, cf. also Grelot, “Démonologie,” 63 (citing also Acts 19:13–16); Dakin, “Belief,” 38; Best, “Exorcism,” 1; Rollins, “Miracles,” 45 (adding Matt 7:22). 1461. Tob 6:7–8, 16–17; 8:2–3; cf. Test. Sol. 5:13; Parshall, Bridges, 85. 1462. Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8; Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5; 8:5–11; 18. Eve, Miracles, 347, notes that the names used for invocation in Orig. Cels. 1.24 are Persian or Egyptian (suggesting Gentile usage); but in 5.45, they submit to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (presumably a Jewish formula). 1463. 1Qap Genar XX. 1464. Later, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20. See more fully Theissen, Miracle Stories, 66–67 (who also cites Lucian Lover of Lies 16; still relevant but less so, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.10). In traditional Navajo exorcism, the moth flying inside the mentally ill person may be expelled, in part, by vomiting (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211). 1465. Jos. Ant. 8.48; in modern times, Hes, “Role,” 376; Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 293 (Hindu and Christian exorcism in India); an old Russian Jewish account in Oesterreich, Possession, 209–10. 1466. 11Q11 II, 2–12; Jos. Ant. 8.45–49; CIJ 1:394, §534; 2:374, §1448; PGM 4.850–929, 3039–41; Test. Sol. Greek title; 2:1–7; 5:10; 6:11; Incant. Text 47.1–3; 48.4–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3 (before he sinned); b. Giṭ. 68ab; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5 (before his sin); Pesiq. Rab. 15:3 (before his sin); cf. y. Ketub. 12:3, §11; Betz, “Miracles in Josephus,” 220–21; Duling, “Introduction,” 948. That 2 Bar. 77:25 relates to this tradition is not impossible. 1467. L.A.B. 60; cf. 1 Sam 16:23, the closest precedent for exorcism in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Kotansky, “Demonology,” 269–70, comparing a Greek conception). 1468. 1Qap Genar XX, 19–29. As in analogous examples in ancient literature, the physicians’ and magicians’ failure highlights Abraham’s superiority all the more (XX, 19–20). 1469. Sanders, Figure, 149, 154; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:646–77; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 44; Michaels, Servant, 174; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ”; idem, Miracle Worker, 281–92, esp. 282–83; idem, Exorcist; Achtemeier, Miracle Tradition, 140; Miller, Seminar, 56–57 (though doubting individual accounts); Costa, “Exorcisms”; on the lack of departure from sources in exorcism accounts in the Gospels and Acts, see also McCasland, Finger, 51–53. One Christian writer suggests that possession phenomena peaked in Jesus’s day as part of a demonic counterattack (Alexander, Possession, 249). They are infrequent in the ot; we may note, however, that claims of spirit possession are widespread in numerous cultures (see discussion below). 1470. Kee, “Terminology,” 239; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 23, 65; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 383–84; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 159; Eve, Miracles, 349. A few later rabbis were also said to have exercised authority over demons with commands (b. Pesaḥ. 112b; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 66; cf. Kee, “Terminology,” 246; but Eve, Miracles, 290–91, notes that Hanina ben Dosa confronts but does not exorcise a demon in b. Pesaḥ. 112b). The form of many exorcism accounts in the Synoptics resembles many miracle stories (cf. Guillemette, “Forme”). 1471. Ladd, Kingdom, 47; see further Kallas, View; Evans, “Kingdom”; idem, Fabricating Jesus, 141. 1472. More reasonable, in view of relative dates, than the reverse hypothesis; see, e.g., Costa, “Exorcisms,” 138–44. 1473. E.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 66; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 135; cf. perhaps Kee, “Terminology,” 246. 1474. Edwards, “Exorcisms” (noting also that pagans usually viewed Christian exorcism as trickery). 1475. Justin Dial. 85 (ANF 1:241); cf. Dial. 76. Eve, Miracles, 347, notes Justin’s complaint but also presents Iren. Her. 2.6.2 (who mentions Jewish prayers before Christ’s coming).

2439

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 143

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Second-century patristic sources unabashedly report Christianity’s spreading especially through exorcisms, claiming Christians’ success in exorcisms as a matter of common knowledge.1476 Tertullian even challenges the authorities to bring in a demon-possessed person to court; any Christian will make short work of the demon, forcing it to confess its deceit.1477 If the demons do not immediately confess their identity, he insists, then execute that impudent Christian immediately!1478 Tertullian elsewhere reports a demon being exorcised from a Christian who had gone to the theater. The exorcist demanded how the demon dared enter a Christian; the spirit replied that he “found her on my own ground.”1479 By the time of Hippolytus (ca. 215 c.e.), many Christians practiced exorcism at baptism,1480 and it continued to be common in the early church.1481 In magical papyri, those who worked with spirits questioned them and expected honest answers.1482 Incantations were a common means for removing unwanted spirits,1483 including in early Jewish circles.1484 A potentially more problematic approach was to appeal to higher spirits to manipulate lower ones.1485 Sometimes demons express willingness to leave in return for a sacrifice.1486 Josephus reports that he personally witnessed, in the presence of Vespasian and others, a Jewish exorcist drawing out a demon through a man’s nose by the odor of a special root under his ring’s seal, using Solomon’s incantations.1487 (Rings that control spirits appear in some Eastern sources, although 1476. MacMullen, Christianizing, 27–28, 40–41, 60–61; Lampe, “Miracles,” 215–17; Young, “Miracles in History,” 107–8; cf. McCasland, Finger, 55; patristic sources in Martin, “Resisting,” 49–50, 58–59; Sears, “View,” 103–4. Various sources (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185; Talbert, Acts, 143; Haines in Marcus Aurelius, LCL, 5–6n6) cite, e.g., Just. Dial. 30, 85; 2 Apol. 5–6; Acts Pet. 2; Tert. Test. an. 3; Origen Cels. 1.46. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185, also thinks that the condemnation of superstitious exorcists in Marc. Aur. 1.5 refers to Christians. 1477. Tert. Apol. 23.4–5; MacMullen, Christianizing, 27. Cf. similarly the power encounter in the 350s that is reported in Athanas. Vit. Ant. 80 (MacMullen, Christianizing, 112); reported power encounters of early monks in Eshete, Movement, 23. 1478. Tert. Apol. 23.6. 1479. Tert. Spect. 26 (LCL, 291). 1480. See “Ceremony.” This may reflect the rise in perceived demons in the wider culture. 1481. See, e.g., Hillgarth, Paganism, 11–12, 183; Daniélou and Marrou, Six Hundred Years, 313; Casiday, “Sin,” 503, 514; Frank, “Devotion,” 539; Frankforter, History, 60; Spinks, “Growth,” 603, 610; Brenk, “Art,” 706; MacMullen, Second Church, 4–5. Scholars (esp. here Talbert, Acts, 143) provide an extensive list of examples (including Lact. Div. Inst. 2.16; 5.2; Apost. Const. 8.1; Euseb. H.E. 5.7.4; 6.43.11; 8.6.9; Cyril Jer. Catechesis 16.15–16; Athanas. Inc. 48; Vit. Ant. 63; Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:916A]; Jerome Vit. Hil. 22). Talbert, Acts, 143, also cites early Christian novels (Acts Pet. 11; Acts John 56; Acts Thom. 5; 7; 8; Acts Andrew [beginning of martyrdom]; Ps.-Clem. Rec. 4.7; 9.38). 1482. E.g., PGM 4.3043–44. Acquiring accurate knowledge was necessary for usefully manipulating spirits (Arnold, Power, 18). 1483. E.g., in the haunted house in Lucian Lover of Lies 30–31 (claiming satirically that Egyptian curses are the best, 31). 1484. E.g., 4Q560; cf. 4Q510 1 4–7. 1485. E.g., PGM 101.38–39. The higher ones are angels in Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5, 9; 8:5–11; 11:5; Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8. 1486. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57; cf. the slaughter of a sheep in modern Yemenite exorcism in Israel (Hes, “Role,” 376); the account I received in an interview with a Chinese informant reported in Keener, Miracles, 815 (and comparisons with other sources noted there, esp. Turner, Healer, 115). 1487. Jos. Ant. 8.47; the exorcist also bound the demon by oath (ὥρκου); cf. Mark 5:7. Smoking the demon out also appears in Tob 6:17–18; 8:3; also an account attributed, probably fictitiously, to Johanan ben Zakkai and noting the use of the roots, as in paganism and Josephus (Num. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. Rab. 14:14) and apparently later in some Islamic folk practice (Parshall, Bridges, 85, following Jones and Jones, Women, 349–50, for a case of smoking the jinn out, then beating the boy unconscious, in this case with tragic consequences). Perhaps the roots idea was originally related to the prophylactic herbs of Jub. 10:12–13. Fumigation for exorcism appears in some traditional African societies (Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 118; Colson, “Possession,” 71; Lewis, “Possession,” 199); in Somali tradition, fragrant incense can protect from or exorcise malevolent sprites (Lewis, “Possession,” 192–93, 199).

2440

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 144

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

not pervasively.)1488 Abraham is said to have simply laid hands on Pharaoh and prayed, thereby curing him from his evil spirit.1489 In some, often later, sources, Solomon1490 or others1491 command demons, perhaps sometimes reminiscently of the Jesus tradition. In the later (probably third-century) Testament of Solomon, the demons bargain for reduced sentences.1492 Particular angels could thwart particular demons (and those under them), and demons might be compelled to name which angels thwarted them.1493 Solomon was even said to keep Asmodeus’s strength down by maintaining a fire beneath him.1494

6. Cross-Cultural Character of Such Experiences Although many modern Western students of early Judaism and early Christianity doubt the reality of spirit possession, they admit that ancients believed in such phenomena.1495 Sometimes heeding concerns from other cultures, some other scholars question modern Western presuppositions about such phenomena;1496 as one nt scholar puts it, accepting the possibility of malevolent spirits is no more a priori implausible than accepting the possibility of “a good spirit—God.”1497 Whether or not one accepts the explanation of invasive spirits, the transcultural phenomenon of possession behavior is impossible to evade, as at least a few nt scholars cognizant of anthropological research have recognized.1498 Studies have certainly shown “an altered neurophysiology” during many possession states.1499 Although neurophysiological studies cannot determine whether possession phenomena derive from an “an invading alien being” or from other psychological factors,1500 neurophysiological 1488. E.g., Lucian Lover of Lies 17 (the source being an Arab); Jos. Ant. 8.47; b. Giṭ. 68a. 1489. 1Qap Genar XX, 21–29. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 62n18, thinks that this laying on of hands works for an illness caused by a demon, but notes that it is not attested for possession, perhaps because the possessed would not allow it. 1490. Test. Sol. 3; 6:11. Some early Jewish sources also portray Solomon as a prophet (see Embry, “Solomon”). 1491. Cf. threats in Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63–64; exorcistic texts commanding “wandering wombs” (Faraone, “New Light”); and behavior resembling that involved in exorcisms in Soranus Gynec. 3.4.29. Barrett, Documents, 34, thinks (from an occurrence in PGM) that “come out” (cf. Luke 4:35) was probably a frequent command of exorcists; yet its occasional occurrence in the vast corpus of PGM (PGM 4.1243, 1245, 3013; 5.158) does not suggest its frequency (cf. Aune, “Magic,” 1531), and its context there differs (with incantations; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 133). 1492. Test. Sol. 2:6. A minority of scholars, however, attribute Testament of Solomon to a Christian author (Albrile, “Sigilla”); at the very least, it contains Christian interpolations. 1493. Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5, 9; 8:5–11; 11:5. Learning demons’ names was also crucial; e.g., Test. Sol. 5:2, 6–7. 1494. Test. Sol. 5:13. 1495. See Wrede, Secret, 26–27. 1496. E.g., Robinson, “Challenge,” 323–25; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 142–47; Wenham, Bible, 64; cf. Borg, Vision, 62, 72n16. See a much more complete survey of Western theological skepticism and the suggested problems with it in Twelftree, Triumphant, 135–70. While most postmodernists remain inclined toward skepticism, they are more open to spirits being actual than modernists were (Hoffman and Kurzenberger, “Miraculous,” 84). 1497. Ladd, Theology, 51. For several different approaches to nt language of spiritual powers, see, e.g., Wink, “Model”; Powlison, “Model”; Boyd, “Model”; and Keener, “Warfare.” 1498. E.g., Borg, Vision, 62 (citing Lewis, Ecstatic Religion); Crossan, Jesus, 315–17; idem, Jesus, 149–50; Loubser, “Possession”; more extensively Davies, Healer (introducing spirit possession, 22–42); see further Keener, “Possession.” My doctoral student Joy Ames is also now undertaking work in this area. 1499. Prince, “EEG,” 127–29. For example, persons in altered states of consciousness fall in the theta range during an EEG, found in children but not normally in awake adults (Davies, Healer, 141–42, following Goodman, Ecstasy, 39). For various studies on the brain and consciousness relevant to “anomalous experiences” (visions, etc.), see McClenon and Nooney, “Experiences,” 48; Keener, Miracles, 871–72. 1500. Goodman, Demons, 126; cf. Ladd, Theology, 51. For comparison with multiple personality disorder, cf., e.g., Firth, “Foreword,” ix–x (also noting [xiii] suggestibility); Bourguignon, “Multiple Personality”; Field,

2441

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 145

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

changes, including hyperarousal, clearly do occur.1501 Incidents of “possession” on a notable scale have also been documented, although Westerners may tend to attribute these to mass hysteria.1502 We thus need not assume that ancients invented all experiences of possession and deliverance, although writers probably schematized many and invented some of them. Whatever one makes of such experiences, anthropological literature demonstrates conclusively that many peoples do experience possession trance, although the perception, interpretation, and sometimes expression of such experiences vary culturally.1503 Anthropologists today generally try to study the phenomenon from the perspective of societies that claim it, instead of imposing a Western interpretive grid on it.1504 Thus one study offers as a working definition of spirit possession “any altered state of consciousness indigenously interpreted in terms of the influence of an alien spirit.”1505 More-recent studies work harder to take into account the indigenous frame of reference;1506 although traditional Western categories, often from a medical perspective, make cross-cultural comparison easier, approaches that are more contextualized and phenomenological prove more epistemologically open.1507 As Erika Bourguignon points out, belief in spirit possession is widespread in varied cultures around the world, “as any reader of ethnographies knows.”1508 She sampled 488 diverse, ethnographically representative societies and discovered spirit possession beliefs in 360 societies—that is, in 74 percent of those studied. The beliefs are most attested in the Pacific islands (88 percent), 77 percent around the Mediterranean, and less in the Americas (64 percent in the aboriginal population of North America and 64 percent in South America).1509 Sixteen percent of the 360 societies have possession “Possession,” 3. Those who recognize the existence of possession disorder do not always concur on its presence in given cases; contrast, e.g., Goodman, Michel, xvii, with Duffey, Lessons. 1501. Goodman, Demons, 1–24, 126. 1502. See, e.g., Keller, Hammer, 107, citing Ong, Spirits, 204, 209 (though interpreting the incident differently than does Ong); Edwards, “Possession,” 220; Smith, “Possession,” 442; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 3; earlier, Rosen, “Psychopathology,” 245. 1503. Illnesses are often “oriented to and shaped by” cultural conceptions (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 203); cf., e.g., a form of possession associated with initial encounters with overhead airplanes (Colson, “Possession,” 79, 85). Groups can experience revelatory trance states that they distinguish from possession (cf. Surgy, Église, 216–17). 1504. Tippett, “Possession,” 143–44; Bourguignon, Possession, 14. Although many anthropologists lack a specific conceptual metanarrative with which to frame them, seeking to deny phenomena such as possession and trances has been regarded as the anthropological equivalent of “being a ‘flat-earther’” (Burridge, New Earth, 4n2, as cited in Lewis, Healing, 321–22n15). For a brief historical overview of anthropological approaches to spirit possession, see Prince, “Foreword,” xi; Crapanzaro, “Introduction,” 5–7; more thoroughly for recent studies, Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 410–14. 1505. Crapanzaro, “Introduction,” 7 (emphasis his; cited also by others, e.g., Davies, Healer, 23); cf. Bourguignon, Possession, 7; Lewis, “Spirits and Sex War,” 627. 1506. Thus Keller, Hammer, 39–40, notes that earlier anthropologists tended to explain possession in psychosocial terms, not commenting on possessing agents, but more-recent research “does take seriously the agency of possessing ancestors, deities, and spirits.” 1507. See Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 408, 410–14, 427. 1508. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 18; cf. also idem, “Introduction,” 17–19; idem, “Self ”; Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 409; Firth, “Foreword,” ix; Morsy, “Possession,” 189; on belief in spirits being found in most cultures, Turner, “Reality,” 30 (distinguishing this from mere “energy,” ki or chi). For the geographic distribution of cultures practicing trance, possession trance, and spirit possession, with maps, see Bourguignon, “World Distribution,” 18–32; most occur in every geographic region (though some more in some regions than others). Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 100–126, shows that negatively perceived spirit “possession” occurs in a wide range of societies, as do efforts to contain or exorcise it. In addition to anthropologists, missionaries widely report the phenomena (Mooneyham, “Demonism,” 210–14). I have heard many examples orally from African scholar friends, who sometimes have firsthand or secondhand experiences with these phenomena. 1509. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 19–21; idem, “Appendix”; followed also in Kaplan and Sadock, Psychiatry, 259, 1237. It occurs in the West, though often interpreted less benignly (Macklin, “Yankee,” esp. 42).

2442

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 146

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

trance only, 22 percent have other forms of possession, and 35 percent have both.1510 One could thus provide examples from a wide variety of societies in most regions of the world,1511 among them Africa1512 (including northeastern,1513 central eastern,1514 southeastern,1515 northwestern,1516 and western1517), the Middle East,1518 Asia,1519 the Pacific,1520 and the Americas.1521

7. Possession Behavior Possession behavior does not result from all purported interaction with spirits. Shamans in many parts of the world, for example, claim to communicate with spirits but are not taken over by them; some others, however, become completely possessed, whether temporarily or long-term.1522 Thus, in many traditional African societies, 1510. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 21, noting that possession trance is rarer in the Americas (5 percent in North America, 12 percent in South America); more have possession without trance (27 percent of North American societies; 34 percent of South American societies). Possession trance is common in African tradition (Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 120; Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 183). 1511. For samples of those studied, see, e.g., Crapanzaro and Garrison, Case Studies; Goodman, Demons, 1–24, 126; Lewis, Ecstatic Religion; Alexander, Possession, 105–6. In addition to those that I have surveyed directly, some of the following samples come from the bibliography in Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 428–34 (with 221 sources, it provides a useful starting point for further research); for zar, tumbura, and bori cults, see Makris and Natvig, “Bibliography”; Lewis, Al-Safi, and Hurreiz, Medicine, 283–91. 1512. E.g., Mbiti, Religions, 106, 111 (noting an “epidemic” of possession among the Akamba in the early twentieth century), 113, 249–50; Beattie and Middleton, Mediumship, passim. In Africa’s early western diaspora through slavery, see Raboteau, Slave Religion, 10–11, 17, 19, 27–28, 35–37, 63–73. 1513. In Egypt, Saunders, “Zar Experience”; Natvig, “Zar Cult” (including early history, 178–80); in Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Sudan (including the zar cult there), see Leiris, Possession; Lewis, “Possession”; Morton, “Dawit”; Messing, “Zar Cult”; Natvig, “Zar Spirits”; Tubiana, “Zar”; Makris and Al-Safi, “Spirit Possession Cult”; Boddy, “Spirits and Selves”; idem, Wombs; Kahana, “Zar Spirits”; Kennedy, “Zar Ceremonies”; Constantinides, “Zar” (for history); Kenyon, “Zar”; Luling, “Possession Cults.” 1514. E.g., Smith, “Possession”; Harris, “Possession ‘Hysteria’”; Noble, “Possession”; Giles, “Possession Cults”; idem, “Possession”; Gomm, “Spirit Possession”; Beattie, “Mediumship.” 1515. Among Shona peoples, see, e.g., Gelfand, “Disorders”; Fry, Spirits; Garbett, “Mediums”; among the Valley Tonga of Zambia, Colson, “Possession”; Luig, “Worlds”; in Zambia generally, Haar and Ellis, “Possession” (e.g., 204); Binsbergen, Change, 75–99; in Madagascar, Sharp, “Possessed”; idem, Possessed; Mayotte in the Indian Ocean, Lambek, Knowledge; idem, “Disease,” 40–45. 1516. E.g., in Morocco, Crapanzaro, “Mohammed”; in Mali, Colleyn, “Horse”; in Tunisia, Ferchiou, “Possession Cults.” 1517. E.g., among the Wolof of Senegal, Zempleni, “Symptom”; in Ghana, Field, “Possession”; in Niger, Echard, “Possession Cult”; Stoller, “Change”; Masquelier, “Invention”; in Hausaland, Abdalla, “Friend”; among traditional Yorubas, Prince, “Possession Cults.” 1518. E.g., the zar cult in Iran, Modarressi, “Zar Cult”; in Kuwait, Ashkanani, “Zar”; see also northeast Africa. 1519. E.g., in Nepal, Gray, “Exorcism”; Peters, Healing in Nepal; Hitchcock and Jones, Spirit Possession; in India, e.g., Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome”; Basso, “Music”; Indo-Tibetan Buddhism in Wayman, “Meaning”; in Sri Lanka, Kapferer, Exorcism; Obeyesekere, “Possession”; Yalman, “Healing Rituals,” 128; Halverson, “Dynamics” (esp. 334–42); Oesterreich, Possession, 216–17; Pieris, “Humour”; in Hong Kong, Yap, “Syndrome”; in the Philippines, Guthrie and Szanton, “Diagnosis”; in Malaysia, Kessler, “Conflict”; Ackerman and Lee, “Communication”; Lee, “Self-Presentation” (esp. 253–57); Keller, Hammer, 106–7; in Indonesia, Stange, “Configurations”; in Japan, Lebra, Patterns; McVeigh, “Possession.” 1520. E.g., in the pre-Christian Solomon Islands, see Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 14, 250–51; in Fiji, Hoare, “Approach,” 124–26; among traditional aboriginal Australians, see Berndt, “Role,” 269; in New Guinea, Salisbury, “Possession.” 1521. In New England, Macklin, “Yankee”; in Puerto Rico, Koss, “Spirits”; Garrison, “Syndrome”; Harwood, Spiritist; in Montserrat, Dobbin, Dance; some groups in St. Vincent, Henney, “Belief ”; Raboteau, Slave Religion, 63–64; in a group in Yucatán, Goodman, “Disturbances”; in Haiti, Douyon, “Examen”; Kiev, “Value”; in the Brazilian cult of Umbanda, Pressel, “Umbanda”; idem, “Trance”; idem, “Possession.” 1522. Eliade, Shamanism, 6 (cf. possession in 346); Tippett, “Possession,” 165; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 10–11. Guardian spirits are essential for shamanism (Harner, Way of Shaman, 43). Shorter, Witchdoctor, 177, notes that those most susceptible to dissociation after initiation may become shamans themselves. Krippner,

2443

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 147

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

mediums are normally in their own minds except when possessed by a spirit; only during the trance state do they function as mediums.1523 Spirit possession can be induced or solicited for such purposes by drumming and dancing.1524 Some practices are common in particular regions. For example, in Brazilian spiritism,1525 more than half the cults see spirits of the dead; all but one see supernatural beings; most include possession of mediums, and most include possession of initiates; most include ecstatic trance; more often the mediums are unconscious than conscious; and in most cults, possession can be either spontaneous or induced.1526 In rural Ghana, possession often includes an initial stupor followed by excited, ecstatic activity;1527 an established diviner may become possessed to divine what deity is possessing another person.1528 Among traditional Valley Korekore, spirit possession is common and “danced out” in cult groups, but mediums who speak by spirit possession are rarer.1529 Possession behavior varies in some respects among different cultures.1530 Possession often follows conventions particular to the culture where it occurs,1531 and some possessed persons seem to exhibit stereotyped responses.1532 Thus, for example, Somali possession cults lack the emphasis on different spirits with distinct behaviors “Perspectives,” surveys a variety of proposed models and data, including the traditional Christian model of shamans’ “demon possession” (963–64; noting [964] that shamans sometimes make these claims about rival shamans), which he rejects, and the various attentional states of different kinds of shamans (967). 1523. Mbiti, Religions, 225–26 (in most other situations, spirit possession can be harmful, p. 106); cf. Firth, Ritual, 298. In some societies, only the medium will enter a trance (e.g., Colson, “Possession,” 76). 1524. For drumming, see Mbiti, Religions, 106; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 46, 49; Pressel, “Possession,” 344; Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 114; Firth, “Foreword,” xiii; Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxvi; Horton, “Possession,” 19; Verger, “Trance,” 55–59; Southall, “Possession,” 233, 236, 240–42, 248, 269; Constantinides, “Zar,” 89, 91 (for bori, but not tumbura, possession); Luling, “Possession Cults,” 173 (Somalia); Field, “Possession,” 4, 7 (Ghana); Gelfand, “Disorders,” 156, 162; idem, Religion, 166–67 (traditional Shona culture); in the Dionysus cult in antiquity, Plut. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B. Music aids possession in Basso, “Music”; for music and trance, see Alcorta, “Music,” 243–47; for drumming and dancing to induce altered states of consciousness in South African churches, see Edwards, “Healing,” 340–42; for sacred dance and healing in a contextualized South African church, see Mthethwa, “Music,” 253–55; dancing and spiritual power in South African African Independent Churches (AICs), Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 55–56; shamanic dancing in Hultkrantz, Healing, 63–65; possession dance in Stoller and Olkes, Shadow, 85. Music aids in exorcism in L.A.B. 60:2–3; cf. drumming in an exorcism ceremony in Gray, “Cult,” 177–79; Lewis, “Exorcism,” 206; music to set the tone for exorcism in a São Paulo (Brazil) Pentecostal service in Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 154. 1525. See Johnson, “Authority,” 15–65, including a careful table of the belief structures of the different groups (p. 64, table 2) and beliefs about possession in these groups (65, table 3); I use esp. p. 65 here. Claims to “see” spirits also appear elsewhere (McNaughton, Blacksmiths, 11). Spiritists are highly influential in Brazil and undergo formal training; see Lotufo-Neto, “Influences,” 201. 1526. Using sacrifices, drums, singing, dancing, tobacco, prayer, and often drinking. (Such means are not at all universal; see, e.g., Field, “Possession,” 7.) In Candomblé, an African-oriented cult in Brazil, the Orixás that are invoked “are assumed to dwell in Africa and are summoned from there” ( Johnson, “Authority,” 32). 1527. Field, “Possession,” 3–4. 1528. Ibid., 8. 1529. Garbett, “Mediums,” 105 (noting that mediums, unlike members of possession cults, had to remain in the vicinity belonging to their possessing spirit). 1530. See, e.g., Platvoet, “Rule”; Keener, “Possession,” 221–24; also common cultural characteristics in some features of traditional African spirit possession and patterned responses to religious activity in the African diaspora, including many African-American churches (e.g., Jules-Rosette, “Spirituality”). For traditional Japanese spirit possession (and other patterns) in their cultural context, see, e.g., Lebra, Patterns. Some societies lack even dissociation in some cases, so that the common element in possession in these societies tends to be the belief that a spirit is overpowering one’s personality (Shorter, Witchdoctor, 180). 1531. See, e.g., Verger, “Trance,” 64; Southall, “Possession,” 243; Firth, Ritual, 313–14 (noting the possessing spirits’ use of “conventional Tikopia concepts and . . . ordinary Tikopia norms of etiquette and morality”). 1532. E.g., among the southeastern Bantu in Gussler, “Change,” 123–24, to at least some degree apparently reflecting traditional beliefs; loss of eye control in Navajo mental illness (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 206).

2444

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 148

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(in contrast to related Sudanese cults); the possessed dance but do not speak much (in contrast to, e.g., Comoro Islands possession).1533 By contrast, forms of possession trance vary considerably among individual mediums in Palau.1534 Even within a single culture, possession behavior sometimes varies widely.1535 As Bourguignon summarizes, “Because of its psychobiological substrate, it reveals constants wherever we find it. Yet it is subject to learning and by this means, it is amenable to cultural patterning. As such, it takes on a striking variety of forms.”1536 Moreover, travelers can take particular forms of spirit possession and mediumship with them to societies previously unfamiliar with them.1537 The nature of cults can change over time;1538 in some societies, a traditionally serious, therapeutic possession cult has been harnessed increasingly in the direction of entertainment.1539 In a wide range of societies, possession results in a major change of personality and in sudden and dramatic shifts in “behavior, timbre and pitch of voice.”1540 Those leaving the “possession” state often have no recollection of how they acted while “possessed.”1541 Thus Raymond Firth notes that social anthropologists, approaching spirit possession from a very different standpoint than missionaries, spiritualists, or psychics, have been faced in the field by dramatic changes of personality in men or women they were studying—startling yet evidently accustomed alterations of behaviour, with trembling, sweating, groaning, speaking with strange voices, assumption of a different identity, purporting to be a spirit not a human being, giving commands or foretelling the future in a new authoritative way. Sometimes it has been hard for the anthropologist to persuade himself that it is really the same person as before whom he is watching or confronting, so marked is the personality change.1542 1533. Luling, “Possession Cults,” 175. 1534. Leonard, “Spirit Mediums,” 176 (also noting that most remaining possession trance is among elderly). 1535. Nevius, Possession, 46, noting wild activity, apparently normal activity except in a different voice, or speaking for a deceased relative or a fox (although all these reactions may have been accepted as stereotyped responses within the culture; on fox spirits, see, e.g., Matsuoka, “Fox Possession”). 1536. Bourguignon, “Assessment,” 337. 1537. See, e.g., Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 47 (on coastal beliefs reaching the interior of Tanzania through one Kipakulo in the mid-twentieth century); idem, “Spirit Possession,” 122. The same system collapsed in 1970 (“Possession and Healing,” 49). Scholars have tried to reconstruct the spread of the zar cult (e.g., Morsy, “Possession,” 192–93). Spirits today naturally claim more global connections (Behrend and Luig, “Introduction,” xiii; Krings, “History,” 53). 1538. E.g., Natvig, “Zar Cult,” 181; and often in the literature. Syncretism is common (e.g., Constantinides, “Zar,” 91; between African tradition and Sufism, Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 213), and other factors (such as Islam) have forced a measure of change (e.g., Last, “Bori,” 57), though elements of continuity also appear to exist (Echard, “Possession Cult,” 67). 1539. Cf., e.g., Last, “Bori,” 49–50; Hurreiz, “Zar,” esp. 154; Sellers, “Zar,” esp. 156–57, 163. 1540. Tippett, “Possession,” 162 (following Herskovits; elaborated further [162–64], with thorough documentation from anthropological literature). See, e.g., Greenfield, Spirits, 40 (new persona), 83 (voice); Oesterreich, Possession, 19–22 (offering many examples), 97, 208; Mbiti, Religions, 225–26, including (225) a case that he witnessed; Dayhoff, “Guiva” (a girl speaking in a deep, unnatural voice before exorcism); Gelfand, Religion, 169 (regarding Shona examples); Shorter, Witchdoctor, 177; McClenon, Events, 134–35, 226; Ising, Blumhardt, 104–5, 168, 169, 171–72, 174–75, 178, 183; Grof, “Potential,” 144 (change in voice and superhuman knowledge); Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275 (two male voices from a woman); Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 140 (a case that he witnessed while studying psychiatry). 1541. E.g., Field, “Possession,” 3, 6; Horton, “Possession,” 23; Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Bourguignon, “Self,” 53, 56; Grof, “Potential,” 145; Rosny, Healers, 185–86; cf. Singleton, “Spirits,” 477; but contrast Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 113. Some claim to know little about the spirits that possess them, claiming to be “powerless in their hands” (Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48). 1542. Firth, “Foreword,” x (adding his own shock when first encountering spirit mediumship among the Tikopia four decades earlier). Possession typically displaces the normal personality (Mbiti, Religions, 106); for the possessed acting like the spirits believed to possess them, see, e.g., Verger, “Trance,” 50–51, 53.

2445

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 149

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

In a number of diverse cultures where it has been observed in the modern world, spirit possession sometimes yields superhuman strength that makes restraint difficult or impossible1543 and often yields destructiveness,1544 including self-laceration at times.1545 Among traditional !Kung Bushmen, younger and less experienced trancers have to be restrained from injuring themselves or others; they are known for grabbing live coals and smearing them on their body, contact with fire from one to five seconds producing burns.1546 One African scholar describes a case of possession trance he witnessed near Kampala, where the medium banged his head on the floor without injury and, after possession, returned to normalcy.1547 In many African societies, spirit possession drives the person to live in the forest, to jump into fire, or to use sharp objects to hurt oneself.1548 According to one report, a possessed child being exorcised of an ancestor spirit hurled “a huge burning log from the fireplace” at the prophets, who dodged it and expelled the spirit.1549 At a traditional Taiwanese festival, “spirit-mediums” become possessed and flail themselves with instruments of “self-mutilation,” allowing them to show immunity to the pain of their wounds.1550 It is reported, however, that some “have died of post-possession exhaustion” or in the height of ecstasy.1551 In an observation relevant to discussion of the pythoness spirit in Acts 16:16, spirits in some traditional societies today are believed to participate in prophetic activity.1552 Even where spirits are considered generally destructive, they may be reckoned as necessary intermediaries with deities.1553 In traditional African societies, those possessed virtually always claim to speak for lower spirits, never (in contrast to Christian 1543. E.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 208; Murphy, “Aspects of Shamanism,” 58; Field, “Possession,” 5; cf. Borg, Vision, 62; Mark 5:4 (but more positively, Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 11:6–7; Test. Jud. 2:1–7); on other occasions, though, a “possessed” person could be tied up (Gray, “Cult,” 182). See further comment at Acts 19:16. 1544. Eliade, Rites, 71; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, 170; Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145; Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227; Matt 8:28; for possession yielding threats and aggression, see Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 251. When possessed persons become unmanageable, they might be confined to a cave (where they would die of dehydration) or (more often) be driven into the woods (Gelfand, “Disorders,” 170). For spirits cursing and berating the possessed, see, e.g., Morton, “Dawit,” 221. 1545. Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185; Ising, Blumhardt, 174, 326–27; cf. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 162; Mark 5:5; 1 Kgs 18:28. For various maladaptive responses, see Ludwig, “Altered States,” 86 (including voodoo death). 1546. Lee, “Sociology,” 41–42, 47 (though they believed that fire would not burn them, 43). One may also run headlong into a tree; on occasion, one has been known to violently attack a dog or to engage in despised sexual behavior (Lee, “Sociology,” 42). 1547. Mbiti, Religions, 225–26. 1548. Ibid., 106 (noting that sometimes the victim also hurts others); cf. “wandering through the bush” with danger of injury in Gray, “Cult,” 178. In antiquity, cf. Mark 5:5; 9:18; Acts 19:16; cf. also the Galli, who were said to emasculate themselves in frenzy (discussed at Acts 8:27). For throwing themselves into the fire, see also, e.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211 (noting multiple cases); cf. Mark 9:22; Southall, “Possession,” 234. 1549. Shoko, Religion, 125, recounting the report from within a Karanga AIC in Zimbabwe. Some Kenyan members of AICs experiencing ASCs are able “to run along the road for hours beating drums” or perform exorcisms and the like (Harries, “Nature,” 403). 1550. Jochim, Religions, 154. Although Ghanaian possession examples lack cases of self-injury noted in many cultures, they appear to lack hunger and many other normal sensations (Field, “Possession,” 6). For cases of immunity to pain or heat, see McClenon, Events, 97–100; idem, Healing, 71–74. 1551. Field, “Possession,” 5. In other cases as well, exhaustion commonly follows ecstasy (e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 202). A Tikopia medium might not feel tired after his spirit control entered, yet feel exhausted through the coming of other spirits (Firth, Ritual, 311). 1552. E.g., Mbiti, Religions, 233; Evans-Pritchard, Religion, 96, 303; Field, “Possession,” 6; Middleton, “Possession,” 224; Southall, “Possession,” 242–43; Fitzgerald, “Speech.” For familiars used for witchcraft, see Turner, Drums, 206; in old Shona tradition, various kinds of spirits can possess mediums (Gelfand, Religion, 166), and possession gives the medium powers (see 177–78). 1553. Ohnuki-Tierney, “Shamanism,” 194–96; cf. Mbiti, Religions, 233.

2446

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 150

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and Islamic circles) for the supreme creator God.1554 In contrast to early Christians but analogously to many Greeks, the traditional African worldview typically views some spirits as good, some others as bad, but most neutral, like most people.1555 (Defending this worldview, some critics complain that most Christians “insensitively” classify all possessing spirits, except for God’s Spirit, as evil and demonic.1556 But this complaint is a case of one religious worldview critiquing another’s critique; competing frameworks determine their respective classifications.) African worldviews and Western responses to them have elicited much discussion;1557 one need not embrace uncritically all elements of any one worldview, but Westerners have traditionally and uncritically rejected all elements of African worldviews in an ethnocentric way. The collectors and their informants in one wide-ranging study on phenomena in traditional China, from the final decade of the nineteenth century,1558 naturally read their data through the grid of their own traditional Christian worldview. Nevertheless, much of the study’s data remains informative to a range of scholars because of major shifts in Chinese culture since that time. Some spirits reportedly spoke with the voice of a fox or a bird, others with the voice of a deceased spouse; others normally weak in singing or poetry could sing or compose rhyme under possession.1559 The Chinese Christian observers, the study’s informants, also claimed the existence of “northerners speaking the languages of the South, which they did not know”;1560 often they knew information that they could not have known normally, including other languages unknown to the speakers in their normal state; they also knew of Jesus as divine and feared him.1561 Today, however, anthropological literature provides a much greater abundance of sources. 1554. Mbiti, Religions, 249–50; Field, “Possession,” 9. 1555. Mbiti, Religions, 111; Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxi–xxii, xxvii; cf. Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188–89; idem, “Possession and Healing,” 48–49, 52; on the amorality of fetishes in Nuer religion, see EvansPritchard, Religion, 100; on the neutrality of Ga possession, see Field, “Possession,” 13; on neutral Maya mountain spirits, Garrard-Burnett, “Demons,” 218. On spirits in African tradition, see Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 110–20 (on their ambiguity between good and bad, esp. 114). For one chart comparing Western worldviews (both secular and Christian) with nt and traditional African ones, see Loewen, “Possession,” 128–33. 1556. E.g., Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188–89; cf. Achebe, “Ogbanje Phenomenon,” 35–36. Cf. the nominally Islamic Segeju identification of shetani with Quranic demons in Gray, “Cult,” 173–75. Most of the newer churches do view all spirits as harmful (Ranger, “Religion,” 352, complaining about “Apostolic and Pentecostal churches in Southern Africa”); Korean Christians also treated all the older spirits as demons (Kim, “Healing,” 268–69). 1557. One important discussion missed in appendix B of my Miracles was Gatumu, Concept, 60–92. 1558. Nevius, Possession. Other scholars have also compared Nevius and biblical portraits to various accounts of possession behavior today (e.g., Heth, “Demonization”). On a more popular level, early twentiethcentury Chinese Christians also report some encounters with demons in Baker, Visions (2006), 101–4 (also noting their relationship with indigenous folk beliefs, 106). 1559. Nevius, Possession, 46–47, 58; some are also noted in Tippett, “Possession,” 153. Nevius, Possession, 140–43, defends the reliability of his Chinese informants, especially noting (143) that the reports cohere with those received from other cultures and eras. Nevius himself was persuaded of the reality of spirit possession only gradually, through his field experience (ix, 9–13), as others have also pointed out (e.g., Ramsay, Teaching, 105–6). 1560. Nevius, Possession, 58, noted in Tippett, “Possession,” 153, also noting that some spirits bargained over the price of their departure. (The entire section in Nevius, “Circular Letter and Responses,” is Possession, 41–59.) Cf. also Horton, “Possession,” 29; Dayhoff, “Guiva”; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 183 (following Robert, Croyances, 152–53); Bourguignon, “Self,” 50; Oesterreich, Possession, 208; Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275; Freston, “Transnationalisation,” 211; Krings, “History,” 55–58; Naipaul, Masque, 121; earlier, Kreiser, “Devils,” 63–64; Rosen, “Psychopathology,” 231; Rack, “Healing,” 148; Ising, Blumhardt, 181. 1561. Tippett, “Possession,” 154. Cf. also MacPhail, “Path,” 190; Isaacs, “Disorder,” 269; Allison, “Doubt,” 117–18; Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275. For inexplicable knowledge, see, e.g., the eyewitness experience of Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 140–41 (where the apparently possessed person knew the psychiatric student’s thoughts); Earle, “Borders,” 3 (as cited in Turner, “Advances,” 50); McClenon, Events, 137–38; Krippner and Achterberg, “Experiences,” 353–54; Emmons, Ghosts, 193–96, 198–207; Koch, Zulus, 143,

2447

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 151

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

8. Interpreting Spirit Possession The matter of interpretation of such phenomena is a separate question,1562 but a Western reading is not the only possible interpretation. Indeed, there are multiple Western readings; the approaches of anthropologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and indigenous interpreters often vary considerably from one another.1563 Various “secular” stimuli not normally connected with “possession” can induce trance states in normal people.1564 Dissociation and altered states of consciousness are universal phenomena, but interpretations vary;1565 the primary mystical interpretations (though not all are mystical) are soul loss and spirit possession.1566 Further, a range of “altered states of consciousness” exists, from rapid eye movement to a trance state to “possession trance linked to impersonation behavior.”1567 Others have pointed to neurological parallels in psychomotor epilepsy,1568 sleepwalking,1569 and hysterical-fugue states.1570 Studies have shown that people (and also dogs) experiencing an overload of stresses (among humans, e.g., battle fatigue) may experience a collapse of their nervous system; an induced collapse may in fact relieve stresses and aid mental health.1571 Neurophysiological studies do not ultimately address the possibility of invasive spirits, but they do help explain the human neurological side of possession behavior. Societies that believe in spirit possession could naturally expect the activity of such spirits on the human nervous system to often produce results no less traumatic than other stimuli; likewise, neurophysiological stimuli that produce susceptibility to suggestion or harsher stresses might well render a person more susceptible to the activity of such invasive spirits.1572 146 (cf. 294); a possession state described in Grof, “Potential,” 144–45; but this does not appear to be always the case (cf., e.g., Firth, Ritual, 310). For possessing spirits complaining about Christian conversion, see, e.g., Field, “Possession,” 8. 1562. Thus, e.g., Smith, Magician, 9, reports his own eyewitness encounter with possession behavior but does not genuinely regard it as demon possession. Cf. similarly Peters, Healing in Nepal, 47, of his own “possession” state. 1563. E.g., Wendl, “Slavery,” 120, criticizes psychoanalytic (Crapanzaro), sociological (Lewis), and feminist approaches for imposing grids instead of analyzing indigenous functions for possession experience. For one historical survey of modern Western readings, see Tippett, “Possession,” 144–48. 1564. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 39. This may be described as “mental dissociation” (44); but not all “possession” involves trance, and so the two should not be identified (45). Possession is not inherently “mentally dissociated” but is a particular culture’s construction of the person’s state in terms of an invasive spirit (46). 1565. Worldview affects dissociation’s description in various societies, though the degree of acculturation is often a common factor (Maquet, “Shaman,” 3; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 11–16, 46–47, 50; Frey and Roysircar, “Acculturation and Worldview,” citing other studies, most relevantly Castillo, “Possession”; Hollan, “Culture”; Krippner, “Disorders”; Leavitt, “Trance”; Prince, “Variations”; Schumaker, “Suggestibility”; Roysircar-Sodowsky and Lai, “Variables”; for variations in posttraumatic stress responses, Marsella, Friedman, and Spain, “Aspects”; Oquendo, Horwath, and Martinez, “Ataques”). Lack of suggestibility may render “possession” difficult (cases in Last, “Bori,” 52–53). 1566. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 64. 1567. Bourguignon, “Introduction,” 14; cf. also examples in Finkler, “Religion,” 52; Johnson, “Neuro­ theology,” 223. 1568. Prince, “EEG,” 122–24. 1569. Ibid., 124–25; cf. Field, “Possession,” 4–5. 1570. Prince, “EEG,” 125–27. 1571. Ibid., 129–30. (Against Sargent, Prince thinks [130, 132] that the convulsions during Wesley’s preaching on June 15, 1739, represent suggestion rather than emotional collapse.) Drumbeats at the right intervals, like photic driving, can produce emotional and neurological shifts (133–34). For religious ecstasy in Wesley’s meetings, cf. also Cragg, Reason, 144. 1572. Although familiarity with local traditions of possession offers the primary factor for it in one study in Trinidad, stress or emotional conflict provides the immediate trigger (Ward and Beaubrun,

2448

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 152

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Possession behavior often occurs in cultic contexts.1573 Many cases of spirit possession are reported in connection with vodun in Haiti1574 and various forms of spiritism in Brazil.1575 Possession trance is also said to occur in the zar cult (which occurs in Iran, Sudan, Egypt, and some parts of Arabia),1576 among traditional Yorubas,1577 in some fundamentalist cults in St. Vincent and the Grenadines,1578 and in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism,1579 for example. In nineteenth-century Fuchow (Fuzhou), a Taoist priest would take the pose of a worshiped image, then tremble, and then begin to speak for the spirit, receiving incense and veneration.1580 Not all cases, however, have any particular religious connection.1581 Some scholars have linked possession experience to social frameworks (an explanatory paradigm that need not be incongruent with some others);1582 this approach has also been applied to Jesus’s setting.1583 Even in the nineteenth century, observers noted that “cases of possession are less frequent in peaceful times, and more frequent in times of civil commotion; also less frequent in prosperous families” and “among educated people.”1584 Possession without a trance is more common in hunter-gatherer societies; increasing societal stratification and complexity increase the likelihood of added trance states.1585 Some others have also concurred that it appears more commonly in stratified slave societies.1586 Some societies use trances under controlled, “Psychodynamics,” 206); stress as a precipitating factor appears in numerous studies (cited by ibid.), e.g., Douyon, “Examen”; Freed and Freed, “Possession”; Leiris, Possession; Pressel, “Trance”; Warner, “Witchcraft.” Case 2 in Ward and Beaubrun, “Psychodynamics,” 203, lends itself especially readily to psychological explanations (at the least, in terms of susceptibility). Some exorcisms probably prove effective by correcting hysterical disorders (Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 134–35), although this explanation proves inadequate for some of the phenomena recorded in the nt and other sources (see the analysis by Instone-Brewer, 135–40). 1573. Tippett, “Possession,” 148–51; often in the literature, e.g., Gray, “Cult,” 171. In antiquity, cf. perhaps Pers. Sat. 5.185–89 on demons related to the Cybele cult. 1574. See Tippett, “Possession,” 155–56; Douyon, “Examen”; in Haiti, Kiev, “Value.” 1575. Tippett, “Possession,” 157–58; Pressel, “Umbanda”; idem, “Possession,” 333–35. Cf. also the Spiritist Church in Puerto Rico (Garrison, “Syndrome,” 393–94; for mediums, see 398–403), Spiritualism in New England (Macklin, “Yankee”), and elsewhere. 1576. Modarressi, “Zar Cult.” 1577. Prince, “Possession Cults.” 1578. Henney, “Belief.” 1579. Wayman, “Meaning.” 1580. A Chinese report in Nevius, Possession, 47 (the reporter seems skeptical about the supernatural element). Cultic contexts often produce social pressure on particular persons to enter possession trance (Firth, “Foreword,” xiii; Horton, “Possession,” 24, 25, 35; Verger, “Trance,” 52). 1581. Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48 (Maji-ya-Soda viewing the water spirits as neutral and adapting the ritual to fit his various clientele’s religious sensibilities). Water spirits are frequent in discussions of African spirits (e.g., Horton, “Possession,” 15, 17, 45). 1582. E.g., Prince, “Possession Cults.” 1583. Cf., e.g., Hollenbach, “Demoniacs”; Crossan, Jesus, 318. While affirming anthropological observations regarding intrafamily conflicts and possession (Davies, Healer, 81–84), Davies views Hollenbach’s approach (emphasizing a sociological response to pervasive Roman oppression) as “preposterous” in view of the Galilean context (79–80). In any case, sociological factors seem to influence susceptibility but do not, by themselves, appear adequate to explain the phenomena surrounding the more anomalous cases (i.e., it appears reductionist to appeal solely to such factors). 1584. Nevius, Possession, 58. For their greater frequency among the uneducated, see Field, “Possession,” 4. 1585. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 22. In idem, “Introduction,” 22, she notes that it is more common in stratified slave societies, but she thinks (23) that rigidity also affects its occurrence (relating possession behavior to release from societal strictures without changing the strictures [31, 33]). The data do not seem to fit readily a single consistent model, and correlation might reflect common factors (rather than causation); but they might also reveal some conditions most conducive to possession states. In some settings, some trance states might perform a cathartic function (though Prince, “Foreword,” xiii, warns that this approach fails to account for societies where the healer, rather than the patient, “becomes dissociated”). 1586. Greenbaum, “Societal Correlates,” 54; idem, “Possession Trance,” 84.

2449

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 153

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ritualized situations; when society becomes uncontrolled, the instability creates crisis for the individual and his or her surroundings.1587 Including ecstatic Christian experiences in her analysis, Bourguignon suggests that possession trance is most common among the more marginalized members of a society; groups that once experienced it (such as early Methodists)1588 and that have now become respectable are far less likely to display it.1589 It often appears among those marginalized from other means of power in their society,1590 especially women1591 (although this varies from one society to another).1592 Thus possession behavior sometimes can be used to gain desires otherwise inappropriate to express.1593 Possession trance may provide a socially sanctioned outlet for aggression where other such outlets are lacking.1594 Claims of possession can reduce guilt by projecting it on the invasive spirit.1595 Because spirit possession and exorcisms fulfill a sociological function, some factors supposed to abolish such practices (such as urbanization or Western education) do not always do so.1596 Diverse cultures offer an array of interpretive matrixes for these phenomena.1597 Some societies employ naturalistic explanations for possession trance; others, supernaturalistic ones.1598 Naturalistic expectations are more common in the West1599 1587. Bourguignon, “Assessment,” 339. But mediums who are, initially, uncontrollably possessed may learn to control the impulses (Horton, “Possession,” 36, 41; Verger, “Trance,” 51). 1588. On revelatory claims among early Methodists, see, e.g., Noll, Shape, 46; for popular “enthusiasm” among them, see, e.g., Wigger, Saint, 58–59, 78, 81–83, 166–67, 170, 307, 311–12, 320, 322. Marginalized Christian groups experiencing such phenomena (cf., e.g., Ghanaian “Holy Spirit” movements in Field, “Possession,” 9–10) could view it as God’s favor toward the marginalized, picking up two Lukan themes (the Spirit and the marginalized). Lewis, Healing, 293, notes that most of the charismatic participants in his study on healings were middle-class professionals and that many did experience some ecstatic phenomena, such as “shaking or falling over.” But he also observes (268) that healings seem to have occurred more often among those of “lower social classes” present, suggesting perhaps divine bias for the weak. 1589. Bourguignon, “Epilogue,” 342–43. 1590. Lewis, “Possession,” 189–90; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 4; cf. Rahim, “Zar,” 138–45; Morsy, “Possession,” 204–5. 1591. Kessler, “Conflict,” 301–2; Berger, “Women,” 41, 55; Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 115 (cf. 119); Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 103; Horton, “Possession,” 41–42; Colson, “Possession,” 90–92, 99–100; Lee, “Possession,” 143–44, 150–51, 154; Southall, “Possession,” 244; Abdalla, “Friend,” 41, 44; Last, “Bori,” 58–59; Hammond-Tooke, “Aetiology,” 57; Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 88; Walker and Dickerman, “Woman,” 539, 554; Stirrat, “Possession,” 138, 151, 154; Oesterreich, Possession, 121; Giles, “Spirits,” 77; Sousa, “Women”; Kenyon, “Case”; cf. Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 85; Gray, “Cult,” 171; Lewis, “Possession,” 216–17; idem, “Introduction,” 5; idem, “Deprivation Cults,” 313–25; Constantinides, “Zar,” 89; Ashkanani, “Zar,” 228–29. 1592. Cf., e.g., Crawford and Lipsedge, “Help,” 134; Colleyn, “Horse,” 72; similarly, Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 155–56; Tanner, “Theory,” 274 (but cf. also 281). 1593. Successful, e.g., in Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 88, 91; Bourguignon, “Self,” 50, 53; cf. Ward, “Possession,” 130–32; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 4; Eve, Healer, 67; Abdalla, “Friend,” 39. In the zar cult, the genie usually asks for something that the adolescent has been wanting anyway, and hence provides a safe outlet for expressing feelings (Modarressi, “Zar Cult,” 154–55; cf. Lewis, “Possession,” 201–4, 210–12, 216–17; Southall, “Possession,” 243); elsewhere, possession may yield eruptions “of forbidden impulses” (Ludwig, “Altered States,” 86; cf. Lewis, “Deprivation Cult,” 315–18; Beauvoir, “Herbs,” 129); or has been used for accusing enemies (earlier, Kreiser, “Devils,” 71–73; Walker, “Propaganda,” 284–94; Walker and Dickerman, “Woman,” 550–51). A “trance attack” or possession in India is described as “essentially a culturally sanctioned mechanism” (Raguraman, Vijaysagar, and Chandrasekaran, “Presentation”). 1594. This has been proposed, e.g., for women in Samoan society (Lazar, “Aggression”) and in Sri Lanka (Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 104–5). 1595. Ward and Beaubrun, “Possession,” 201. From the descriptions in the article (esp. case 2, p. 203), the psychological explanations appear more persuasive than others in these cases. 1596. Jacobs, “Possession,” 186–87 (focusing on two East African cultures); Shorter, Witchdoctor, 179; Makris and Al-Safi, “Spirit Possession Cult,” 118. 1597. See, e.g., Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 44; cf. also Maquet, “Shaman,” 3; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 11–16, 46–47, 50. Deprivation theories often are reductionistic (cf. Hunt, “Sociology,” 183–84). 1598. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 4–11. 1599. E.g., many scholars offer psychological explanations, such as the emergence of repressed subconscious thoughts (e.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 475); certainly, this appears to be the case in some instances

2450

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 154

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

but occasionally appear elsewhere;1600 supernaturalistic explanations include soul absence1601 and the presence of a spirit.1602 Likewise, both voluntary and involuntary possession states exist;1603 sometimes they coexist in the same culture (e.g., voluntary for the shaman and “hysterical” for the patient).1604 Evaluations of trance behavior can be positive or negative,1605 and the explanatory systems attached to trance behavior inevitably affect the behavior.1606 Some peoples, for example, regard spirit affliction as a danger caused by an ancestor spirit,1607 but not all peoples view such spirits as malevolent or dangerous.1608 (One might compare some ancient Roman views of ancestor spirits.)1609 Although anthropological literature normally adopts a neutral stance,1610 simply describing phenomena and the views of the subjects, a minority of anthropologists specializing in such observations have dared contravene the usual assumptions of academia, publicly contending that the spirits are real.1611 Thus, for example, noted anthropologist Edith Turner1612 describes her gradual transformation from skeptical (see, e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 201–3, regarding suppressed erotic desire; cf. guilt in Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 215–17). 1600. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 6. Ivey, “Discourses,” finds evil and possession to be useful metaphors; he explains the basis as an internal “splitting,” a defense mechanism (56), which causes the destructive “spirit” to function “as an autonomous suborganisation of the psyche,” projected onto the mythical demon (57). But he follows Freud in regarding psychoanalytic language as itself no less “mythical” than the older demonic terminology; it is simply a different construction of reality (58–59). (For one attempt to borrow Jungian language for the demonic, see Cook, “Manticores,” 165–74.) 1601. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 7–9. 1602. Ibid., 9–12. 1603. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 64. 1604. Peters, Healing in Nepal, 147–48. 1605. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 6–7, 13–15. Thus some societies seek possession whereas others seek deliverance from it (idem, “Self,” 42–43). Some societies have trance without possession; others, possession without trance; and still others, possession trance (18; idem, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 21–22). 1606. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 12. Popular literature also suggests culturally defined conduits for possession behavior, such as the “werewolf ” in Argentina (see Bottari, Free, 30–31). 1607. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 182; Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 239; Garbett, “Mediums,” 123; Reynolds, Magic, 62; Bate, “Mission,” 77; cf. ancestor possession in Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxvii; Field, “Possession,” 9; Lee, “Possession,” 131–32; Keller, Hammer, 131–32, 155; Zempleni, “Symptom,” 92; Barrington-Ward, “Spirit Possession,” 456; Jules-Rosette, “Healers,” 133, 142; Loewen, “Possession,” 121; on spirits of the dead more generally, see, e.g., Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xix–xxii; Beattie, “Mediumship,” 162 (dangerous ghosts, including ancestors); Horton, “Possession,” 15; Southall, “Possession,” 233 (spirits of deceased soldiers), 246–49, 255 (spirits of earlier chiefs); Welbourn, “Spirit Initiation,” 291–92 (on dangerous ghosts). Among the Valley Tonga, possession by ghosts can be fatal (Colson, “Possession,” 71). 1608. They provide good things in Turner, Drums, 14; they provide helpful information in Garbett, “Mediums,” 105; also (but normally only for the recently dead) Last, “Bori,” 51; they must be propitiated to be kept neutral rather than harmful in Tanner, “Theory,” 274; Ma, “Veneration,” 168. On ancestor spirits, see also, e.g., Koss, “Spirits,” 372; and numerous other sources. Shona’s “ancestor” spirits effectively include only grandparents and parents (Gelfand, Religion, 173). 1609. On the Lares see, e.g., Mastrocinque, “Lares”; Phillips, “Lares.” Reinterpreting Roman tradition in light of Middle Platonism, Apuleius speaks (De deo Socr. 152–53) of a Lar familiaris, a ghost watching over the deceased’s descendants, but also of the Larva, the type of Lemur or ghost of one being punished, which terrorizes good people a little but especially endangers the wicked (cf. the ritual to placate lemures in Ovid Fasti 5.419ff.; Phillips, “Lemuria”). 1610. Despite efforts at “value neutrality,” however, social sciences, as typically practiced, presuppose some values that tend to dictate their conclusions (Murphy, “Social Science,” 33–37; using esp. Murphy and Ellis, Nature; Milbank, Social Theory). 1611. Of course, a larger number will contend that they are psychologically real from the standpoint of the patient (e.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 477). 1612. A lecturer in anthropology at the University of Virginia and editor of Anthropology and Humanism: Journal of the Society for Humanistic Anthropology, best known for her fieldwork in Africa beside Victor Turner, her late husband.

2451

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 155

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

observer to convinced observer and even participant (now rejecting her former stance as cultural imperialism).1613 Turner notes that anthropologists normally regard their subjects’ beliefs as significant culturally and do not care whether they are true, but in the past they have at times assumed that needs for psychological compensation simply drove “underprivileged people” to “hallucinations.”1614 She complains that anthropologists repeatedly “witness spirit rituals” and hear explanations from indigenous experts concerning the activity of spirits and the centrality of such rituals to their culture, yet anthropologists continue to interpret the data according to a Western framework.1615 Moreover, she claims, anthropologists have often responded to paranormal events by simply remaining silent about them.1616 She, however, insists that she is unwilling to be silent. She notes that when she sought to be more sympathetic to local interpretations than in the past,1617 she was stunned by an unexpected experience in 1985, which occurred during a Zambian spirit ritual to eject an ihamba. “I saw with my own eyes a giant thing emerging out of the flesh of her back. This thing was a large gray blob about six inches across, a deep gray opaque thing emerging as a sphere.”1618 She says that she realized that there is genuine “spirit affliction: it isn’t a matter of metaphor and symbol, or even psychology.”1619 She afterward entered sympathetically into the spirit experiences of traditional Eskimo hosts in 1987.1620 She questions the ethics, in a multicultural world, of imposing a traditional positivist paradigm on local cultures (even to the extent of reforming indigenous elite perspectives) “at all costs,” despite the evidence that is there.1621 Elsewhere she offers claims of healings involving spirits,1622 affirming that she experienced one herself.1623 1613. See Turner, “Reality of Spirits” (from a pro-shamanist perspective); cf. idem, “Reality.” 1614. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 3 (for such “compensation,” cf., e.g., Firth, “Foreword,” xii). Turner complains (Experiencing Ritual, 4) that some academics “believe that trained anthropologists . . . understand aspects of a culture better than field subjects.” She notes that today many recognize this approach as ethnocentric, ignoring other logics. Yet she denies (15) using postmodern or neocolonial postures, which often provide a Western grid through which fieldwork subjects’ “traditional religion” is viewed as oppressive to them. After her own experience, she concluded (Turner, “Reality,” 28) that many members of her guild had “perpetuated an endless series of put-downs about the many spirit events in which they participated—‘participated’ in a kindly pretense. They might have obtained valuable material, but they have been operating with the wrong paradigm, that of the positivist’s denial.” 1615. Turner, “Reality,” 30. She compares Western psychoanalytic approaches concerning dream figures from the imagination but thinks traditional cultures’ explanations of external spirits even more plausible and certainly no less deserving of respect. But anthropological approaches have become much more open to indigenous categories (see Keller, Hammer, 39–40). 1616. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 3. 1617. Turner, “Reality,” 28. 1618. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 149. Although she allows some sleight-of-hand regarding other parts of the ritual (165; on such tricks, see Frank, Persuasion, 44–45), she insists that she knows what she saw and that she was “not in trance” (Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 159). Elsewhere as well she affirms the possibility of genuine spirit entities (idem, Hands, 232). On the ihamba more generally, cf. Turner, Drums, 156–97 (on the ihamba tooth, cf., e.g., 175–83, 298–99). 1619. Turner, “Reality,” 28. 1620. Ibid., 29. 1621. Ibid., 30, comparing this anthropological approach to that of missionaries (whose role she also dislikes). Turner concedes that some anthropologists are more respectful than others, trying to “bend over backward to accord their people a much fuller sympathy,” but announces that “in this paper I really go over the edge” of traditional boundaries for the discipline. One should note that many of our disciplines were formed in an era when positivist (and, more to the point in this case, in my opinion, antisupernaturalist) influence was inevitable. 1622. Turner, Healers, 103–40. 1623. Ibid., 103.

2452

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 156

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Some other anthropologists and nt scholars have also noted with appreciation Turner’s challenge to traditional Western reductionist approaches to such claims.1624 (Some anthropologists teaching about spirit possession today even introduce students directly to such experiences.)1625 Two sociologists observed what appeared to be socially patterned, apparently culturally learned expressions of possession behavior; their interviews with many educated observers who had a wider range of experience, however, brought to their attention “manifestations that simply did not fit secular categories of explanation.”1626 Some other anthropologists have become more respectful of indigenous interpretations about spirits or spiritual power.1627 Even some Western psychiatrists, psychologists, and those in related disciplines have recounted experiences with what they believe are spirits, although generally affirming that genuine experiences of this sort are rare.1628 Certainly Christians not only in antiquity but in many cultures today, from Lutherans in Tanzania to Korean Presbyterians, recount experience with spirits.1629 Regardless of interpretation, however, the phenomena are well documented, and there is no reason to doubt them in our ancient sources or to suppose them necessarily fictitious or legendary rather than potentially based on eyewitness claims.

9. Exorcism in More Recent Times Following the practice employed in the introductory section on “signs,”1630 I initially suspend academic judgment on the meaning of these phenomena in order to recount some common views of them today. Just as belief in malevolent-spirit possession is common, so are various attempts to cure, control, or exorcise it.1631 1624. See Strelan, Strange Acts, 51, citing Hume, Ancestral Power; cf. Walsh, Shamanism, 144 (a psychiatrist); respectful discussion of this pedagogic strategy in Barnes, “Introduction,” 19–20. Turner, “Advances,” 45, notes that shamanism is now “the fastest growing field” in anthropology. 1625. Turner (“Anthropology,” 203) and others (Winkelman and Carr, “Approach, 177–78; Goodman, “Workshop”; Wilkie, “Imagination,” 137–40, corporately invoking Greek deities; cf. Millay, “Time Travel”; Harner, Way of Shaman, 65–68, 76–85) actually introduce students to shamanic experiences in classes, an approach that many (including myself) find deeply problematic (note voices summarized in Barnes, “Introduction,” 20). Less problematic would be observing rituals of their choice outside class (as in PayneJackson, “Magic,” 232–35) or participating in class field trips (Mosher and Jacobs, “Seminar,” 270–71). Some anthropologists now advocate sympathetically entering “witchcraft” experiences as learners, while keeping in mind scholarly obligations (Salomonsen, “Methods”). Although not accepting the indigenous epistemological framework in many respects, Peters, Healing in Nepal, 37–54, also supports an experiential anthropological approach (Peters underwent shaman training). 1626. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 156 (citing one example of an especially “difficult deliverance of a woman who was well known as a medium,” “who skidded across the floor of the church in a prone position, apparently being propelled by some supernatural force”); cf. Ising, Blumhardt, 175; also, in Moreland and Issler, Faith, 157–59, occult phenomena in which, e.g., objects were moved across the room. 1627. Stoller, “Eye,” 110 (as cited in Turner, “Advances,” 41); Kimball, “Learning,” 189–91; cf. Peters, Healing in Nepal, 37–54 (though rejecting personal spirits); McClenon and Nooney, “Experiences,” 51; Steyne, Gods of Power, 14–19; Mbiti, Religions, 253–56. 1628. E.g., Peck, Glimpses, 238–41 (cited also respectfully by Borg, Jesus, 322n9); Wilson (professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center), “Miracle Events,” 268, 275; idem, “Hysteria,” 225–30; Isaacs, “Disorder,” 265–66; Johnson, “Possession,” 152–53; cf. McAll, “Taste”; idem, “Deliverance,” 296–97; White, “Lady,” 75; Van Gelder, “Possession,” 151–58; Betty, “Evidence”; discussion in Walsh, Shamanism, 147–49. 1629. E.g., Mchami, “Possession,” 17; Bennett, Not Afraid, 1–96; Kim, “Healing,” 270–74; see also Hiebert, “Excluded Middle,” 43; Escobar, Tides, 86; Neill, “Demons,” 161; Mensah, “Basis,” 176; Johnson, “Authority,” 105–6; Watchman Nee in Kinnear, Tide, 152, 318n10. On power encounters, see discussion at Acts 8:12–13; Keener, Miracles, 843–56. It is important to note, however, the historical evolution of faddish demonologies (catalogued, e.g., in Collins, Exorcism). 1630. Keener, Acts, 1:320–82, esp. 363–77. 1631. E.g., Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 100–126; Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 183–87 (including various kinds of spirit healers, 185–87); in popular-level Christian sources, cf., e.g., Schlink, World, 28–53; Williams, Signs,

2453

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 157

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Edith Turner’s example above is not by any means unique. Thus, for example, the pre-Christian Solomon Islands used various elaborate rituals to try to exorcise spirits.1632 In traditional African society, cultic personnel might exorcise harmful spirits, and ceremonies could be employed to drive off spirits endangering a village. 1633 For example, traditional Segeju in Tanzania cajole or force a spirit to leave its victim, most frequently by a ritual dance.1634 Vomiting may help expel the moth that causes mental illness among traditional Navajo.1635 In nineteenth-century China, the following means of exorcism are reported: “enticing them to leave by burning charms, and paper money; or by begging and exhorting them; or by frightening them with magic spells and incantations; or driving them away by pricking with needles, or pinching with the fingers, in which case they cry out and promise to go.”1636 A Muslim Somali holy man exorcises demons using Quranic passages.1637 In many societies, spirit possession is employed to drive out a lower afflicting spirit or to appease an offended spirit. 1638 Shamans or mediums in a number of societies enter trance and/or possession states themselves to expel or control spirits.1639 Thus a Balahi Hindu traditional healer, empowered by a spirit’s magic power, questions and rhetorically duels with a hostile possessing spirit until successfully expelling it.1640 Shamans or mediums often have to negotiate with possessing spirits, who speak through the victim’s mouth.1641 Thus a Muslim traditional healer, having struck a bargain with local spirits but unable to expel some visiting Fulani ones, had to leave the room and let his wife convince these spirits that it was culturally rude for them to possess a guest visiting in their home.1642 Various forms of exorcism have continued among some traditional Jewish groups into the modern period.1643 140; for a study of some popular approaches, see, e.g., Wright, “Interpretations.” See, e.g., shamanistic exorcism among the Aymara in Bolivia (Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 20); other cultures in Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211; Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–37; Mbiti, Religions, 106; a successful Buddhist Sinhalese exorcism in Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 259–89. 1632. Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 14. 1633. Mbiti, Religions, 106; for an example, see, e.g., Turner, Drums, 204. 1634. Gray, “Cult,” 171. For dances used in expelling spirits, see also, e.g., Garbett, “Mediums,” 105; Lewis, “Possession,” 201. 1635. Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211. 1636. A Chinese report in Nevius, Possession, 54. Sometimes demons would leave if given what they demanded; also through “written charms, or chanted verses,” or puncturing “the body with needles” (53). 1637. Lewis, “Possession,” 199 (noting the special utility of sura 66), 213; cf. the use of verses of the Qur’an drunk in water (Abdalla, “Friend,” 38). In the Kuwaiti version of the zar cult, the healer also recites suras (Ashkanani, “Zar,” 224–25). 1638. Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxv. 1639. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 196–97, citing especially (197) examples from eastern Siberia; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 14–15; possession for healing in Southall, “Possession,” 237–38; Hien, “Yin Illness,” 307; Licauco, “Psychic Healing,” 95; cf. Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 108; Katz, “Healing,” 213. On shamans sending spirits to work harm, see, e.g., Peters, Healing in Nepal, 61 (noting [63] that some reject limiting one’s powers to only benevolent acts); on mediums able to work harm (sending dangerous spirits) as well as good, see also Beattie, “Mediumship,” 169; Somali holy men in Lewis, “Possession,” 189; shamans among a people in Guyana, Scherberger, “Shaman,” 57–59. For claims of traditional healers offering relief from spirit forces, see, e.g., Achebe, “Ogbanje Phenomenon,” 34–35; cf. Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48. 1640. Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–37. The ritual typically concludes with the patient swooning, after which she is cured (137). 1641. E.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 473; for spirits departing if they get what they wanted, Gray, “Cult,” 181. Likewise, traditional Tanzanian migawo specialists have to “persuade” spirits to depart (Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 119). 1642. Abdalla, “Friend,” 38–39. The Sudanese culture of hospitality applies to treatment of zar spirits, as to people (Kenyon, “Zar,” 108). 1643. Cf., e.g., Hes, “Role,” 376, 380. Burning the skin with a heated nail, or extracting blood, provides an aperture for the spirits’ departure (ibid., 380).

2454

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 158

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Exorcism appears to be an effective therapy in Ambanja in Madagascar.1644 An African scholar writing for an African theological journal associated with a mainline denomination can recommend exorcism, citing the case of a woman tormented for years by spirits. The article claims that at her exorcism in 1982, other voices were heard calling through her mouth, and then she was permanently free.1645 Sociologists studying routine “deliverance” services have suggested that some cases involve more metaphoric issues,1646 and note that even full exorcism sometimes helps those “suffering from psychologically induced traumas.”1647 Indeed, one anthropologist specialized in the study of spirit possession points out that only exorcism works as a strategy for removing possession.1648 Thus, for example, a girl in Nigeria, tormented day and night by spirits and unable to improve through a psychiatrist, was freed through the help of an indigenous healing movement.1649 Witnesses attest the recovery (over the course of several days) of a boy who had been near death, after exorcism.1650 In Cuba, Eusbarina Acosta Estévez told me that years ago she was invoking other spirits and was too sick to walk. When two pastors prayed for her in 1988, she recounts, she fell to the ground, and all the chairs around her were also thrown back by the force of the spirits coming out. She was converted, and her severe heart and kidney malfunctions ended instantly.1651 Indian Pentecostalism,1652 like African Pentecostalism,1653 clearly appeals to people in a context of belief in the pervasive experience of oppression by spirits. Some mental health professionals affirm any neutral, “client-centered” therapy that “works within the belief structure of the patient”;1654 others question the ethics of an approach that encourages a belief, such as exorcism, that the therapist rejects.1655 Some professionals contend that exorcism might constitute the most culturally sensitive therapy for those for whom possession is the most culturally intelligible explanation for their condition.1656 1644. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 142, citing Sharp, Possessed. 1645. Jenkins, New Faces, 105–7, citing Mchami, “Possession” (esp. 31, citing the case of “Esther” in Tanzania). On exorcism in an African Catholic context, see Ikeobi, “Healing,” 73–75, 78–82; Eneja, “Message,” 164–66; cf. Ukachukwu Manus, “Healing,” 101. 1646. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 155, for cases in Thailand and especially Brazil (contrasting “curses” with actual “spirit possession” and giving an example of an experience of child abuse dominating one’s life). 1647. Ibid., 156 (suggesting that it is “at least as effective as some forms of Western psychotherapy, which, when spontaneous remission is excluded, have relatively low cure rates”). Miller and Yamamori suggest that deliverance is a “form of psychotherapy” significantly effective beyond Western models or at least sometimes genuinely effects a spiritual deliverance (156–57). They believe that it also has positive long-range economic effects (170). 1648. Goodman, Demons, 125; for the effectiveness of exorcism in particular kinds of cases, see also Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 51. For one story of an effective deliverance of an early twentieth-century man detained in an asylum, see John Lake’s diary, cited in Wacker, Heaven, 64–65. Some witchdoctors have complained that other witchdoctors cheat by simply bargaining with witches to remove curses (Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 195, skeptically). 1649. Ejizu, “Exorcism,” 14 (on the girl’s experience with the Christ Healing Sabbath Church), noting that “Her case is one out of so many hundreds.” 1650. Bush and Pegues, Move, 47–49; they also note (59) the exorcism of a girl in northern India. 1651. Eusbarina Acosta Estévez (interview, Aug. 7, 2010). Cf. also the Cuban account of Leonel Camejo Tazé (interview, Aug. 11, 2010). 1652. See Frykenberg, “Globalization,” 127. Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 288, contends that Tamil Pentecostalism’s demons are largely derived from popular Hinduism. 1653. E.g., Maxwell, “Witches,” 325. 1654. Bull et al., “Exorcism,” 195, noting the large proportion of Christian clients who affirm the reality of spirits. 1655. Shorter, Witch Doctor, 184–85; cf. Ikeobi, “Healing,” 66; zar therapy in Rahim, “Zar,” 145–46. 1656. E.g., Martínez-Taboas, “Seizures” (after inability to change the patient’s beliefs about possession, idem, “World,” 18; responding to Castro-Blanco, “Sensitivity,” who prefers challenging “the utility of the belief

2455

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 159

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Exorcism often appears in contemporary healing evangelism modeled after Acts.1657 For example, while I was briefly visiting a country in Asia before lecturing in another location, I had the opportunity to talk with some pastors there from mainland China. Although these were not “charismatics” or Pentecostals, several offered exorcism accounts when I spontaneously asked if any of them had firsthand accounts of healings.1658 Again, we may interpret these claims in various ways, but they do call into question the idea that exorcism reports can represent only legend and never eyewitness claims. Regardless of who stands behind Acts’ “we” source, Paul’s stay in Philippi was part of it, and this source persists at least long enough to know of the pythoness’s proclamation (Acts 16:16–17).1659 ii. A Spirit Exposes the Mission (16:17)

Although the spirit speaks the truth here (ambiguously), its testimony is unwelcome. Like spirits in Jesus’s ministry, it protests the “Most High God” and reveals activities that are not its place to reveal (cf. Luke 8:28; Mark 5:7). The final “we” in this section, in this verse, appears here. That the narrator is included in the slave girl’s testimony indicates that he belongs to the group that proclaims the message.1660 Nevertheless, it distinguishes Paul from the rest of the group, presumably because the focus will remain on Paul in the rest of the section1661 (though Luke undoubtedly remains in Philippi throughout; cf. Acts 20:5–6). (1) A Spirit’s Testimony

Ancients had a stereotype of bad servant girls as gossipy revealers of secrets;1662 more relevant here, Jewish people believed that demons or fallen angels sought to reveal divine secrets.1663 Demons also recognize the exorcist’s power in other sources (cf. Acts 19:15; Mark 1:24; 5:7; 9:20).1664 The slave girl’s “crying out” fits the exhibitionism of reports about both possession (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.26.8) and demons (Mark in spiritual possession” [15]); Singleton, “Spirits,” 478; cf. Ashkanani, “Zar,” 225 (some Kuwaitis more receptive to zar therapy than to modern therapies). Krippner, “Perspectives,” 972, emphasizes that understandings will vary from one culture to another and Western therapists need to be culturally sensitive. 1657. E.g., Sung, Diaries, 23, 30, 34 (though Sung reports very few exorcisms compared with other forms of healing); for the principle, 90; also see Hickson, Heal, 65, 70–71 (on events in India and China in 1921); Menberu, “Regassa Feysa” (on events in 1965); cf. Pullinger, Dragon, 210; Storms, Convergence, 69–71; Best, Supernatural, 158–59 (Wimber); Sithole, Voice, 105–6, 132, 160. When visiting a Cameroonian student of mine in summer 2006, Yolanda McCain, one of my American students, was shocked to witness a blind person’s sight restored during exorcism of a spirit partly controlling his nervous system (correspondence, Oct. 3, 2008; confirmed by Paul Mokake, another witness and doctoral student, May 13, 2009). 1658. See Keener, Miracles, 815; for other accounts, see Lambert, Millions, 116; Yamamori and Chan, Witnesses, 47. 1659. The “we” is not explicit on the day of the event (Acts 16:18), but it also does not apply to any of the action reported there and hence would not have reason to be mentioned. Even assuming that the narrator had taken that day off, it is difficult to suppose that he would not have heard the firsthand report afterward (16:40). For the exorcism’s historical likelihood, see Twelftree, Paul, 252–55. 1660. Campbell, “Narrator,” 407, seems right to observe that this notice strengthens the narrator’s credibility. 1661. With, e.g., Porter, Paul in Acts, 29–30 (following Plümacher). 1662. E.g., Fotis in Apul. Metam. 3; see further comment on Acts 12:13–15. 1663. 1 En. 9:6–7 (the secrets turned out to be harmful, 10:7–8); 64:2; 65:6; Test. Sol. 5:12; 20. The angels in the Enoch tradition fill a role here like that of Prometheus in the Greek tradition except that the role of benefactor is reversed from the revealer to the withholder. 1664. Bultmann, Tradition, 223, cites esp. b. Pesaḥ. 112b–113a; Lucian Disowned 6. For more-thorough parallels for the Markan exorcisms, see, e.g., Robinson, Problem of History, 84–85; Aune, “Magic,” 1531–32; esp. Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 368–78, esp. 378; in Jesus’s case, however, the demons’ recognition also indicates supernatural knowledge of Jesus’s secret identity (cf. Chilton, “Exorcism,” 258).

2456

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 160

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

1:26; Test. Sol. 1:12; 3:4).1665 As one would expect, the oracle fits Hellenistic oracular forms, combining characteristics of commendation and recognition oracles.1666 What is most ironic here is that her message (that the highest God sent Paul and Silas to explain salvation) is not, in fact, believed by the slave girl’s holders (Acts 16:19–21). Scholars have offered various proposals for why a pagan spirit would announce God’s servants (δοῦλοι; positive in Acts 2:18; 4:29; Luke 1:38, 48; 2:29);1667 some of these proposals contain elements of truth or at least are plausible whereas others prove less convincing. For example, some propose that the spirit, recognizing the missionaries’ future success, wanted to make itself believable (so as to later lead astray the new believers)1668 or, more plausibly, induce them to compromise their sole dependence on God’s Spirit. Others think that her proclamation at first appears positive but that Paul recognizes it as nothing but “a taunting charade.”1669 Yet it is more likely (as argued below) that she is not taunting but relativizing their message to make it acceptable in a polytheistic framework. (One may compare Apollo’s Claros oracle declaring IAO the highest god.)1670 From a literary standpoint, the most important element is the connection with spirits that act in the same way during Jesus’s ministry. Spirits testified to Jesus’s secret identity in an unwelcome way in Luke 4:33–34, 41 and 8:28, inviting exorcism (4:35, 41; 8:32–33) as here (Acts 16:18);1671 later spirits claim to know Jesus and to have heard of Paul (19:15).1672 Whereas the messianic secret might play a role in the examples in the Gospel (cf. Luke 2:19, 51; 9:20–21; Acts 10:41),1673 there is no messianic secret in Acts (unless perhaps the propriety of a limited audience or the limited, paradoxical ambiguity of public revelation). Demonic “testimony” is, however, ruled out, in any case. God’s witnesses must depend only on God’s Spirit to testify (Acts 5:32); to accept demonic testimony is to compromise God’s own blessing.1674 Those converted through false motives might well not persevere (cf. Acts 8:20–23; Luke 8:13–14). God would have to open hearts (Acts 16:14), and his followers needed to wait on him for (often eschatological) vindication (cf. Mary’s silently treasuring God’s message in Luke 2:19, 51). 1665. For this behavior in possession trance, see Aune, Prophecy, 41, 268 (following Dölger, “Theou Phōnē,” 218–23). 1666. Aune, Prophecy, 70, 269 (further on recognition/legitimation oracles, see 68–70). 1667. Cf. also the Lord’s “slaves” in parables (Luke 12:37–47; 14:17, 21–23; 17:7–10; 19:13–17; 20:10–11; perhaps Luke 15:22); and Paul “serving” the Lord (Acts 20:19). As the Lord’s (and hence, from a divine perspective, high-status) slaves, they contrast with her status as a slave, though Luke cannot highlight this contrast verbally, since he uses παιδίσκη for her, as a contrast with Rhoda in 12:13 and a connection with Luke 22:56, whereas the apostles are better titled δοῦλοι in light of Acts 2:18. 1668. Chrys. Hom. Acts 35 and Hom. 1 Cor. 29.3 (both in Martin, Acts, 203); one might compare the later spiritualist infiltrators at Azusa Street (Robeck, Mission, 168–69). Differently, Bede Comm. Acts 16.17 (Martin, Acts, 203; L. Martin, 136) thinks that fear of the Holy Spirit compelled her to speak truth (cf. similarly Arator Acts 2). 1669. Spencer, Philip, 97. 1670. Recorded in Koester, Introduction, 1:172. (The significance of this argument assumes that the Claros oracle would have identified IAO with YHWH.) 1671. Earlier interpreters also recognize the connection with Jesus’s example; see Origen Hom. Num. 16.7.10; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 29.3 (Martin, Acts, 202–3). 1672. The missionaries’ recognition of the spirit might resemble Paul’s teaching on discernment of prophetic spirits, though that is directed toward distinguishing prophecies in church settings (1 Cor 12:10; 14:29) and though Paul’s Jewish monotheism would immediately inform him that the spirit did not speak for God. 1673. Cf. 1 Sam 10:16; perhaps Amos 7:14 (depending on the temporal perspective); discussion in Keener, Matthew, 261–63. 1674. Though God himself could choose to work through the demonic testimony (as in Acts 19:15–17), just as those opposing God’s servants in Luke-Acts misrepresent their message (e.g., Luke 23:2; Acts 24:5–6). That is, a message’s reception may differ from its authors’ intention.

2457

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 161

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Various additional reasons for the spirit’s activity are possible. The spirit may have been seeking to draw attention to Paul and Silas, for whom attention could prove dangerous (Acts 16:20–21).1675 The spirit might try to avoid direct confrontation with Paul (though he was not yet as “famous” among spirits as in 19:15) or might seek to provoke a confrontation, to cause him the sort of trouble into which he fell in 16:19. However the informed reader may understand the purpose for the slave girl’s announcement, it certainly could be construed in pagan terms by hearers in the narrative world. For polytheists, merely adding Israel’s God to their pantheon (or identifying him with their own highest deity) was not problematic (as magical papyri attest); for them to affirm such a deity relativizes the deity’s exclusive claims (a relativization that is unacceptable for both Luke and Paul; Acts 4:12; Rom 3:29; 16:27; 1 Cor 8:5–6; Gal 3:20; Phil 2:10). Her proclamation may connect the missionaries’ ministry with her own activity as fellow spirit-moved mantics: she was a slave girl possessed by a pythoness (on the connection with Apollo, see below); she announced Paul and Silas as “slaves [δοῦλοι] of God” (Acts 16:17), a title used for servants of the Delphic Apollo.1676 As noted at 3:13, the Hebrew Bible and later tradition regularly call the Israelite prophets “slaves of God,”1677 also applying the title to David,1678 Moses,1679 and Israel as a whole;1680 other ancient hearers would have also received the image of being God’s slave as one of great honor.1681 Perhaps the informed reader will also think of God’s παῖς (3:13), whose corporate mission Paul (13:47) and the other witnesses (1:8) share. Luke’s informed audience will again hear “way of salvation” as truth (Luke 1:76–77; 3:4–6; cf. “the way,” Acts 9:2; 18:25), just as demons in the Gospel testified truth about Jesus that was supposed to remain secret (Luke 4:34–35, 41). But in the story world, we should not expect the slave girl or most of her audience to construe her words in this way. The anarthrous “way of salvation” did not by itself signify an exclusive way of reaching the one and only God,1682 and so her proclamation fits the reputation that Apollo’s oracles had for ambiguity.1683 “Salvation” usually meant “deliverance” or health or safety, common goals of pagan religion;1684 for her to proclaim the missionaries as divine messengers about a way of deliverance was true, but it would not in itself communicate monotheism.1685 Nevertheless, in the context of divine intervention by an earthquake, their jailer recognizes that they can proclaim true “salvation” to him (Acts 16:30–31). (2) A Positive Testimony?

Against the literary connection suggested above, Spencer differentiates this case of a “spirit” (16:16) testifying (16:17) from those in Luke 4:33–34, 41; 8:28. Whereas 1675. Mere distraction is also possible; while teachers regularly lectured on in the midst of commotion (Dio Chrys. Or. 20.9–10), words directed at their hearers could prove distracting. Perhaps the spirit supposes that by maintaining a positive message, it is less apt to risk confrontation (or simply wants to display its supernatural knowledge). 1676. Reimer, Women, 160. 1677. E.g., 2 Kgs 9:7, 36; see comment on Acts 3:13. 1678. E.g., 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8, 19–21, 25–29; see comment on Acts 3:13. 1679. E.g., Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8; see comment on Acts 3:13. 1680. E.g., Lev 25:42, 55; see comment on Acts 3:13. 1681. See, e.g., Martin, Slavery, xiv–xvi; comment on Acts 3:13. 1682. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 224–25; Klauck, Magic, 68. Luke usually uses an article with ὁδός (Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 225). 1683. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 263; Parsons, Acts, 231 (citing various texts). 1684. See Keener, John, 627–28, for pagan “savior” deities; Witherington, Acts, 821–43; Bruce, Acts1, 316; see fuller comment on Acts 27:20. 1685. With Witherington, Acts, 494–95; one possibility in Green, “Acts,” 756.

2458

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 162

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

those spirits might try to evade Jesus (4:34; 8:28), the slave girl follows Paul and Silas. Spencer suggests that she might be a prophetess as in Acts 2:18 and that her message was rejected not only because of an unholy spirit but because of her gender.1686 This seems to me a strange argument, especially given Spencer’s normally thoroughgoing (and accurate) emphasis on the narrative unity of Luke-Acts. Several factors militate strongly against Spencer’s reading here. First, this spirit acts enough like those in Luke 4:33–35, 41 and 8:28 to be read in light of them. Unclean or unholy spirits always invite exorcism (Luke 4:36; 6:18; 9:42; Acts 5:16; 8:7; cf. Luke 10:20) and are synonymous with evil spirits, which need the same (Luke 7:21; 8:2; Acts 19:12). Second, this is one of several power confrontations with occult agents in Acts, via both Peter (Acts 8:20–23) and Paul (19:13–20). Third, if one objects that “spirit of a pythoness” associates her merely with Apollo, god of prophecy, we should note that many early Jews and Christians, including the historical Paul (1 Cor 10:20), regarded pagan deities as demons.1687 Fourth, spirits other than God’s Spirit in Christ who testify in Acts are negative, like those in the Gospel, even if they testify about Jesus (Acts 19:15). Fifth, the slave girl’s proclamation is not evangelism, nor does it resemble samples of acceptable prophecy in 11:28 and 21:11. Indeed, in her case Luke specifically avoids προφητεύω and chooses the term μαντεύομαι (on which see comment on Acts 16:16). Sixth, other patterns in Acts clarify that this is a hostile spirit warranting exorcism. Luke would not reject, and would not portray his reliable character Paul as rejecting, her testimony merely on account of her gender; he affirms women prophesying (2:18, as Spencer agrees). But just as Luke includes both male and female prophetic figures (Luke 2:25–38; Acts 21:9–11), he may include a female false prophet to balance the male ones (Acts 8:9–11; 13:8–11; 19:13–16).1688 (As noted above, the majority of individuals specified as possessed by spirits in LukeActs are male.) This slave girl also contrasts with the women of 16:13, especially Lydia, whose heart God opened (16:14). Lydia not only was probably free (perhaps a freedperson, but Luke does not specify) but had some means. God opened Lydia’s heart to hear Paul; a python spirit forced the slave to announce Paul’s role. In the end, however, Jesus also liberates the slave girl spiritually (16:18). Finally, this is one of several power encounters with different aspects of the pagan world (8:9–24; 13:6–12; 19:11–20).1689 Spencer compares this girl’s silencing with the dismissal of Rhoda’s true word in 12:13–15.1690 But whereas Luke the narrator clearly favors Rhoda against her detractors, he regards this spirit as harmful. Paul functions generally as a reliable character in Acts, and if this is true in general, it is certainly true when he is doing exorcism. Simon the sorcerer followed Peter and Philip but still needed to be confronted and to repent (8:20–23). This slave who “follows” Paul has to be liberated, in accord with Jesus’s mission (10:38; cf. Luke 4:18). 1686. Spencer, Acts, 166; cf. idem, “Voice”; also separating this narrative from Luke 4 to a degree, emphasizing that the cause of Paul’s command was merely his annoyance, see Levison, Filled, 320–23. If the slave girl was a prophetess as in Acts 2:18, why not use δούλη as there, highlighting a verbal connection, instead of παιδίσκη (though, admittedly, Luke has changed Joel’s wording in 2:18 so that it refers to the Lord’s servants)? 1687. See Bar 4:7; 1 En. 19:1; Jub. 1:11; 22:17; further comment regarding Jewish and Christian views of pagan deities in the excursus on demons and spirit possession, above. 1688. Cf. Musonius Rufus, who “for women . . . claims the right to be judged by the same moral standards as men” (Lutz, “Musonius,” 30, citing Mus. Ruf. 12, pp. 86.38–88.4); Rev 2:14, 20. Luke provides other negative examples of women as well as of men (Acts 5:2, 5–10; 13:50). 1689. See also Johnson, Acts, 11, who emphasizes that this theme carries on the exorcisms of the Gospels. 1690. Spencer, Acts, 166.

2459

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 163

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Other scholars have also protested against the claim that this passage refers to a demon. Kauppi notes that of seven characteristics of demonization identified by Bultmann, only two appear here.1691 The characteristics Bultmann identifies, however, are optional, in that they do not occur in every description of demonization. One difference Kauppi raises is that spectators were in awe of Jesus’s exorcisms, but here spectators bring charges. Yet the response of most spectators is not mentioned here, being much less important to Luke’s narrative at this point than the hostile response of the “owners”; Gentiles had earlier reacted negatively to an exorcism that reduced the value of their property (Luke 8:34–35). Moreover, Jesus’s exorcisms were performed in a Jewish context; Gentiles could offer more varied appraisals of possession as sometimes “divine,” but from the perspective of the Pauline circle, the “divine” spirits were demons (1 Cor 10:20). Another difference Kauppi cites is that Luke often indicates that demonization causes the demonized to suffer physical harm whereas this effect is not noted here. But while such physical harm appears sometimes (Luke 9:39; 11:14; 13:11),1692 it is not always mentioned (4:33),1693 and it is missing in some summaries.1694 Another difference is that the spirit is not called an “unclean” spirit. But although “unclean” appears in Luke 4:33, 36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42; 11:24 and Acts 5:16; 8:7, it does not appear in Luke 4:41; 7:21; 9:1; 13:21 and Acts 19:12–13 (the last incident being among Gentiles). Visible signs of expulsion are sometimes reported (Luke 4:35; 8:33) but not always, and one cannot argue from silence that Luke doubts their occurrence where he does not report them; nor would it be clear how lack of such a report would deny that the spirit was a demon. In view of the parallels that exist and the likely background of early Jewish and Christian perceptions, the “pythoness,” though probably positive to pagans, was apparently a malevolent spirit for Luke and his ideal audience.1695 (3) A Suppressed Female Voice?

That women predominate as major characters in this part of the story (see Acts 16:13–15) may have literary significance (Luke balances male and female characters; see comment on Acts 1:14). Conversely, their presence here may simply reflect the greater openness of women (16:13–15) or their prominence in Philippi, just as the dominance of males reflects social roles in some other scenes. Male converts (16:31–34) also appear, and so it is possible that two narratives with women as central characters appear together by coincidence (just like narratives with men as central characters). If Luke includes an element of deliberate literary design, however (which is possible, and fits his interest in women elsewhere), he might contrast the prosperous 1691. Kauppi, Gods, 28–29. Kauppi does acknowledge that it is a spirit being expelled (noting the parallel expulsion language) and that Luke’s Christian audience may have understood it negatively, yet he does not identify it as a demon. 1692. Demonization is linked especially with sicknesses in summaries (Acts 5:16), but more often it sounds as if, though linked as maladies, they were distinguishable (Luke 4:40–41; 6:18; 7:21; 9:1; 13:32; Acts 8:7; 19:12). In the Jesus tradition more generally, see the distinction in Eve, Miracles, 326 (also citing cross-cultural parallels [327–28]; but as noted below, some cultures often link them). 1693. We see it at the expulsion in Luke 4:35, as in 9:42, but this need not require us to read it into the demonization in 4:33. 1694. E.g., Luke 9:49; 10:17, 20; 11:20–26; Acts 19:13; although one cannot therefore infer its absence, the same could be claimed for Acts 16. In Luke 8:27–29, Luke omits Mark’s “gashing himself with stones.” 1695. Kauppi himself (Gods, 40–41) allows that as monotheists, the members of Luke’s Christian audience may have regarded this spirit negatively; he notes (38–40) that its claim appears more ambiguous than Christian prophecies in Acts.

2460

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 164

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

businesswoman with the slave who brought business to her masters—one whose heart was open for God’s word to enter (16:14) and the other from whom a demon exited (16:18), one who welcomed them into the private space of her home (16:15) and the other who exposed and disturbed them in public (16:17–18). Some scholars have complained that Luke suppresses women’s prophecy in Acts, reporting in direct speech only the words of the pagan prophetess here;1696 as one scholar puts it, “Luke gives just one verse to the prophesying daughters of Philip and attributes the only inspired speech of a female character to the mantic slave girl.”1697 I believe that this complaint offers an imbalanced reading of Luke-Acts. What the slave girl in 16:16–17 speaks is comparable to what male demoniacs speak elsewhere in Luke-Acts. In one of his central programmatic texts, Luke supports women prophesying by the true God (2:17–18). Luke may not report the words of his prophetesses (in Luke 2:38; Acts 21:9) in direct discourse, but neither does he report Agabus’s first prophecy in direct discourse (Acts 11:28), and Agabus’s other prophecy is short (21:11). Simeon’s predictions are not explicitly described as prophecy, nor he as a prophet, in Luke 2:29–35, in contrast to Anna (2:36). Granted, the mention of the Holy Spirit reveals that Simeon should be recognized as a prophet (2:26–27), but then the same must be granted Elizabeth, who is filled with the Spirit (just like John in 1:17) and speaks for God at some length (1:41–45), and presumably also granted Mary (1:35, 46–55). Zechariah’s prophecy is longer (1:67–79), but it is not significantly longer than the words of Mary and Elizabeth. (And again, if we emphasize that Zechariah’s discourse is called “prophecy” unlike theirs, so is Anna called a prophetic person unlike Simeon.) That more men served in early Christian leadership than women is historically probable. This is not meant as a universal paradigm, but it fits what we know of the culture (though probably more women served in leadership than the culture would expect) and also fits all our early extant sources, unless one wants to argue the contrary from silence.1698 That is to say, the dominance of men is not Luke’s invention or idealization (his programmatic statement in Acts 2:17–18 could in fact be used to argue for a very different ideal.)1699 Nevertheless, Luke balances genders quite often and certainly more than most of his contemporaries. Granted, the shrine at Delphi used girls as prophetic mouthpieces, but that system was hardly egalitarian; its interpreters were male, and virgins were likely employed in memory of Apollo’s sexual predilections.1700 Luke’s point is not that Paul suppresses the woman’s speech but that (on the Christian view that she was being exploited both by slaveholders and by a false spirit) Paul offers the woman liberation, especially on the level where he had opportunity. 1696. Matthews, “Elite Women,” 128–30; idem, Converts, 89–92, esp. here 89. 1697. Matthews, “Elite Women,” 133, contrasting Luke’s brief treatment of Philip’s daughters with the tradition in Euseb. H.E. 3.31 (which is much later!). Matthews also compares Luke’s silencing this woman with John’s silencing “Jezebel” in Rev 2:20–23, but this context silences “Jezebel” no more than it silences “Balaam”—a male prophet with the same message—before her (2:14). 1698. Supporting women’s ministry roles in Pauline churches, see, e.g., Keener, Paul, passim; on women’s roles being freer in churches in Rome and Macedonia, fitting those local cultures, see Keener, Paul, 243. Distribution may follow cultural patterns; in some traditional African societies, spirit possession characterizes women more often than men (Mbiti, Religions, 106); at least in my very limited experience of a different (Congolese) part of African culture, Christian women tend to prophesy somewhat more often than their male counterparts. 1699. See Keener, Acts, 1:597–638 (esp. 638), 882–85. 1700. Cf. myths about Cassandra, Daphne, and the Sibyl. Cf. the daphne on the tripod recalling Apollo’s love for Daphne (Aphth. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 28S, 11R). At PGM 1.290–92, Betz cites several texts (the majority patristic) for the Pythia’s sexual union with Apollo (Betz, Magical Papyri, 1:10n53).

2461

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 165

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(4) “Most High God”

Luke elsewhere employs the title “Most High God” for God in its usual ot sense (Luke 6:35;1701 Acts 7:48), especially in the poetic/prophetic language of his infancy narratives (Luke 1:32, 35, 76).1702 But he is also familiar with the title’s use by demons (Luke 8:28, following Mark 5:7).1703 The phrase was “one of the commonest divine epithets in late antiquity” and sometimes appears with pagan names or in locations “where no Jewish or Christian presence is yet attested.”1704 The vast majority of our ancient literary references to “the highest God” appear in Jewish sources.1705 The title is frequent in Sirach;1706 elsewhere in the Apocrypha;1707 the Qumran scrolls;1708 Jubilees;1709 1 Enoch;1710 other pre-Christian sources;1711 and subsequent Jewish sources,1712 including rabbinic literature.1713 It also may appear occasionally in Christian sources.1714 It likely appears in a number of Jewish inscriptions, though which inscriptions are Jewish is sometimes in question.1715 The nature of the usage in the Bosphorus inscriptions is much debated. Thus the blessing of “almighty God the highest” in CIJ 1:500, §690 (an inscription from 41 c.e.) concludes with reference to Zeus, Earth, and Sun. Some have seen them as Jewish inscriptions;1716 perhaps more often they are attributed to Judaizing Gentiles.1717 Levinskaya distinguishes θεὸς ὕψιστος dedica1701. Luke 6:35 clearly echoes Sir 4:10 at this point. 1702. Cf. Luke 2:14 and 19:38, but in a different sense (from his source, Mark 11:10). The only nt use outside Markan (once followed by Matthew [Matt 21:9]) and Lukan uses is Heb 7:1, from Gen 14:18. 1703. For parallels between this narrative in Acts and Luke 8:26–39 (such as “Most High” and salvific language), see, e.g., Twelftree, Name, 145; Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 217–18; with some other Lukan texts and sources, cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 426. 1704. Parker, “Hypsistos”; originally Zeus was designated hypsistos as god of mountain peaks (Breytenbach, “Hypsistos,” 439). On many instances being unrelated to Judaism, see also Graf, “Hypsistos,” 651; Kauppi, Gods, 35 (citing Ustinova, Supreme Gods, 182–88); Wischmeyer, “ΘΕΟΣ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΣ.” These may cluster in the second and third centuries c.e. (Rives, Religion, 205–6), after our period. For one discussion of related expressions in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, see Elnes and Miller, “Elyon.” 1705. Reimer, Women, 161–67; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 95–97; for use by God-fearers, see 83–116. 1706. Sir 4:10; 7:9, 15; 9:15; 12:2, 6; 17:26–27; 19:17; 23:18, 23; 24:2–3, 23; 28:7; 29:11; 33:15; 34:6; 37:15; 38:2; 41:4, 8; 42:2, 18; 43:2, 12; 44:20; 46:5; 47:5, 8; 48:5; 49:4; 50:7, 14–21. 1707. E.g., Jdt 13:18; Wis 5:15; 2 Macc 3:31. 1708. 1QS X, 12; XI, 15; 1QHa XII, 31; Ps 154:3, 9–10, 14 (11QPsa 154); 1Qap Genar II, 4; XII, 17; XX, 12, 16; XXI, 2, 20; XXII, 15–16, 21 (see Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 83, for comment); 4QPrNab 1 3 (reconstructed). 1709. Jub. 12:19; 13:16, 29; 16:18, 27; 20:9; 21:20, 22, 25; 22:6, 11, 13, 19, 23, 27; 25:3, 11, 21; 27:15; 32:1; 36:16; 39:6. Charles, Jubilees, lxvi, opines that the title rose in popularity with the Maccabees and for a time declined accordingly. 1710. 1 En. 9:3; 10:1; 21:6; 40:10; 60:1, 22; 77:1; 94:8; 97:2; 98:7, 11; 99:3; 100:4; 101:6, 9. 1711. E.g., Philo the Poet frg. 3 (Alexander Polyhistor in Euseb. P.E. 9.24.1); Eupolemus (Alexander Polyhistor in Euseb. P.E. 9.33); Sib. Or. 1.8 (the “highest king”); 1.179, 200; 3.519, 574, 580, 719; 11.12; frg. 1.4; Let. Aris. 19, 37. 1712. E.g., Jos. Asen. 8:2; 8:9/10; 9:1; 11:7, 9, 17; 14:8/7; Test. Ab. 9:2, 3, 8; 15:13; 16:1, 9 A; 13:6 B; Test. Mos. 10:7; Test. Sim. 2:5; Test. Levi 3:10; 4:1–2; 5:2, 7; 8:15; 16:3; 18:7; Test. Ash. 5:4; 7:3; Test. Jos. 1:4; 3:10; 10:3; Test. Benj. 9:2; 4 Ezra 3:3; 4:2, 34; 5:4, 34; 6:32, 37; 7:19, 23, 33, 37, 42, 50, 70, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 87, 88, 89; 2 Bar. 17:2; still later, Gr. Ezra 1:2. 1713. E.g., t. B. Qam. 7:9; Sipra VDDen. pq. 6.9.2.2; VDDeho. pq. 22.67.1.1; Behuq. pq. 4.265.1.3 (quoting Lam 3:38–39); Sipre Deut. 131.1.2; 138.3.1; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4b, bar. (from Num 24:16); B. Meṣiʿa 6a; Menaḥ. 5b–6a; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:5, §2. Later rabbis counted it among the divine names that are not holy but have secular usage (y. Meg. 1:9, §17). 1714. Odes Sol. 5:2 (Syriac but not Coptic); 6:12; perhaps Sib. Or. 2.177, 245; 8.171. 1715. E.g., CIJ 1:524, §725 (“the Lord of spirits and of all flesh” is certainly Jewish; cf. Num 16:22; 27:16; cf. Jer 32:27); 1:526, §728; 1:526, §§729–30; 2:30, §769 (a Jewish inscription from Phrygia). 1716. Goodenough, “Bosporus Inscriptions”; cf. idem, Symbols, 8:123. 1717. See Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 105–16. Others emphasize native Bosporan roots, playing down Jewish influences (Ustinova, “Theos Hypsistos”).

2462

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 166

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

tions from the plainly pagan Zeus ὕψιστος inscriptions, arguing that the former lack “anthropoid images.”1718 The phrase was natural to employ when speaking of Israel’s one God in a polytheistic context,1719 though it was by no means limited to such settings (in poetic depictions of God’s power, note, e.g., twenty-five times in Psalms lxx).1720 Luke himself tends to use it in completely Jewish settings (Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; Acts 7:48); the one possible exception is the likeliest parallel to this phrase in the Gospel: a demoniac in a mixed region calls Jesus “Son of the Most High God” (Luke 8:28; cf. Mark 5:7). Thus some scholars argue that the issue is not that pagans would misunderstand the slave girl as implying pagan deities but simply that “the Christian mission did not need allies such as these.”1721 Given the diminutive size (Acts 16:13) and significance (16:20) of the Jewish community in Philippi, would the town’s citizens necessarily understand her words in a monotheistic sense? Granted, a brief listening to Paul and Silas themselves would have confirmed the Jewish monotheistic sense, but it was the pythoness who had a large hearing there, and the missionaries risked great opposition if they preached publicly (rather than one-on-one) here (16:19–21). By placing their preaching in a polytheistic context, the spirit could relativize the evangelistic value of any miracles they performed. That pagans could employ the phrase in a pagan manner when not thinking of Israel’s God is clear. The phrase appears in the plural on a curse tablet.1722 In the singular, it could apply to Osiris (Apul. Metam. 11.30), though most often to Zeus (Athen. Deipn. 6.248F).1723 Of three images of Zeus that Pausanias reports in Corinth, one bore the surname “Most High” (Paus. 2.2.8); he reports an altar of “Zeus Most High” on the Athenian Acropolis (1.26.5). Gentile inscriptions from western Asia Minor apply the title to native gods associated with the mountains.1724 Thus Jews sought to clarify the expression when writing for pagans who could misconstrue the term1725 (although in some settings they did not disallow an ambiguous identification of their God with the pagans’ highest deity). Thus a number of scholars think that the slave girl’s cries could mislead pagan hearers.1726 This certainly would explain why, or at least provide a factor for explaining why, Paul is disturbed. iii. Jesus’s Name Expels the Spirit (16:18)

Paul’s first mission from Antioch included a spiritual confrontation (Acts 13:8–11), but this exorcism is the first miracle Luke reports (though not necessarily the first he presumes occurring) for this second mission, with Barnabas no longer at Paul’s side. 1718. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 86. 1719. E.g., Gen 14:19–22; Num 24:16; Isa 14:14; Dan 2:18–19 lxx; 3:26; 4:24, 34, 37; 1 Esd 6:31; 8:19, 21; Wis 6:3; Jos. Ant. 16.163. See PGM 12.63; 83.10–14 (though these may be Jewish; 83.14–15 includes Christian allusions as well). Lake, “Proselytes,” 94, cites, for Gentiles speaking of the Jewish God, Philo Embassy 157, 317; Celsus and Julian the Apostate; cf. Nineham, Mark, 153; Lane, Mark, 183. 1720. Cf. similarly Cadbury, Acts in History, 91. 1721. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 98–100 (quote, 100). 1722. Horsley, Documents, 2:46, §12. See probable pagan uses in MAMA 5.186 (despite the editors’ view [88], it is not specifically Jewish), 211. 1723. Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 377, cites other uses for Zeus (Pindar Nem. 1.60; 11.2; Aeschylus Eum. 28; Soph. Philoc. 1289); cf. also Lake, “Proselytes,” 94. For Sabazios, see, e.g., Beare, Philippians, 9. 1724. Kraabel, “Hypsistos.” 1725. Trebilco, Communities, 144. 1726. Trebilco, “Servants of Most High God”; idem, Communities, 127–44; Rapske, Custody, 116–17; Witherington, Acts, 494–95.

2463

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 167

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The exorcism of a spirit proclaiming a divine agent’s identity directly recalls Jesus’s ministry in Luke 4:35, 41; 8:28–32. Luke’s informed reader would view liberation from a spirit as helping the person who had been demonized (e.g., the woman bent double in Luke 13:11–13, 16). Whereas the confrontation in Acts 13 issued in immediate success, here it will lead to more direct local hostility. Why did Paul wait many days before taking action? Perhaps he wanted to avoid the slave girl’s inevitable demotion to a degrading status without her gift, but given the usual Jewish and Christian view that spirits were oppressive, it is more likely that such a prospect would not have deterred him. Other possibilities may be considered, for example, that he was not yet as experienced with spirits as he was by Acts 19:12, 15, or (perhaps most important) that he was seeking to avoid trouble—the sort of trouble he got into once he exorcised the spirit.1727 (Dealings with someone else’s slave generally caused problems.)1728 Her continued repetition of the ambiguous oracle became increasingly difficult and could cause problems for converts who would have wondered why Paul (who might well teach them gospel tradition; cf. Luke 4:34–35; Mark 1:24–25) tolerated a pagan endorsement.1729 Paul’s use of Jesus’s name removes any ambiguity attached to “the Most High God” or “a salvific way” (Acts 16:17).1730 For acting in Jesus’s name—that is, as Jesus’s authorized agent—see comment on Acts 3:6; for specifically casting out demons in Jesus’s name, see comment on Acts 19:13 (cf. Luke 10:17; Mark 9:38–39; 16:17). On exorcism, see comment above on Acts 16:16. That Jesus’s agents continue to act in his name indicates that Jesus, who was active in Luke’s first volume, remains active—though usually offstage—in the second (cf. 9:34).1731 Paul’s letters mention his signs and wonders (2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:19) but do not specify what particular experiences these included. Given his belief in demons among pagans (1 Cor 10:20) and what we know of his context in early Judaism and Christianity, there is no reason to dispute that the signs could have included exorcisms (as they did for some other sages, such as Jesus and, in later sources, Apollonius). But Paul is writing letters to the converted, for whom exhortation is more directly relevant than exorcism. The letters emphasize the cosmic role of demonic powers more than Luke-Acts does; the narrative genre is more apt to emphasize exorcism whereas Paul’s letters appear better equipped to address a theology of cosmic evil. But in view of the coexistence of various approaches to demons elsewhere in early Judaism, this difference of emphasis would not likely constitute disagreement (cf. Luke 4:6). Although gradual healing is possible (cf. Luke 17:14), “that hour” is probably idiomatic here for “instantly, immediately” (2:38; 12:12; 24:33; Acts 22:13) or “at that time” (Luke 10:21; 13:31; 20:19; Acts 16:33).1732 The latter usage need not mean “at that moment,” but this is probably the sense here. If the slave girl had continued to act unchanged for a literal hour after the command, the owner’s legal case against Paul and Silas might have been weakened (cf. Exod 21:20–21). 1727. Cf. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 221, who reasonably suggests that this phrase emphasizes that Paul is not short-tempered but very patient, commending him to Luke’s full audience. 1728. A problem recognized already nearly two millennia earlier; e.g., Hamm. 15–16, 18–20, 199, 213–14, 217, 219, 223, 226–27. 1729. Klauck, Magic, 69. 1730. Ibid. 1731. Rightly also Schnabel, Acts, 684: “An order ‘in the name of Jesus’ is a command of Jesus himself.” 1732. Cf. Lestang, Annonce, 85. That the phrase appears in papyri undercuts the argument that it must be an Aramaism (Conzelmann, Acts, 131, pace M. Black). Although such phrases bear similar ambiguity, cf. perhaps Mark 13:11; Matt 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 18:1; Rev 11:13; Mart. Pol. 7.2.

2464

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 168

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

c. Paul and Silas Beaten, Imprisoned (16:19–24) Just as Peter and John were arraigned for performing a benefaction (Acts 4:9), here Paul and Silas are beaten and imprisoned for liberating a slave girl from the pythoness spirit and hence demonstrating “the way of deliverance” (16:17). The anti-Judaism employed against them (16:20–21) reinforces Luke’s irony in his overall narrative: the apostles are rejected by pagans for proclaiming the true Jewish monotheism, just as they are rejected by some Jews as if they were apostates (cf. 14:14–19; 19:26, 33–34)!1733 i. Aftermath of the Exorcism (16:19)

One reason for Paul’s prolonged hesitance in expelling the spirit may have been his recognition of the public danger this would entail—most Philippians, after all, would have viewed the spirit as benevolent1734 and as benefiting even Paul and Silas (16:17). To show ingratitude to a benefactor was an appalling offense, and Paul and Silas could expect little sympathy from those who did not share their spiritual worldview. The slave girl was now spiritually free (cf. Luke 4:18; 13:12), but Paul and Silas would be consequently imprisoned (Acts 16:23–24). (1) The Slave Girl’s Liberation (16:19)

In 16:16, Luke mentioned the profit the slave girl brought her owners; now he mentions that their hope of profit was “expelled,” ironically just like (and using the same term as in the case of) the spirit cast out in 16:18.1735 In the whole context of Luke-Acts, Luke’s audience would assume that liberation from the spirit was a crucial benevolence for the slave girl (cf. 10:38) regardless of how the slaveholders would respond. It was the spiritual (the pythoness spirit) and physical (legal) slaveholders who suffered loss, but in Luke-Acts, a person’s deliverance from demonic bondage matters more than others’ economic interests (Luke 8:32–37). Luke need not view the exorcised woman negatively; certainly Mary Magdalene, freed from seven demons (8:2), was a quite positive character for Luke (8:1–3; 24:10). What became of the slave girl otherwise is not explicitly stated. Without mantic abilities, she was less valuable “merchandise” to her owners; slaves with special abilities were usually better treated than those without them, and so she might no longer receive favored treatment.1736 Thus she might be employed, rented, or sold for domestic purposes. Slaveholders used slave women in a variety of ways; see the excursus at Acts 12:13, also meant to serve the present passage.1737 One common male use of women slaves was sexual;1738 perhaps the demotion of her slave status provided one factor for Paul’s delay in casting out the spirit (though, as argued above, other factors such as legal consequences would have been less theoretical and hence of more immediate concern). Given the common nature of this abuse, we cannot be sure that she was not abused even when she profited them, but a 1733. A new synthesis (in Acts, Paul’s circumcision-free but radical monotheistic embrace of Gentile converts) sometimes risks initial hostility from both sides that it synthesizes. 1734. In contrast to the worldview found in the nt, many cultures today view some spirits as benevolent or neutral (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 111; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188; see discussion in the excursus at Acts 16:16), and the same was true for ancient polytheists (e.g., Hesiod W.D. 121–23; Iambl. Myst. 2.3; Gen. Rab. 24:6). 1735. Bruce, Acts1, 316, attributes this ironic repetition of the verb to “Luke’s sense of humour . . . ; their ‘hope of profit’ was in fact the expelled spirit itself ”; cf. also Johnson, Acts, 295; Dunn, Acts, 221. Luke and Paul focus on the demon’s expulsion, but the owners on their profit. 1736. Reimer, Women, 180, 183–84. 1737. Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42. 1738. See, e.g., Arlandson, Women, 99–102; Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 103–5.

2465

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 169

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

male slaveholder might think twice about sleeping with a woman thought to be possessed by a deity.1739 Nevertheless, the complaint that Luke uses her only as a prop for Paul and hence shows no concern for her humanity (or even that Luke and Paul treat her “no better” than the slaveholders who exploited her)1740 does not seem fair. Luke likewise never follows up on what becomes of free male demoniacs once exorcised; that is not part of the tightly narrated story he is recounting. This part of Luke’s story focuses on Paul, as the Gospel did on Jesus, but a focus on Paul rather than something else does not signify that Luke treats others as callously as a slaveholder would, any more than any history or biography today that maintains an exclusive or central focus treats callously those who are not its focus.1741 Luke’s focus on the narrative’s action (and this exorcism is necessary to explain the treatment that follows) keeps his audience’s attention while leaving us curious about numerous details. Presumably the delivered woman would believe in the highest God, whom the missionaries proclaimed, recognizing that they did in fact bring the “way of salvation” (Acts 16:17) and that this God was more powerful than her former Pythian spirit (16:18). Philippi’s inscriptions reveal that slaves and freed persons participated regularly in the colony’s religious life.1742 Should we assume, as some have suggested, that the Christian community bought her freedom, as synagogues sometimes purchased freedom for fellow Jews who were in slavery?1743 Unlike Lydia, she is not named, but this need not imply that she was unknown (or insignificant) to the Philippian believers; neither is the jailer named, though his conversion is portrayed as fully genuine.1744 If she joined in the community’s’ worship (which, after the events of 16:17–18, is readily conceivable), it would have known her whether or not she became free. In the light of Luke 8:2, the repeated reader of Luke-Acts would surely expect her to be the kind of potential church member central to the early Christian mission. Since her value to her owners was now substantially reduced, they would make more profit by selling her than by retaining her. Manumission was common (cf. 1 Cor 7:21–23),1745 and while they would not likely free her simply because she was no longer of service in the way that she had been (manumission was more commonly for service rendered or because slaves were too old), they would not necessarily object to others purchasing her to free her. 1739. On prophecy and avoidance of sexual activity, see comment on Acts 21:9. For fear of competing with a deity sexually, cf. perhaps Paulina’s husband in Jos. Ant. 18.73, though this is not the stated motivation. 1740. O’Day, “Acts,” 311. 1741. This includes, for an example, women’s history (my wife’s doctoral area; more specifically, AfricanAmerican women’s history), the focus of which does not automatically demean men (just as the focus of O’Day’s essay on women in the narrative does not thereby demean men). Maintaining one’s focus does not necessarily devalue interests outside one’s current purview. 1742. Reimer, Women, 151. 1743. Ibid., 180–84. Evidence for this action in this case is not compelling, but it is possible (and evidence against it is also lacking). Klauck, Magic, 73, may be right to attribute Reimer’s thesis here to “creative imagination,” but most historical investigations beyond the text entail some degree of this. 1744. If Luke wrote in the early to mid-70s c.e. and during the jailer’s lifetime or that of his children and the jailer was a citizen, it might have been indiscreet to name him; or perhaps it was indiscreet to name anyone locally except Lydia, who may have moved away or died. But whether in Philippi or elsewhere, Luke names individuals only selectively (though it seems most difficult to explain in Philippi if my hypothesis of the work’s core audience and period is correct). The Macedonian churches, including Philippi, faced considerable opposition (Phil 1:29–30). 1745. See, e.g., Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 124–25; fuller comment on manumission in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42, esp. 1923–24) and esp. the excursus on freedpersons at Acts 6:9 (ibid., 1304–6).

2466

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 170

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Luke provides none of these details, and so we can only speculate by means of arguments from silence; the suggestion is plausible but remains a guess. Should we expect Luke to mention her being freed, to assume that readers would know or guess it, or to assume that readers would understand that it was not addressed simply because it was not part of his story line? He abbreviates so often that it is difficult to argue what Luke expects of his readers at this point; his focus remains on Paul’s mission (including the rather dramatic events that follow the exorcism). What is clear is that Luke’s audience should be “far enough into Luke-Acts” to recognize the exorcism as a benefaction and hence that she is freed at least from that demon and that form of exploitation.1746 She certainly received spiritual manumission, an important step in the right direction (cf. Luke 4:18; 13:16; Acts 10:38). That she also achieved legal manumission is quite possible, though Luke does not specify this point. (2) Dragged to the Forum (16:19)

It would not be difficult to reach the ἀγορά, often translated “marketplace.” It stood in Philippi’s center, and the city’s main road, the Via Egnatia highway (see comment on Acts 16:11), ran through it; the Commercial Road ran alongside the south of the forum, and to its southeast was a commercial agora.1747 This ἀγορά here was Philippi’s forum, following the Roman model as in new Corinth.1748 Whereas a traditional Greek agora was square, a Roman forum was rectangular.1749 Whereas Greek cities had parallel streets, the north-south (cardo) and east-west (decumanus) streets of Roman cities generally intersected at and ran through the forum.1750 We should not imagine a small site. Philippi’s forum was 230 by 485 feet and hence could host a large number of people.1751 Some of the later paving of Philippi’s forum, made of large quadrilateral limestones, remains today and was representative of Roman forums.1752 Stoas surrounded the east, west, and south sides of the forum. A temple (possibly an imperial temple) in the northwest corner probably dates from a later period, but another imperial temple probably lay in the northeast corner;1753 such signs of imperial favor would have made anti-Roman claims (Acts 16:21) all the more devastating. Likewise, shops in the south stoa1754 might serve as a reminder of the importance of economic interests (16:19), although these are not what Paul’s accusers stressed. It has been tentatively suggested above that some of Luke’s audience may have been familiar with Philippi’s topography; even if not, much of Luke’s ideal audience probably visualized the basic structure of a Roman forum better than do most readers today. A normal forum would contain a temple of Jupiter modeled after Rome’s; “a curia for meetings of the town council, a basilica for conducting law and business, statues, 1746. Arlandson, Women, 198–99. 1747. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104. This presumes later reuse of the first-century site. 1748. By the early empire, however, Rome had three forums, necessary to accommodate the abundant prosecutions (Suet. Aug. 29.1). 1749. McRay, Archaeology, 40. On the architecture of Roman forums in ancient cities, see Höcker, “Forum” (in Rome itself, see Höcker and Hurschmann, “Forum”). On agoras, see von Reden, “Market,” 375–76; on forums, 376–77. 1750. Watson, “Cities,” 214. In Greek cities, typically “a main street ran along one side of the agora while the other sides” of the rectangular agora included “temples and buildings used for various civic functions” (Malherbe, “Life,” 11). 1751. McDonald, “Philippi,” 788. Carter in Carter and Earle, Acts, 233, has an earlier estimate of 300 by 150 feet. The later evidence presumably preserves the earlier model; Concannon, “Archaeology,” 72. 1752. McRay, Archaeology, 40. This forum comes from Marcus Aurelius’s period but was built over an earlier forum’s site (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104). 1753. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104. 1754. Ibid.

2467

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 171

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

temples, public baths, theaters and amphitheaters.”1755 In any kind of town, an agora epitomized a public place, in contrast to the sphere of private homes (e.g., Polyb. 32.5.10; cf. Acts 16:15).1756 Relevant here is that a forum was also an appropriate public location to execute discipline (Suet. Titus 8.5).1757 Aside from a less conspicuous entrance on the southeast corner, the Philippian forum’s main entrances lay on the north (where the Via Egnatia passed; this is the likeliest guess of the entrance through which Paul and Silas were dragged to court).1758 Two fountains lay near this entrance, as did the bēma between them. This proximity of the bēma would have proved convenient, since the accusers would have brought the accused to this rostrum or bēma, the raised podium. The bēma was flanked with stairs on both sides and used for civil cases.1759 Undoubtedly this is where the missionaries stood before the “magistrates.”1760 Ruins of the rostrum and many buildings from a century after Paul remain.1761 ii. Xenophobic Charges (16:20–21)

Although the motives of the missionaries’ accusers are economic (cf. analogously Acts 19:25–26), they choose charges guaranteed to arouse patriotic pathos, by claiming that the missionaries oppose local customs (cf. analogously 19:27–28). Unaware that Paul and Silas are Romans as well as Jews (16:37), the accusers xenophobically paint them as anti-Roman Jews. (1) The Officials (16:20) Presumably, the ἄρχοντες of 16:19 represent the “leading men,” the principes, of 16:20.1762 The title for the magistrates in 16:20, στρατηγοί, was the most common

informal Greek usage for the duumvirs (duoviri, duumviri) or, more formally, for a praetor.1763 A Roman colony would have two duumvirs, who often assumed the more traditional, higher-status title of praetor; part of their task was to maintain public order,1764 a role they, in fact, fail to fulfill during these events (16:22, 37–39). Inscriptions indicate that Philippi had the following offices: decurio (CIL 3.650); aedilis (3.654 = 3.7335); duumvir (3.650); and duumvir quinquennalis (3.7342).1765 Most common during the republic, duumvirs in different locations filled different roles, but these roles were always filled by pairs of officials. They were most often known for running city governments in colonies, as here (and into late antiquity);1766 their duties included convening decurions and the citizen assembly, supervising 1755. Watson, “Cities,” 214. 1756. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 22.1; on agoras, see more fully Tomlinson, “Agora”; Kolb, “Agora.” 1757. Cf. also one convicted in the forum, then abused by the people assembled there (Suet. Jul. 17.2). 1758. See the map in Fant and Reddish, Sites, 105. 1759. Witherington, Acts, 496. 1760. With, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 285. 1761. As does what is left of a large theater enlarged in the Roman period (McDonald, “Philippi,” 788). 1762. Tajra, Trial, 9–10. 1763. Sherwin-White, Society, 93; Hemer, Acts in History, 115; O’Rourke, “Law,” 175; also Koester, Paul and World, 71; Bruce, Acts1, 317; Witherington, Acts, 496; Conzelmann, Acts, 131 (who compares other elements of local color, the forum in Acts 16:19 and lictors in 16:22). Most commentators cite Cic. Agr. 2.34.93 for the duumvirs. It is also a term exclusive to Luke in the nt, one that he uses, outside the Philippi narrative, only for Jerusalem’s civic officials (Luke 22:4, 52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26); for its typical, more general usage, cf., e.g., Ameling, “Strategos.” 1764. Tajra, Trial, 10–11. Philippi’s administration had some efficiency; in few of the empire’s cities besides Philippi and Pisidian Antioch were the locally recruited watchmen effective (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34). 1765. Gill, “Macedonia,” 412. On aediles, see Gizewski, “Aediles.” 1766. Whenever these cities were not led by aediles (FIRA 1.167), a prefect (1.169–75), “or a state commissioner” (Gizewski, “Duoviri,” 739).

2468

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 172

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

elections for other officials, and serving as the city’s representatives before Roman authorities, including the emperor.1767 The latter responsibility may contribute to their personal anxiety in Acts 16:38 to learn that their victims are Romans. In various locations, either the citizen assembly (Cod. theod. 12.5.1) or the city’s decurions ( Justin. Cod. 10.31.46) could elect the duumvirs, in the latter case “from among their own number” (Dig. 50.2.7.2).1768 (2) Legal Accusations (16:20–21)

The level of conflict is higher here than in Acts 13–14; whereas Paul and Barnabas were driven from towns and Paul even suffered stoning, only in chapters 16–19 do their opponents begin to explicitly accuse them officially before magistrates (it is at most hinted at in 13:50). Here the charges are quoted (16:20–21; 17:5–7; 18:12–13; 19:25–27), suggesting that they are significant enough to warrant Lukan apologetic.1769 Accusations, followed by violent responses, appear throughout 16:13–19:27, the accusers being pagan in 16:20–21 and 19:25–27 but Jewish in 17:5–7 and 18:13.1770 Ironically, in the instances in which the accusers are pagans (and especially the current instance), the missionaries are persecuted partly for their Jewishness. Twice the charges are partly accepted (16:22–24; 17:8–9), and twice they are dismissed (18:14–17), at least for the moment (19:35–40).1771 Whereas Jewish charges are at least partly motivated by religious disagreement, the pagan accusations in this section stem largely from economic motives tied to pagan religious activity (cf. 19:25–27).1772 Such motives figure negatively elsewhere in Acts as well (1:18; 5:1–10; 8:18–23)1773 but are especially noteworthy in 19:24–25, the only other passage in Acts to use the term ἐργασία. In both cases, Paul’s ministry challenges others’ profit margins (profits based on religious or spiritual exploitation);1774 this incident in Philippi foreshadows the public-relations challenge that is to come on a much larger scale. Roman courts did not hunt down people to prosecute but depended on delatores, accusers.1775 In such courts, the status of the accuser was normally higher than that of the accused, and the greater the status difference, the greater the weight of the accusation.1776 Accusations by Roman citizens would carry considerable weight, especially 1767. Gizewski, “Duoviri,” 739. 1768. Ibid. 1769. See Tannehill, Acts, 203. 1770. Spencer, Acts, 159–60; cf. Reimer, Women, 179. Historically, Christians sometimes suffered from anti-Semitism, just as they were helped by Roman protection of Judaism (Caird, Apostolic Age, 158). 1771. Witherington, Acts, 502–3. 1772. Cf. similarly Acts Paul 3.15. 1773. With Johnson, Acts, 298. 1774. In more modern times, compare, e.g., the colonial authorities’ arrest of the West African Prophet Braide in 1916. In the name of Israel’s God, he preached, healed, and brought rain, but he denounced the three-million-gallon-a-year liquor trade, thereby reducing colonial profits (Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83). Cf. similarly gambling houses’ reaction against John Sung’s preaching (Sung, Diaries, 43, 52, in the latter case accusing Sung of rabble-rousing). Challenges to indigenous religious structures’ economics naturally generate objections (e.g., Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 173). 1775. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51. Accusers and (worse still) informers became more numerous in a time of corruption—which was often (e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.2.38.94; Pliny Ep. 4.9.5; Hdn. 7.3.2; Libanius Declam. 44.68), including in the first century (Suet. Claud. 37; Tit. 8.5; Tac. Hist. 1.2; Agr. 2). Sometimes accusers and informers were motivated by personal malice or pecuniary reward (see O’Neal, “Delation”), perhaps including in some early second-century cases against Christians (cf. Johnson, “Delatorum”). Rutledge, “Oratory,” 112–13, warns that most descriptions of delatores derive from sources (such as the senatorial class) generally hostile toward them. 1776. See, e.g., Rapske, Custody, 56–62; idem, “Prison,” 827; Winter, Left Corinth, 45, 60–64; idem, Welfare, 111–13; Jas 2:6; Suet. Claud. 15.4; Jos. Ant. 19.12–14 (for a reversal of the norm); later, Sherk, Empire, 205–6, §§160–61; cf. Pliny Ep. 9.5.2–3; Juv. Sat. 3.140–46. What selfish interest, it was thought, would one of high

2469

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 173

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

against non-Romans (which the colonists wrongly assume the Jewish preachers to be).1777 As Romans, the slave girl’s owners probably descend from veterans settled in Philippi, and hence are probably landowners, who would hold particularly high status.1778 Ancient courts were, however, well aware of the danger of “malicious accusers,” and those who refuted accusers often characterized their opponents in this way.1779 Certainly the narrative so characterizes Paul’s accusers here: their motives differ from the false but rousing charges they dare bring. (3) The Charges (16:20–21)

On a narrative level, the charge that Paul and Silas are Jews “troubling” the city is ironic; though Paul’s Jewish enemies might “trouble” people (17:8, 13), it was partly through Paul’s influence that Jewish believers had refrained from “troubling” Gentiles (cf. 15:19, 24, with a cognate in the latter instance). From a legal perspective, Paul had interfered with these owners’ property rights and hence was liable.1780 Although theft or illegal use of another’s property was a legal charge,1781 theft could not be proved in this case; “property damage” would be easier to argue. Normally, Roman law addressed only bodily injuries to slaves,1782 yet deprivation of this gift of prophecy would cause the owners economic deprivation no less than would have the slave’s bodily injury.1783 This charge, if provable, could have resulted in a fine.1784 But they wanted to bring a public, criminal accusation rather than merely a private, civil one, and sorcery might seem the best proposal. A charge of exorcism, however, might have been dismissed or have strengthened Paul’s hearing; since the supposedly prophetic slave had been announcing the missionaries as divine messengers and Paul had spoken only once (εἶπεν in 16:18 is aorist) and publicly, a charge of sorcery might be difficult to sustain.1785 (The argument that Luke, with his antimagical apologetic, toned down an original charge of magic1786 is certainly plausible,1787 but Luke seems to prefer to, or need to, recite and meet charges rather than suppress them; see 24:5.) Instead of risking a legal case the evidence for status have in prosecuting one of lower status? But when it was appropriate, rhetors could complain about money prejudicing courts against the poor (Cic. Verr. 1.1.1; 1.3.8; Suet. Tib. 33; Libanius Declam. 36.8–9). 1777. Rapske, Custody, 119. They would not wear characteristically Roman garb, but the toga of Roman citizens may not have been used outside Italy ( Jeffers, World, 42). 1778. Rapske, Custody, 119, noting that until 13 b.c.e., veterans settled in colonies received land grants. They contrasted with the large indigenous population, including many Thracians, as well as Egyptian and Anatolian immigrants (Meeks, Urban Christians, 45–46; following Collart, Philippes, 389–486). 1779. E.g., Libanius Declam. 36.1–2, 10; 44.68, 70, 79. 1780. Reimer, Women, 174–75. 1781. See full summary in Schiemann, “Furtum,” 626. 1782. See also earlier, Hamm. 199, 213–14, 217, 219, 223. 1783. Reimer, Women, 176–78. A slaveholder might count seduction of a slave prostitute as property damage, but it would be difficult to establish in court (see Quint. Decl. 385 intro.; 385.4–5). 1784. Reimer, Women, 178. 1785. Accusers in a different case charged someone with magic (where the accusers’ real motives involved property) and failed miserably (cf. Hunink, “Introduction,” 13); one accused of magic could argue that, given fear of curses, no one who truly believed the defendant to be a sorcerer would dare accuse him of it (Apul. Apol. 26). Apart from similar commands such as “Get out” (cf. PGM 4.1243, 1245, 3013; 5.158) and perhaps use of a name (cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 223, citing Jos. Ant. 8.47; t. Ḥul. 2:21–23; Lucian Lover of Lies 10, 12), exorcisms in the Gospels and Acts appear more striking for their differences from magical exorcisms than for any similarities (see Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 133; Keener, Matthew, 285–87). Although demons were threatened or insulted (Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63–64, citing Lucian Lover of Lies 16, 31; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.4; 3.38; 4.20), magical methods of expulsion were more common. 1786. See Vos, “Charge,” plausibly. 1787. The “foreign customs” illegal for Romans in Acts 16:21 would then be magic, in which Jewish involvement was well known (cf. 8:9; 13:6; 19:13; and comment there). This charge would explain continuing trouble in Philippi after Paul’s departure (Phil 1:28–30), and as an unproved charge, it would not justify

2470

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 174

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

which could prove ambiguous, the accusers appealed to their Roman citizenship (as Philippian citizens) against the customs of foreigners. Romans and citizens naturally held higher rank than foreigners; that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens (16:37) is unknown to them and, presumably, to many first-time readers of Acts (at least in the case of Silas; readers might infer the probability for Paul from his name). Thus, “as was often the case, the complaint offered to the officials was couched in polemical forensic rhetoric and masked the real cause of the action.”1788 Assemblies had long decided people’s innocence or guilt partly by their character, and so opponents regularly vilified each other’s behavior toward the city.1789 The speakers establish their personal ethos by linking themselves with the rest of the colony’s Roman citizens but attempt to destroy the ethos (character) of the missionaries by appealing to xenophobia.1790 For Luke’s informed audience, however, the speakers are simply demagogues, ignoring a divine sign and stirring the masses on false charges; then, as today,1791 rhetoric could prove effective regardless of ethical constraints. Instead of focusing on property damage, the charges were twofold. First, the missionaries were disturbing the peace of the city, and disturbances were an imprisonable offense.1792 On the historical level, Claudius’s recent (ca. 49/50 c.e.; see comment on Acts 18:2) and well-publicized expulsion of Jews from Rome would surely have been known to some in this Roman colony, encouraging such xenophobia.1793 To a colony priding itself on Roman culture, where most of the gods worshiped were Roman (older Greek deities were not common in Roman Philippi),1794 Eastern cults may have threatened the Roman way of life even more forcefully than they did in Rome itself. The influx of some Eastern, especially Egyptian, cults1795 at some point would have only exacerbated the conservative reaction. The second charge is that they preach customs unlawful for Romans (16:21)— Jewish customs that, ironically, Jewish nationalists later accuse Paul of undermining (21:21).1796 Roman conversion to Judaism (or otherwise turning from Roman gods) was legally punishable in the late republic (Cic. Leg. 2.8.19), though the law was rarely enforced in this period except when such activity threatened public peace or welfare beating a citizen. The association with Judaism makes sense given the connections of magic and Judaism in some ancient perceptions (see excursus at Acts 8:9–11 in Keener, Acts, 2:1505–7). 1788. Witherington, Acts, 496. See discussion below. 1789. E.g., whether they served in the military; Isaeus Dicaeog. 46; see comment on Acts 23:1; 24:5–6. 1790. Witherington, Acts, 496. 1791. Marketing, packaging, and sound bites generally command more attention than research or nuance. Even in academia, which often retains at least a goal of objectivity, ideological politics (whether of the left or of the right) are rampant, as most honest academicians recognize (and often lament). 1792. Rapske, Custody, 117 (cf. 41–46); cf. O’Rourke, “Law,” 178–79; Reimer, Women, 179 (despite her emphasis on property laws here). The verb ἐκταράσσω appears nowhere else in the nt and rarely (Pss 17:5 [18:4 mt]; 87:17 [88:16]; Wis 17:3, 4; 18:17) in the lxx, but the verb it intensifies (ταράσσω) appears for Paul’s Jewish accusers in Acts 17:8, 13 (cf. 15:24). 1793. Rapske, Custody, 118. Riesner, Early Period, 294, thinks that Paul learned of this edict only in Thessalonica, thus turning toward Greece instead of Rome; but Claudius probably acted in 49 c.e., and Paul would have had to journey westward whether his destination now was Rome or Greece. Ramsay, Discovery, 98, thinks that the charges would appear weak because imperial policy disapproved of anti-Jewish prejudice, but in the respective settings of Paul in Philippi (in the wake of Claudius’s expulsion) and Luke (after 70 c.e.), anti-Judaism may have proved more dangerous. 1794. Klauck, Magic, 64. 1795. Ibid. 1796. Luke’s use of ἔξεστιν here might also suggest irony, since he usually (albeit not always; cf. Acts 21:37; 22:25) employs it for Jewish law (Luke 6:2, 4, 9; 14:3; 20:22; cf. Mark 2:24, 26; 3:4; 12:14), but it may have been the only suitable term available. Ray, Irony, 59, suggests that another irony is that the customs not lawful for Romans “are indeed adopted and practiced by the Roman jailer” (assuming that he is Roman).

2471

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 175

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(cf. Dio Cass. 67.14).1797 The mention of their Jewishness is intended more to stir xenophobic anger (an argument from pathos) than to appeal to law itself.1798 Ironically, the opponents charge Paul and Silas with “unlawful” (οὐκ ἔξεστιν) behavior in Acts 16:21, when in fact the abuse of Paul and Silas as Roman citizens is what is “unlawful” (22:25). This narrative irony belongs to a larger cultural paradox; although Judaism was above all a religion of law, Gentiles often denounced Jews as “lawless.”1799 Paul and Silas possibly could have worn distinctive Jewish garb,1800 but whether or not this was the case or was obvious, by now the Jewishness of their message would have been well known to the accusers (the accusers’ servant had, after all, been following the group for several days, 16:17–18). Philippi was a heavily romanized city that celebrated its Roman character; that it is the only colony in Acts specifically labeled as such by Luke (16:12) seems to acknowledge this character.1801 Whereas Acts 19 emphasizes Ephesian identity in Ephesus (19:28, 34–35), Paul’s Philippian accusers appeal to Roman identity (16:21).1802 What they fail to recognize is that Paul, though Jewish, was also Roman (16:37–38).1803 Against their charge, he could not have promulgated customs impossible for Romans, because he is Roman.1804

Excursus: Ancient Anti-Judaism Philippi’s Jewish population was undoubtedly quite small (see comment on Acts 16:13),1805 but it would not be surprising if Philippi reflected the widespread antiJudaism of the era.1806 (Racial anti-Semitism arose in the nineteenth century; ancient anti-Judaism was based on customs, not nineteenth-century racial theories.)1807 This would be all the more true if Claudius’s expulsion of Jews from Rome had already 1797. Rapske, Custody, 118. Many note the reference to Cicero (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 131–32; Fitzmyer, Acts, 587). The law was invoked only under extreme circumstances, e.g., with regard to the Druids (D. Williams, Acts, 287). 1798. Cf. similarly Le Cornu, Acts, 900. 1799. Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 53 (citing, most relevantly, Juv. Sat. 14.100–102). 1800. Le Cornu, Acts, 897, notes rabbinic sources and emphasizes the requirement of fringes (Num 15:37–41; Deut 22:12). 1801. See Barreto, Negotiations, 151–52. 1802. Ibid., 161–62. 1803. See ibid., 140, emphasizing the postcolonial approach to hybridity (170), a theme already highlighted in Acts 16:1–3 (186). Barreto argues that Paul’s claim in 16:37 involves not so much citizenship as ethnicity (167); he acknowledges (169) that the narrative does assume Paul’s citizenship (22:28; one may also note that Philippi’s officials would have no reason for anxiety on learning that they beat a “Roman” who was not a citizen), and that Ῥωμαῖος at least often includes citizenship, but argues that Luke highlights the ethnic dimension (174–75). Barreto concludes by asking how the ambiguous ethnic boundaries in 16:1–3, 37–38 fit apologetic historiography (186); presumably he has in mind the frequent ethnic dimension of that genre (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:109, 155, 162–63, following the extensive work of Sterling, Historiography). 1804. Barreto, Negotiations, 172, 176. Paul thereby exposes the charge’s prejudicial assumptions about Jewish citizenship claims; such claims were a hot issue, leading in Alexandria even to pogroms (see discussion below). 1805. As “a colony rather than a commercial centre” (Hemer, Acts in History, 114). 1806. On which see, e.g., Meagher, “Twig”; Daniel, “Anti-Semitism”; Goodenough, Symbols, 54; Nanos, Mystery, 64–68 (though noting some positive attitudes as well); Das, Debate, 193–97; for summaries of both positive and negative attitudes, cf. Soramuzza, “Policy,” 277–97; Gager, “Outsiders,” 105–16. 1807. See Cohen, Maccabees, 47–49; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 36–56. It was also not rooted in economic or social relationships (Anti-Semitism, 57–88). Still, as an ancient religion, Judaism could not be excused and dismissed as the faith of mere “noble savage” barbarians, amplifying the polemic (cf. Yavetz, “Judeophobia”).

2472

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 176

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

occurred (see comment on Acts 18:2), allowing others opposed to Judaism in the empire to cite imperial precedent. Greek and Roman authors were often both misinformed about and hostile toward Jerusalem.1808 One Jewish source hyperbolically claims that “all” people will find Jewish customs offensive (Sib. Or. 3.271–72); a Roman rhetorician notes that people abhor founders of cities for fortifying a race harmful to other peoples, such as the one who founded the “Jewish superstition” (Quint. Inst. 3.7.21). When summarizing characteristics of different peoples, Apuleius deemed Judeans “superstitious” (Apul. Flor. 6.2). Aristocratic Jews such as Josephus could not help but lament scandalous Jews who made matters worse for the rest of their people. When one Jew (denounced by Josephus as a transgressor of Jewish law) financially exploited the Roman proselyte Fulvia, the emperor Tiberius angrily expelled the entire Jewish community from Rome and drafted four thousand young men to serve in the military despite their religious scruples.1809

1. Roman Xenophobia Many Romans looked down on other parts of the empire; the imperial city, after all, had subdued and united all others.1810 In an early period, Romans resented the introduction of non-Roman deities, believing that the gods would judge them for this practice (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.35.2). When the people embraced foreign superstitions to deliver them from pestilence (Livy 4.30.9), the leading citizens charged the aediles to require only the worship of Roman gods and only in the Roman way (4.30.10–11). In time, Rome’s empire made such exclusiveness neither possible nor desirable, but limits to tolerance remained.1811 Rome’s experience with the subversive Bacchanalia in the second century b.c.e. (39.8–19) became the classic case of how to deal with threats from foreign religions (Cic. Leg. 2.37) and is echoed in Pliny the Younger’s early second-century c.e. investigation of Christians (Ep. 10.96–97).1812 Sometimes Romans could lump various foreign cults together, mingling “Palestinian goddesses” with Phrygian Cybele (Ovid Fasti 4.236). But some groups appeared more threatening than others; Romans thought of Dacians, for example, as “noble savages,” but by contrast Jews had a Diaspora in Rome, proselytized, and threatened Roman values.1813 Just treatment of foreigners in a city was a cause for praise of the city (Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.4–10; see comment on hospitality in 16:15), but it was a virtue more often suppressed by the virtue of local patriotism. If Philippi, as a Roman colony, proved inhospitable on this point, they could claim to follow the mother city’s example (albeit very selectively).1814 Roman virtue demanded preservation of laws, customs, 1808. See Friedheim, “Remarques.” 1809. Jos. Ant. 18.81–83. Scholars compare Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85; but note that Dio Cass. 57.18.5a attributes the expulsion to Jews’ success in making proselytes, a claim that Josephus would, no doubt, prefer to suppress (Smallwood, Jews, 203–5, thinks that Tiberius’s expulsion really stemmed from this factor; for Roman resentment of such success, see comment below). 1810. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 58. Even discomfort with Etrurians remained; see discussion in Bittarello, “Construction.” 1811. See Keener, Paul, 140–42. 1812. See esp. Grant, Paul, 82–84. 1813. Yavetz, “Authors.” On “noble barbarians,” see introduction to Acts 8:26–40. 1814. Even many provincials were eager to show loyalty to Rome (see inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 207–10, §164).

2473

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 177

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

and gods (Rhet. Her. 3.3.4). In the late republic, Cicero protests (in ideal laws) that “the worship of private gods, whether new or alien, brings confusion into religion and introduces ceremonies unknown to our priests” (Leg. 2.10.25).1815 Cicero was also ready to criticize foreign cultures and religions, though mainly for utilitarian reasons. Thus he impugns the credibility of Greeks when they are witnesses for the prosecution and he is defending a client. Many others, he claims, also distrust Greeks; despite their literary brilliance, they make unreliable witnesses (Flacc. 4.9). He cites a Greek saying: “Testify for me, and I will return the favor” (4.10). Cicero claims that Greeks testify to do injustice (5.11), and he laments that he could never finish if he tried to describe fully the unreliability of Greek witnesses (5.12). They are irresponsible and laxly sit in their assemblies instead of standing like austere Romans (7.16).1816 It is not surprising, then, that Cicero would abuse Jews when it suits his purpose. It is understandable that each people has its own religious customs, he notes, but Jews have continued to violently resist Roman rule and its customs despite being conquered (28.69).1817 Romans traditionally considered Jews particularly superstitious; Horace jibes, “Apella, the Jew, may believe it, not I.”1818 Later Juvenal mocks Jewish customs of the Sabbath, circumcision, and abstention from pork (Sat. 14.96–106).1819 These three issues surface repeatedly in Roman attacks on Judaism.1820

2. Grounds for Anti-Judaism Although such insults characterized satirists or critics from competing minority cultures, they presumably stung more when offered by historians from dominant Greek or Roman cultures.1821 Repeating a vicious series of libels against Jews (Hist. 5.1–5), Tacitus denounces Judaism as purely evil despite its antiquity (esp. 5.5). Jews “regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor” (5.4 [LCL, 2:179]).1822 According to Tacitus, the worst members of other peoples betray their own heritage, joining the Jews and increasing their wealth. He maintains 1815. Maintaining ancestral customs was good, and deviation from such customs was bad (Cic. Resp. 5.1.2). 1816. He provides other proofs of their unreliability in Cic. Flacc. 5.12–9.20. 1817. The conflicts date to the era of Pompey, but on this Cicero passage, Grant, Gods, 41, claims, “This ‘chauvinism’ pervades Roman religiosity.” Cf. Tacitus’s complaint (Hist. 5.8): the Jewish people were the most difficult subject people under successive empires and even refused hellenization. 1818. Hor. Sat. 1.5.100–101 (LCL, 73). Plutarch lists Judaism among superstitions (Superst. 8, Mor. 169C); Persius treats it as a base superstition (Sat. 5.179–84), comparable to that of the priests of Cybele (5.185–88). Lopez, Apostle, xiv, suggests that Romans considered Jews “a particularly pernicious people” among their subjects. 1819. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 58, finds Juvenal most threatened by Judaism’s appeal to Romans (probably the point of discussion about circumcision and the fountain). Denouncing Eastern customs, Juvenal complains that the filth of the (Syrian river) Orontes pours into the Tiber (Sat. 3.62). 1820. See esp. Juv. Sat. 14.96–106; cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains”; circumcision and food customs in Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.137–38. Later rabbis considered responses to such polemic (b. Meʿil. 17a). On Roman anti-Judaism, see also Nanos, Mystery, 64–67 (though dating it too late; idem, “Churches,” 17). 1821. More often Jews, as a minority, were simply neglected; though often mentioned by Gentile writers (as Josephus is quick to emphasize; see Stern, Authors, passim), they do not appear in proportion to their commonly assumed numbers (cf. Feldman, “Reflections on Jews”) if those assumed numbers are correct. Some scholars argue that Posidonius of Apamea (the probable source for Strabo 16.2.34–46; Diod. Sic. 34–35.1.1–5) thought that Moses was honorable but that Judaism declined to a much worse state afterward (Berthelot, “Poseidonios d’Apamée”); Tacitus employed this idea of Jewish decline with greater hostility, and it continued to appeal to later writers (through the nineteenth century; Bloch, “Posidonian Thoughts”). 1822. Their unwillingness to assimilate to Roman society generated much of the antipathy (cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains”).

2474

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 178

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

that whereas Jews are kind to fellow Jews, “they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.1823 They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful.”1824 Others also attacked Jews for their revolts1825 and their separatism.1826 One reason that Apion’s anti-Jewish demagogic defamation succeeded so well is that it played on such common stereotypes as Jewish “hatred of humanity.”1827 One temporary disciple of Apollonius in Philostratus’s novel complains that “the Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against humanity”; he claims that they remain aloof from others, will not share at table or join public religious activity with others, and are further from mainstream Greco-Roman culture than are Indians. Why punish them for revolting, he concludes, since we were foolish to have admitted them to the empire to begin with?1828 For polytheists who sought to respect others’ deities, the belief of this one conquered people that their own god was most powerful and indeed the only true God must have often generated offense or at least bewilderment. Stereotypes of Jewish separatism and hatred of other peoples’ gods could have been at play here. If the slave girl’s spirit was a “pythoness,” it could be viewed by polytheists as beneficial; in their view, only Jewish intolerance of other gods rejected Apollo and the pythoness spirit, and thus it was well-known Jewish magic that had the malevolent effect (in their view) of driving out a beneficial spirit (though magic was normally associated with the private rather than the public sphere). This argument might make sense in an ancient court; Paul’s action was public, and he could not deny opposing her spirit by the name of his God. That the spirit had been endorsing Paul and Silas made the intolerance seem all the more one-sided, creating all the more trouble for Paul. In this way the accusers might even consider their trumped-up charges against the Jewish teachers justifiable. The harshest criticisms of Jews in this period, however, seem to have stemmed from their success at proselytism.1829 In contrast to modern Western notions of religious 1823. This criticism of exclusiveness was repeated often (see Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 89–145, esp. 143–44; Smallwood, Jews, 123; Parkes, Conflict, 20–21), though some other groups may have also asserted their distinctive identities (see the exploration of Millar, “Community and Culture”). 1824. Tac. Hist. 5.5 (Church and Brodribb, 659). For Tacitus’s anti-Jewish approach, see Feldherr, “Tacitus’ Jews” (emphasizing his portrait as a mirror image of Rome, e.g., 315). Tacitus borrowed his anti-Jewish material from Egyptian and Greco-Egyptian priestly sources (Heinen, “Ägyptische Grundlagen”); though he may have added some positive material to these sources (Rokéah, “Tacitus and Antisemitism”), he reports their claims credulously and can hardly be described as a Judeophile. Charges such as worship of the ass’s head (Tac. Hist. 5.4) had to be refuted by Christian as well as Jewish apologists (Tert. Apol. 16.1–4). 1825. Apollonius refused to enter Palestine because of Jewish bloodshed (during their war against Rome; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.27). Appian reports that Judeans paid a higher poll tax than other nations because Judeans rebelled so often (Hist. rom. 11.8.50). 1826. See Daniel, “Anti-Semitism,” 58–62 (suggesting [62] that the rabbis worked hard to counteract this stereotype but that some may have warranted it). Juvenal denounced Judaism as secretive (like a mystery cult) and not even courteous to other religions (Sat. 14.102–3); Jews (subversively) flout Rome’s laws for their own (14.100–101). 1827. In Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.148, Apollonius charges the Jews as atheists and haters of humanity. Josephus admits that Jews do not fellowship with those whose customs are contrary (Ag. Ap. 2.257–58) but replies that many other peoples share the same restrictions (2.259) and, unlike some (2.260), they at least welcome those who would join them (2.261). 1828. Euphrates, in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.33 (LCL, 1:541). 1829. See Parkes, Conflict, 25–26 (continuing in the Christian period, 107, 120; cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 95–98); Gager, Anti-Semitism, 55–56; Tajra, Trial, 21–24; Yavetz, “Judeophobia”; cf. Koester, Introduction, 226–28, on the initial competition of cultures. This was a concern in the Claudian era (Cadbury, Acts in History, 80). Rochette, “Trimalchion,” finds it even in Petronius’s Trimalchio scene, but this may read too much into Petronius. Jews were successful in Rome (Leon, Jews of Rome, 250–56) and may have had special success with the indigenous Roman population (256, tentatively), which would appear particularly threatening.

2475

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 179

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

freedom (including freedom to choose and change religions), polytheistic ethnic religion expected tolerance or even assimilation of others’ gods, but fidelity to one’s heritage demanded retention of one’s own. So long as Jews remained one ethnic religion among many, they were not a threat, but when they achieved popularity at the expense of their conquerors,1830 winning Roman women from ancestral customs, their despised customs became a more potent threat.1831 Horace characterizes the Jews as eager to make converts (Sat. 1.4.141–44). Tacitus complains that when Jews circumcise converts, they compel them to reject their old gods, nations, and families (Hist. 5.5). Roman writers often despised all Eastern superstitions equally, but in their view, Judaism’s proselytizing success threatened Roman stability.1832 That Paul and Silas are charged with introducing foreign customs (Acts 16:21) appealed to these anti-proselytism sentiments.1833 Although Roman anti-Judaism probably provided an excuse for anti-Jewish hostility in a city with few Jews, such sentiments were not limited to Rome. They were not universal (probably relatively rare in Asia Minor), but they were significant in some locations, most notably among the Greeks of Alexandria. Anti-Judaism existed from an early period in Egypt (see, e.g., CPJ 1:24–25), and its contours are preserved for us especially in Josephus’s responses to Apion’s anti-Jewish claims (Ag. Ap. 2).1834 Apion charges, for example, that Jews swore never to do good to any foreigner (Ag. Ap. 2.121; Josephus refutes this in 2.121–24). An Egyptian papyrus from 41 c.e. warns, “Like everyone else you also should watch out for the Jews” (BGU 1079.23–26).

3. Alexandrian Anti-Judaism Both Sejanus and Flaccus Avillius persecuted Alexandria’s Jewish population (Philo Flacc. 1); the latter had Jews scourged, crucified, tortured, and mauled for “entertainment” (Flacc. 85).1835 These abuses would be widely known and affect what other cities might try to get away with; Philo warned that this could create an undesirable precedent for other cities in the empire (Flacc. 47). Jewish agitation for citizen rights in Alexandria exacerbated tensions there. Alexandrian Greeks countered that Jews wanted privileges such as Greek citizenship without the attendant civic responsibilities, from which their religion’s demands exempted them.1836 Claudius ratified the Jewish people’s rights to worship according to their customs and demanded an end to cruelty against them (P.Lond. 1912.82–88), but he warned that if they continued to foment trouble (e.g., by agitating for citizenship), he 1830. Thus, their popularity among many Gentiles (on which see Gager, Anti-Semitism, 67–88; Cohen, Maccabees, 49–58; Bornkamm, Paul, 7) stirred resentment among others (see Gager, Anti-Semitism, 59–61). 1831. For Gentile resentment of Jewish proselytism, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 32–33, 85–91 (citing esp. Val. Max. 1.3.3; Hor. Sat. 1.4.139–43; Juv. Sat. 5.14.96–106; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.19–21; Suet. Tib. 36; Dom. 12, 15; Dio Cass. 57.18.52; Dig. 48.8.11.1; Celsus in Origen Cels. 5.41.4–6). (This much is true despite the misnomer of Jewish “missionaries” that some have averred; see comment on Acts 1:8.) 1832. Stern, “Greek and Latin Literature,” 1157; on Seneca, see 1150. Cicero seems to have simply denounced ethnicities of “all opposing witnesses” equally (1144–45). 1833. Resentment against Jewish proselytism probably also played a part in later persecution of Christians (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 195). 1834. Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations,” thinks that Apion was sometimes reinterpreting earlier positive views toward Jews (e.g., in Hecataeus). 1835. Philo also complains that Flaccus so degraded urban Alexandrian Jews, who had always been chastised with rods like other Alexandrians, that they were now flogged like rural Egyptians (Flacc. 78, 80). 1836. Smallwood, Jews, 141. Greeks saw Roman protection of Jewish rights as preferential treatment (139); for Rome, such treatment was the only alternative to intolerance and persecution (Parkes, Conflict, 9).

2476

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 180

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

would punish them as those spreading their plague throughout the inhabited earth (1912.98–100).1837 Tensions continued to mount, however, leading to massacres of Jews and Jewish reprisals in 113 and 115 c.e., for which Rome responded harshly to Alexandria’s Greeks.1838 Egyptian priests were hostile to Judaism, and they incited slaughter of Jews in the countryside in 116–17 c.e.1839 Alexandrian propaganda against Jews probably had effects elsewhere in the empire, inviting Jewish apologetic responses.1840 Nevertheless, the rest of the Greek world avoided the violent anti-Judaism of Greek-speaking Egypt.1841 Imperial anti-Jewish policy (not always friendly under Tiberius or Claudius) took an even harsher turn from 69 to 135 c.e., after the first Judean revolt.1842 iii. Abuse by Mob and Magistrates (16:22)

The Jewishness of Paul and Silas counted against them (Acts 16:20), and foreigners in towns typically lacked friends or political allies. The missionaries’ artisan status, if known (later in Macedonia, cf. 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:9), would also count against them. One qualification for magistrates in the empire was that they had never practiced a dishonorable trade.1843 As people of presumed low status, Paul and Silas could well have been presumed guilty without the authorities’ dignifying the case (and insulting the accusers) by a more lengthy hearing.1844 One can infer that in the end the accusers, who end up embarrassing the city magistrates (Acts 16:38–39), would take their own turn being embarrassed (cf. similarly 19:38–40). (1) Lictors’ Rods

Ripping off clothes was standard practice before a beating (Aul. Gel. 10.3.3; see comment on Acts 7:58);1845 it links Paul and Silas with Jesus, who suffered the same before his execution (Luke 23:34).1846 Jails were known for their filth, and if the missionaries’ clothes were returned to them when they were cast in jail, they would be too torn to afford much protection for their wounds.1847 If tearing one’s own garments suits mourning (Acts 14:14), Luke’s hearers will be appalled at innocent people (Roman citizens at that!) having garments “torn” from them.1848 For the meaning of ἱμάτια, the outer coats, see comment on Acts 7:58. But given the character of beatings, they were undoubtedly completely stripped, or as completely stripped as the mob had time for. This was humiliating (cf. 1 Thess 2:2), especially for Jews (for this 1837. See also CPJ 2:36–55, §153. 1838. Ben Zeev, “Greek Attacks.” 1839. Frankfurter, “Egyptian Response to Revolt.” Cf. an apparently Greco-Egyptian prophecy partly directed against the Jews (CPJ 3:119–21, §520), dated to the third century c.e. on paleographic grounds. 1840. So Hata, “Moses within Anti-Semitism.” 1841. Stern, “Greek and Latin Literature,” 1118. 1842. See Goodman, “Trajan”; cf. Rochette, “Juifs et Romains.” 1843. Rapske, Custody, 120–21. 1844. Ibid., 125, 129. 1845. For tearing off garments before beatings, Conzelmann, Acts, 132, cites Livy 8.32.11; Tac. Hist. 4.27; Diod. Sic. 17.35.7; many commentators note the practice (e.g., Lemerle, Philippes, 35n3 [Festugière, “Lemerle,” 133]). 1846. Missionaries tore their own clothes over pagan worship (Acts 14:14), and here pagans tear their clothes because of a success against a pagan spirit. Given the standard customs in each case, however, there may be no deliberate literary connection. 1847. Rapske, Custody, 218–19; on prisons’ unsanitary conditions, see 216–17. 1848. Cf. Cicero’s diatribes against Verres—common as injustice was, it never played well in court, especially not when presented in such emotion-laden language. Luke’s description here is accurate and is not detailed, but it could still stir emotion appropriate to a courtroom case.

2477

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 181

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

background also, see again comment on Acts 7:58). (Shamed believers may have spontaneously provided some untorn clothes before the team left Philippi, if they did not have an additional pair.) Presumably the duumvirs, who are here said to have stripped off the garments of the accused,1849 employed their lictors (see comment below) for this activity instead of doing it themselves.1850 The beating with “rods” (Acts 16:22) implies the lictors (ῥαβδοῦχοι, 16:35, 38) who walked in front of duumvirs in Rome and Roman colonies, carrying the fasces, or rods.1851 Their role was to ensure proper honor for the duumvirs.1852 All Roman magistrates with imperium—that is, magistrates except tribunes—had lictors (Plut. Rom. Q. 81, Mor. 283B);1853 whereas the emperor, a consul, and proconsul each had twelve, praetors had six.1854 The lictors marched in single file before the magistrates, clearing the way and, when necessary, carrying out their sentences of arrest or summons.1855 They carried these rods before the magistrate wherever he went, even in his home or to the baths;1856 a magistrate appeared without them only when entering a higher official’s home or a free city.1857 Their function was “to clear the way for public officials, to summon citizens to appear in court . . . , to arrest (prensio), to chastise (verberatio), or at executions.”1858 Here they chastise. The lictors likely wore the traditional toga; although probably few were from the nobility, they were citizens, and their position itself gave them some status.1859 Lictors carried the rods (αἱ ῥάβδοι) of praetors “in bundles with axes attached” (Rom. Q. 82, Mor. 283E [LCL, 4:125]).1860 Some scholars doubt whether duumvirs were authorized to inflict corporal punishment as here, but that they had lictors, whose rods represented judicial floggings, implies that they did hold such authority (albeit not against 1849. Most scholars agree that the clothes here are those of Paul and Silas, rather than the officials tearing their own garments for mourning (cf. Acts 14:14; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 195; Cadbury, “Dust and Garments,” 273; Haenchen, Acts, 496). 1850. Tajra, Trial, 25. 1851. Ibid., 11–12; Bruce, History, 18; Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 63; cf. Drummond, “Fasces.” The tradition of rods goes back to Etruria (Lintott, Romans, 16). 1852. Tajra, Trial, 12. 1853. On tribunes lacking imperium, cf. Derow, “Tribuni plebes,” 1550 (this excludes “military tribunes with consular power”; idem, “Magistracy, Roman”); on the fasces as symbolizing imperium, see Derow “Imperium,” 752; Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores.” Pliny E. N.H. pref. 4 speaks of the fasces of the emperor’s genius; for officials’ fasces, see also, e.g., Symm. Ep. 1.1.3, 5; 1.58. 1854. Libero, “Fasces,” 359; Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543 (suggesting more in the imperial period). Each Vestal and flamen Dialis also had a lictor; an official of lower rank had to demonstrate respect by lowering “his fasces before an official of higher rank” (543). 1855. Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores” (noting that the exceptions to their path-clearing were Vestals and matronae). 1856. Libero, “Fasces,” 359 (not, however, to a brothel). 1857. Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543–44. 1858. Libero, “Fasces,” 359; cf. Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543. For their involvement in arrests, Gizewski cites (544) Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.31; Livy 2.29; Tac. Ann. 6.40; Aul. Gel. 13.12; for punishments, especially whippings, Cic. Verr. 5.54; Livy 2.5.8; Val. Max. 3.8.1; Sen. E. Controv. 9.2.22. For their clearing a crowd, Tac. Ann. 2.69. 1859. Staveley and Lintott, “Lictores.” Outside Rome, they traditionally wore a red cloak instead of the toga (ibid.), but a colony would likely simulate the situation in Rome. (Even in Rome, average persons would not wear togas all the time [Vout, “Myth”], but those executing an office would surely be wearing it.) See further Gizewski, “Lictor,” 543 (citing Livy 2.55 for their not being slaves; Plut. Rom. 26 for togas in the city; and, for military apparel in a military camp, Cic. Pis. 23; Varro L.L. 7.37; Livy 31.14; 41.10; 45.39). 1860. The highest-ranking lictor held the place closest to the consul (Val. Max. 2.2.4a; cf. 1.7.5); one stripped of office would need to send his lictors away (Suet. Jul. 16). Outside Rome, the axes symbolized Roman authority (Libero, “Fasces,” 359); it is usually argued that axes were removed during the republic. Horster, “Professionals,” 334, suggests that lictors could not punish after the late republic, the fasces retaining only symbolic value; but cf. 2 Cor 11:25 (as noted below).

2478

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 182

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Roman citizens).1861 Certainly Paul testifies that he was three times beaten with rods (2 Cor 11:25), and those of the lictors would have been closest at hand (it is not to be confused with the synagogue discipline indicated in 2 Cor 11:24). The alternative remains possible, though not flattering to Philippi: we would have to think here of the officials’ involvement in a politically powerful mob action against troublemakers, one that might be overlooked by Rome—but (again) not against Roman citizens. (2) Scourging

Romans practiced scourging for various reasons. It could be employed for torture to secure information (Acts 22:24; cf. probably Jos. War 6.304);1862 as a means of execution, especially in military settings;1863 as corporal discipline;1864 and as a prelude to execution after the sentence.1865 Corporal discipline was probably the most common use, and in moderate forms, it was considered a warning less severe than, for example, condemnation to hard labor (Dig. 47.21.2). Such floggings could serve as warnings to others and hence were intended partly as deterrents (Val. Max. 1.1.6).1866 Imprisonment sometimes accompanied such beatings, as here (Test. Jos. 2:3; Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.6). Romans also practiced various degrees of scourging. Roman laws forbade public beating of citizens, but a free non-Roman might receive fustigatio, beating with a staff, as opposed to a slave’s punishment by flagellatio,1867 beating with a leather whip with pieces of iron or bone woven in, or an attached spike.1868 The law distinguished between a light “corrective beating” (admonitio/castigatio) and the heavy, harsh verberatio.1869 Paul and Silas must have received the harsher verberatio, since their wounds needed cleansing (Acts 16:33).1870 Not limited by Jewish scruples about “39 stripes,” Romans could flog a person without a specific limit, a practice that, not surprisingly, sometimes led to the victim’s death.1871 A Cynic sage might be said to ignore his flogging if he considered it unjust (Diog. Laert. 6.5.91). Normally it was bad for a free man to be beaten, but not if it was merited and for public discipline (Polyb. 2.56.14). Philo notes that low-class, rural Egyptians were beaten in a more shameful way, but urban Alexandrian free persons and citizens were normally beaten with rods.1872 (Whereas Romans used rods on free persons and sticks on soldiers, they used scourges on slaves or on provincials of equivalent status.)1873 In practice, a lower-class person with an influential accuser might even be condemned to death without a proper trial (Apul. Metam. 9.42). Although the “masses” might be welcome to speak or vote, intellectuals sometimes questioned whether justice was 1861. O’Rourke, “Law,” 175 (noting that fines, as in Acts 17:9, were probably more common). 1862. Especially for slaves; see comment on torture in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1920–22). 1863. Hor. Sat. 1.2.41–42. 1864. P.Flor. 61; Jos. War 2.269; cf. Dig. 48.2.6; Philo Flacc. 75. 1865. Jos. War 2.306, 308; 5.449; 7.200, 202; Livy 33.36; see Blinzler, Trial, 223; Brown, John, 2:874. For preliminary flogging with lictors’ rods before execution, see Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.30.5–6; Val. Max. 5.8.1. 1866. Thus they could be used to enforce discipline, even against a victorious military leader who had won by disobeying an order (Val. Max. 2.7.8). 1867. Cf. Brown, John, 2:874 (though he rightly notes [idem, Death, 851] that many would not have recognized fine distinctions between flagellatio and verberatio). 1868. Apul. Metam. 7.30.154; Cod. theod. 8.5.2; 9.35.2; Goguel, Jesus, 527; Blinzler, Trial, 222. 1869. Rapske, Custody, 124. 1870. Idem, 125. 1871. Blinzler, Trial, 222–23 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.4.39.85; Philo Flacc. 75; for severe physical damage, see also Jos. War 2.612; 6.304). 1872. Philo Flacc. 78–80. 1873. Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2; Blinzler, Trial, 222.

2479

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 183

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

always done, recalling the travesty of justice in Socrates’s trial (e.g., Max. Tyre 3.1, 5, 7; see comment on Acts 17:19). (3) Lack of Protest

Why did Paul and Silas not protest on the basis of their Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37), which would have embarrassed their accusers and undercut the status basis for the accusation (16:21)? A citizen could call for his rights by crying out, Civis romanus sum, “I am a Roman citizen!”1874 Some scholars argue that the officials probably did not give them a chance to speak in their defense1875 or that they were drowned out because of the noise of the crowd.1876 Certainly lawcourts were typically loud places (Marc. Aur. 7.48, for example, employs them as his prototypical example of loudness). Yet they were not simply drowned out; if a citizen was unheard the first time, he or she could continue crying out (Cic. Verr. 2.5.62, 142, 163); nor do they avail themselves of the opportunity to declare their citizenship after the beating but before the imprisonment.1877 Disorderly shouting was common during trials (e.g., Cicero’s defenders when he spoke against Clodius, Cic. Att. 1.16). But this was no illegal mob; it began as a public judicial scene, and Romans expected crowd participation even in the settings where others made their protests heard. The crowd’s voices might silence the accused and prejudice officials against them; their sympathies could protect citizens.1878 But if Paul and Silas did not make themselves heard, it may have been because they saw it as impolitic, not as logistically impossible; their citizenship would stand them in better stead after the heat of the mob instead of being squandered in the midst of it.1879 One could argue that because Latin was the colony’s official language by this period (more than half the inscriptions are in Latin), the missionaries might have been slow to understand (cf. Acts 14:14a); but the language of the countryside and market remained Greek,1880 and the missionaries must have understood the actions taking place even in the unlikely event that they understood insufficient Latin to grasp the meaning. (Certainly, had they cried out in Greek, most Philippians would have understood them, and since they are obviously not from Philippi, their Roman citizenship would not be disbelieved merely because they protested it in Greek. Roman citizens in the East were not all fluent in Latin, but basic recognition of key words requires far less competence than speaking does, and one need not have understood much to recognize what was happening.) One cannot suppose that they would be disbelieved for not wearing the toga; it was cumbersome, and most Romans would not wear it most of the time.1881 More likely, Paul and Silas recognized that a court case between Romans over the property dispute or the charge of teaching foreign superstitions “would have entangled him in a protracted trial with an uncertain outcome.”1882 Paul might become 1874. Bruce, Commentary, 340. 1875. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 154. 1876. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 340 (though his example of Cic. Verr. 2.5.161–62 was apparently not one of Verres being unable to hear but of him being unwilling to hear). 1877. Rapske, Custody, 128–29. 1878. Ibid., 121–23. Ascough, “Technique,” finds these characteristics of crowds in ancient novels such as Chariton’s (cf. also Pervo, Acts, 408), but as Rapske’s data show, novels here reflected basic social reality. In earlier times, Macedonian rulers had even sometimes (though not regularly) allowed popular assemblies to decide capital cases (Anson, “Assemblies”). 1879. When a Roman citizen beaten with rods protested his citizenship to a corrupt governor, the governor had him crucified against Roman law (Cic. Verr. 2.5.62.162). 1880. McDonald, “Philippi,” 788. 1881. Cf. Vout, “Myth.” 1882. Haenchen, Acts, 504; also, almost verbatim, Dunn, Acts, 222. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 132, protests that instead, appealing to his citizenship would have probably led to his release, since, even before knowing

2480

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 184

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

more optimistic about favorable hearings after Acts 18:14–16, but at this point he may doubt his ability to secure justice before these magistrates.1883 This could have been partly, but was probably not exclusively, the matter of a minority complex1884 or as-yet-untested privileges.1885 Yet even if it was not, they had limited reason to believe that appeal to citizenship would achieve justice. In Judea, where Paul and Silas were from, governors sometimes got away with abusing even equestrians (slightly later, see Jos. War 2.308); Philippi’s commitments to Rome made it take such illegality more seriously (Acts 16:38), but Paul and Silas would not have known this. Moreover, even as a Roman citizen, Paul remained an outsider to the colony and hence was of lesser status than the property owners who were charging him with a crime. (Indeed, some scholars suggest that preaching foreign customs might be viewed more harshly for a Roman than for a “mere” Jew.)1886 With politicians under pressure from a shouting mob, the preachers’ citizenship could at best secure a hearing where the magistrates would be heavily prejudiced against them. After the beating, by contrast, announcing their citizenship put the magistrates, rather than the preachers, in an embarrassing situation (though this approach would not generate friendly feelings from the magistrates, it would shift the status issues). By strategically waiting until the magistrates themselves had broken the law by punishing him, Paul had them in the position where they might need to negotiate. A Roman citizen beaten with rods without trial held the moral and legal high ground against those who ordered him beaten (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.39.1–2, 5). Moreover, citizenship was difficult to prove quickly. If Paul was born after 4 or 9 c.e., he would have been registered within thirty days after birth, and both public records and witnesses should have made this easy to prove close to home.1887 But his citizenship, officials planned to release him the next day. But Paul could not have known that the officials would consider the offense light enough for release the next day, and it might be unlikely, given the missionaries’ detention in the inner prison, that this was the officials’ original plan (at least during the emotion of the moment). Perhaps plans to release them early stemmed from Lydia and others speaking privately on his behalf away from the mob; also, he and Silas had already been beaten, and so some punishment and, certainly, public humiliation had been inflicted already. 1883. Cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 427 (suggesting that Paul did not yet trust Rome to protect against abuse). 1884. Cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741, who suggests (among other proposals) that Paul initially sought to follow Christ’s suffering (Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 6–7), or to avoid exempting himself from suffering that his followers would have to face. 1885. Why would citizenship, any more than knowing Sergius Paulus, do any more than delay inevitable hostility for the gospel’s sake? Jews knew well the potential for Gentile hostility, and although a Roman citizen from a well-to-do family might have greater openness to the Roman system, Paul was well aware of competing perspectives and experiences. He has probably never appealed to his citizen privileges before this point, but divine vindication through the earthquake and the jailer’s conversion might motivate him to finally challenge the status brokers on their own terms. Possibly, experience with abuse in Judea gave him little hope of success in appealing to his citizenship, until someone, such as this narrative’s jailer, explained that his citizenship would be taken more seriously in a model colony such as Philippi (though the jailer was not suggesting that they protest their release, 16:36). For Paul’s probable experience of vulnerability and marginalization as a Jewish provincial, see, e.g., Lopez, “Visualizing,” 90–91 (though not viewing him as a citizen). Hellerman, “Servants,” 88–89, plausibly suggests that they refused to avail themselves of a privilege unavailable to much of the new church (only 40 percent of residents were citizens). 1886. Cf. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 7. Schnabel, Acts, 687, suggests that in the xenophobic context of the immediate protest, appeal to their Roman citizenship could have also appeared a public disavowal of their Jewish identity, which was clearly not desirable. 1887. Rapske, Custody, 130–31; cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741; Apul. Apol. 89. Typically, the registration occurred on the ninth day after birth ( Jeffers, World, 201, following Crook, Law of Rome, 201). For birth registration, Black, “Law,” 213–14, cites Schultz, “Registers,” but notes that these laws probably postdate 4 c.e., yet Paul probably was born in Tarsus after 4 c.e. (though one wonders if the system was immediately implemented for every birth in every city from the year of its inauguration). On the keeping of public records, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 31.86.

2481

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 185

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Philippi was some seven hundred miles by land from Tarsus. By what means could Paul (and presumably Silas) prove Roman citizenship at this distance from home? Some used a testatio, “a certified private copy of the record of the professio” (a father’s declaration of an infant’s citizenship); it was “inscribed on the waxed surfaces of a small wooden diptych” that included the names of about seven witnesses. Retired soldiers could use a diploma militaris or civilian diploma; those who needed diplomata as travel documents could easily obtain them (Cic. Att. 10.17).1888 Paul would probably not have had a diploma but may have had a testatio1889 (though one wonders if he would have replaced it regularly after shipwrecks, 2 Cor 11:25). But even with all this, given his obvious Jewish allegiance, his citizenship could be contested in an anti-Jewish environment, raising delays and requiring the “arrival of distant witnesses.”1890 Magistrates might accept testationes and diplomata, but this was not guaranteed; if they doubted such documents, they might demand witnesses instead.1891 Even if the claim was uncontested, it would probably need to be decided by the province’s governor. Waiting for the governor’s next scheduled visit to the city might be lengthy, and if Paul were detained in jail, he would be unable to work or secure resources while waiting for the trial.1892 (4) Historical Likelihood?

How historically probable is the scene of their beating? A response has been given above to the objection that Paul would have surely protested his citizenship if he was beaten, although a citizen. (For discussion of the missionaries’ citizenship, see comment on Acts 16:37.) Paul is explicit in his own letters that he was beaten with rods and, indeed, claims that this happened to him three times (2 Cor 11:25; cf. 6:5) in as many as three locations. If Paul was beaten with rods, this beating presumably happened in a Roman colony, narrowing the choices mainly to Philippi, Lystra, Pisidian Antioch, and Troas (since it is unlikely to have happened in Corinth).1893 It is therefore difficult to doubt this central dramatic element of Luke’s story.1894 Paul’s own writings attest specifically that he and at least one companion suffered and were publicly “shamed” (ὑβρισθέντες) in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2; cf. Phil 1:29–30).1895 1888. Rapske, Custody, 131; cf. also Sanders, “Birth Certificate”; Jeffers, World, 201–2. For military travelers’ diplomata, see Tac. Hist. 2.54; cf. Kolb, “Postal Services,” 690. 1889. Rapske, Custody, 132. For a letter certifying a citizenship grant, see Pliny Ep. 10.107. 1890. Rapske, Custody, 133; cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741; Schnabel, Acts, 687. Paul’s only witnesses from Tarsus would probably have been Jewish relatives there, some perhaps alienated from him, many perhaps reluctant to make a long voyage; but someone could confirm records in the citizen registry. 1891. Rapske, Custody, 132 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.5.161, 167–68). A corrupt governor who crucified a citizen claimed that the man only falsely claimed to be a citizen (to which Cicero replied that this constituted an admission that the man’s claim went unheeded; Ag. Verr. 2.5.64.165). Counterfeit documents, in general, constituted a punishable offense (Robinson, Criminal Law, 38). 1892. Rapske, Custody, 133. This is a worst-case scenario but one that could have been plausibly entertained. Rapske also thinks (ibid.) that a Roman claim might alienate the God-fearer converts or appeal to an advantage that the converts did not have available, but I think that this is less likely and that Paul’s treatment as a citizen would later provide precedent for citizen members of the church and those under their patronage (Phil 1:7, 24). 1893. Cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426. 1894. Cf. also Rapske, Custody, 306n109. If, as I have suggested, Luke spent considerable time in Philippi, he would know the church’s story of its origins; for a detailed argument that Philippians echoes that story found in Acts 16, see Hellerman, “Servants.” 1895. Some scholars think that Paul’s greatest pain there was the shame to his Roman honor (Frame, Thessalonians, 93; Milligan, Thessalonians, 16), but this is questionable. The term for “shamed” and its relevant cognates include deliberate and serious insult (e.g., Demosth. Aristocr. 141; P.Hal. 1.210–13; Diod. Sic. 36.15.1–2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.35.3; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.20), often through violence (BDAG; Fisher, “Hubris,” 732; cf. Eurip. Tro. 69; Aeschines Tim. 16; Polyb. 6.7.5), including punishments (Plut. Cic. 36.3,

2482

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 186

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Putting a free person in chains could “humiliate” the person (e.g., Polyb. 1.69.5). What would this shaming entail? (5) Public Humiliation

Public beatings entailed shaming;1896 indeed, one of the primary purposes of public punishments was to shame the guilty party (Dio Chrys. Or. 76.4). Quintilian (referring to disciplining children) thought beatings disgraceful and fit only for slaves (Inst. 1.3.13–14). Officials often paraded those who were beaten through the city, exposing their wounds to public view.1897 That Luke often reports high-status features of Paul’s ministry makes any invention of such reports of shame all the more unlikely. Certainly the stripping (Acts 16:22) would be shameful for Jews (see comment on Acts 7:58). Public opinion (honor and shame) was used to regulate people’s public behavior.1898 The shame would be partly reversed, however, if Paul’s Roman citizenship became known (the situation that obtains in 16:37–39). A lictor’s thrusting one aside rather than letting one speak was a grievous insult that provoked widespread anger (Livy 3.45.5–6). Cicero protests Verres’s outrageous behavior in having an innocent man beaten with rods, who soon afterward died as a result of the beating (Verr. 2.5.54.142).1899 Another Roman was acting shamefully, beating allies with rods (Cic. Fam. 10.32.2). Romans hearing of such outrageous behavior would be stirred to anger (Quint. Inst. 4.2.113). By contrast, a gentle governor such as Cicero reportedly never had anyone’s garments torn off or had anyone beaten with rods or publicly humiliated (Plut. Cic. 36.3). Further, for the members of Luke’s audience, the shame might be minimized by the philosophic heroic tradition, since they would view Paul as a sage. Stoics believed that a true philosopher would not resent being beaten,1900 like other forms of suffering or shame. Suffering, insults, and humiliations are not true suffering to a philosophically minded person (Mus. Ruf. 10, pp. 76.18–78.7; several times repeating ὑβρι- roots).1901 By portraying Paul and Silas as Roman citizens suffering at the hands of the Roman mob, Luke also honors them by means of the principle that they have discreditable opponents.1902 associated with beating with rods and tearing off garments); even a flogging was humiliating (Quint. Inst. 1.3.13–14), and a public one still more so (cf. even a heavy fine, Appian Hist. rom. 2.8.2). The incident would have been humiliating whether or not they were Roman citizens (with Bruce, Thessalonians, 25). Various Pauline commentators connect Paul’s report in 1 Thessalonians with the incident depicted here (e.g., Milligan, Thessalonians, 16; Best, Thessalonians, 90; Bruce, Thessalonians, 25). 1896. E.g., Hom. Il. 2.265–70; Quint. Curt. 8.6.7; Test. Jos. 2:3; cf. Hellerman, “Servants,” 93. Even striking someone entailed shame (Hamm. 202–6; Gaius Inst. 3.220; P.Hal. 1.203–5; Plut. Alc. 8.1; Matt 5:39; Job 16:10; Lam 3:30; m. B. Qam. 8:6; cf. Jeremias, Sermon, 28; idem, Theology, 239; Moore, Judaism, 2:151n3; Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 260–61; Lachs, Commentary, 106). 1897. Toner, Culture, 134, citing Libanius Or. 1.228 and emphasizing the humiliation involved for persons of status (though we might suppose a similar effect on persons without status). 1898. E.g., Isaeus Cleon. 39; Aeschines Tim. 28–29; Lysias Or. 24.13, §524; Rhet. Alex. 4, 1426b.34–35; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.3; cf. McGinn, “Feminae probrosae”; Kamtekar, “ΑΙΔΩΣ”; Kaster, “Shame”; Robbins, Texture, 76–77. Moral associations are frequent; e.g., Eurip. El. 44–45; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.37–38; Dion. Hal. Epid. 7.291; Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.16; 3, p. 38.29–30; 4, p. 44.19; 8, p. 62.8–9; 16, p. 106.11; 18B, p. 116.4, 17–20; frg. 24; frg. 51, p. 144.8–9; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.43, 115; 18.9; 33.50, 60; Lucian Fisherman 42; Icar. 21; Iambl. V.P. 20.95; 31.203; Porph. Marc. 9.158–60; 13.223, 226. 1899. All acknowledged it as terrible when innocent men were beaten with rods (Aul. Gel. 10.3.3, 7) or killed (10.3.5, 7). 1900. Epict. Diatr. 3.22.54 (in Johnson, Acts, 296). 1901. Cf. esp. ὑβρίζεσθαι, Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.18; ὕβριν, 76.19; ὑβριστικόν, 76.21, and the use of αἰσχρόν in 76.19–20, 29; p. 78.4, 7; see also Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 92.4–6; Diogenes Ep. 20. 1902. See Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 98 (citing, on disreputable mobs, Polyb. 6.4.6; 6.57.59; Plato Laws 2.670B; Philo Mos. 1.197). But while Lentz is right to view Luke as contrasting Paul with the rabble, he probably goes too far in claiming that the issue here is one of status, not just of citizenship (136). Historically, of course, high status would help one’s case more than citizenship alone could (125), and this is relevant to the final quarter of Acts.

2483

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 187

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

iv. Imprisoned (16:23)

Public beatings were often deemed sufficient punishment for an offense,1903 but Paul and Silas were imprisoned in addition to this beating. Perhaps (if the earthquake did not influence decisions) the authorities planned to release them from jail and expel them from the city the next day (Acts 16:35–36), but in any case this would be an unpleasant addition to the beating. (1) Imprisonment

Ancients normally employed custody to detain prisoners for trial, to protect them, or to hold them until the execution of a sentence.1904 Increasingly, however, prisons were employed as a punitive measure in themselves; despite judicial attempts to restrict this practice, it sometimes occurred through the contrivance of delays in trial and other means.1905 The officials might intend this detention as a further punishment before expulsion from the city. Paul’s writings testify that he was “often” imprisoned (2 Cor 11:23); since Paul writes 2 Corinthians well before his detention that begins in Acts 22:24–29, Luke underreports, not overreports, Paul’s imprisonments. (This may lend some credibility to the sometimes proposed Ephesian imprisonment, though it cannot be certain; see comment on Acts 19:23–40.) On a narrative level, however, the imprisonments that Luke does report fulfill Jesus’s warning that his followers would be delivered up to prisons (Luke 21:12). Where was this prison? Most cities (e.g., Rome, Athens) had a prison “near the court, perhaps even adjoining the forum.”1906 Second-century remains reveal public buildings near Philippi’s forum.1907 The exact site remains unknown. The traditional site, just north (across the Via Egnatia) of the northwest corner of the forum,1908 and hence near the site of the mob scene, is too small.1909 Perhaps more problematic, it was an area of buildings devoted to religion and so was not a good site for a prison; this site was instead probably a double cistern in this period.1910 (2) A Veteran?

A number of commentators suggest that the jailer was probably one of the Roman veterans settled in the colony.1911 The supposition that the jailer was a veteran, however, is very likely wrong. Philippi was settled with veterans in an earlier generation (the largest influx being some eighty years before), not this generation (see comment on Acts 16:12).1912 Many native Macedonians who had served “the Praetorian 1903. Cf., e.g., Lucian Peregr. 14 (where the governor forgoes even the scourging, to prevent its propaganda value for Peregrinus). 1904. Rapske, Custody, 12–14; cf. Appian Bell. civ. 1.3.26. 1905. Rapske, Custody, 9, 16–20. 1906. Ibid., 125. So Vitruv. Arch. 5.2.1, cited by various scholars (e.g., Finegan, Apostles, 105): “The treasury, prison, senate-house are to adjoin the forum” (LCL, 1:263); in Rome, see, e.g., Plut. Cic. 22.2. 1907. Rapske, Custody, 125 (cf. 444, fig. 12). That the jailer moves them so freely to his own quarters, as if unconcerned with witnesses, might suggest that the area was not primarily residential (Acts 16:34), though even here his guards would have witnessed the action. 1908. “Basilica A,” with a crypt (McRay, Archaeology, 288, reporting that it was treated as Paul’s prison since the fifth century c.e.). The crypt, when discovered in 1876, still held paintings of Paul’s imprisonment (Finegan, Apostles, 104–5, reporting that it dates from the seventh century c.e.). 1909. Rapske, Custody, 125–26, doubting that the tradition predates the tenth century c.e. 1910. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 108. 1911. Bruce, Commentary, 336; Matson, Conversion Narratives, 156; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 583. 1912. For the chronological objection, see also Rapske, Custody, 261–62; Ascough, Lydia, 25; cf. Blaiklock, Cities, 42 (possibly the grandson of a founding veteran). “Lands beyond the Po . . . were divided among the veterans” after the battle at Philippi (Suet. Vergil 19). On veterans generally, see Schneider, “Veterans” (esp. 352–53).

2484

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 188

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Guard or Rome’s urban cohorts” naturally chose to settle in this colony,1913 but this does not make the jailer’s being a veteran more likely than it would in another Roman colony. (That he was descended from veterans is plausible but irrelevant to his occupation.) Veterans were (by the definition assumed here) retired;1914 why would a veteran be supervising a jail, even with a significant staff under him (Acts 16:29)? Retired soldiers received a land grant (more often in an earlier period) or, more frequently, a monetary bonus.1915 Many who received land grants in Egypt settled in the larger villages, where they were de facto wealthy and influential by local standards and often grew more prosperous through agriculture.1916 Veterans were normally of higher status than to need such jobs, even if their pensions were (as often) not large;1917 still, this is no mere guard if he has numerous subordinates (16:27, 29). (The exception might be if his is a civic office [cf. Gen 40:3 lxx], but his role appears more mundane and directly tied to the prison here, especially in view of his near suicide in Acts 16:27.) Even if the jailer was not a veteran, it is possible that he represents the Roman establishment from a narrative perspective.1918 Historically, however, such a jailer may perhaps have been a public slave1919 (although this is not a necessary inference). Public slaves guarded many jails for a small salary, and though Pliny the Younger in the early second century wanted to supplement their reliability with soldiers (Ep. 10.19.1–2), the emperor apparently thought that this practice would set a bad precedent (10.20.1) and insisted on not taking soldiers for guard duty (10.20.2). Many civilian prison workers were state-owned slaves, and we know that Philippi owned many public slaves. Although the jailer runs the prison and has slaves under him, he is under the authority of the lictors.1920 Public slaves could be of relatively high status and even wealthy;1921 prison directors were paid better than legionaries and often 1913. Gill, “Macedonia,” 413. Most military retirees settled “near their last camp” (Thompson, “Military,” 994; see also Southern, Army, 166). 1914. We do read of the use of “veteran” troops as the most expert (Tac. Hist. 2.14; cf. Ann. 2.80; 3.21; 4.73; 15.26; Suet. Jul. 38.1; nearly retired in Tac. Ann. 4.4), but the discussion here concerns retired veterans settled in a colony. We lack much clear evidence of their involvement with local politics or economies (Campbell, Army, 222–23). 1915. Thompson, “Military,” 994, noting that under Augustus this was twelve thousand sesterces; Jones, Empire, 161 (citing ILS 6105; SEG 17.584). Augustus had settled perhaps 120,000 veterans by 29 b.c.e. (Res Gestae 3.15), throughout the empire (including Macedonia; Res Gestae 5.28), and paid out significant largesse (Res Gestae 3.15–16). Some practices persisted; for a land grant (under Trajan in the early second century c.e.), see Hyginus De condicionibus agrorum (Sherk, Empire, 161, §119; the earliest land grants were small, as noted in Roselaar, “Assidui”). Land grants remained common until Hadrian’s time (Southern, Army, 166–67). Veterans also were exempt from some taxes (see, e.g., CIL 16.146 in Sherk, Empire, 145–46, §103; Llewelyn, Documents, 6:147–48, §19; Thompson, “Military,” 994); on veteran privileges, see Gaius Inst. 1.57. 1916. Lewis, Life, 22, 24. Many veterans joined local ruling classes ( Jeffers, World, 174). Their imperial patrons’ dilemma was to grant them choice land without displacing earlier landowners (Suet. Jul. 38.1; Aug. 13.3). 1917. Rapske, Custody, 261–62 (though prison directors made better wages, even as slaves, than legionaries, 259). For their relatively high status in colonies, see, e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 34; Campbell, “Veterans.” 1918. See Matson, Conversion Narratives, 156 (comparing him [157] to Cornelius). Macedonia itself was demilitarized in 14 c.e., and so few active soldiers lived in the vicinity (Rapske, Custody, 262). 1919. Although Hellenistic Egypt favored free workers, classical Athens and Rome both used public slaves for this purpose (Rapske, Custody, 244–47); in times of war, prisoners could sometimes be made public slaves (Le Bohec, “Prisoners of War,” 878), but probably not often in roles such as this. Schnabel, Acts, 690 (esp. n. 51), notes that the jailer’s slave status would explain his fear of execution. The more status-laden language of “household” (Acts 16:31–34) may weaken this interpretation but would not necessarily refute it. 1920. Rapske, Custody, 262–63; see 252 for the use of public slaves in guarding prisoners (citing Pliny Ep. 10.19–20). Cf. Joseph’s role as a slave who oversaw much of the work in a prison (Gen 39:21–23). 1921. Cf. Pliny Ep. 10.31.2; 10.32; Jones, Empire, 243; Meeks, Urban Christians, 58.

2485

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 189

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

gained further wealth through bribery and extortion.1922 That the jailer has a home, apparently nearby (Acts 16:27, 32–34), suggests some means, in any case; he also has a family (16:31–33). (3) The Jailer’s Anonymity

The jailer remains anonymous,1923 but this observation may be insignificant. Perhaps this is protective anonymity,1924 especially if members of his family remain citizens in Philippi, but most of Luke’s ideal audience (assuming that it includes Christians in Philippi) would know his identity anyway. Most converts (including the strategic African official of 8:27, where protective anonymity would be pointless) in Acts remain anonymous. It was probably safer for Lydia, a foreign business agent worshiping (and possibly living) outside the city walls, than for the jailer to worship Israel’s God. Just as Paul the persecutor knew what he would endure for preaching (9:16), the jailer knows what he risks to follow Christ (cf. 16:21–23). But Luke also takes the opportunity to show that just as the non-Roman charge about Paul (16:21) is false (16:37), it has now become false that it is a foreign custom not accepted by Philippian Romans (16:20, 34). v. Securing the Prisoners (16:24)

Although guards were sometimes civil toward prisoners,1925 ancient reports confirm the suspicion that they were more often harsh.1926 Sometimes, indeed, guards were selected for harshness ( Jos. Ant. 18.203), and guarding prisoners made them worse (Philo Jos. 81–84).1927 It was said that the jailer would not have concerned himself had the philosopher Musonius died in jail; only the philosopher’s strength helped him to endure (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.35). Those who carried out brutal acts under orders might later deny responsibility, blaming their superiors.1928 Caution in trusting could stand jailers in good stead; one prison keeper opened the door to those supposedly bringing a new detainee, but they killed him and freed his prisoners (Xen. Hell. 5.4.8). Offending one’s guards sometimes could guarantee one’s death (Diod. Sic. 31.9.5).1929 Guards also profited from bribes and other means of gain.1930 The order for the missionaries to be kept “securely” (ἀσφαλῶς, Acts 16:23) leads to excessive precautions for two men weakened by public beatings: assigning them to the innermost cell and having their feet secured (ἠσφαλίσατο) in stocks. A serious crime—whether by virtue of its content or of the status of the one offended—tended to warrant stricter custody, with a less serious crime inviting less secure custody.1931 1922. Rapske, Custody, 259–60. For financial gifts to the δεσμοφύλαξ to gain favor for a prisoner, see, e.g., Lucian Tox. 31. 1923. Ammonius in Cat. Act. 16.31–32 (Martin, Acts, 204) claims that the jailer was the Stephen of 1 Cor 16:15, but this suggestion is implausible; that text claims him as the firstfruits of Achaia, not Macedonia. 1924. For probable protective anonymity in the passion narrative, cf. Theissen, Gospels, 186–88. 1925. Rapske, Custody, 254–56. Epict. Diatr. 1.29.65–66 believes that Socrates’s guard returned his kindness with compassion (using Plato Phaedo 116D, 117D). Rabbis also could regard as destined for life a jailer who guarded his captives’ morals (Abrahams, Studies [1], 61, citing b. Taʿan. 22a). 1926. Rapske, Custody, 256–59. 1927. Ibid., 258. Sometimes the state placed spies in prisons to secure information for convicting prisoners (257). For jailers’ reputation for depravity, attributed to association with criminals, see Philo Jos. 81, 84 (Rapske, Custody, 264; Schnabel, Acts, 691n57). 1928. Pliny Ep. 3.9.14–15; one thinks of similar claims at Nuremberg and other genocide hearings in subsequent times. 1929. Rapske, Custody, 259. 1930. Ibid., 259–61. 1931. Rapske, “Prison,” 827. Traditional prisons elsewhere might also employ an inner prison for extra security at night (Anderson, Shore, 322). Abbott, Acts, 181, thought that the inner prison would be entered

2486

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 190

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul and Silas are treated, in this respect at least, as if they have committed a serious crime. Such security highlights the irony of their later refusal to escape after divine deliverance; in Luke’s apologetic, Paul and Silas, far from being subversive rabblerousers, are law-abiding Roman citizens (16:37). (The stocks and the inner prison also highlight the miraculous nature of their release.)1932 The security also creates suspense and dramatically underlines God’s power, which broke all physical restraints,1933 making their continuing presence voluntary. Literally, their feet were fixed securely to “the wood,” a term understood as applying to stocks.1934 Those detained with devices such as stocks or chains experienced more severe imprisonment than those who were not, but chains were normally used in public city prisons.1935 Stocks were used in a range of cultures, including ancient Israel.1936 They were permitted only for prisoners of the lowest social status.1937 Rapske summarizes their sadistic use: They often consisted of a long piece of wood pierced at regular intervals with notches or holes and split along the length so that the feet of the prisoner could be set in and secured. In 1766 a metal “rod through comb” type of these stocks was found in a guard house/prison in the Gladiators Barracks at Pompeii. . . . Prisoners’ legs were set in the spaces between the teeth and a moveable iron rod was run through the holes in the top of each tooth. The whole contraption was anchored to the floor.1938

The jailer’s aides could increase pain by expanding the distance between the feet, placing them in holes farther apart.1939 This torture could be employed for days at a time; the old laws of Solon in Athens allowed for feet in the stocks up to five days (Lysias Or. 10.16, §117). Here it could be a normal overnight “security precaution” (cf. Lucian Tox. 150–51); since it was done immediately upon receipt of the command, however, it may have included an element of torment. Barely able to change position, a person would have to sit up or lie on the floor during the night.1940 (Crucifixion also meant being affixed to “wood,”1941 and it is possible that Luke may intend a parallel.)1942 Clearly, the jailer holds them under conditions meant to be unpleasant as well as secure. By way of analogy, Rome’s city prison was the city’s severest form of custody, even worse than work in the stone quarries;1943 one might have to beg food from parricides there!1944 Areas within a prison also varied in their severity. Within only through an aperture in its ceiling, but this does not make the best sense of “doors” in Acts 16:26–27. (He may be right about the “filth, vermin, lack of air and light.”) 1932. With Conzelmann, Acts, 132. 1933. See also Ammonius in Cat. Act. 16.23; Chrys. Homilies concerning the Statues 1.16 (both in Martin, Acts, 204–5). 1934. Commentators cite Hdt. 9.37 (e.g., Johnson, Acts, 296; Witherington, Acts, 497); see also Lysias Or. 10.16, §117; Lucian Dem. 50. 1935. Rapske, Custody, 9, 25–28. Luke may not mention chains because this situation was exceptional or because chains were assumed, but he seems not to assume chains as a deterrent to flight (Acts 16:27). 1936. See Jer 20:3; 29:26; cf. 2 Chr 16:10; Job 13:27; 33:11. Abbott, Acts, 181, notes that they were still used occasionally in the Middle East in the nineteenth century. 1937. Rapske, Custody, 127. 1938. Ibid., 126–27. For chains as a means of torture, see Rapske, “Prison,” 828. 1939. Rapske, Custody, 127; Tajra, Trial, 26; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 196; Bruce, Commentary, 336. 1940. Rapske, Custody, 127. 1941. Gal 3:13; cf. Brown, Death, 947; Fitzmyer, Acts, 337. 1942. Cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29, the term’s other uses in Acts. Luke 22:52 refers to clubs but reflects the usage of Mark’s passion tradition (Mark 14:43, 48). 1943. Rapske, Custody, 20–25. 1944. Ibid., 22.

2487

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 191

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Rome’s city prison, the harshest cell was “the Tullianum or death cell,”1945 an inner cell reserved for the most serious criminals of the lowest status.1946 Philippi, presumably, likewise had some cells that were used for harsher treatment than others. An inner prison was normally the harshest part, with the least ventilation, at least sometimes used to humiliate criminals as well as detain them securely.1947 Maximus of Tyre portrays unenlightened persons as if imprisoned “in a dark recess, laden with heavy fetters on their feet and heavy rings round their necks and their hands tied in rough bonds.”1948 d. Deliverance and Jailer’s Conversion (16:25–34) When the missionaries worship God in the face of their suffering, God vindicates them after their public humiliation. Although this vindication does not lead to the conversion of Philippi, it is sufficient to persuade the chief jailer to embrace their message. Thus their mission in resistant Philippi reaches beyond a foreign woman God-fearer’s household to an entirely pagan household, the father of whom had some civil responsibility (likely a Philippian citizen, though he may be a public slave, as noted above). Although, in fact, some other individuals in the city had already been converted (cf. Acts 16:40), Luke focuses on the most graphic scene that makes the best story. i. Worship at Midnight (16:25)

If all the prisoners were confined to the inner cell (or even nearby) for the night, they could not help but hear the missionaries singing. Such midnight singing would be considered unusual, but it could cite biblical precedent and would appear honorable to Luke’s audience. Despite the apparently small results (contrast later 19:10–20) and the suffering so far, Paul and Silas continue to believe that God has led them here (cf. 16:9–10). In fact, it is even possible that they worship God not only in but for their sufferings, as a faithful expression of confidence in God’s love and sovereignty (cf. Eph 5:20). Although Luke does not state it, Paul may have connected suffering with proclamation as a necessary corollary (cf. Acts 14:22); certainly, it was to be expected with it (4:25; 5:41).1949 (1) The Inner Cell

Luke claims that the other prisoners were listening to Paul and Silas, which suggests that they were nearby. Two other factors further indicate that the jailer was probably keeping all the prisoners in the inner cell, at least overnight: First, Paul is later able to attest that all the prisoners remained inside (16:28), though he was in the inner cell (16:24) and it was unlit (16:29). Second, other sources indicate that prisoners were sometimes held in the inner cell, especially for security reasons, overnight.1950 Prisons’ overcrowding often led to unbearable heat (though this concern would be 1945. Ibid., 9. 1946. Ibid., 126. 1947. Ibid.; Tajra, Trial, 26; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; Bruce, Acts1, 318 (citing Euseb. H.E. 5.1.27; OGIS 483.181; Pass. Perp. 3.5–6; Mart. Pion. 11.3–4). In a different culture, see, e.g., Hunt, History and Legacy, 108, 125, 127. 1948. Max. Tyre 36.4 (Trapp, 286), developing Plato’s image of the cave. 1949. In some early Christian texts, suffering for spreading the gospel seems a prerequisite for the end (Rev 6:10–11; cf. Col 1:24). In the narrative, God does work their situation for some good (the detention and the pythoness’s proclamation concerning “salvation” help lead to the jailer’s conversion; because Lydia is an Asian foreigner in Philippi, the jailer may be the first fully “Philippian” [and “European”] convert). 1950. Rapske, Custody, 202–3. For prisoners being kept in the inner cell, see the Codex theodosianus and Lucian Toxaris.

2488

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 192

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

more relevant during the day);1951 this would be most problematic in the inner cell. “Poor ventilation created conditions of dangerously stale air” as well as “suffocating heat and dehydration.”1952 Such conditions, naturally, bred sickness as well.1953 This inner prison would be especially crowded if the jailer secured all prisoners there at night to keep them more secure (see comment on Acts 16:25). We cannot know how many prisoners the city would be keeping there (since prison was not most often intended as a punishment per se but as detention until trial or, in extreme cases, execution,1954 and Philippi was much smaller than Rome). But we need not assume that such prisons could accommodate only small numbers; in one story, a prison (apparently for higher-class prisoners, since they were unchained) reportedly held about fifty prisoners.1955 Until the regulations of Constantine, women were imprisoned in the same cells as men; this, predictably, often led to their sexual abuse.1956 Although it is possible that both men and women could be among the prisoners here,1957 male prisoners were far more common (see comment on Acts 8:3), and so we cannot say whether women were present. (2) Sleepless Nights

Midnight (or other expressions suggesting the middle of the night) was normally a time for sleep,1958 though there were exceptions.1959 One would normally awaken another at midnight only for urgent reasons (Luke 11:5).1960 Clearly Paul did not observe such conventional limitations, speaking God’s message at midnight (Acts 20:7; contrast Luke 22:45). It might also be significant that the clearest biblical account of a deliverance from captivity took place at midnight (Exod 11:4; 12:29; Philo Mos. 1.135; cf. Acts 27:27).1961 Midnight probably also suggests how long Paul and Silas have endured their condition: hearings usually took place in the morning, so they may have been beaten as many as twelve hours earlier.1962 The missionaries’ wounds alone might make sleep difficult, and their circumstances would have only made it worse; this would not have been the only “sleepless night” of Paul’s ministry (2 Cor 11:27).1963 Nocturnal sleeping would be difficult in a crowded jail, especially if all prisoners had been secured in the inner cell for the night.1964 Often prisoners had to sleep on the floor, using their outer cloaks as a cover1965 1951. Rapske, Custody, 196–97 (noting that Athens had only eight cells to house many prisoners). 1952. Rapske, “Prison,” 828; cf. also idem, Custody, 204. 1953. For sickness in prison, see, e.g., Val. Max. 1.1.21; Rapske, Custody, 220–21; idem, “Prison,” 829 (citing, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 9.1; Plut. Cim. 4.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.35; 7.26; 8.22). 1954. Caird, Revelation, 35; Rapske, Custody, 12–14. 1955. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26, though this is in Rome and is Philostratus’s fiction. 1956. Rapske, Custody, 279–80 (also noting that they were sometimes executed there). 1957. Ibid., 281. 1958. E.g., Polyb. 9.18.6; Ovid Metam. 10.368. 1959. E.g., late-night parties (Statius Silv. 2.4.6; see further comment at Acts 2:15); an exceptionally studious person (Pliny Ep. 3.5.8); robbers returning late (Lucian Lucius 22); surprising enemies ( Jos. Ant. 5.305; Life 318); madness (Philo Flacc. 169); or a visiting church founder (Acts 20:7, another night scene with its own miracle [20:10–12]). 1960. Also, e.g., Plut. Cic. 15.1; Pliny Ep. 6.20.4; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 29, §§60–61 B. 1961. Cf. shaking at midnight in crisis ( Job 34:20); but such a connection (with the earthquake, Acts 16:26) would probably stretch too far. For a supernatural prison liberation at midnight, see also the tradition in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.30, although this is later. 1962. Schnabel, Acts, 688 (esp. n. 48). 1963. There were, of course, a wide range of causes for sleeplessness, including anxiety, talking late into the night, and unpleasant conditions (see comment on Acts 2:15), though it was never healthy (Fronto Ep. graec. 6). 1964. Rapske, Custody, 204; idem, “Prison,” 828. 1965. Rapske, “Prison,” 828, citing Jos. Ant. 18.204; 2 Tim 4:13. But cf. Acts 12:8.

2489

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 193

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(though probably many of the poorest people were in this situation, a practice not limited to prisons).1966 The stocks (Acts 16:24) would also make sleep difficult; one might need to sit up or lie on the floor all night.1967 For Paul and Silas, their wounds may have also made brave singing easier than sleep.1968 Given the foul odors, noises of others in close quarters, and other difficulties of nocturnal conditions (as well as lack of incentives to stay awake by day), many prisoners might have been awake anyway, which would have aroused less animosity toward the singing.1969 Perhaps they, like the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:41), respected these men of God (their character demonstrated by their resilience and worship) who had not shared their presumed crimes.1970 (3) Midnight Worship

Praising God at midnight had biblical precedent (Ps 119:62);1971 apparently, shifts of Levites worshiped God day and night (1 Chr 9:33); “songs in the night” could signify joy ( Job 35:10; Pss 42:8; 77:6; Isa 30:29), and a person in need might pray continually (Pss 22:2; 77:2; 88:1).1972 The psalmist’s mention of singing at midnight (119:62) immediately follows his mention of being put in bonds (119:61). Even if the church recited psalms in worship and hence was intensely familiar with the Psalter, Luke probably would not expect his audience to catch the connection and may not have seen it himself. We encounter this connection between bonds and midnight singing, however, in the context of the “we” narrative, and it was probably available to Luke shortly after the events described. It is possible that Paul or Silas, comparing their situation to Ps 119:61 (though many other verses depicted similar situations), deliberately followed 119:62 as an act of obedience. Elsewhere Jewish people might praise God throughout the night for a recent deliverance (Philo Flacc. 122). More certainly and critically, worship follows suffering here as prayer follows it in Acts 4:23–30 and joy follows it in 5:41 and in Jesus’s instructions in Luke 6:23. Similarly, an earthquake follows worship here as the shaking of a place follows prayer in Acts 4:31. Following the example of their Lord (Luke 22:42, 51; 23:34, 43, 46), they submitted to evil treatment, so embracing the cross and depending on God for vindication.1973 In this case, vindication (in the form of an earthquake and the subsequent humiliation of the city officials) comes quickly, as it did with Jesus’s resurrection. Luke does not tell us the emotional state of the missionaries during and 1966. See Exod 22:27; Deut 24:13. 1967. Rapske, “Prison,” 828 (citing Lucian Tox. 29); idem, Custody, 127 (citing Lucian Tox. 150–51). 1968. Rapske, Custody, 337. This could be especially true if the wounds attracted insects, which the missionaries, in stocks, could not swat away. 1969. Interrupted sleep was annoying (Lucian Cock 1), and happy singing could annoy those trying to mourn (Lucian Dial. D. 336 [3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus 1]; cf. Prov 27:14). For an example of prisoners annoyed at others’ religious singing (for another religion), see Anderson, Shore, 308 (although, with everyone in chains, it does not sound as if anyone complained). Another prisoner sang hymns in the middle of the night, entertaining his companions, who came to realize that he was insane (347). 1970. At least those who had genuinely committed some. 1971. Later rabbis opined that David played the harp at midnight to stir everyone for Torah study (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:4). Le Cornu, Acts, 906, observes that the tikun chatzot, “or midnight prayer,” specifically based on Ps 119:62, “was only instituted in the sixteenth century.” 1972. Some later rabbis allowed the evening recitation of the Shema as late as midnight (m. Ber. 1:1). On the historical level, Paul’s letters reveal him as a person of much prayer (e.g., Rom 1:9; 1 Cor 14:13, 18; as often noted, e.g., Sequeira, “Prayer”; Montague, “Prayer”; Cothenet, “Prière”). 1973. This is embracing the way of the cross. Paul does speak out (Acts 23:3), but he never resists personal persecution violently; Jesus, too, spoke truth in the face of hostility (Luke 22:52–53, 67–70; 23:3).

2490

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 194

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

immediately after their beating,1974 but by this point they appear ready to trust God with a mission they believe God initiated (cf. Acts 16:9–10). Other texts report singing in prison as a sign of fortitude or faith.1975 Ancient moralists praised courageous philosophers, such as Socrates, who suffered condemnation willingly (e.g., Max. Tyre 3.2; 12.10).1976 (Using wakefulness for Torah study would have pleased rabbis,1977 and presumably worship would have as well.) A sage and his disciple might be portrayed as encouraging the other prisoners (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.22).1978 Giving thanks in all situations fits the epistolary Paul’s theology (1 Thess 5:18; cf. Eph 5:20; cf. the more traditional Jewish formulation in Jas 5:13),1979 as do continual rejoicing (Phil 4:4) and taking courage in hardship (Rom 5:3–5; cf. 8:37). If Paul praised God in the way that this passage depicts, his later appeals to Philippian Christians to rejoice and thank God despite hardship (Phil 4:6; cf. 3:1; 4:4) may be informed by his past as well as present (1:18; 2:17) example. At the same time, it is clear historically that Paul also experienced discouragement, at least temporarily and sometimes longer, during setbacks for the mission (2 Cor 4:8; 7:5–6; 11:28–29; 1 Thess 3:5).1980 Paul’s courage described here also fits ideal Stoic sages, however (as Paul would himself have also recognized), and hence would further Luke’s favorable portrayal of Paul for his more educated Diaspora hearers.1981 The ideal wise person should thank God for any circumstance that enters his life (Epict. Diatr. 4.7.9).1982 Virtue should be enough to keep the ideal wise man happy;1983 the goal was serenity and remaining calm in all situations.1984 A truly wise person will not care about being imprisoned or beheaded (1.29.22–29); neither imprisonment nor death was truly a bad thing (4.1.133). A prison was only a prison to someone who was forced there involuntarily; 1974. One might infer from 1 Thess 2:2 that Paul, historically, felt the shame acutely, though the text is not explicit about his feelings. See further discussion below. 1975. Conzelmann, Acts, 132 (also Johnson, Acts, 300; Talbert, Acts, 146), cites the Bacchae praising Dionysus in prison (no reference), Socrates writing paeans there (Epict. Diatr. 2.6.26), and Joseph praising God there (Test. Jos. 8:5). The textual variants in Test. Jos. 8:5 (Charles, 195) do not affect the sense; Test. Jos. 9 speaks of his prayer at night that God heeded (Haenchen, Acts, 497). For prisoners praying or singing, Rapske, “Prison,” 829, cites Plato Phaedo 60DE, 61AB, 117BC; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.31, 38; Tibullus 2.6.25–26; Talbert, Acts, 146, notes Mart. Pion. 11.5–6; 18.12. For reports of prayers in prisons, see esp. later Christian apocryphal acts (Rapske, Custody, 333–37). To connect parallels of praising God in prison with the narrative’s supposedly legendary character (cf. Koester, Paul and World, 72), however, would make modern accounts of the same legendary. Luke draws connections with Acts 5:41 and especially Luke 6:23, but it is hardly necessary to assume that any portrayal of someone following Jesus’s teaching on the subject must be legendary. 1976. Some ancients critiqued Epicurus for affirming—while viewing pain as an evil—that the wise man could be happy under torture (Cic. Tusc. 2.7.17). 1977. See Le Cornu, Acts, 907. 1978. Here the disciple, Damis, fears that this will interrupt the other prisoners, but Apollonius insists that it will help them. 1979. Paul’s letters, including those from prison (Phil 1:3–4, 9; Phlm 4, 6), reveal how central prayer was to his ministry (Rapske, Custody, 337, following esp. Wiles, Prayers, passim). 1980. Paul urged (Phil 4:4; 1 Thess 5:16) and practiced (2 Cor 6:10; Phil 1:18) regular rejoicing but at least sometimes also experienced much sorrow (Rom 9:2; cf. Phil 2:27). 1981. See Epict. Diatr. 1.6.1; 4.7.9; Marc. Aur. 6.16; fuller comment at Acts 5:41. For admonitions not to lament legal condemnation, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 76.5–11 (cf. 16, p. 106.1–6). To an imaginary interlocutor bemoaning his fate of being beheaded alone, Epictetus challenges, “Must everyone else also be beheaded to comfort you?” (Epict. Diatr. 1.1.18). 1982. Praise the gods (Marc. Aur. 6.16) or providence (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.1) for whatever happens; people should never find fault with God’s works (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.15.4; Epict. Diatr. 1.14.16; Marc. Aur. 6.16). 1983. Cic. Parad. 16–19 (cf. also Leg. 1.23.60); Sen. Y. Dial. 7.16.1–3. 1984. Epict. Diatr. 1.4.1. Seneca claimed to achieve the ideal of remaining undistracted by noise (Ep. Lucil. 56).

2491

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 195

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Socrates was not in prison, because he stayed there voluntarily (1.12.23).1985 Such sentiments were not limited to Stoics; even Epicurus insisted that a wise man should be happy even on the rack (Diog. Laert. 10.118).1986 Jewish pietists believed that God would reward the righteous who, though suffering, blessed God (1 En. 108:10; see comment on Acts 5:41). That the missionaries were singing “hymns” might, though not necessarily, mean that they were singing traditional songs they already knew; early Christian hymns could also include spontaneous compositions through the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 14:15, 26; 1 Chr 25:3).1987 One prototypical model was David, composer of many hymns.1988 The Levites in the temple “hymned” God (2 Chr 29:30; 1 Esd 5:59–60; Neh 12:24), as did God’s people at God’s house (1 Esd 5:62), after winning a battle (1 Macc 4:24; 2 Macc 10:38; Jdt 15:13) or at another celebration (e.g., Wis 10:20; Jos. Ant. 7.80; Philo Mos. 1.180; Flacc. 122).1989 A philosopher opined that one ought to spend all one’s time “hymning” and praising God for one’s circumstances, which were gifts of grace (Epict. Diatr. 1.16.15). We are not told the other prisoners’ feelings toward midnight singing, but Luke reports that they were listening (Acts 16:25; cf. the spiritual effect of “listening” in 16:14; Luke 10:39; 15:1) and seems to imply that Paul and Silas had some spiritual effect on them (cf. none fleeing in Acts 16:28).1990 As during the later shipwreck (27:21, 31–32, 43) and on Malta (28:6–10), Paul is able to assume a leadership position in difficult circumstances; here he, though a newcomer to the jail, is the one to announce that no one has fled (16:28).1991 He might know despite the darkness because, in momentary discussion during the earthquake’s immediate aftermath, he might have advised them against flight. Prisoners did sometimes bond with one another; though sources reveal conflicts among prisoners as well as the presence of spies there, some prisoners even sacrificed food rations for others.1992 In addition to its other uses,1993 music was employed for worship in cultic set1985. Those who complain of their fate suffer it involuntarily (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.15.6) whereas one should find some comfort in every situation (9.10.4). Cf. also the notion of true bonds not being those on neck, arms, or legs but moral bondage (Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10; see Keener, John, 750–51). 1986. Galen the physician also resisted being distressed (see Grief 1, 4–5, 11, 29–30, 48, 50b, 71, 79b), though he did recognize limits (71–72a). 1987. Le Cornu, Acts, 906, notes that if they prayed “structured liturgy” at midnight, it would have been “the evening Shema,” which could be recited as late as midnight (and in practice later; cf. m. Ber. 1:1); allowances were made for those in unusually difficult circumstances (cf. 4:4). Rather than (or in addition to) liturgical prayer, however, they may well have been singing a spontaneous charismatic composition (1 Cor 14:15, 26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; if this is part of the meaning of a “new” song, cf. perhaps Pss 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isa 42:10; Jdt 16:13; Rev 5:9; 14:3; Philo Mos. 1.255). 1988. E.g., 2 Chr 29:30; Sir 47:8; Jos. Ant. 6.166–68, 214; 7.305. 1989. Cf. hymns of thanks to God in Test. Job 43; Essenes’ almost continuous use of hymns in Hippol. Ref. 9.16; Sib. Or. 3.246 describes Scripture as the “hymn” (ὕμνον) of the law. Philo speaks of “hymning” God from a pure mind (Plant. 126, 129, 135; Agr. 80). “Hymning” was also a heavenly activity (e.g., Test. Ab. 20:12–13 A). 1990. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (cf. also idem, Custody, 347), documents prisoners’ “philosophical and religious ministrations to others in writing” (Plato Phaedo 60DE; Cic. Verr. 2.5.112; Tac. Ann. 6.39; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46; Poly. Phil. 13.2; Ign. passim) “and conversation” (Plato Crito; Phaedo; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26–42; m. Giṭ. 6:7). Early Christian literature provides many examples of witness and preaching while one was in prison (Rapske, Custody, 352). 1991. “We are all here” may be Luke’s way of wording it (cf. Acts 10:33). 1992. Rapske, Custody, 277–78. 1993. Music was an integral part of good education (Arist. Pol. 8.5.9–10, 1340b; cf. Townsend, “Education,” 142); at banquets, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 1.153–55, 325–26; 4.17–19; 9.3–6; 17.270–71; Max. Tyre 22.3; Athen. Deipn. 15.694BC; Sir 32:3–6; Smith, Symposium, 35, 136–37 (for drunken singing, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.55; Plut. Table 1.1.5, Mor. 614F–615A); at weddings, Xen. Hunt. 1.8; Catull. Carm. 61.4–62.66; in military settings, Val. Max. 2.6.2 (with dancing, Xen. Anab. 6.1.5–13; Quint. Inst. 1.11.18–19); for work, Robbins,

2492

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 196

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

tings.1994 Ancient worshipers commonly used hymns, here probably used in the fairly general sense of songs honoring a deity1995 (in this case, the true God). Thus texts speak of “propitiating” Apollo with hymns 1996 or of pious Cyrus hymning to the gods at dawn (Xen. Cyr. 8.1.23).1997 Many philosophers believed that some kinds of music could free the soul from perturbation;1998 some attributed curative power to some forms of music.1999 Music could also be connected with prophetic inspiration (whether as cause or as effect),2000 including in Jewish and Christian circles.2001 Jewish people especially sang in worship to God;2002 they worshiped God for victories2003 and regularly worshiped him in the temple.2004 Greeks used hymns at night mostly in their night festivals;2005 as noted, Jews also had individual night worship traditions (e.g., Pss 63:6; 88:1; 119:148),2006 and some sectarian priests apparently studied during part of the night (1QS VI, 7–8). Psalms (mostly canonical but also Pss 151–155)2007 constituted the most popular biblical work at Qumran,2008 and Christians probably simply continued the Jewish “Work Songs.” On Greek and Roman music more generally, see Fless and Moede, “Music”; Friedländer, Life, 2:337–65; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 154–55. 1994. See, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.19–23; 2.1–2, 369.5–7; 2.17, 437.13–15; at Roman state festivals, Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 177; for the emperor, Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 377.25–26; the heroized deceased, 2.9, 414.25–26; Philost. Hrk. 53.10; in itinerant Eastern cults, Lucret. Nat. 2.618–20; Lucian Syr. G. 50; Carcopino, Life, 133. Both Greeks and Romans had always used music in worship (Rose, “Music”), as did Egyptian priests (Demet. Style 2.71); earlier, see, e.g., in Hittite (Gurney, Hittites, 153–55, 202) and Canaanite (Rainey, “Kingdom,” 124) festivals and ceremonies. 1995. See Parker, “Hymns,” for the three senses of the term. In the narrower sense, hymns listed the deity’s epithets, powers, activities, interests, and especially the deity’s origins (theogony) and offered prayers to the deity (ibid.). 1996. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 444.16–17 (for other hymns to Apollo, 437.19–20). Cf. analogous language for the true God in Philo Dreams 2.292. 1997. Narratives could portray heroes playing instruments or singing (e.g., 1 Sam 16:16; Sir 47:8; Jos. Ant. 7.305–6; Philost. Hrk. 33.36; cf. Suet. Titus 3.2), and songs could celebrate past heroes’ acts (1 Sam 18:7; 29:5; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1; Philost. Hrk. 17.3; 23.13). 1998. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 32.57 (but cf. 1.8); Iambl. V.P. 15.64–65, 68; 25, esp. 25.110–13; Myst. 3.9; cf. Test. Job 14; Philost. Hrk. 45.6. 1999. E.g., Aul. Gel. 4.13; Iambl. V.P. 29.164; 1 Sam 16:16–23. 2000. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 1; Pindar Nem. 3.1–5; frg. 150; Ap. Rhod. 1.22; Virg. Aen. 9.525–29; Ovid Fasti 6.8; Her. 21.232; Pont. 3.4.113–14; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.; Lucian Alex. 9; Max. Tyre 38.2; Philost. Hrk. 7.5–6; 25.4, 8; 45.7; 53.4; 54.12–13; Iambl. Myst. 3.9; cf. Lindblom, Prophecy, 99; Guthrie, Orpheus, 36. For music and ecstasy, see, e.g., Plut. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B; Prince, “EEG,” 134; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 162. 2001. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Kgs 3:15; 1 Chr 25:1–3; 11Q5 XXVII, 11; Sib. Or. 3.489–91; L.A.B. 32:14; Mek. on Exod 14:31 and 15:1 (Smith, Parallels, 64); y. Soṭah 5:4, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 1 Cor 14:15; Eph 5:18; Col 3:16. For exorcism, see 1 Sam 16:23; 11Q5 XXVII, 10; 11Q11; Jos. Ant. 6.166–69; L.A.B. 60. Cf. Orpheus’s power to move stones and animals (Apollod. Bib. 1.3.2; Ovid Tristia 4.1.17–18; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.62; 35.9; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1; Phaedrus 3.prol. 57–59; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 443.3–6; Philost. Hrk. 23.2; 33.28); similarly Amphion (Apollod. Bib. 3.5.5) and Arion (Aul. Gel. 16.19.14–16; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 443.6–10). Jewish art apparently associated the figure of Orpheus with David (Narkiss, “Elements,” 184). 2002. E.g., 1QS X, 9; Test. Job 43; this was also the activity of angels (e.g., Test. Ab. 20:12 A; 2 En. 17:1). Cf. eschatological worship in, e.g., Rev 19:4; Sib. Or. 3.715, 726; t. Pisha 8:22; b. Sanh. 91b; Taʿan. 31a; Num. Rab. 15:11; Eccl. Rab. 1:11, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 21:1. 2003. E.g., 2 Macc 10:38; Jdt 16:1–17; Jos. Ant. 3.64; Rev 15:2–3. 2004. E.g., 1 Esd 5:59–60; Jos. Ant. 11.62; War 2.321; m. Kelim 15:6; Roš Haš. 4:4; b. Sukkah 50b; 51a. 2005. See Mikalson, “Pannychis.” 2006. Cf. priests in Ps 134:1; but the incident of Samaritans defiling the temple by night suggests that it was relatively quiet at night in the nt period ( Jos. Ant. 18.29–30). 2007. Cf. Charlesworth and Sanders, “More Psalms.” 2008. Flint, “Psalms and Hymns,” 850–51; see, e.g., 4Q380; 4Q381; 4Q88; 11Q5–6; 4Q448. Some doubt whether the hymns in the Thanksgiving Hymns were used liturgically at Qumran (Schuller, “Thanksgiving Hymns”), but it is difficult to think that only Christians and Therapeutae (e.g., Philo Contempl. 84) sang; Israel had practiced these in corporate worship in the temple ( Jos. Ant. 7.80, 364; 12.323, 349; 12.142). Praising God was apparently connected with his covenant (1QS X, 9–12).

2493

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 197

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

use of psalms.2009 At some festivals, Jewish people sang the Hallel, from Pss 113–118 (Mark 14:26).2010 Early Christians sang psalms (1 Cor 14:26; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; cf. Jas 5:13), probably including “new” ones (1 Cor 14:15), and also made use of hymns (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16; cf. Heb 2:12), perhaps some similar to the songs found in Revelation (e.g., Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9–10, 12–13; 7:10, 12; 11:17–18; 12:10–12; 14:3; 15:3–4; 19:1–7).2011 ii. The Earthquake (16:26)

At precisely the time of the missionaries’ worship and in precisely such a manner as to free the prisoners’ chains without harming them, an earthquake strikes. Clearly Luke does not portray this feat as a mere coincidence of nature. Just as Acts’ other earthquake follows prayer (Acts 4:24–31), this one follows praise. This earthquake’s “suddenness” (ἄφνω) might recall 2:2—a theophany following concerted prayer (1:14; it need not be an allusion, however, as Luke also employs the term in 28:6). And just as God could open hearts (16:14; Luke 24:45) and doors of opportunity (Acts 14:27), he could open physically barred gates as well (5:19; 12:10; 16:26). This account of liberation parallels others in Acts (5:19; 12:7–10), supplanting the Dionysiac tradition of divine escapes, though in this case the prisoners will not, in fact, escape.2012 An earthquake shakes the halls of King Pentheus, freeing Dionysus from his prison (Eurip. Bacch. 585–93, 642–43).2013 If prison doors flew open and chains dropped off to vindicate a follower of Dionysus (Ovid Metam. 3.699–700), how much more for an apostle of Christ?2014 But just as Paul faces trials in Acts 23–26, so here Luke narrates his non-escape, like Jesus enduring the cross (Luke 23:35–37) and in contrast to Peter’s releases (Acts 5:19; 12:7–10; though in 5:20–26 he and the apostles submit to being arrested again). (Cf. Daniel’s protection while he remains in the lion’s den [Dan 6:16–23].) Having spiritually liberated a slave in Acts 16:18, Paul the “slave” of the Highest God (16:17) now refuses physical liberation in order to serve others. Although Luke narrates no escape here, however, he does highlight divine vindication. 2009. See Oesterley, Liturgy, 73–76, 84–85; Fiedler, “Herkunft.” Still, the songs in 1 Cor 14:26, Eph 5:19, and Col 3:16 may represent fresh compositions (Barrett, Spirit, 123). Hymns are attested in synagogues only in the Diaspora, but perhaps because the temple supplied this need for Judeans (cf. Sanders, Judaism, 207). Josephus calls the psalms “hymns” (Ag. Ap. 1.40). 2010. See m. Pesaḥ. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; Sukkah 3:10; 4:8; t. Pisha 8:22; Sukkah 3:2; b. Pesaḥ. 117a; Šabb. 21b, bar.; Sukkah 38b; cf. Moore, Judaism, 2:42; Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 255–56; Barclay, Train a Child, 42; Safrai, “Religion,” 809. 2011. Cf. Conzelmann, History, 74; Hunter, Predecessors, 37; Hengel, Jesus and Paul, 78–96. Many scholars find pre-Pauline “hymns” in Paul’s letters (Sanders, Hymns, 24–25; Martin, “Hymns”; Porter, “Creeds”), though some of these cases may simply represent exalted rhetoric (Greek and Latin hymns have distinctive meter; see Furley, “Hymn”; Fuhrer, “Hymn”); rhythm was sometimes appropriate even to prose (Arist. Rhet. 3.8.1, 1408b; Cic. Or. Brut. 20.67; 50.168–69.231; cf. Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 25; Rowe, “Style,” 154; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 380, although noting that prose rhythm was less frequent in this period). 2012. Cf. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 102–3, 277; Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 58; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; cf. Pervo, Profit, 18–24; idem, Acts, 409–11; Twelftree, Paul, 256–57. For examples of divine releases, see, e.g., Apollod. Bib. 3.5.1; further discussion at Acts 5:19; 12:7, 10. This tradition had been appropriated in Hellenistic Judaism long before Luke (Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.23). 2013. Resemblances to the Dionysus story are cited as early as Celsus (Origen Cels. 2.34; Bruce, Acts1, 319). These are more plausible than comparisons with Lucian Tox. 28–33 (as in Zeller, “Parallele”; Pervo, Profit, 23–24). Weaver, Epiphany, 224, rightly responds that any analogies to the latter are limited and formal at best, probably due to common cultural assumptions, such as the frequent imprisonment of the innocent and imprisonment’s stigma; moreover, Luke’s emphasis is not moralistic (like Lucian’s on friendship). Instead, it focuses on God’s power (as in Euripides’s Bacchanals). 2014. Cf. Thomas, “Upside-Down,” who suggests that here (God overturning the prison) as elsewhere in Acts, God subverts the world order.

2494

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 198

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

MacDonald finds multiple allusions to Euripides’s Bacchanals (which does seem a natural place to look for parallels) in Luke’s narrative. The obvious parallel, freeing from prison, has been noted above, although the motif had been disseminated more widely in other escape narratives (see discussion at Acts 5:19).2015 The other connections that MacDonald makes in addition to this parallel, however, are so peripheral that even their cumulative weight seems overwhelmed by that of other ancient sources, whether the name “Lydia,”2016 Dionysus’s association with purple,2017 or the “maenadic” ecstasy of the slave girl in 16:16.2018 John Weaver offers a fuller and more compelling list,2019 including the presence of a persecutor in both (Pentheus in Euripides); the wrongly imprisoned deity or divine agents; darkness; a hymn;2020 unexpected intervention;2021 an earthquake, permitting escape; the voice of one unseen;2022 the drawing of a sword;2023 light;2024 the captor rushing inside the darkened detention area;2025 falling trembling to earth;2026 accepting the deity;2027 and escape becoming unnecessary.2028 Some of the detailed parallels press too far, simply reflecting standard expectations for prisons (darkness); are not, in fact, analogous (lights); or reflect features too trivial for consideration (something “sudden”). Still others are too distant for us to be certain of their relationship.2029 Moreover, Weaver recognizes that “most of the features of the Euripidean escapes are attested elsewhere in ancient Greco-Roman drama and mythography.”2030 But a general evocation of Dionysus’s escape is clear in Luke’s prison escapes in general and is likely here as well.2031 Most compelling is divine intervention for an escape through the shaking of the building, although Paul and Silas do not here escape. What other connections might Luke’s ancient audience have discerned? In light of Luke’s first volume, the earthquake might be thought to prefigure God’s eschatological 2015. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 108. For state distrust of Bacchae and for Dionysiac motifs in Acts, see also Matthews, “Elite Women,” 111–21. (I have also argued elsewhere for the relevance of state distrust of the Bacchae, but because Rome’s conflict with this cult happened more than two centuries earlier, it should be viewed as part of traditional Romans’ larger mistrust of Eastern cults in general, including groups such as worshipers of Isis; see Keener, Paul, 140–42.) 2016. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 109, arguing that “Lydia” was Dionysus’s cult center. This connection was questionable given more important associations with the dyeing industry and the widespread dissemination of Dionysus’s cult by this period (on the latter, see, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 36; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2–3; Koester, Introduction, 1:180; Harland, Associations, 46). 2017. MacDonald, “Lydia,” 109–10. Given the massive number of references to purple in antiquity, this minor association would carry little weight, as noted above. 2018. Ibid., 110. Luke’s “pythoness” language evokes specifically Apollo and Delphi rather than Dionysus; since Luke portrays even this as negative, he is not simply suppressing a maenad connection. 2019. Weaver, Epiphany, 270 (adapting somewhat from Seaford, “Thunder”). 2020. The maenads sing during the epiphany; Paul and Silas sing during the earthquake. 2021. Dionysus’s voice comes unexpectedly; in Acts, the earthquake is sudden. 2022. In Euripides, the maenads hear Dionysus’s voice without seeing him; in Acts, Paul’s voice is heard from within the cell. 2023. Pentheus grips his sword but cannot retain it; the guard draws his own to kill himself. 2024. Dionysus’s devotees call him the “greatest light” (Eurip. Bacch. 608); the jailer asks for a torch. 2025. Pentheus, to attack the light (Eurip. Bacch. 628); the guard, to meet Paul and Silas. 2026. Dionysus’s devotees fall with trembling (τρόμον, Eurip. Bacch. 607) at his epiphany, and Pentheus “collapses”; the jailer drops ἔντρομος in front of Paul and Silas. 2027. In contrast to Pentheus, Dionysus’s devotees celebrate his epiphany; the jailer is converted. 2028. Although Dionysus escapes, he claims that he will not run off (Eurip. Bacch. 659); all Paul’s colleagues remain in the cell. 2029. E.g., drawing the sword and prostration are possible links, but their different functions and arrangement leave the connection uncertain. 2030. Weaver, Epiphany, 271. 2031. On the consistent narrative pattern, see, e.g., ibid., 22.

2495

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 199

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

interventions (Luke 21:11),2032 although it is clearly not eschatological here and fits better other earthquakes found in narrative genres. Thus, in one Jewish story, God rescues Abram from a burning furnace by sending an earthquake (L.A.B. 6:17). Ancient general assumptions about earthquakes may also bring us closer to hearing the text as an ancient audience would have. Pagans usually attributed earthquakes to the activities of deities (Dio Chrys. Or. 38.20), most often Poseidon (the Roman Neptune).2033 The prisoners would likely also be frightened by the earthquake.2034 Earthquakes were viewed as portents2035 and could wreak terrible and unexpected destruction.2036 One who predicted an earthquake might be treated as if he had caused it (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 68). Intellectuals, however, often sought alternative explanations for earthquakes.2037 An ancient historian as creative as Josephus might add an earthquake to further dramatize a narrative about God’s activity through nature.2038 But earthquakes did happen, and one cannot rule out the possibility of providential timing in this case2039 without entering the realm of theology and metaphysics. Appealing to modern skepticism about miracles while affirming the historicity of the account, some writers suggest that the poorly fitted doors of a small prison such as Philippi’s and wooden stocks connected weakly to the wall would most quickly be broken. Earthquakes are common near Philippi, and earthquakes do create such unexpected phenomena.2040 That exactly these things are broken but the roof does not collapse2041 and the prisoners do not appear to suffer harm, however, indicates that Luke wants us to see God’s hand.2042 Further, although earthquakes may be more common near 2032. Cf. “shaking” of the heavens in Luke 21:26. For eschatological earthquakes, see Ezek 38:19–20; 2 Bar. 27:7; 70:8; 4 Ezra 6:13–15; 9:3; Test. Mos. 10:4; for a climactic eschatological earthquake, see 1 En. 1:6–8; 53:7; Sib. Or. 3.82, 680; Test. Mos. 10:4; Rev 6:12; cf. Bauckham, “Earthquake”; idem, Climax, 199–209. Luke 23:44–45 omits the earthquake reported in Matt 27:51, but it is also missing in Mark 15, his primary source. As divine judgments, see m. Ber. 9:2; Sib. Or. 1.187; 3.405, 449, 452, 459, 476; 5.291, 438–39; cf. Tr. Shem 7.19. 2033. E.g., Hom. Il. 7.445; 8.201, 208, 440; 12.27; 13.10, 34, 43, 59, 65, 89, 215, 231, 554, 677; 14.135, 150, 355, 384; 15.41, 173, 184, 205, 218, 222; 20.13, 20, 34, 57–63, 132, 291, 310, 318, 330, 405; 21.287, 435, 462; Od. 1.74; 5.282, 339, 366, 375, 423; 6.326; 7.35, 56, 271; 8.354; 9.283, 518, 525; 11.102, 241, 252; 12.107; 13.125, 140, 146, 159, 162; Aristoph. Acharn. 510–11; Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 370.48–49; Pindar Pyth. 4.32–33; 6.50; Isthm. 1.52; Philost. Hrk. 25.9; probably earlier in Baal e. II AB (vii) (ANET 135) if this is not figurative. Cf. the Jewish adaptation in Sib. Or. 3.405. For a hypothetical explanation for the background of the Homeric title, see Gordon, “Poseidon,” 660. For earthquakes as a sign of divine visitation, see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 9.782–83; 15.669–78; Lucian Lover of Lies 22 ( Johnson, Acts, 300; Witherington, Acts, 497). 2034. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.17–20. 2035. E.g., Thucyd. 2.8.3; Ovid Metam. 15.798; Pliny E. N.H. 2.86.200. 2036. E.g., a coastal flood, Thucyd. 3.89.5. 2037. E.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6 (esp. 6.5.1–6.31.3). Williams, “Seismology,” suggests that Seneca’s naturalistic approach to earthquakes reflects a coping strategy for all life’s troubles. For a survey of ancient views of earthquakes, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.81.191–92; Krafft, “Earthquake.” Hierocles How Should One Behave toward the Gods? (Stob. Anth. 1.3.54) attributes some earthquakes to natural forces and others to divine chastisement (idem in Anth. 2.9.7 focuses on natural forces). 2038. Compare Jos. Ant. 6.27 with 1 Sam 7:10; this is not the same as inventing that divine activity altogether, which we must suspect Luke of doing if, in fact, Paul and Silas reported no earthquake. 2039. Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.195 opines that earthquakes are more frequent at night than during the day but places the worst in morning and evening. This sounds like an attempt to extrapolate a pattern from limited and essentially uncooperative data. 2040. Ramsay, Pictures, 184; Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 155; on unusual and random damages from earthquakes, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.193–94. Tremors continue near Philippi today (commonly noted; e.g., Hanson, Acts, 172; Fitzmyer, Acts, 588; Witherington, Acts, 497). 2041. Any shaking of the foundations, as here, was certainly dangerous (in Luke 6:48–49, strong foundations guarded against destructive shaking); for roofs collapsing in an earthquake, see Pliny E. N.H. 2.85.199. 2042. Against Ramsay’s view, Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 198, also contend that the fettered prisoners were not freed simply because the staples connecting them to the walls were broken loose.

2496

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 200

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Philippi, they also occurred in Corinth,2043 Asia Minor,2044 and indeed the entire primary area of Greek settlement.2045 The movement of plates beneath Europe and Africa makes the Mediterranean an area of more intense earthquakes than many other regions.2046 iii. The Jailer Intends Suicide (16:27)

Luke’s account is so compressed that it leaves many scene details obscure. How was the chief jailer roused from sleep? Did the earthquake awaken him, or did subordinate guards do so?2047 Was he stationed outside the prison, or had he gone home to his family for the night (Acts 16:33–34)? Or did his living quarters adjoin the prison? Probably a guard (16:29) awoke him or at least alerted him to the damage caused by this earthquake; on his arrival, he witnessed the unhinged doors, which could appear as if the prisoners had broken out. Because he hears no loud sound within the prison, it appears that no one is there; a normal earthquake that opened the doors would have also injured prisoners, leading at least to groaning, and one might expect other sounds of prisoners in the act of escaping if they had not already escaped. Prisoners escaping in the wake of an earthquake is not an unrealistic fear.2048 From a literary perspective, the jailer’s plan to kill himself fits Luke’s purposes. The execution of Peter’s guards has underlined the potentially serious consequences of divine escapes for jailers (12:19), and both that narrative and this one provide suspense and a motive when the soldiers plan to kill the prisoners later in 27:42. The jailer’s intention to kill himself also allows for Paul to rescue him, which provides the ironic upturn in the narrative. This rescue thus provides a contrast with the less pleasant execution of Peter’s guards (12:19) and emphasizes Paul’s lack of threat to Roman order.2049 This comparison does not discredit Peter because he escaped whereas Paul refuses to avail himself of the same opportunity. Paul is a Roman citizen; his detainment is not immediately life-threatening; and his captors are Romans, who must respect rights of fellow Romans rather than a tyrant following the dictates of popular sentiment. Historically, punishments of jailers would be based on “the degree of culpability” and the number and status of the prisoners.2050 In some cases, this principle meant that the guard could be executed;2051 a novel reports a guard who intended to kill 2043. About 77 c.e., see Malalas Chronogr. 10, p. 261; probably West, Inscriptions, no. 70 (p. 54); see also Adams, “Placing,” 26. They are frequent in Greece (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 12). 2044. Strabo 12.8.18; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6.1.13; Suet. Tib. 8; 48.2; Tac. Ann. 2.47; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.9.582; Sib. Or. 4.107–8; 5.289–91; Mitten, “Sardis,” 61–62; Yamauchi, Cities, 68–69, 78; Ramsay, Letters, 411. 2045. Krafft, “Earthquake”; cf. Sonnabend, “Catastrophes”; Pliny E. N.H. 2.82.195; Suet. Aug. 47. No region, Seneca the Younger opines, is immune to them (Nat. Q. 6.1.12). 2046. Cartledge and Sallares, “Earthquakes.” 2047. The verb itself does not require another person to perform the rousing (1 Esd 3:3; Jos. Ant. 11.34). Normally an earthquake in the vicinity would awaken anyone (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.20.3–4), but if tremors were common and usually minor, one might learn to go back to sleep (as for some months in much younger days I learned to sleep through a faulty fire alarm, or once, without access to news, deemed a hurricane a thunderstorm and slept through it). 2048. Thus, for example, it was said to have happened in eastern Turkey in 2011; see the Associated Press report, “Turkish Prison Escape in Quake-Hit prison,” at http://news.yahoo.com/report-turkish-prison-escape -quake-hit-prison-181238307.html, accessed Oct. 23, 2011; in Haiti, see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301 -504083_162-6100169-504083.html, accessed March 28, 2013; in Indonesia, see http://www.thejakartaglobe .com/home/indonesian-prisoners-escape-after-quake/511052, accessed March 28, 2013. 2049. Comparison between the imprisonments of the two apostles is not a solely twentieth- or twentyfirst-century concern; Lightfoot also compared and contrasted the two incidents (“Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 21 [from Witherington]). 2050. Rapske, Custody, 30–31. 2051. Cf. Munck, Acts, 114; Bruce, Acts1, 319.

2497

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 201

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

himself when one of the bodies he was guarding was stolen (Petron. Sat. 112). In the more general sense, Romans viewed leaving one’s post as a capital offense (Livy 24.37.9), and among many peoples, the punishment for falling asleep on night watch was severe (Diod. Sic. 2.18.8; see comment on Acts 12:19). Some scholars regard the jailer’s intention to commit suicide as historically inexplicable, noting that his superiors would have pardoned him, since the earthquake was clearly not his fault (Dig. 12.48.3).2052 Although the earthquake was not his fault, malicious authorities could accuse him of negligence (Luke does not provide sufficient data for us to know if he was in fact negligent, but the authorities so far have not appeared generous [Acts 16:22–23]).2053 He was plainly (explicitly) asleep, and it is possible that servants on whom he depended to watch the prisoners (assuming that he had assigned them to do so) had also gone to sleep.2054 The jailer specifically would be responsible, having received a command to guard the new prisoners securely (16:23). Having guards in place should have exonerated him, but again not if he had proved negligent in selecting efficient guards, which the scene before him might suggest to his own mind.2055 (The matter would be even more severe if he actually had been negligent. Though the servants implied in 16:29 probably functioned as guards, it is not clear that they were standing awake as sentries; in principle, at least, normally one could trust walls and chains to prevent egress from inside the inner cell.) The guards may well have feared to enter if they believed that some prisoners were likely free and potentially dangerous; the jailer surmises the prisoners’ escape without obtaining the entire story from the guards (“when he had seen the doors”). It is true that the authorities might not execute him; but the possibility remained, and suicide was also a remedy for disgrace (see the discussion of suicide below).2056 Here the jailer prepares to fall on his sword in the appropriate Roman manner of suicide by sword, through either his heart or his throat.2057

Excursus: Suicide in Antiquity Given the difficult circumstances of prison life, prisoners themselves often committed suicide, though guards were supposed to prevent it.2058 But suicide was hardly limited to prisoners. Because a suicide’s estate could be preserved for his heirs, this means of death was often preferred to awaiting execution.2059 Yet why would this jailer intend suicide? 2052. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 198; Conzelmann, Acts, 132; Barrett, Acts, 795. The claim that he might still catch all the prisoners, even though they have apparently already fled the building (Barrett, Acts, 795), is questionable (cf. Acts 27:42). 2053. Rather than lose face themselves, the authorities might well prefer a subordinate as a scapegoat. 2054. In Lucian Tox. 30, a jailer retires after delegating guard duty to his servants (also noted in Talbert, Acts, 146–47). 2055. Insufficient custodial arrangements could be punished if a result of bribery, and judged as the officer’s negligence if only a subordinate was bribed (see Rapske, Custody, 391). 2056. Even if we were to conclude that his motives for suicide appear inadequate (which, by Roman standards, I do not), people both in ancient and in modern accounts have killed themselves on weak grounds. That is, the illogic could be the character’s rather than the narrator’s. 2057. Bruce, Commentary, 338. For suicide by sword, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.6.7; 2.27.5; 2.63.2; 2.69.2; 2.70.2–5; 2.74.4; 2.76.1; Quint. Decl. 326.8; 344 intro.; 388.2; Libanius Comparison 2.13; Speech in Character 5.5. 2058. Rapske, Custody, 221–23; idem, “Prison,” 829. 2059. Rapske, Custody, 221.

2498

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 202

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

1. Reasons for Suicide2060 Suicides and planned suicides appear frequently in ancient Mediterranean literature.2061 The reasons are varied. Most ancients would have condemned some of the incidents as excessive: a slave hanged himself after a flogging (Theophr. Char. 12.12);2062 a Cynic revealed his hypocrisy by killing himself when his fortunes failed (Diog. Laert. 6.8.100); a boy accustomed to drunkenness and prostitutes killed himself when forcibly weaned from them (Corn. Nep. 10 [Dion], 4.5).2063 More understandable were those who killed themselves to end their suffering by disease or paralysis or wasting old age.2064 People might also prefer the swiftness of suicide to a slow, excruciating death2065 from, for example, dehydration and starvation.2066 A friend’s death to escape painful disease might be gravely regretted (Pliny Ep. 1.12.1–4); likewise, choosing to endure pain for the sake of living on to the benefit of others was praised (1.22.9–10). Some killed themselves out of loyalty to others. A friend might be willing to die with a friend, even by suicide if need be (Char. Chaer. 7.1.7);2067 friends or servants who assisted someone in dying often followed this assistance up with killing themselves.2068 Some burned themselves alive out of loyalty to Rome, to avoid surrendering to Carthage (Val. Max. 6.6.ext. 1); others killed themselves in sorrow when their general died,2069 or killed themselves to spare their followers from being massacred (Tac. Hist. 2.49), to bring victory (Libanius Speech in Character 22, esp. 22.4), or to stay a 2060. It should go without saying that here as elsewhere my summary of ancient views is intended not to endorse but only to report a breadth of views. For views on suicide in an earlier period, see Long, “2 Samuel,” 468, following Scurlock, “Death,” 1890; Lesko, “Death,” 1766. 2061. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1221–22; Hdt. 1.45; Livy 42.28.11–12; Lucan C.W. 2.154–58; Alciph. Fish. 11 (Glaucippê to Charopê), 3.1, ¶4; Farm. 25 (Salaconis to Gemellus), 3.28, ¶2; Paras. 3 (Artepithymus to Cnisozomus), 3.6, ¶1; 13 (Capnosphrantes to Aristomachus), 3.49; Aul. Gel. 15.10.1–2; Apul. Metam. 7.24. Earlier, cf. a late third-millennium b.c.e. Egyptian text in ANET 405–7. 2062. Modern readers might be more sympathetic here. Some individuals preferred suicide to servitude (Barrow, Slavery, 55, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 4.4; 70.20; 77.14; cf. Sen. Y. Ira 3.5.4). An astrologer might declare hanging oneself a fitting end for a runaway slave (Toner, Culture, 72, citing Dorotheus of Sidon Carmen Astrolog. 5.36). 2063. Some ancients idealized state-sanctioned suicide for those with good reasons in some other cultures (Val. Max. 2.6.7e, 8). Cf. also the stories of the interrogator who, perhaps because of the failed interrogation, hanged himself (Sen. E. Controv. 8.3.intro.) and of a youth who hanged himself after Pythagoras’s rebuke (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 49). 2064. Pliny E. N.H. 6.24.2–5; Tac. Ann. 13.30; Suet. Rhet. 6; Pliny Ep. 3.7.1–2; 6.24.3–4; Diog. Laert. 4.3. Cf. Publ. Syr. 67 (LCL, 23), though not addressing suicide specifically (“Good for man is death when it ends life’s miseries”); Pliny Ep. 2.20.7–8 (medically prolonging life without healing simply tortures one); for an Indian sage with a digestive disorder, Plut. Alex. 69.3–4. 2065. So Heracles in Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.44 (reviling as cowards those who shrank from this choice). Lucian Peregr. 4, 21 contrasts Heracles’s burning with the glory-craving burning of Peregrinus. 2066. Lucian Tox. 58 (in this case, the person contemplating it is dissuaded and survives). 2067. For danger of Achilles’s suicide when Patroclus died, see Hom. Il. 18.33–34; Libanius Encomium 3.19. Death in battle, however, was more honorable (Char. Chaer. 7.1.8). Vell. Paterc. 2.76.1 praises even one who killed himself to mourn a friend’s departure. On the virtue of dying for friends, see, e.g., Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2); Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; John 15:13; Keener, “Friendship,” 383–84; idem, John, 1004–5. 2068. E.g., Val. Max. 4.7.5; 6.8.3, 4; Appian Hist. rom. 12.9.60; 1 Sam 31:4–5. For friends assisting in suicide, see also Plut. Caes. 69.8; for servants killing themselves in grief over a master’s death, Xen. Cyr. 7.3.15 (three eunuchs for their mistress). Cf. the assistance of freedmen in Vell. Paterc. 2.70.2; 2.71.2; the assistance of slaves was dangerous to the latter under Roman law (though refusal proves dangerous in the hypothetical case in Quint. Decl. 380 intro.). 2069. Suet. Jul. 89; Otho 12.2; Tac. Hist. 2.49; cf. Vell. Paterc. 2.70.3. The hypothetical tyrant in Quint. Decl. 329 (intro.) kills himself to spare his people. Some non-Romans facing capture burned themselves in their homes (Vell. Paterc. 2.74.4, after the sword; cf. 1 Kgs 16:18).

2499

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 203

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

plague (hypothetically, Quint. Decl. 326 intro.). A soldier who inadvertently killed his own father (who was fighting for the other side) killed himself (Val. Max. 5.5.4); another committed suicide in grief when his father died in his stead (Suet. Aug. 13.2). Some found praiseworthy a wife who killed herself rather than survive her husband (Pliny Ep. 3.16.6, 10–12) and who condemned wives who felt less “loyal” (3.16.9).2070 Many committed suicide because of grief over a loved one2071—mourning the death or apparent death of a spouse or romantic love,2072 of a child,2073 of a sibling,2074 or of a parent.2075 Some suicides were motivated by mourning over a lover’s rejection,2076 and suicide appears at least as a fictional threat if one is kept from marrying one’s true love.2077 It even appears as a form of patriotism, mourning the fall of one’s city.2078 Suicide was considered an appropriate remedy for disgrace.2079 Sometimes the shame was over personal sexual misbehavior2080 (e.g., incest);2081 sometimes it was over being violated (a victim of incest or other forms of rape).2082 Sometimes the shame arose from being beaten in a contest—for example, when Odysseus defeated Aias in 2070. Pliny the Younger praised as heroic another wife who helped her suffering husband to commit suicide and killed herself first (Ep. 6.24.4–5; cf. 6.24.1–2); see earlier Vell. Paterc. 2.26.3; 2.88.3. Such expectations were never, however, standard (as sati [also spelled suttee] once was in some premodern communities in India; cf. Diod. Sic. 17.91.3 and comment below). 2071. Over several bereavements cumulatively, Dio Chrys. Or. 64.4. 2072. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1175–77, 1221–43, esp. 1234–36; Xen. Cyr. 7.3.14; Ap. Rhod. 1.1063–65; Apollod. Bib. 1.8.3; 1.9.27; 3.7.1; 3.12.6; Epit. 3.30; Virg. Aen. 12.600–603; Ovid Metam. 4.119–20, 147–66; 11.783–84; Val. Max. 4.6.2–3, 5; 4.6.ext. 1; Pliny E. N.H. 6.24.2–5; Appian Hist. rom. 6.2.12; Tac. Ann. 16.34 (but prevented); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.16; Ach. Tat. 3.16.2–3; 7.6.1; Heliod. Eth. 1.2; Apul. Metam. 8.14; Musaeus Hero 339–43; Parth. L.R. 10.4; Iambl. (nov.) Bab. St. 15 (Photius Bibl. 94.77a); Calligone frg. (from a second-century c.e. papyrus [Reardon, CAGN 826–27]); Philost. Hrk. 51.6; Libanius Narration 10.1. (For Romans, Dido was a notable example; Virg. Aen. 4.663–65; Ovid Metam. 14.80–81; Her. 7.181–82, 190; Fasti 3.545–46; Sil. It. 2.422.) This included homoerotic love (Petron. Sat. 80; Max. Tyre 20.9) and, in one story, even necrophilia (Parth. L.R. 31.2). Cf. Deianeira, who thought herself responsible for Heracles’s death (Soph. Wom. Tr. 721–22, 891, 923–35; Apollod. Bib. 2.7.7). With rare exceptions, this motif dominates in fiction more than in historical sources. 2073. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1282–83, 1315–16; Eurip. Phoen. 1455–57; Ovid Metam. 6.271–72; Lucian Tyr. prol.; Apul. Metam. 9.38; Niobe for her children in Libanius Speech in Character 8.11; 9.8; see esp. the story of Theseus’s father Aegeus (Apollod. Epit. 1.10; Catull. Carm. 64.241–45; Paus. 1.22.5); cf. Quint. Decl. 289 intro. (a daughter not returned); 330.13 (a mother mourning a son disowned because of her). 2074. Gr. Anth. 7.517. 2075. Apollod. Bib. 3.14.7. 2076. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 3.13.3; Parth. L.R. 11.3; Quint. Decl. 247 intro. (if this is not fear of execution); Lucian Dial. D. 441 (22/27, Diogenes, Antisthenes, and Crates 7); Downward Journey 6; cf. Ovid Her. 2.141–42; an unfulfilled intent in Sen. Y. Phaed. 854–55; for a statue, Lucian Affairs 16. It appears for a parent’s rejection in Sen. E. Controv. 10.3.intro.; Val. Max. 5.8.3. Mixed with shame, it applies in hypothetical declamations to a son’s adultery with one’s wife, leading to the latter’s death (Quint. Decl. 335 intro.; 335.8); or a husband’s incest with his daughter, leading to the mother’s suicide (Hermog. Inv. 4.13.209). 2077. Alciph. Fish. 11 (Glaucippê to Charopê), 3.1, ¶4 (the unpersuaded mother replies that the daughter must do as her father says or otherwise he will feed her to the sharks, 12 [Glaucippê to Charopê], 3.2); Quint. Decl. 344 intro. Using suicide threats to try to manipulate appears elsewhere (even with regard to deities, e.g., Firth, Ritual, 327), though others have carried out such threats. 2078. Demosth. Philip. 3.62. 2079. E.g., Polyb. 33.5.2; Diod. Sic. 12.19.2; Virg. Aen. 10.681–82; Quint. Decl. 299 intro. (impending conviction; 299.1 suggests that it concedes guilt); Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 7 (feeling insulted when his works were burned); Quint. Curt. 9.7.25; Tac. Ann. 6.9; 14.37; 15.71; 16.3; Suet. Galba 3.4; Plut. Alex. 70.4 (contemplated); Diog. Laert. 2.13; Corn. Nep. 20 (Timoleon), 1.6 (contemplated); cf. Medea in Ap. Rhod. 3.789–90 (faced with betraying her people). 2080. E.g., Apollod. Epit. 1.19; Quint. Decl. 276 intro. (rape); cf. Apul. Metam. 8.15. 2081. E.g., Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 3; Suet. Tib. 45 (after resisting rape); Parth. L.R. 31.1; cf. Ovid Metam. 10.378–81. See esp. the story of Iocaste, who unwittingly married her son (Soph. Oed. tyr. 1237–66; Apollod. Bib. 3.5.9; Androtion Atthis frg. 62; though cf. Eurip. Phoen. 1455–57). 2082. Rape by a father (Apoll. K. Tyre 2) or by others (Val. Max. 6.1.1–2; 6.1.ext. 3; Quint. Decl. 270 intro.; cf. Sil. It. 13.827) or alleged attempted seduction by a mother (Tac. Ann. 6.49); see esp. the story of Lucretia

2500

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 204

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the contest for Achilles’s arms, and Aias killed sheep thinking them his people2083—and it could also follow disgrace in battle.2084 The shame could be for other misbehavior; for example, a son was ashamed of his betrayal of Rome when banished by his father (Val. Max. 5.8.3), and a woman reportedly hanged herself over her daughter’s alleged behavior (Eurip. Hel. 136, 200–202). Many killed themselves to escape death at the hands of their enemies in battle or in the face of impending slaughter.2085 Some killed their families as well as themselves, thinking this death better than the sort they would face from their enemies.2086 This principle also applied to escaping a tyrant’s tortures2087 or killing oneself rather than being executed.2088 Thus, for example, Hannibal took poison to prevent his capture and execution.2089 (Sometimes people were even forced to commit “suicide.”)2090 Even Jews might consider suicide (or death at the hands of a merciful friend) more honorable than letting themselves be killed by another ( Jos. Life 137) or letting their bodies be sexually abused (4 Macc 17:1). Some mocked the idea of killing oneself to evade dying (Mart. Epig. 2.80), but soldiers who knew the kinds of slow and agonizing deaths often experienced in battle or by inefficient executions may have preferred to die less painfully.

2. Views of Suicide Suicide was deemed honorable and even courageous under appropriate circumstances.2091 Cato’s suicide was widely praised as a model of courage.2092 Many considered death preferable to the shame of a Roman soldier’s being captured alive ( Jos. War 6.362); thus one of Caesar’s soldiers “nobly” chose suicide rather than an enemy’s offer of mercy (Diod. Sic. 10.19.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.66.2–4.67.1; Ovid Fasti 2.830–36; Val. Max. 6.1.1; Livy 1.58.12; Sil. It. 13.821–24). Cf. the prosecution’s implication that the host sexually harassed the boy in Quint. Decl. 292 intro. 2083. Soph. Ajax 864–65, 898–99, 907–8; Ovid Metam. 13.388–92; Libanius Speech in Character 5 (esp. 5.5). 2084. Tac. Germ. 6 (on the Germans). Or faulty conviction in court (the hypothetical claim in Quint. Decl. 388.2). 2085. E.g., Thucyd. 3.81.3; Polyb. 2.31.2; Quint. Curt. 4.4.12; 5.6.7; Sil. It. 13.273–75; Tac. Ann. 3.46; 4.50; 14.37 (cf. 4.25, suicidally charging the enemy); Otho in Tac. Hist. 2.49; Suet. Otho 11.2; Plut. Otho 17.3; to avoid slaughter by thieves, Apul. Metam. 6.26; avoiding likely imminent death in battle or execution in Vell. Paterc. 2.6.7; 2.7.2; 2.24.1; 2.27.5; 2.38.5–6; 2.45.5; 2.63.2; 2.69.2; 2.70.2, 4–5; 2.71.2; 2.87.1; 2.119.3; 2.120.6. Cf. also to avoid captivity (Appian Hist. rom. 4.10.80; Strabo 3.4.17); some may have sought suicide to avoid battle (Quint. Decl. 377 intro.; 377.8; cf. Varus in Vell. Paterc. 2.119.3, with “more courage to die than to fight”); another killed one who wronged him, and then himself (Quint. Decl. 312 intro.). 2086. Diod. Sic. 16.45.4–5; 25.17.1; Livy 41.11.4–6; Quint. Curt. 5.6.7; Jos. Ant. 13.363; cf. the attempted slaying of a wife for this purpose, Tac. Ann. 12.51. For an individual who slew his family and himself, see Livy 26.15.13–15; see also the example of Masada, below. 2087. Diod. Sic. 20.71.4; cf. other torture in Tac. Ann. 4.45; prison in 11.2; 13.1. 2088. Tac. Ann. 2.31; 3.15, 42; 4.19, 28, 30; 6.29, 48; 11.3; 13.30; 15.35, 59; 16.11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 35; Dio Cass. 17.15.4; 18.4.6; 57.18.10; Hor. Odes 1.37.21–32 (Cleopatra’s noble suicide); I. Ital. 13.1.187, 189 (Sherk, Empire, 54, §28F, on Sejanus’s wife); Plut. Sulla 32.1; Appian Bell. civ. 1.8.74; 1.10.94; Apul. Metam. 1.16; Hdn. 7.9.4. Some suspected suicide to evade noncapital, but shameful, prosecution in Pliny Ep. 3.9.5. 2089. Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 12.5; Dio Cass. 19 frg. (in Zonaras 9.21); cf. Boudicea in Tac. Ann. 14.37. 2090. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.100.4; Tac. Ann. 12.22; 13.25; cf. 4.22. One might, however, prefer to go down fighting (16.9). 2091. E.g., Demosth. Philip. 3.62; Hor. Ep. 1.16.78–79; Vell. Paterc. 2.26.3; 2.27.5; 2.88.3; 2.87.1; Jos. War 6.187; Ag. Ap. 1.236 (among Egyptians, according to Manetho); Plut. Br. Wom., Mor. 253DE; Themist. 31.5; Paus. 9.17.1–2; 9.25.1; Diog. Laert. 4.64; cf. Xen. Hiero 8.12–13; Libanius Comparison 2.13; 3.16. It is not condemned in novels (Michalopoulos, “Attempts”). 2092. Cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 1.2.10–12; Plut. Caes. 54.1; Appian Bell. civ. 2.14.98–99; Mommsen, History, 474–75; in Lucan, see Gorman, “Aristeia.”

2501

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 205

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Plut. Caes. 16.4).2093 Suicide was also counted an honorable way to die after suffering a military defeat (Dio Cass. 48.44.1 [Augustus’s father-in-law]; 51.15.3). Failure to kill oneself honorably rather than be forced to die by another’s hand was often regarded as cowardice.2094 In some stories, people considered or committed suicide because they feared terrible punishment from their masters (Lucian Lucius 24, 39). Under most circumstances, however, suicide was dishonorable.2095 Aristotle noted that the state punished suicides with dishonor as acts against the state (N.E. 5.11.3, 1138a). When people began committing suicide to protest a tyrant’s overworking them, he crucified their bodies, deterring further suicides out of fear of dishonor (Pliny E. N.H. 36.24.107–8); a wise ruler might also forbid burying suicides (Dio Chrys. Or. 64.3).2096 Suicides’ clothes and nooses were deposited in the location where people were executed (Plut. Themist. 22.2). In another setting, suicides could not be burned on funeral pyres like classical heroes but had to be buried instead (Philost. Hrk. 35.15). At least some burial clubs excluded all suicides, regardless of the grounds.2097 Probably patterned on the problems with burial were Lucian’s satirical questions about whether suicides could enter the underworld. Empedocles was burned black from his suicide in Aetna’s crater2098 and (in one of Lucian’s works) was denied entrance to the realm of the dead (True Story 2.21). The judge debated whether Telamonian Ajax could be admitted, but finally allowed it, since there was evidence of insanity (2.7).2099 Peregrinus tried to imitate Empedocles but did it so publicly that it was clear that he simply craved reputation (Lucian Peregr. 1); even the Brahmans, Lucian contended, acted from craving for glory (Peregr. 25).2100 The mode of suicide also mattered. Thus “death by jumping from a height (including drowning) or by hanging was despised and regarded as fit only for women, slaves, or the lower classes, apparently because it was disfiguring.”2101 (For hanging, see comment 2093. Similarly, a Spartan in an earlier era killed himself, ashamed to return home as the only Spartan survivor of a battle (Hdt. 1.82). Cf. also examples in Robbins, Quotes, 409–12. 2094. Tac. Ann. 11.37–38; Suet. Nero 49.2. So apparently also Quint. Curt. 5.12.11, although most modern readers would agree with the character’s (Darius’s) perspective: better to die by another’s misdeed than one’s own. 2095. In Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and some modern European languages, suicide is always described with composites of “kill” and “self ” (Daube, “Linguistics of Suicide”). Some ancients debated and defended one’s right to kill oneself (Sen. E. Controv. 8.4); one suffering might view as sadistic divine deception the optimism that prevents suicide (Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe). Cicero likely slanders a man as having murdered his wife and hanged her to look like a suicide so that he could remarry (Scaur. 6.10–11). For a proposed distinction between legitimate and illegitimate grounds, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 337.4–5. 2096. At least declamatory law forbade burial for suicides without state approval (Quint. Decl. 335 intro.; 335.1–2; 337 intro.; 337.3–5), but this cannot have always been followed (cf. Quint. Decl. 299 intro.). Josephus attributes this position also to the law (War 3.377), and he notes that other nations require the amputation of suicides’ hands, since they committed such a disgraceful act (3.378). 2097. Wilken, “Collegia,” 280 (a second-century c.e. burial club dedicated to Diana). A parricide who committed suicide to escape the agonizing death due parricides would have his property confiscated (Robinson, Criminal Law, 47). Suicides also receive dishonorable burials in some traditional societies (see Mbiti, Religions, 201, 208; though cf. magical means of euthanasia, 196), and some believe that their spirits wander perpetually (Filson, “Analysis,” 42). 2098. Lucian Dial. D. 416 (6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 4); True Story 2.21. Gr. Anth. 7.123 claims that Empedocles fell accidentally. 2099. The evidence was that he had been treated with hellebore, a treatment for insanity (as in Lucian Phil. Sale 23). On Ajax’s insanity and suicide, see also, e.g., Soph. Ajax; Libanius Speech in Character 5–6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.22; cf. Hom. Od. 11.553–56, 559–60. 2100. Lucian also mentions Brahmans’ self-burning in Peregr. 39; Runaways 6–7 (called gymnosophists, 7). He notes Brahmans more nobly, as living a simple life, in Tox. 34. 2101. Griffin, “Suicide.” On various modes of suicide, see also Hooff, “Image” (surveying 106 images from ancient art); on death by hanging, see comment on Acts 1:18. A number of Flavian-period epics portray (though not approvingly) women’s suicide (Dietrich, “Suicide”).

2502

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 206

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

on Acts 1:18.) By contrast, death by weapons could be viewed as “heroic,”2102 as in many of the examples above; perhaps directly inflicting one’s mortal wound appeared to demand more courage than jumping from an elevation. Besides the examples of Empedocles and Peregrinus above, death by burning,2103 probably borrowed from the reported practice of Indian sages, seems to have been used by some philosophers.2104 In general, suicide was tragic and undesirable behavior. Suicides are common in ancient tragedies (as opposed to thwarted suicides in comedies).2105 Most accounts of suicide are sad (cf., e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.53.186), and many are meant to stir the pathos of tragedy. Some people also acted virtuously in dissuading others from suicide, as Paul does here.2106 Failures at suicide appear especially in satire and novels (e.g., Petron. Sat. 94);2107 those prevented, by others, from suicide often lived to see a better day.2108

3. Philosophers’ Views of Suicide2109 Cato allegedly read Plato’s treatise on the soul before attempting suicide (Appian Bell. civ. 2.14.98–99);2110 some ancients alleged that another who read Plato’s essay killed himself (Callim. Epig. 25), but this may not be true (Cic. Scaur. 3.4). Like some other philosophers, Plato, in fact, opposed suicide (e.g., Plato Phaedo 62C).2111 Scholars diverge on approaches to Socrates’s “suicide,”2112 though many view it as 2102. Griffin, “Suicide.” Sometimes also poison (see Corn. Nep. 23 [Hannibal], 12.5; Dio Cass. 19 frg.; Tac. Ann. 14.37; Libanius Comparison 3.16). 2103. Cf. also the client who threw himself on his patron’s funeral pyre (Pliny E. N.H. 7.36.122); Roman allies who burned themselves alive rather than betray Rome (Val. Max. 6.6.ext. 1); one who did this because he lamented Rome’s civil war (Lucan C.W. 2.158–59); one who did this to avoid dishonor (Strabo 3.4.17); Heracles, who burned himself on a pyre (Dio Chrys. 8.34); cf. Dido’s death on her pyre (Sil. It. 2.422; though the burning is usually depicted as afterward, Ovid Her. 7.190, 192; Fasti 3.545–46). Better to cast oneself into a furnace than to shame one’s fellow (b. Ber. 43b). Augustine Ep. 173, to Donatus, notes that 1 Cor 13:3 (reading “burned”) does not invite suicide; if this is the correct reading, it refers to martyrdom (cf. Dan 3:95 lxx; Dan 3:19–20; 2 Macc 7:5; 4 Macc 6:26–27; 7:12; 10:14; Jos. War 2.7). 2104. E.g., Cic. Div. 1.23.47; Tusc. 2.17.40; Plut. Alex. 69.3–4; Arrian Alex. 7.3.1–6 (revealing the strength of human will, 7.3.6). Indians refused to show pain when burned (Dio Chrys. Or. 68.2), and widows were burned on their husbands’ pyres (Diod. Sic. 17.91.3), supposedly voluntarily (Cic. Tusc. 5.27.78; Val. Max. 2.6.14). 2105. See comment below. Occasionally they succeed in novels, e.g., the aged women in Lucian Lucius 24 (used to underline the robbers’ cruelty). 2106. E.g., Hom. Il. 18.33–34; Diod. Sic. 4.52.5; Epict. Diatr. 2.15.4–12; Char. Chaer. 5.10.10; 6.2.8–9; cf. Test. Jos. 7:5 (while also refusing to allow the suicide threat to manipulate him); also a deity in a dream in Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.97. 2107. Cf. other novelistic versions of suicide in Michalopoulos, “Attempts” (esp. on Apuleius). 2108. For genuine or fictitious thwarted suicides, see, e.g., Eurip. Andr. 811–13; Sen. E. Controv. 5.1; 8.1 excerpts, intro.; Val. Max. 7.3.ext. 5; Plut. Caes. 34.3–4; Char. Chaer. 3.17.1. For friends deterring suicides, see Libanius Anecdote 1.11; Encomium 3.19. 2109. For a survey, see Cooper, “Philosophers” (noting that Plato opposes suicide in Phaedo but approves it for some reasons in Laws; Aristotle claims that suicide wrongs the state; Stoics accepted suicide, but not for just any reason). 2110. Zadorojnyi, “Cato’s Suicide,” suggests that the version in Plutarch (Cat. Min. 66–70) shows Cato’s inadequate understanding of Plato. In any case, Plato’s views on the afterlife appear to have been influential. 2111. Also Olympiodorus on Plato Phaedo 61C; Cic. Resp. 6.15.15; Scaur. 4.5; Plot. Enn. 1.9. For Plato’s viewing suicide as sometimes immoral, see Novak, Suicide and Morality. Some argue that Socrates viewed suicide as always wrong (Taran, “Plato”). 2112. Some approaches speculate on motives other than those given by Plato (e.g., Anderson, “Socrates”); some have even argued that Socrates committed suicide so that his disciples might learn to criticize their own ideas (Peterman, “Suicide”; critiqued in West, “Plato”) or that Plato’s arguments for Socrates’s suicide are ironic and Plato, in fact, did not regard Socrates’s suicide as heroic (Eckstein, Deathday). Such approaches contradicting the textual evidence are usually neither verifiable nor falsifiable (once the textual evidence has been removed from consideration) and are always speculative.

2503

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 207

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

suicide.2113 Whether it should be considered suicide depends on the definition of “suicide”;2114 refusing to flee a death sentence for various reasons (even if at the execution the victim must drink hemlock himself) is not the same as completely involuntary martyrdom, but neither is it morally the same as suicide to forestall such a sentence.2115 Likewise, all these forms of death differ from, for example, suicide out of despair or depression (which, in contrast to death from other, more painful sources, would not have been viewed as courageous). Most ancient sources, however, permitted suicide under “appropriate” circumstances, even counting it as virtuous or courageous.2116 Philosophers advocated readiness to die; Epictetus recounts the bravery of those who stretched out their neck when being beheaded; one whose head was not completely severed stretched it out again (Diatr. 1.1.18–20).2117 Some regarded as weak those unwilling to release themselves from life.2118 Stoics were known especially for their willingness to part with life.2119 Although Seneca the Younger felt that ending life because of pain was cowardly, he held the same opinion of living on in pain without good reason (Ep. Lucil. 58.36).2120 Nature could demand Seneca’s life, or he could give it back by his own choice (Dial. 7.20.5).2121 Seneca,2122 Epictetus,2123 Marcus Aurelius,2124 and other Stoic philosophers2125 opined that God had provided everyone, in suicide, a way of escape if life became too difficult and one need simply take it.2126 Stoics produced a limited list of acceptable reasons for selecting death as a wiser course.2127 2113. Frey, “Suicide?”; making a case especially from Xenophon, Walton, “Suicide.” Aristotle’s alleged suicide is probably unreliable, being attested late (Chroust, “Myth,” also arguing that it was modeled after Socrates’s suicide; but the motivation in the two “suicides” differs). 2114. See Duff, “Socratic Suicide?” 2115. I speak in terms of the usual perspective in antiquity, not modern knowledge of clinical depression as itself a very painful experience. 2116. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.19.1; Diog. Laert. 2.13; 4.64; Hadrian in Dig. 28.3.6.7. 2117. Epictetus’s point is that philosophers should be ready to have their necks severed (Diatr. 1.1.24–25). When someone about to be killed was too afraid to expose his neck to the assailant, this inappropriate timidity would lead to a more agonizing death ( Jos. Ant. 19.271). 2118. E.g., the attitude of some toward Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.18–19. 2119. For surveys of Stoic views on suicide, see Klauck, Context, 363–65; Kerferd, “Reason” (with other views as well); Ramelli, Hierocles, 106; Sorabji, Emotions, 214–15. Some argue that Stoics accepted suicide only to prevent losing character (Wyllie, “Views,” also examining modern views); Griffin, “Philosophy,” suggests that whereas Romans had once accepted suicide only for extreme circumstances, Stoicism “glamorized” it. (Gorman, “Aristeia,” finds Stoic influence even in Lucan on this point.) Kant later rejected Stoic justifications for suicide (Seidler, “Kant”). 2120. Cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 29 (Lutz, 133): “One who by living is of use to many has not the right to choose to die unless by dying he may be of use to more.” 2121. Various scholars argue that Seneca did not advocate suicide but expected the sage to be ready to die (so Nietmann, “Seneca”); he allowed suicide to escape disgrace (Noyes, “Seneca”); he agreed with Stoic “orthodoxy” on many points but differed on suicide (Rist, “Seneca and Orthodoxy”); and he made use of Hercules’s decision to live (Rose, “Seneca”). Seneca recommended being prepared for suicide under some circumstances (Sorabji, Emotion, 214, and the primary sources cited there). Nero forced Seneca’s suicide (Tac. Ann. 15.60–64, esp. 63–64). 2122. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 70.4, 6, 14–16, 20–21; 77 passim, esp. 77.15. 2123. Epict. Diatr. 1.2.1–3; 1.9.10–17, 20; 1.25.21; 2.1.19; 3.8.6; 3.13.14; cf. 1.1.26–27. Some argue that Epictetus approves of suicide to escape pain, just as a child quits a game when no longer pleased with it (Xenakis, “Suicide Therapy”). 2124. Marc. Aur. 3.1; 8.47. Cf. Dio Cass. 71.30.2, concerning Marcus Aurelius himself. 2125. See esp. Cic. Fin. 3.18.60 (though others argued that Nature invites love of one’s body, 5.13.37; 5.17.46–47). For Musonius Rufus, see Grant, Paul, 53 (citing Tac. Ann. 15.71); Mus. Ruf. frg. 28; more nuanced, cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 29 (quoted above); 43, p. 138.12–15. Stoicism’s founder, Zeno, reportedly committed suicide (Sorabji, Emotion, 214, citing Diog. Laert. 7.28). 2126. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.27 even depicted this as a gift to mortals (one denied to immortals). 2127. The list included encroaching “senility, incurable disease,” and the like (Sorabji, Emotion, 172–73, quotation from 172).

2504

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 208

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Nor was the view that suicide could be a wise escape limited to Stoics, though they remained its primary advocates. Eclectic Platonists repeated the idea (Max. Tyre 7.5). Some philosophers, believing they had lived long enough, ended their lives.2128 As noted above, Empedocles the Pythagorean was known for hurling himself into the volcano of Mount Aetna, earning the sustained ridicule of Lucian.2129 The teaching of Hegesias, one of the Cyrenaic philosophers in earlier Athens, allegedly led to some of his hearers’ suicides.2130 At least sometimes philosophers treated suicide as negative. In response to Hermodorus’s banishment from Ephesus, the philosopher Heraclitus ordered the Ephesians to hang themselves (Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 72.17–18)! Even Stoics would restrain people from needless suicides (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 2.15.4–12); they also contended that it was a form of escape appropriate only to the wise, not to others.2131 Other thinkers also claimed that the soul’s release from the body must be left to God alone, not taken into one’s own hands (Cic. Resp. 6.15.15).

4. Jewish Views of Suicide For the most part, the Jewish range of views covered the same array of positions as Greek views, although probably more often opposing suicide on religious grounds. One Razis, preferring suicide to falling into the hands of sinners, stabbed himself but, not quite finishing the job that way, tore out his bowels (2 Macc 14:37–46), asking God for a new body at the resurrection (14:46).2132 Josephus presents other deaths according to such Hellenistic heroic conventions. Thus Phasael died heroically, killing himself before he could be killed (War 1.271–72). Rather than be executed, many Gadarenes killed themselves (Ant. 15.358; War 4.79–80); to avoid being burned alive, many Jews fell on their swords (War 2.49); others also killed themselves to avoid capture or slaughter by the enemy, suicide being thought nobler (2.475–76; 3.331).2133 Josephus2134 reports the suicides as brave but does not favor them himself; he argues that survival in captivity (though not death at enemy hands) is better than suicide, but claims that he was unable to persuade his soldiers (3.355–91). Josephus’s bodyguard exhorted him to die honorably by his own hand rather than by his enemies’ hands (Life 137); he refused. Josephus amplified the report of suicide at Masada,2135 adding the Greek philosophic underpinning to make these revolutionaries more sympathetic figures to his audience2136 2128. Diog. Laert. 7.4.167; 7.5.176; Lucian Oct. 19 (on Zeno). So also some Cynics (Cercidas frg. 1; another by self-starvation in Lucian Dem. 65; also Peregrinus in Peregr. 1–2; Runaways 1; Book-Coll. 14); Cynics and Stoics shared many ideas. Cf. the Hyperboreans in the views reported in Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.89. 2129. Lucian Fisherman 2; Runaways 2; esp. Dial. D. 416 (6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 4); True Story 2.21. 2130. Sorabji, Emotion, 236, citing Cic. Tusc. 1.83. 2131. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.30–34; pp. 92–93.1–3. 2132. For suicide under religious duress as an expression of heroism in 1–2 Maccabees, see Tomes, “Heroism.” 2133. Some scholars relate the mass “suicide” at the temple to a Jewish expectation for priests to die when the temple falls (Goodblatt, “Suicide in Sanctuary”). 2134. Weitzman, “Josephus,” helpfully compares Josephus with contemporary Roman suicide narratives (in Silius Italicus, Statius, and Valerius Flaccus). Josephus elsewhere portrays Jewish courage in ways that Romans would respect (see Barclay, “Toughest”). 2135. Like earlier historians, he exaggerated the collective-suicide account (Cohen, “Masada,” 404). Archaeology confirms most of what Josephus could have known from the Romans, though he invented other details (Cohen, “Masada”). Cf. Newell, “Suicide Accounts” (who argues that Josephus follows literary convention; most of his narratives of individual suicides depend on his sources [286, 290]). 2136. Josephus personally opposed the revolutionaries but presented it to Judaism’s credit that its worst representatives, from his perspective, still displayed nobility.

2505

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 209

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

and to display his intellectual literary skill.2137 Rhetoricians and historians regularly provided speeches for and against; Josephus argues against suicide in War 3.362–82 (esp. 375–82) but allows Eleazar to advocate it (as a contrasted speech, what some have called an antilogos, to his own speech) in 7.341–88.2138 Eleazar’s death was heroic but accomplished nothing besides gaining a heroic name for him (1.44); in the final analysis, Josephus’s portrayal is not completely favorable.2139 Did Josephus, despite his personal reluctance toward suicide, fabricate numerous suicides in his stories to appeal to a sophisticated Hellenistic audience? This is unlikely; the ideal of dying by one’s own hand rather than another’s was widespread in antiquity (cf. 1 Sam 31:4–5; 2 Sam 17:23, though the writer views both instances negatively). There is no doubting, however, that it would hold special appeal to his Hellenistically trained audience (4 Macc 17:1). In the book of Tobit, falsely maligned Sarah abstained from suicide only to spare her parents grief (Tob 3:10), and Tobit also prayed for death (4:2) but, like Sarah, did not act on such thoughts. Some respected biblical figures wished for death ( Job 3:1–19; Jer 20:14–18; Jonah 4:8), but, again, they did not seek to kill themselves. Later rabbis considered a particular suicide a praiseworthy act of remorse (Eccl. Rab. 7:12, §1; 9:10, §3).2140 Most suicides in rabbinic literature stem from seeking to evade a “fate worse than death.”2141 Traditions, however, often portray such acts negatively.2142 Wisdom of Solomon warns against seeking death (Wis 1:12–16). Later rabbis condemned suicide as selfmurder,2143 the result of the evil inclination.2144 In one source, rabbis reject the right of suicide, though showing benevolence to relatives of the victim.2145 Josephus claimed that God’s law condemned suicide (murder by one’s own hand, αὐτοχειρία) as “impiety” (ἀσέβεια) against the Creator (War 3.369), far from the nature of any animals (3.369–70); God will punish those who cast their immortal souls out of the mortal bodies God has given them (3.371–72). It is not clear how Josephus reconciled this perspective with his hellenized examples of heroism, except perhaps to argue that the latter were under duress that would lead to death, in any case (as in, e.g., 3.331, 425).2146 Christian theology also rejected suicide (e.g., Justin 2 Apol. 4).2147 Some scholars have argued that Paul’s extant letters support suicide in a way that resembles Stoic language;2148 but although Paul often uses Stoic language, he never broaches the issue of suicide unless 2137. Josephus’s ideal audience would have recognized the Hellenistic intellectual character of the speech and credited it to Josephus’s, rather than Eleazar’s, prowess (Luz, “Masada”). 2138. Ladouceur, “Masada: Consideration”; Aune, Environment, 107–8 (providing Polyb. 36.1–5 as an example of speeches for and against; paired speeches more often appear side by side). 2139. See Ladouceur, “Masada: Consideration”; idem, “Josephus and Masada”; for generally negative appraisals, see Hoenig, “Sicarii in Masada”; cf. Trimble, “Masada” (preferring direct suicide to drawing lots to kill each other); more sympathetically, Kolitz, “Masada”; Jacobs, “Sanction for Martyrdom.” 2140. In b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a, a rabbi’s executioner commits suicide to die with him and hence secures eternal life (Bamberger, Proselytism, 244). 2141. Le Cornu, Acts, 42 (citing Der. Er. Rab. 9:3; Sem. 1:4f; b. Ber. 23a; B. Bat. 3b; Taʿan. 29a; Giṭ. 57b). 2142. 1 Sam 31:4 (also recounted in Jos. Ant. 6.371–72); 2 Sam 17:23 ( Jos. Ant. 7.229); Matt 27:5; Pesiq. Rab. 14:1; cf. the shame in Tob 3:10. 2143. Gen. Rab. 34:13; Pesiq. Rab. 24:1. 2144. Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2. 2145. Gesundheit, “Suicide” (on Masekhet Sem. 2:1–6). 2146. Cf. also Jos. Ant. 12.236; 20.80; War 4.493, 598. The suicides for honor, without impending death, in Ant. 19.273 and War 6.187 involved Romans (cf. also the Gentile tradition in Ag. Ap. 1.236, 258). Cf. also the noble suicide of those who faced death and loved freedom in Philo Good Person 114, 119. 2147. So Latourette, First Five Centuries, 261. Those who argue the contrary typically define the category of suicide too broadly by including desire for martyrdom. In the United States, religious “orthodoxy” currently affects suicide risk (Greening and Stoppelbein, “Religiosity”). 2148. E.g., Droge, “Mori lucrum.”

2506

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 210

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

we define that term so broadly as to include accepting martyrdom in the biblical and Maccabean tradition. Early church fathers prohibited suicide except in the case of virgins guarding their chastity; Augustine went beyond such prohibitions, forbidding suicide also for virgins.2149 Augustine rejected all suicide as a sin and saw it as defiling the soul.2150 Both Jews and Gentiles, and especially Romans, placed a positive value on courageous suicide as opposed to allowing oneself to face slaughter or (in this case) execution. Most regarded courageous suicide to guard one’s honor differently from dishonorable suicides. Even if the jailer would not be executed, his failure would entail tremendous shame in his community, also an accepted grounds for suicide in his culture. That Paul intervened and prevented his suicide with a better plan would, however, be valued as even more virtuous. iv. The Message of Salvation (16:28–32) 2151

When Paul intervenes to save the jailer’s life, the jailer wants to know (from those who had proclaimed “a way of salvation,” Acts 16:17) how to be saved, a standard question of repentance in Luke-Acts. Dependence on the Lord Jesus would save both him and, through their faith, his household. (1) Paul’s Intervention (16:28)

Paul’s intervention to prevent his captor’s death here illustrates Jesus’s teaching to forgive and to love one’s enemies (Luke 6:32–37; cf. 11:4; 23:34).2152 Some scholars thoughtfully propose logistical problems in Luke’s account; if Paul is in the inner prison, how can he know about the jailer’s impending suicide or that the prisoners remain?2153 These are, however, the sorts of logistical problems one encounters in accounts, both ancient and modern, where details of a scene are sketchy or taken for granted rather than provided fully. If Philippi’s prison was not large (and it probably was not),2154 and if (as argued above) the other prisoners probably shared the inner cell for the night, other elements of the narrative make sense. How would Paul see the jailer? Because there are torches outside (16:29), those in the darkened inner cell, hearing the commotion outside, could see the jailer even though he could not see them. (This assumes most likely a line of sight through the broken door of the cell.) Paul’s benevolent protection of his jailer here is ironic,2155 as is the jailer’s benevolence to his captives in 16:33–34.2156 2149. Amundsen, “Suicide.” In later history, cf., e.g., the Nubian virgin guarding her chastity by a deadly ruse in Du Bois, World and Africa, 186. 2150. Van der Horst, “Platonist” (noting that Macrobius rejected it instead as a violation of reason but also viewed it as defiling the soul). Perhaps partly because of such traditions, many studies today associate religious commitment with lower rates of suicide (see studies in Koenig, Medicine, 74–76). 2151. At this point, as at many others, my outline on smaller sections follows the needs of arranging my commentary rather than of dividing the thought of the text; textually, Acts 16:28 is more closely related to 16:27, though it is not unrelated to the issue of salvation that follows. 2152. Nonretaliation appears in many ancient sources; see, e.g., Seneca Dial. 3.6.5; 4.32.1; Mus. Ruf. 10, pp. 76.18–78.28; Max. Tyre Or. 12; Diog. Laert. 6.1.3; Sir 28:1–4; 1QS X, 17–18; CD IX, 3–6; Ps.-Phoc. 77; Jos. Asen. 23:9; 29:3; b. Ber. 17a; Šabb. 88b, bar.; Flusser, Judaism, 485, 506. The idea thus could be broadly appealing, especially insofar as Paul is depicted as a sage; most early Christian readers of Luke-Acts would also appreciate this emphasis, which distinctively pervaded early Christianity (see Talbert, Romans, 292–93). In terms of literary connections, however, Luke’s ideal audience will think first of the precedent of Jesus’s teaching in Luke-Acts. 2153. Conzelmann, Acts, 132. 2154. Athens’s had only eight cells (Rapske, Custody, 196–97), and Philippi’s was probably smaller. 2155. Cf. Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo.” Cf. Moses waking the king after his own liberation (Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.24), but that remains a hostile relationship. 2156. If a former friend’s hostility could imply negative things about one’s character (e.g., Isaeus Dicaeog. 40), a former enemy’s friendship could imply the opposite. It was praiseworthy to turn enemies into friends

2507

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 211

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

How would Paul have known that the prisoners remained? Some suggest supernatural insight (though Luke would have probably exploited this claim more explicitly had he intended it), or that he could hear, or that some hazy light remained.2157 If they were all in the inner cell, prisoners surely could have heard speech and movement toward the one entrance even without seeing it.2158 Moreover, although their chains were released from the walls, the prisoners presumably would still have chains attached to their bodies (although 16:26 does not specify this), which would make escape more difficult (and noisy) and detection afterward more likely.2159 Other scholars add that they need not have known that the outer doors were also open, and that escape rather than awaiting trial “would require leaving the city and the region permanently.”2160 The narrative, however, may supply a further clue, albeit brief. The prisoners had been listening to Paul and Silas (16:25),2161 who probably achieved some influence among them. There were other prisoners in Jesus’s case, too (Luke 23:32), and one was converted (23:40–43; though one could argue conversely from the same parallel that if any such conversions occurred here, Luke might have wished to highlight the parallel more explicitly). Knowing that armed guards were outside (Acts 16:29),2162 prisoners in their weakened condition might have been reluctant to flee, and Paul may have encouraged them not to do so. Escape from custody was a criminal act under Roman law;2163 refusing to escape when the opportunity presented itself might gain the attention and favor of officials.2164 If the prisoners connected the earthquake with these preachers’ worship, as they might well be inclined to do, they would probably follow Paul’s advice.2165 The earthquake’s liberation of the prisoners from their bonds (16:26) raises a first-time hearer’s expectation of miraculous escape, following 5:19; 12:7–10, and a widely known story line in pagan tradition (see comment on Acts 16:26). That this expectation is thwarted underlines the point: in contrast to charges against Christians (e.g., 17:7; 24:5),2166 Paul is so law-abiding and respectful toward the Roman colony’s authority that he does not try to escape even when he has the opportunity; divine intervention on his behalf (which implies his innocence; see comment on Acts 28:1–10) does not undermine public security. (Likewise, Paul assumes leadership in the storm of 27:31–35, and none of the prisoners who swim to shore in 27:42–44 escapes custody.) He remains respectful to Roman authorities in Acts 24–26 (cf. (Mus. Ruf. frg. 39, p. 136.10–16; Suet. Jul. 73; Iambl. V.P. 8.40; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.23; Diog. Laert. 8.1.23; cf. Diod. Sic. 21.21.9; 27.16.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.30.2; Ps.-Phoc. 142; Rom 12:20–21). 2157. Marshall, Acts, 272. The presence of much light is unlikely; see comment on Acts 16:29. 2158. Rapske, Custody, 203. 2159. D. Williams, Acts, 289. 2160. Schnabel, Acts, 690. This latter concern, however, would apply only to those short-term prisoners who had hope of legal vindication; probably most such prisoners would be in the inner prison only if all prisoners were locked there for the night. 2161. The verb ἐπηκροῶντο is a nt hapax legomenon (cf. the cognate in 1 Sam 15:22 lxx, a strong usage), but even the general verb “hear” (ἀκούω) is often employed in the Gospel for heeding Jesus (e.g., Luke 5:15; 6:47; 8:18; 11:31; 15:1), though these hearers had no options to go elsewhere. 2162. Nocturnal flight could also expose one to watchdogs (Alciph. Paras. 11 [Horologius to Lachanothaumasus], 3.47, ¶1). For a desperate flight, however, midnight might be the best time because of most enemies’ sleeping (Polyb. 1.19.12). 2163. Schiemann, “Effractor.” Someone thought to have broken out of prison would at least be liable for not finishing the sentence (Pliny Ep. 10.58.2). 2164. Lucian Tox. 33. 2165. Witherington, Acts, 498n123, suggests that perhaps the earthquake was too recent, but of course, this would be the best time for escape if any time was feasible. 2166. For one example of responses to societal suspicions (on which cf. Keener, Paul, 140–45), see apologetic lifestyles in 1 Tim 3:7; 5:14–15; 6:1; Titus 2:5, 10; Padgett, “Rationale.”

2508

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 212

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

18:12–14); he does answer a corrupt high priest (23:3), but even here he may somehow step back from his harsh words (23:5). (2) How Can I Be Saved? (16:29–30)

The jailer’s actions are dramatic.2167 His fear is extreme; the same term for trembling with fear appears for Moses’s fear at Sinai (Acts 7:32; also Heb 12:21).2168 The lights (Acts 16:29) would be lanterns or torches, and it would be pointless for the jailer to enter without one, even if he trusts the prisoners not to assault him.2169 Prisons were known for their oppressive darkness, especially in the securest inner cells.2170 That the jailer calls for lights (16:29) indicates the same presence of subordinates that is probably suggested by his being roused in 16:27. A jailer might retire for the night and leave his servants in charge of the jail (Lucian Tox. 30). The term κύριος in the vocative can mean no more than “Sir,” but by crediting Paul and Silas with the earthquake, the jailer may employ the term in a divine or semidivine sense.2171 By addressing them as “Sirs” (κύριοι, Acts 16:30), the jailer places himself in relation to them in a manner analogous to the slave girl’s relationship to her “masters” (16:16, 19, the only other use of the term in the plural in Acts). In any case, the missionaries deflect the praise (as in 14:14–15) to Jesus: they are not “lords,” but the jailer should believe in the “Lord” Jesus (16:31).2172 Whereas the jailer sees them as “lords” able to “save,” Paul and Silas announce the true Lord “who alone can save.”2173 The jailer’s question about how to be saved reflects a common Lukan construction (though put differently in different passages; Luke 3:10, 12, 14; 10:25; 18:18; Acts 2:37; 22:10), though available to Luke in pre-Lukan tradition at least in Luke 18:18 (Mark 10:17).2174 The varied answers to the question in Luke-Acts suggest different aspects of repentance and faith: abandon possessions (Luke 3:11; 18:22–24; cf. Acts 2:44–45), abandon prejudice (Luke 10:27–37), abandon exploitation (3:13–14), and depend on Jesus (Acts 16:31). Some scholars question how the jailer would infer that the earthquake happened on Paul’s behalf rather than for, say, one of the other captives.2175 Although an answer readily suggests itself, it may be helpful to observe initially that any historical narrative can be deconstructed because narratives are always incomplete; Luke’s compression of data regularly raises this problem for his narrative. An incomplete narrative that does not answer all questions does not necessarily imply, however, that the narrative 2167. Johnson, Acts, 300, compares his actions with the extravagant emotions displayed in Hellenistic novels (Longus 2.30; Ach. Tat. 1.4; 2.23; 5.19; Heliod. Eth. 2.1.2; 2.2.2). They would also be appropriate, however, in view of Hellenistic expectations for responses to divine visitations (Acts 14:11–13) or those of divine men. 2168. Elsewhere, e.g., Pss 18:7 (17:8 lxx); 77:18 (76:19); 1 Macc 13:2; Wis 17:9; BDAG compares Soranus p. 68.7–8; cf. τρέμουσα in Luke 8:47. 2169. Torches (see, e.g., the discussion in Keener, Matthew, 596) would provide more light than lamps. For preserved lamps in Greece (in and near Corinth), see Broneer, Lamps Corinth; idem, Lamps Isthmia; Williams, Lamps; sixty-two Roman-period lamps from Corinth’s Demeter sanctuary in Slane, Sanctuary, 7–36 (first-century glazed lamps, 26–27). 2170. Rapske, Custody, 199–202; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 132. Most prisons lacked sufficient natural light, especially in inner and underground cells; they were not permitted “artificial light” (Rapske, “Prison,” 828, citing Tert. Mart. 2; Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia 27–28, in Euseb. H.E. 5.1.27–28; Pass. Perp. 3.5). Light was not always easy to come by in inner rooms even in most wealthy homes (Carcopino, Life, 35–36, noting Pliny Ep. 9.36.1). 2171. Luke employs the term in the vocative more than forty times, sometimes in the divine sense but often more ambiguously for the speakers in the narrative world. 2172. So also Allen, Death of Herod, 112. 2173. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 103. For theoxeny, see Pervo, Acts, 412; Jipp, Visitation, 244. 2174. Even from a purely stylistic perspective, Luke likes questions phrased in this way (Luke 12:17; 16:3; 20:13; Acts 4:16). 2175. Conzelmann, Acts, 132.

2509

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 213

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

is implausible. Luke does in fact provide enough information for us to reconstruct a plausible and even probable answer to the question. Paul and Silas, unlike the other prisoners, were new (16:23). Further, when they were imprisoned, those who handed them over to the jailer likely reported something about the charge, or perhaps he had heard something about them. Urban prisons normally kept logs of prisoners and their alleged offenses,2176 and so the jailer would understand Paul and Silas in religious terms; before, he understood them as charlatans, but now as divine messengers. By whatever means, the narrative implies a connection between the jailer’s question and the mantic slave’s proclamation and hence further implies some knowledge of that proclamation on the part of the jailer. That the mantic had proclaimed them as showing the “way of salvation” (16:17) suggested that Paul and Silas, now legitimated by a divine sign, really could tell the jailer how to be “saved” (16:30–31). Now their God had “saved” or “delivered” them;2177 they had “saved” his life in the short term, and he wished to be “saved” permanently, perhaps from the wrath of their God demonstrated in the earthquake.2178 On the literary level, that a pagan can be “saved” in this way may echo Peter’s recent words in 15:11.2179 (3) Salvation through Faith (16:31–32)

Whereas the jailer looks to them for salvation (see comment on Acts 16:30), they redirect his attention to the true Lord who can save him. (“Lord” is one of Paul’s favorite titles in his letters.)2180 Ancients would view as virtuous a teacher who continued to articulate the same message in prison, awaiting even death, as beforehand;2181 early Christian literature subsequent to Acts provides many examples of witness and preaching while in prison,2182 and we have evidence that the historical Paul continued to preach Christ while in prison (Phil 1:13; 4:22). Paul and Silas expect that the family will convert with the head of the household, which was usually the case (cf. Acts 10:2),2183 although other members of the household were sometimes converted first (1 Cor 7:12–16; 1 Pet 3:1). The text is hardly an unconditional guarantee for the conversion of family members (cf. Luke 12:51–53; 14:26; 18:29); rather, in context it implies the expectation (again based on the normal cultural pattern) that other members will be saved because they also will believe (Acts 16:31). Thus the missionaries proceed to speak to the members of the household (16:32), who also believe and receive baptism (16:33–34).2184 Respectable patrons of families were to rule their families, and grave embarrassment followed if they failed to do so. The behavior of family members reflected on fathers politically.2185 The paterfamilias in a Roman household had exorbitant legal 2176. Rapske, Custody, 263. 2177. Just as divine healings could exemplify “salvation” in Luke-Acts (see comment on Acts 4:9). 2178. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 498. That he feared this God’s wrath for abusing the God’s servants (Rapske, Custody, 264) is possible, though the fear of judgment is probably more general than that. 2179. Matson, Conversion Narratives, 165. 2180. See, e.g., Hengel, Son, 7. 2181. See, e.g., Socrates and Akiba in Rapske, Custody, 347. 2182. Ibid., 348–52. 2183. Dominant-culture moralists expected wives to share their husbands’ religion (Plut. Bride 19, Mor. 140D). On the father’s religious role in the Roman home, see Lyall, Slaves, 120. 2184. I doubt the significance of Luke’s shift from οἶκος to οἰκία in these verses (despite the argument of Vos, “Change,” who sees οἰκία as the wider familia including slaves, but οἶκος as the narrower nuclear unit promised salvation before hearing). Luke associates faith with hearing (Luke 8:12–13; Acts 4:4; 15:7; 18:8; cf. Rom 10:17); see also the discussion of these nouns at Acts 10:2. 2185. E.g., Val. Max. 2.7.5; Gaius Inst. 3.221; the wife’s behavior in P.Eleph. 1.6–7; P.Tebt. 104.30; Xen. Symp. 2.9–10; Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.16–19; Pliny Ep. 6.31.4–6; Mart. Epig. 2.56; the child’s behavior in Eurip.

2510

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 214

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

power,2186 but this was mitigated in practice.2187 Still, people evaluated fathers by their children’s religious decisions.2188 In some Jewish traditions, God would spare a child on behalf of his father.2189 But Jewish traditions also normally supposed that the righteous affected his family morally. The righteous person prays for his household, and the Lord hears (Pss. Sol. 6:5); generally, the wicked also allow their families to be wicked (Wis 3:12). We do not know the ages of children (or whether this household, which could also include servants,2190 included minor children still living at home)2191 and so cannot apply this text directly to the question of infant baptism.2192 In any case, welcoming households became the nuclei for churches and the bases for their propagation (Luke 10:5–7; Acts 16:15; 18:8).2193 In Luke’s audience, Romans, for whom families’ household cults were traditional, would be families following the paterfamilias, although Roman non-Christians would not be pleased with Romans abandoning their gods (for possible Roman citizens, Acts 10:2, 24; 18:8; cf. 16:15).2194 On household cults, see comment on Acts 12:12.2195 Constructions parallel to the jailer’s question elsewhere in Luke-Acts invite us to consider some of what faith in Jesus entails in the broader context of this work. Salvation through faith in Jesus as Lord (16:32) is compatible with repentance and baptism (2:38) and radical relinquishing of property (Luke 3:11; 18:22) but not with the demand that circumcision is necessary (Acts 15:1, 5, 7; cf. 13:39). Although Luke does not report it, as it is not germane to his point, the jailer likely would have instructed the servants to secure the other prisoners again,2196 presumably with chains or, at the least, by barricading the single entrance, before escorting Paul and Silas to his quarters. The jailer’s action of taking the missionaries to his home is risky; the other guards (cf. 16:29) will have some idea of what he has done.2197 The Hel. 136, 200–202; Xen. Apol. 31; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13; Plut. Themist. 2.6; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 10.1; Diog. Laert. 2.114; Parth. L.R. 35.1, 3–4; Sir 3:10; 22:5; 42:9–11; 4Q213 2 3–7; 4Q541 24 5; cf. Treggiari, “Symbol”; Diod. Sic. 12.12.1; Plut. Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 3.1; Alex. 9.6; Bride 17, Mor. 140C; Sipra Emor par. 14.242.1.11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 7 A; 14, §35 B; praises for those who well governed their families, Marc. Aur. 1.9; 1.16.4. 2186. Gaius Inst. 1.55, 127–28; more generally, cf. Arist. N.E. 8.11.2, 1161a; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.19; Jos. Ant. 4.260; Keener, “Family,” 357. 2187. See, e.g., Chen, Father, 25–28. Adult children also were less restricted than minors (cf. Arist. Pol. 1.5.12, 1260b; Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.211; Cohen, Law, 174). 2188. Verner, Household, 134. To depart from ancestral customs would shame the ancestors (4 Macc 9:2). 2189. E.g., Gen. Rab. 65:10 (Isaac for Abraham); cf. Exod 32:13; Deut 9:27; 2 Chr 6:16–17. For ancestral merit, see Keener, John, 754–55; cf. 948. In Sent. Sext. 373–75, God saves whom he will, but it is good to pray for persons’ salvation. 2190. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 73, expects servants here; their expense may, however, have minimized their number (see Verner, Household, 61). This is much less likely if the jailer was a servant (see comment on Acts 16:23); but prominent slaves could themselves hold slaves (Plut. M. Cato 21.7; y. Yebam. 7:1, §2; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 119; Meeks, Urban Christians, 20). 2191. If, as some scholars opine, the jailer was a veteran, he might have a family from a former concubine now legally his wife (O’Rourke, “Law,” 182), but as noted in the comment on Acts 16:23, he was probably not a veteran. That women would count it shameful for men to enter the home and see them at night (at least in classical Athenian rhetoric, Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; 3.23, §98) need not rule out the presence of a wife, provided she had warning to prepare herself. 2192. Cf. Ramsay, Discovery, 162; also noting its precariousness, see Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 22 (from Witherington). 2193. See further Meeks, Urban Christians, 75–76; Jeffers, World, 81. 2194. Pearson, “Domestic Religion,” 301, relates such household conversions to notions of domestic religion. 2195. On household cults, see also Klauck, Context, 60–62. 2196. See Rapske, Custody, 264. The Western text makes such a natural inference explicit. 2197. As noted above, they may be his servants; servants were often loyal to the slaveholders in legal cases but could be tortured for information (e.g., Tac. Ann. 3.67; 4.29; Suet. Galba 10.5; see fuller comment

2511

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 215

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

same man who was ready for suicide in 16:27 because he thought his prisoners had escaped now is “ready to risk” “his career and professional prestige”; this is a radical conversion.2198 In short, the man has been “saved” (16:30–31) and has thereby joined the ranks of the oppressed in this world, as Paul did earlier (cf. 9:16). In Luke’s theology, discipleship does demand sharing with the gospel’s messengers what they need (Luke 10:7–8), together with willingness to die for Christ (9:23–26). But given the circumstances (Acts 16:26–28), the other guards, too, will respect Paul, and a cumulative case might be made with the authorities that could possibly minimize the jailer’s punishment (apart from the jailer losing his position). (Indeed, the officials, for whatever reason, are ready to release the missionaries in the morning [16:35].) v. Receiving God’s Agents (16:33–34)

After the household members hear the message (16:32), they receive baptism (16:33) and show the missionaries risky hospitality (16:34). Such hospitality is a sign of receiving the missionaries and their message (Luke 9:4–5; 10:8, 10–11). (1) Mutual Washing (16:33)

Washing the wounds was important for healing,2199 and the phrase here probably implies some relief.2200 Before the blood of the missionaries’ wounds dried, it would have been caked with filth. Prisons were known for their “squalor and appalling filth.”2201 Infection could easily set in. Most prisoners were unable to bathe or have access to good hygiene, especially those imprisoned for long periods.2202 Sometimes prisoners even became unrecognizable through filth and uncut, unkempt hair.2203 Ironically, as the jailer washed their wounds, so, in Luke’s very same sentence, he himself now receives the washing of baptism.2204 As John Chrysostom puts it, the jailer “washed and was washed.”2205 Where they washed (presumably the same location for both actions) is an insoluble question, but the archaeology of Philippi at least shows that there were options.2206 Tenement buildings in urban areas such as Rome lacked good water access,2207 but public fountains were available there,2208 and we do not in the excursus on slavery at Acts 12:13 [Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42]). If he is a public slave, they might be his subordinate fellow slaves. 2198. González, Acts, 194 (offering a modern example, 194–95). 2199. Even the wounds of corpses were washed (Ovid Metam. 13.531–32). Luke does not have as much reason to mention binding wounds, and flogging-wounds on one’s back or chest might not invite binding as easily as wounds outside the torso, but perhaps the jailer also bound up some wounds as well (cf. Luke 10:34; Sir 27:21). Such bandages could be makeshift from various materials and could be called in Latin fasciae (Hurschmann, “Fasciae”) (which might have seemed an ironic contrast to the fasces that administered the blows, at least if the Latin-speaking jailer was fond of puns!). 2200. With Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 199. Contrast Luke 16:21. 2201. Rapske, “Prison,” 829 (citing Cic. Verr. 2.5.21; Tert. Mart. 2; Cyprian Ep. 47.3). One should assume the presence of rodents as well. 2202. Rapske, Custody, 216–17. Only a special order from Antonia and the praetorian prefect arranged for the ability of Agrippa I to bathe daily while in prison ( Jos. Ant. 18.202); even then, he found better access to hygiene on his release (18.237). 2203. Rapske, Custody, 218. 2204. Also noted, e.g., by Witherington, Acts, 498. 2205. Chrys. Hom. Acts 36 (Larkin, Acts, 242); the same point appears in Bede Comm. Acts 16.33 (Martin, Acts, 209; L. Martin, 138). 2206. I am assuming here the usual earliest Christian practice of immersion borrowed from early Judaism (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:977–82). It should be noted, however, that at least as early as Did. 7.3 pouring was substituted for immersion if immersion was not possible. The Didache reflects a later stage of liturgical development regarding baptism than in Luke-Acts (cf. the detailed instructions in Did. 7.1–4), but for that very reason might suggest some flexibility among early Christians where necessity dictated. 2207. See Carcopino, Life, 38–39. Residents were supposed to keep some water in case of fire (39). 2208. See comment at Acts 18:8.

2512

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 216

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

know anything about the jail’s surroundings except that it was likely a public area. The jailer would not hike out to the Gangites or Strymon rivers (with his household!) in the middle of the night with his prisoners; some scholars thus suggest a well, pool, or fountain in the courtyard.2209 If the prison was near the north side of the forum (although, as noted, the traditional site there appears unlikely), two public fountains lay in the north of the forum,2210 but these might be too conspicuous (if they would be recognizable at night; though the jailer, at least, might not have trouble with night watchmen if he were alone).2211 The Roman baths were farther south2212 and, regardless of the prison’s location, even more conspicuous. Another bath complex lay east of the forum, adjoining the Via Egnatia on the south. This ran the same risk of publicity, but a cathedral stands next to it, built about 400 c.e. over the site of an earlier chapel, perhaps suggesting its proximity to the jail.2213 Whether the water came from a public fountain or from within the jailer’s courtyard, there is no doubt that water would be available for them somewhere.2214 If it was not available within the courtyard, the jailer’s act was all the more courageous, though the narrative does not suggest that he was seen and betrayed to his superiors (Acts 16:35–36). In any case, baptism was a sufficient priority to take temporal priority over the hospitality obligation of assuaging hunger (16:34). (2) Risky Hospitality (16:34)

Probably the jailer’s quarters were in or near the precincts of the jail, and perhaps a fresh water source was also (see comment on Acts 16:33).2215 His quarters may even have adjoined the jail, though, as a public servant, his quarters would probably not have been of low status. But even if we postulate such proximity, the jailer takes serious risks (especially with guards and/or servants, and perhaps any other temporary prisoners, as witnesses; cf. the implication in 16:29). Washing the prisoners’ wounds (16:33) would not be punishable (it might not please the authorities but would be within his sphere of discretion), but removing the prisoners from the premises would be (especially after an order to keep them securely, 16:23).2216 Laxity in restraints was counted as negligence or complicity with the prisoner, especially if the latter escaped.2217 The jailer is trusting the missionaries with his life—but they have already saved his life, and so the trust seems well placed. Rapske compares the Jewish story of a jailer who risked danger, disguising himself as a Gentile to help Jews.2218 That the jailer sets food before Paul and Silas is remarkable. Doubtless they have not eaten, or eaten anything of substance, since entering the jail sometime before nightfall 2209. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 498; Bruce, Commentary, 338; Dunn, Acts, 223. 2210. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 104. 2211. On night watchmen in Rome, see Polyb. 14.3.6; but the involvement of the cohortes urbanae in fighting crime is debated (Nippel, “Vigiles,” 463), and in any case those patrolling Rome were too few to be of much help to poor persons in need ( Jeffers, World, 61). Philippi was one of the few cities in the empire whose police force is sometimes supposed to have been fairly effective (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34), but the police might be thought to be distracted if the earthquake had effects wider than the jail. 2212. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 103 (map). 2213. Ibid., 107. Could there have been an early tradition of Paul’s jail nearby? But this can only be speculation at this remove. 2214. Pliny E. N.H. 2.84.197 thought that well water became muddier directly before an earthquake, but even if the jailer believed this, it would provide no deterrent. 2215. Rapske, Custody, 126. 2216. Lighter custody might allow “visits to the public baths” along with new clothing and other benefits (Rapske, “Prison,” 829, citing Jos. Ant. 18.203, 228; Tert. Fasting 12; Dig. 48.20.2, 6), but the custody here was not light (Acts 16:23; contrast 24:23). By contrast, “barbers’ knives were a risk and so haircuts were denied” (Rapske, “Prison,” 829, citing Mart. Epig. 3.74; Jos. Ant. 16.387–88; 18.237; Lucian Tox. 30; m. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:1). 2217. Rapske, Custody, 390–91, with much documentation. 2218. Ibid., 390. Kindness to family members who were not under sentence might be a different matter (as in the culture portrayed in Hunt, History and Legacy, 133).

2513

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 217

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(some hours before, 16:25; cf. 4:3); prisoners normally depended on outside help to supplement their diet (see comment on Acts 24:23).2219 Prison rations normally went only to the needy and only once a day, but a normal jailer would never offer his own food, in his own home, or in the middle of the night.2220 But as he called the divine agents “lords” in 16:30, now he takes the posture of servant, setting the food (presumably the sense of τράπεζαν here) before them (cf. 6:2; Luke 17:8). Similarly, the Egyptian noble Pentephres “sets a table” before the great vizier Joseph because he eats apart from Egyptians (Jos. Asen. 7:1).2221 Further, dining with a prisoner, as here, would be punishable even by death. Thus, when one centurion guarding Agrippa learned that the emperor who imprisoned him had died, the centurion banqueted with Agrippa. But when he thought the rumor false, he believed that his life might be forfeit ( Jos. Ant. 18.230–33).2222 Even if the authorities plan to release the prisoners the next day, the only information we know that the jailer has been given is the command to guard these prisoners securely (Acts 16:23–24); if they are a high security risk, they might appear to be dangerous. He would at the very least lose his job if discovered. This behavior reveals a dramatic and ironic reversal: before his conversion, he was prepared to kill himself over the prisoners’ supposed escape; now he takes serious risks to serve two of them.2223 His behavior confirms his submission to Jesus as “Lord” (16:31). A jailer’s kindness could be viewed as meritorious,2224 and some texts also used it as a sign of divine favor on the prisoner (Gen 39:21–22; 40:4; Test. Jos. 2:3). That the jailer “rejoiced” fits a Lukan motif2225 for a response to God’s works (Luke 1:14, 44, 47, 58; 2:10; 6:23; 10:17, 21; 13:17; 24:41, 52; Acts 5:41; 12:14; 13:48, 52; 15:31), including conversion, both for those receiving it (Luke 8:13; Acts 8:39; cf. Acts 8:8; Luke 10:20) and for those learning of it (Luke 15:5–10, 32; Acts 11:23; 15:3).2226 That Paul and Silas embrace this hospitality, apparently without reservations, is hardly surprising given the circumstances in the story world, but it reinforces Luke’s larger portrait of eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:3; see comment there).2227 Indeed, in this instance, the food is far less likely to be fully kosher than that offered by Cornelius, this jailer lacking the knowledge and time to prepare such a meal.2228 The missionar2219. Given their location in the “inner” prison, the jailer probably would not have even allowed friends to bring food (Rapske, Custody, 213). For “inner prisons” elsewhere preventing visitors, see, e.g., Hunt, History and Legacy, 125. 2220. Rapske, Custody, 213. 2221. That his wife, daughter, or servant, in fact, did the work is possible: in that culture, functional subordinates’ service could still be expressed as if the host provided it directly (cf. Luke 11:6); the expression was “archaistic” (C. Williams, Acts, 195) and had long been conventional. But it is also possible that he humbled himself directly (cf. “lords” in Acts 16:30). Because the jailer supervised other workers (16:29) and had a household and food at hand (16:34), he may have been of sufficient means that we can imagine plates being used; both square and round shapes existed, and they could be made of metal, wood, clay, or other substances (Hurschmann, “Plate”). 2222. Rapske, Custody, 392. 2223. Ibid. 2224. Cf. b. Taʿan. 22a (in Abrahams, Studies [1], 61). 2225. Also noticed by others, e.g., Borgman, Way, 385. 2226. Given the most recent temporal indicator in the narrative (Acts 16:25), one might even think of sharing bread with a friend at midnight (Luke 11:5–6), but there is probably little connection here except that both situations involve a matter more urgent than sleep. 2227. Others also note the Lukan theme of shared food here (e.g., Borgman, Way, 383). Shared food represents fellowship and acceptance. 2228. Paul historically had no scruples about eating with Gentiles (Gal 2:12–15), though he would have wanted to avoid his diet’s causing needless offense (Rom 14:13–21; 1 Cor 8:13; 9:20–22). Le Cornu, Acts, 917, suggests that Paul and Silas would have eaten whatever part of the meal was kosher; this may be true, but even this assumes a somewhat liberal interpretation of kosher (since the unclean food should have “contaminated” it).

2514

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 218

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

ies follow Jesus’s instructions to eat what is set before them (Luke 10:8), especially significant in light of Luke’s emphasis on table fellowship.2229 But we should not underestimate the offense some may have taken to such accounts. Jewish prisoners were in a situation of uncleanness (m. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3:1–2). Some captured priests subsisted on figs and nuts rather than accept unclean food ( Jos. Life 13–14), and R. Akiba was going to forgo eating if jail food was improperly prepared (b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 3; ʿErub. 21b).2230 e. Paul and Silas Vindicated (16:35–40) Naturally, Paul does not seem to have recalled his Philippian suffering fondly (1 Thess 2:2); Luke’s perspective, however, concludes the narrative with a comic upturn that ironically inverts the suffering. Although the authorities employed force to put Paul and Silas in the prison, they must now use entreaty to get them out. Although the missionaries were publicly beaten and imprisoned for their “non-Roman” practices (Acts 16:21), they turn out to be Romans themselves (16:37). A narrative that begins with their humiliation now leads to the humiliation of the local officials instead. Although Paul himself probably saw little humor in the situation (the officials even in Luke’s account seek to maintain face, and Paul must leave town quickly), there is good reason to accept Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s Roman citizenship as historically valid. i. Attempted Release (16:35–36)

The ῥαβδοῦχοι sent by the magistrates are, literally, “rod-carriers” and hence are lictors, who carried their rods (ῥάβδοι; Latin virgae) in bundles (fasces).2231 Lictors were attendants of public officials in Rome and its colonies (see comment on Acts 16:22). We cannot be sure whether Luke intends us to think that the duumvirs order the missionaries’ release because Paul and Silas have received sufficient warning to keep them from coming to Philippi in the future or because of the earthquake; it is also possible that the jailer offered a favorable report about their behavior during the earthquake. Luke does not report whether the earthquake had any wider effects than in the jail. (Earthquakes in Greece rarely rank above 6.5 and never above 7.0 on the Richter scale, and because of the character of the faults, “the range of damage wrought by an earthquake of such a magnitude is limited to a few tens of kilometers from the epicenter.”2232 A smaller earthquake might affect a more restricted area.) Tremors were common in Philippi, as Luke’s audience would likely know, but it remains possible that some inhabitants would have seen the earthquake as divine retribution from the evangelists’ God, prompting hastier removal of the problem from Philippi.2233 Although naturalistic understandings of earthquakes were common enough among intellectuals (as noted above at Acts 16:26), many ancients viewed earthquakes as portents, and this belief sometimes led even to changes in public policy 2229. Especially since the jailer is the host and Luke does not even provide the language of “breaking bread,” the meal is not a “Eucharist” (rightly Conzelmann, Acts, 133; Barrett, Acts, 799); but all Luke’s fellowship meals are of a piece (e.g., Acts 2:42), including with “sinners” (Luke 5:29–30; Acts 27:35) and Gentiles (Acts 11:3). See comment on Acts 27:35. “Table” here might evoke a literal table, but is surely also a metonymy for food; for background for the literal image, see Hurschmann, “Table”; Baratte, “Table Utensils.” For Paul’s adaptability in Philippi more generally, see Sourbut, “Paul in Philippi.” 2230. Rapske, Custody, 215. Although extant Jewish sources say less about them, some Diaspora Jews must have accepted nonkosher food if they related much to Gentiles (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 435, emphasizing reciprocity conventions). 2231. Abbott, Acts, 180–81; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200; Bruce, History, 18; Tajra, Trial, 11–12. In the earliest period, the rods were originally made of elm or birch, strapped together (Libero, “Fasces,” 359). 2232. Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13. 2233. Cf. Knox, Jerusalem, 245; Weaver, Epiphany, 275.

2515

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 219

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38). Fearing religious persons with whose abuse a subsequent earthquake is associated appears also in more recently documented history.2234 If, however, the quake’s damage was minor outside the jail (it may not have even awakened the jailer, though this is unclear; Acts 16:27), it is possible that the earlymorning order to release the pair comes before the magistrates are aware of the earthquake damage, since Philippi would be accustomed to minor tremors. Magistrates, like other people of rank, normally attended to business early in the mornings.2235 Perhaps the jailer sent word on behalf of the prisoners, but such behavior for one in his role would have been dangerous (perhaps inviting even investigation into his behavior that night), and given Paul’s response in 16:37, Paul would likely have deterred any such inclination on the jailer’s part. Some scholars think that Lydia and her allies may have lodged a protest;2236 they could have acted swiftly through private intermediaries of rank to speak to the magistrates. But Lydia’s conceivable economic status would not change her social status as an outsider, and garnering advocates might well take longer than a day. Magistrates might be afraid to offend a local Jewish community that could appeal to Rome or to the provincial governor about its mistreatment,2237 but Philippi apparently lacked a functioning Jewish community (having only a small number of God-fearing and perhaps some Jewish women), and Philippi’s magistrates may well have felt emboldened and protected by recent anti-Jewish activity in Rome (see comment on Acts 16:20; 18:2). The magistrates may have simply felt that the public beating, the night of imprisonment, and perhaps expulsion from the city would serve as sufficient deterrent to these preachers’ further activity in Philippi. Duumvirs had the authority to release prisoners.2238 The jailer now can deliver the good news to the missionaries (16:36). Although the jailer had shown Paul and Silas special favor (16:33) and even brought them into his own home under cover of night (16:34), he could not release them until he had orders from the city officials. Granting them privileges outside jail at night was certainly risky, but releasing them would have been a worse offense than the supposition of negligence for which he had intended suicide in 16:27. Thus one who let a friend out of prison might have to flee into exile with him, abandoning public office (Val. Max. 4.7.3). The early-morning timing of the news probably means that the jailer did not even need to speak on their behalf, which would not have been punishable officially though such an action could have been impolitic.2239 The jailer’s “Go in peace” (Acts 16:36) was traditional Jewish and Christian language and seems surprising for such a new convert. But Luke’s informed audience knows that the gospel message included preaching peace (with God, 10:36) and that apostles would greet receptive households with the blessing of peace (Luke 10:5–6; cf. Matt 10:13), a blessing also appropriate on departure (Luke 7:50; 8:48; Acts 15:33).2240 Ancient readers would not have objected if this was Luke’s language 2234. See Hunt, History and Legacy, 253, noting that such an earthquake appeared particularly fortuitous because it had never before occurred in these villagers’ lives. 2235. See, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.1.9–10; Ep. 2.1.103–5; Plut. Rom. Q. 84, Mor. 284D; Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; governors in Cic. Verr. 2.4.66.147; Plut. Cic. 36.3; senators for meetings, Cic. Fam. 1.2.4; Plut. Cic. 15.3; 19.1. See further Keener, John, 1098. 2236. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 156. 2237. Ibid. 2238. Tajra, Trial, 26. 2239. It was dangerous to defend at trial one charged by a malicious dictator (Plut. Cic. 3.3–4). 2240. Rapske, Custody, 354. The phrase might secondarily respond to the charge of stirring unrest (Acts 16:20–21; cf. this implied contrast in 24:2, 5).

2516

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 220

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

rather than the jailer’s, but for Luke’s audience, the language functions in its Lukan context, in either case. ii. Criminal Abuse of Roman Citizens (16:37)

To beat and imprison Roman citizens without trial (Acts 16:37) was itself a criminal offense. The officials, who accepted the charges that these Jewish missionaries undermined Roman customs, now learn that these missionaries are themselves Roman citizens and that the officials themselves might need to answer to Rome for their behavior. Jesus, Peter, and Stephen all addressed local authorities boldly earlier in Luke-Acts; Paul does the same, though in this case appealing to status rather than to divine commission. Paul’s “us” seems to cover Silas, probably implying that he is also a Roman citizen.2241 This implication comports with Paul’s Latin name for Silas in Paul’s epistles, “Silvanus,”2242 a fairly respectable Roman name;2243 this name does not require Roman citizenship, but it is consistent with it. If Paul was to take a Jerusalem Christian with him to replace the Diaspora-born Barnabas, who better than a Roman citizen?2244 By introducing Paul’s citizenship in this trial scene, Luke prepares the way for the major trial narratives of Acts 22–26 (and especially Paul’s appeal to Caesar), where Paul’s Roman citizenship is foundational to the narrative.2245 Though most of Luke’s audience might infer Paul’s citizenship from his name, Luke is undoubtedly happy to highlight it as part of his larger strategy of showing that Paul posed no true (political) threat to Roman order.2246 Although the matter remains debated, the majority of scholars today seem more inclined to accept or defend Luke’s claim of Paul’s Roman citizenship than to dismiss or contest it.2247 Fitzmyer even claims that it is “almost universally admitted.”2248 (1) Objections to Paul’s Roman Citizenship

Some scholars express skepticism that Paul was genuinely a Roman citizen.2249 He does not mention it in his own letters whereas Luke, who elsewhere attributes to Paul marks of significant status (e.g., 7:58; 9:1–2; 22:3), notes it twice, with greater status the second time (16:37; 22:25–28). Thus some think that Luke creates Paul’s citizenship to appeal to high-status readers such as Theophilus. Further, it is argued that a citizen would have easily evaded the punishments that Paul suffered both here and in his letters (2 Cor 11:24–25).2250 I will respond to several such objections before turning to positive arguments favoring Paul’s Roman citizenship. 2241. Fitzmyer, Acts, 590. 2242. See Cadbury, Acts in History, 70 (an example of another Roman “Silas,” 71); esp. Judge, First Christians, 562. Silvanus was among Philippi’s deities (Concannon, “Archaeology,” 72), but this was not unusual. 2243. Judge, Rank, 36n20. 2244. Bruce, Acts1, 306. Some Jerusalem aristocrats were even Roman equestrians ( Jos. War 2.308). 2245. See Omerzu, “Angeklagter,” 130. 2246. For Luke’s apologetic for Paul, see, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic.” Officials generally allowed some latitude for mere sages, in contrast to political threats, unless they went too far (see discussion in Keener, “Truth”). 2247. For defenses, see esp. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 6–13; Riesner, Early Period, 147–56; Adams, “Citizenship”; Theissen, “Social Conflicts,” 372–74; idem, “Social Setting,” 248–49; cf. also, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–77; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 739–42. Many presentations assume it (e.g., Rowland, “Paul”). 2248. Fitzmyer, Acts, 144 (emphasizing with special weight experts in Roman antiquity such as Mommsen and Sherwin-White). Légasse, “Career,” 368, more modestly claims that “there is now much less hesitation than in the past to admit that Paul was a Roman citizen.” 2249. See esp. and most thoroughly Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger”; Lentz, Luke’s Portrait; Alvarez Cineira, “Ciudadano.” See Seul, Rettung, 356–65, for arguments for (356–58) but at greater length against (358–65) Paul’s citizenship; as Lukan redactional interpretation, 372–74. 2250. Koester, Introduction, 2:98.

2517

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 221

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

First, some argue from Paul’s silence that Luke created the citizenship claim to raise Paul’s social status.2251 In favor of this objection, it should be granted immediately that Luke’s attribution of Roman citizenship to Paul claims significant status for him.2252 Eventually the franchise of citizenship became widespread,2253 but it remained a significant mark of honor in the first-century eastern Mediterranean world because it still remained rare there.2254 Hereditary honors or low status were significant matters in both rhetoric2255 and epideictic biography.2256 Josephus claims that Roman citizenship offered an enviable status to a Judean both in Julius Caesar’s day (first century b.c.e., War 1.194) and in his own (late first century c.e., Life 423). Citizenship would provide a specially rare status in the East outside colonies (e.g., in Jerusalem, Acts 22:26–28) but would be highly respected and valued, though common, in colonies such as Philippi and Corinth. Did Luke, however, invent Paul’s high-status background (also in 22:3) or merely report and use it? To establish a motive (i.e., it is consistent with his interests) is not necessarily to establish his method (fabrication, rather than selection and adaptation of data, runs counter to his and most others’ normal historiographic methodology; see discussion in the introduction).2257 How valuable would Luke’s apologetic be if it proved easily open to challenge?2258 To argue against Luke’s claim from Paul’s silence is not simply an argument from silence2259 but even worse, a dismissal of the information from one generally accurate source by an appeal to the silence in another. Paul’s own writings suggest training and attitudes from a high-status background,2260 especially when we compare his rhetorical and philosophic skill with that of the majority of his Judean compatriots. Although not always, leaders 2251. See esp. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait. Lentz also doubts that Paul, as a Pharisee, would be proud of Roman citizenship, but as is argued here below, it is not clear that he was proud of it, even in the way Luke frames the narratives. Lentz is correct (137) that Acts 22 includes issues of status as well as citizenship, but (pace 136) the correctness of this claim is not clear in Acts 16. 2252. Cf., e.g., Neyrey, “Location of Paul,” 276–78. 2253. By the period of Hadrian in the second century, the distinction between the honestiores, the elite, and the humiliores, the masses, became far more important and superseded the citizenship distinction (with dependents of the elite reinforcing the system; Garsney and Saller, Empire, 115–18). Ael. Arist. Or. 26.59–60 (To Rome) claims, perhaps with epideictic hyperbole, that citizenship is open to all in the empire. 2254. See, e.g., CIL 5.5050 (46 c.e.; Sherk, Empire, 94–96, §52); Meeks, Moral World, 34; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 77. On citizenship, see further Sherwin-White, Society, 144ff. 2255. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 78, 172, 173, 180 (mocking Demosthenes’s Scythian connection); Marshall, Enmity, 63–64. Rhetoricians learned how to turn the same matters to advantage or disadvantage, depending on their need. 2256. E.g., Xen. Ages. 1.2; Plut. Themist. 1.1; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2; Jos. Life 3–6; Burridge, Gospels, 146, 178, 194. 2257. Keener, Acts, 1:51–319, esp. 116–257. Luke portrays Paul’s high status for apologetic reasons, but had Paul lacked it, Luke probably would have needed to explain his summary execution rather than his years in Roman custody (Acts 24:27; 28:30; Phil 1:7). Detention until trial could be lengthy, but given the forces ranged against Paul (cf. Rom 15:31; 1 Cor 16:9) and the use of custody merely as temporary till trial or execution (Rapske, Custody, 12–14), he probably would have faced death more swiftly. 2258. As already noted, citizenship claims could be confirmed or disconfirmed by records; although this consultation might be difficult for much of Luke’s ideal audience, if he ever envisioned his work reaching Cilicia or even nearby Galatia or Syria, he would be taking a serious risk, perhaps even one with potential legal consequences, to fabricate such a claim. When one’s background was not high status, one could appeal to the person’s merit rather than inventing background (cf. Symm. Ep. 1.60, a letter of recommendation). 2259. Which would be bad enough (with Fitzmyer, Acts, 144). 2260. See Hock, “Social Class,” 564 (favoring W. M. Ramsay over A. Deissmann on this point; cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 227); also Grant, Paul, 52 (though he overstates the closeness of Paul and Musonius Rufus); cf. Holmberg, “Methods,” 263, rightly contrasting Paul’s literary sophistication with the estimate that 90 percent of Mediterranean antiquity was illiterate. See comment at Acts 21:39 and esp. 22:3. The suggestion that Paul’s artisan work counters his high status as a citizen (Pervo, Acts, 555) neglects the many Roman artisans, the majority of Jewish Roman citizens who held citizenship because of descent from freed slaves, and possibly

2518

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 222

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

seem to emerge from privileged backgrounds in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in society.2261 Paul in his own writings provides hints of a status (in Judaism, Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4–6) that he elsewhere suppresses because he rejects boasting in it (2 Cor 11:30; 12:5, 9–10; Phil 3:7); his use of rhetoric betrays his education, which would not have come cheaply, but he mentions no education except in the law (Gal 1:14). Granted that Luke is more prepared to boast about Paul than Paul is about himself, does this imply that Luke has fabricated the elements about which he boasts? Regarding other passages where we are tempted to suppose that Luke fabricates elements of boasting, such as miracles or suffering, Paul’s letters suggest that these occurred more often, not less often, than Luke reports (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 4:11–12; 2 Cor 11:23–33; 12:12). The epistolary Paul boasts only under rhetorical duress (2 Cor 11:16; 12:1, 11),2262 and it is never citizenship claims that generate the duress; Luke’s Paul likewise boasts only under duress.2263 That Luke’s Paul mentions his citizenship only under circumstances that could not arise in the epistles comports well with the epistles’ evidence. Arguing from silence on the basis of what Paul’s occasional letters omit is a precarious exercise. Thus, for example, had not Paul had incidental reason to mention his Pharisaism (which was high-status in Judea) in Phil 3:5, we would lack explicit Pauline corroboration of this feature of Luke’s presentation. Skeptics would then question Luke wrongly on the basis of Paul’s silence. Paul attaches no importance to his Roman citizenship either in his epistles or in Acts,2264 but the fact that neither he nor others attached importance to it in the church does not mean that he would not appeal to it when it would be helpful in danger.2265 He mentions nothing about his family in his epistles (except the passing allusion we may infer in Phil 3:5) and chooses to boast of other matters (2 Cor 11:21–12:10).2266 He boasts in weakness (12:5, 9–10) and is self-effacing even regarding his evident rhetorical prowess (1 Cor 2:1–3);2267 in later epistles he (or his pseudepigrapher) even emphasizes his chains and prisoner status, deliberately focusing on marks of low status (Phlm 1, 9–10, 13, 23; Phil 1:7, 13–14, 17; Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Col 4:3, 10, 18; 2 Tim 1:8, 16; 2:9). At the heart of Paul’s theology of dependence on Christ is avoidance of boasting in earthly matters or human competition.2268 But as in Paul’s the demands of economic necessity (at least until a teacher could achieve a supporting clientele, but Paul rejected even that). 2261. See, e.g., Noll and Nystrom, Clouds, 52, 84, 101 (cf. also 69–71, 129, 217). 2262. On the rhetorical convention of self-boasting under duress, see Marshall, Enmity, 353–57; Lyons, Autobiography, 53–59, 68–69; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 81–84; Keener, Corinthians, 221–22. 2263. He follows here the rhetorical convention of “praising oneself inoffensively” (see, e.g., Plut. Praising, e.g., 1, Mor. 539AC; 15, Mor. 544D; Demosthenes Cor. 299–300; Cic. Fam. 5.12.8; Ag. Caec. 11.36–40; Quint. Inst. 11.1.19; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.9). 2264. Tajra, Trial, 88. He rejects the importance of worldly status distinctions (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 1:26–27; 12:13; Haacker, Theology, 121n19). On Luke’s relativized approach to social status, cf. even (and rightly) Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 19–20, 172. 2265. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8. 2266. Ibid., 7; Légasse, “Career,” 369. 2267. But so were many other orators, seeking to lower audience expectations (e.g., Isaeus Astyph. 35; Aristarch. 1; Lysias Or. 2.1, §190; 12.3, §120; 19.1–2, §152; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Sp. G. Cotta 4; Cic. Quinct. 1.1–4; 24.77; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.pref. 2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 12.16; 32.39; 42.1 [whoever the true author]; 46.7; 47.1, 8; Tac. Hist. 4.73), and Paul’s delivery apparently did not match his logical sophistication (2 Cor 10:10). Yet (and this is my point) his rhetoric is hardly that of a common artisan, though it is the artisans with whom Paul identifies (1 Cor 4:12; 9:15–18). 2268. Esp. Rom 2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2; 1 Cor 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7; 2 Cor 10–12 passim; Phil 3:3–9.

2519

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 223

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

letters (2 Cor 10:7–12:13; cf. Phil 3:5–6),2269 so in Acts 16:37, Paul could appeal to status, or “boast,” when “necessary” (cf. 2 Cor 12:1, 11).2270 The Paul portrayed in Acts and presupposed in the epistles must have worked hard to affirm his fidelity to the law in Jerusalem; a Diaspora Jew (Acts 9:11) familiar with Greek argumentation (see his letters, passim),2271 he was zealous for ancestral tradition (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:6) and even calls himself an “outstanding Hebrew” (Phil 3:5). In his epistles, Paul apologizes when he boasts even when he has redefined the content of boasting away from social status, recognizing the normal inappropriateness of self-boasting.2272 He defines his identity as a servant or apostle of Christ (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10), a definition that would be subverted by his appeal to social status. Second, some scholars doubt the plausibility of Paul’s citizenship on the basis of their supposition that the privilege belonged only to the elite. Stegemann doubts that Paul and his father, as Jews, could belong to the municipal elite, for whom (he thinks) citizenship was reserved.2273 He claims, for example, only three Julii from Ephesian inscriptions of the Augustan period and only twenty from all first-century inscriptions.2274 In his thorough dissertation focusing on Ephesian inscriptions and Paul, however, Steven Baugh demonstrates that Stegemann misreads the evidence. The Julii on later inscriptions were most likely descended from Ephesians who were granted the franchise under Julius or Augustus.2275 He points out that of the 1,173 Roman citizens who appear in Ephesian inscriptions, 429 of them bear nomens of patrons other than emperors.2276 Though citizens were a small minority, they were much more common than Stegemann allows; they could achieve their citizenship by manumission, assisting a general, and various other means (see comment on Acts 22:28).2277 Thus inscriptions report even “fishermen” in Ephesus who were citizens.2278 Moreover, nonelite persons could readily become citizens by various means—most relevant here, descent from properly manumitted slaves of citizens, a category that included a number of Roman Jews.2279 Due partly to the difficulty of excavating there, Tarsus has enjoyed far less scholarly attention than Ephesus, but evidence suggests that many Tarsians would have become Roman citizens in the first century b.c.e.2280 2269. In these passages, Paul’s boasting is in his Jewish and/or Christian status because those are the issues in view; only his literary and argumentative style, and perhaps his name (see comment on Acts 13:9), reveals his likely social status. 2270. This was a standard justification for boasting in ancient literature (see Keener, Corinthians, 221–22). 2271. If his ancestry included any women slaves, some might even suspect his ancestral purity, though no one would use this against him rhetorically (given sympathy for the enslavement of fellow Jews) unless other factors warranted. 2272. E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 11b; Keener, Corinthians, 221–22; comment above. 2273. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 226. It was sometimes granted to city officials (e.g., CIL 2.1963, from 82–84 c.e.; Sherk, Empire, 138–40, §97). 2274. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 226. 2275. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 175. 2276. Ibid., 176. 2277. Ibid., 176–77. For discharged military personnel, see, e.g., ILS 1986; CIL 16.1; this would, however, be less relevant for Jews; but for awards for political support or outstanding achievements, see Cadbury, Acts in History, 74–75; cf. Malherbe, “Life,” 9; Vell. Paterc. 2.16.3. By 14 c.e., Res Gestae 2.8 claims nearly five million Roman citizens, of which far less than 20 percent may have resided in Rome. 2278. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 195. 2279. Jews enslaved by Pompey but redeemed by other Jews in Rome in the first century b.c.e. Although the majority remained in Rome, a number of these, by the time of Paul’s birth, could have settled elsewhere in the Diaspora or returned to Jerusalem; see full discussion at Acts 6:9. 2280. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 5. On Tarsian and Roman citizenship, see extended comment at Acts 21:39.

2520

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 224

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Third, Stegemann doubts that Jews such as Paul could be Roman citizens, because most locales would require Roman citizens’ participation in pagan practices.2281 But Baugh points to Ephesian inscriptions that reveal “Jews with Roman names and local citizenship fully participating in the lives of their cities.”2282 Josephus attests numerous Jewish Roman citizens.2283 Inscriptions show Jewish Roman citizens with significant roles in the Diaspora (especially in synagogues); many religious Jews found their Roman honor compatible with their Jewish practice.2284 Many freed Jewish slaves were Roman citizens in Rome itself; we know of an entire community of Jewish Roman citizens across the Tiber (Philo Embassy 155–57).2285 Although faithful Jews were never enrolled in Greek tribes, which entailed religious obligations, the Roman tribes were simply political and legal fictions by this period.2286 In short, Jewish Roman citizens retained the privileges held by all Jews under Roman policy.2287 Pointing out that Jewish Roman citizens in Rome often had closer ties to Judea than the nearer Alexandrians did, Hengel complains that Stegemann’s theory simply neglects the hard evidence of ancient sources: “Clearly he does not know them well enough.”2288 Fourth, some scholars doubt Paul’s Roman citizenship because he never uses his tria nomina in his letters, as inscriptions normally did for Roman citizens.2289 But these inscriptions typically sought to promote the status of their dedicatees whereas Paul, as noted above, eschewed finding honor in even traditional biblical honor categories (Phil 3:7). More striking, Stegemann ignores Greek usage, in which even some Greeks who were Roman citizens listed their names in Greek ways.2290 Paul, who spent his entire life in the East and whose letters reveal fluent Greek even when addressing churches in Roman colonies (Philippi, Corinth; or Rome itself), would certainly follow this Greek method. Paul’s Jewishness also leads us not to expect the tria nomina. Of at least fifty Jewish funerary inscriptions of Jewish Roman citizens, none bears the three names.2291 Further, Paul writes letters, not inscriptions or census lists, a difference of genre important to the discussion at hand. Thus, for example, Pliny in his letters always uses one or two names, and well-known Romans might be called “by only one name in their correspondence and literature.”2292 Paul uses only one name for other Romans 2281. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 220–21, 225. This objection, even if true, would not apply to Paul or other Jewish Roman citizens (noted by Josephus) in Jerusalem; Luke suggests that other Jewish Roman citizens had settled there from the Diaspora (Acts 6:9). The earlier custom of Roman citizenship’s exclusiveness (Cic. Balb. 12.29–30; Corn. Nep. 25 [Atticus], 3.1) was no longer held (see comment on Acts 21:39). 2282. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 169. For the lack of direct link between citizenship and religious practice, see now especially Krauter, Bürgerrecht (brought to my attention by Prof. Andreas Bendlin, Feb. 28, 2012). Citizenship transcended some earlier boundaries, but it did not make ethnicity unimportant (see McCoskey, Race, 70–71). 2283. Jos. Ant. 14.137, 228, 231–32, 234, 235–37, 240; War 1.194; 2.308; noted in Fitzmyer, Acts, 144; Légasse, “Career,” 368; Rapske, Custody, 87–90; some cite also Jos. Ant. 12.121–23, but this might refer to local citizenship. Some Judean Roman citizens were even equestrians (War 2.308). 2284. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 216. 2285. With Riesner, Early Period, 149. 2286. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 209. 2287. Légasse, “Career,” 371. 2288. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 11–12 (noting that Philo claims most Jews in Rome as Roman citizens, Embassy 155, 157). Hengel gives inscriptional evidence (13–14) for Roman citizens whose nationalist loyalties were to their ancestral Judaism. 2289. Stegemann, “Römischer Bürger,” 221–22. 2290. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73; Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 208. 2291. Légasse, “Career,” 371. 2292. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73 (giving Cicero, Julius Caesar, Brutus, and Varro as examples). Cf. Tajra, Trial, 88: “He was not writing a decree, judicial brief or epitaph which would require the use of his full official Roman name.”

2521

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 225

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(e.g., some in Rom 16:3–23, notably including 16:23); the nt writings never use the tria nomina even for governors such as Gallio or Felix (two names at most: Pontius Pilate in Luke 3:1; Acts 4:27; 1 Tim 6:13; Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:7; Porcius Festus in 24:27).2293 Although Paul may not employ the tria nomina, he goes by a Latin name that would imply the likelihood of his citizenship (see further discussion of his name below).2294 Fifth, some doubt Paul’s citizenship because one of his letters claims that he was beaten with rods.2295 This objection is stronger than some of the others. Yet this experience of beating need count against Paul’s citizenship no more than Luke’s claim that he was beaten with rods in Acts; if Luke, who understood the value of Roman citizenship against such abuse (Acts 16:37–38), saw no contradiction, it is possible that Paul would not have seen any either.2296 (See the response to the sixth objection, related to this one, below.) After all, Paul would not have been the only Roman citizen to suffer this discipline or harsher ones in the provinces contrary to Roman law.2297 The governor Florus later crucified Jews who were not only Roman citizens but of equestrian status—that is, of the same technical rank that most procurators held ( Jos. War 2.306–8).2298 Beating with rods would undermine the likelihood of his citizenship only if it were being argued that he was beaten in a particular city after he had proved his citizenship.2299 As noted above, officials used rods for free persons and local citizens, with harsher beatings for slaves and provincials.2300 Propagandistic Roman claims about imperial justice notwithstanding, provincials like Paul knew a different side of public administration. This side of experience is well attested even in the numerous suits brought to Rome regarding maladministration, against even governors (see comment on Acts 24:27). Finally, some scholars aver that Paul would hardly have waited till after the beating to announce his citizenship.2301 The comment on Acts 16:22 addressed this objection at length, and so the response is merely summarized here. Had Paul disclosed his citizenship before the beating, he would have received a fairer hearing but might 2293. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 171–73; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8 (also noting that the tria nomina are absent in 1 Clement and in the list of Rome’s bishops, even prominent Roman ones, “until well into the third century”); cf. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207. 2294. Fitzmyer, Acts, 144. 2295. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 133–34, also noting (133) that he was thrown to the beasts (1 Cor 15:32); but the latter claim cannot be literal, since he lived to tell about it. 2296. So also others, e.g., Scott, Corinthians, 217–18. Although other examples of Roman citizens being beaten with rods exist (see comment below), some Roman historians cite Paul’s case as a conspicuous example (e.g., Toner, Culture, 134–35). 2297. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200; Légasse, “Career,” 370 (citing Livy 10.9.4–5; Plut. Caes. 29.2; Cic. Verr. 5.62–66); Conzelmann, Acts, 133 (citing, e.g., Cic. Fam. 10.32; Euseb. H.E. 5.1.44, 50); cf. Macrob. Sat. 4.4.17 in van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 134, responds that three such exceptions for mob situations would be implausible, but this need not be the case if Paul (like Wesley or others) often found himself in mob situations (as Luke’s apologetic against Paul’s guilt inadvertently attests; see comment on Acts 24:5). Lentz himself (138) points out that “Roman law was not uniformly followed in all places of the empire.” He notes (134–35) that Sherwin-White says that the issue is Paul being beaten “uncondemned” (Acts 16:37; 22:25), hence suggests Paul had sometimes been condemned legally, then beaten. (This would be a matter that Luke would not want to report, and could involve the incidents that Luke does not report in Acts; if these legal beatings occurred before Acts 16, and if this present setting was obviously a mob situation, Paul might have good reason to avoid invoking his citizenship initially. It would prove more useful afterward.) Luke’s focus on Paul’s high status may have led him to omit some of Paul’s sufferings (with Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 169); his status did not always help, but Luke focuses on where it did. 2298. Riesner, Early Period, 150. 2299. With Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 741. 2300. Philo Flacc. 78–80; also Dig. 48.19.10; 68.28.2 (in Blinzler, Trial, 222). 2301. Goodenough, “Perspective of Acts,” 55–56 (on this basis dismissing the historicity of the entire final quarter of Acts); Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 132.

2522

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 226

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

have been subject to prolonged legal quarrels,2302 a demand for evidence of his claim from Tarsus,2303 and a consequent long period of negative focused publicity unhelpful for the church, and in the end he might have lost anyway. Once the officials have beaten him without trial (ἀκατάκριτος, as in Acts 22:25), it is they who have clearly violated Roman law, and, if his citizenship will make any difference at all, Paul will have the upper hand in any negotiations. (Such a strategy was undoubtedly not tried often, because it entailed significant pain and shame and, like the alternative, was not guaranteed to work.) Whether the strategy belongs to Paul or to Luke, those who find this element of the narrative incongruous have missed its brilliance. Within the narrative world, and perhaps in connection with his dialogue with the jailer, Paul may have learned in Philippi a strategy (with the addition of presenting charges against him as purely religious, after Acts 18:12–16) that served him in good stead in his later appeal to Caesar. The strategy certainly proves effective within the narrative world, and it was also plausible within the real Roman world. Angry at a plebeian’s boldness in challenging their unfair decision, some leaders ordered their lictors to strip him and pummel him with their rods (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.39.1). He appealed to Roman law, which required that he be allowed to stand trial (9.39.2). By seeking to beat him untried, ignoring his appeal for the advocacy of the tribunes, they had exceeded their legal mandate (9.39.5). Dionysius expects his readers to feel outrage.2304 Beating a citizen, whether his citizenship was known beforehand or not, could subject the abusers to negative publicity. (2) Arguments Supporting Paul’s Citizenship

First, Paul’s name favors (although it does not prove) his Roman citizenship (cf. comment on Acts 13:9).2305 Although some scholars doubt whether we can know whether “Paulus” is a nomen or cognomen, it is nearly always a cognomen—for example, in Ephesian inscriptions.2306 It is only rarely attested as a praenomen, and then probably as the reuse of a cognomen from earlier family tradition; the cognomen was also the one name in the tria nomina by which a person was most likely to be called.2307 The name was “extremely rare among non-Romans, above all in the Greek East,” and still more so among Jews;2308 why would parents give such a name to a son who was not Roman? It was a standard Roman name, and a respectable one at that; to Roman ears it would probably suggest, though not demonstrate, citizenship.2309 2302. Haenchen, Acts, 504; Dunn, Acts, 222. 2303. Proving his citizenship would be difficult if he either did not bring his certificate or lost it (2 Cor 11:25; Riesner, Early Period, 149–50; Jeffers, World, 202) or if officials refused to accept the certificate’s validity. 2304. In another setting, Dion. Hal. Demosth. 3 quotes someone as protesting that those who tolerate governmental abuse are either foolish or paragons of patience. 2305. Lüdemann, Christianity, 241 (noting that the name is not common in the East); Theissen, “Social Setting,” 249 (an unusual name for a Jew if he were not a Roman citizen); Fitzmyer, Acts, 144, 590; Witherington, Acts, 683. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 49–50, objects that a Roman name does not guarantee Roman citizenship. 2306. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 173–74 (noting I. Eph. 680, 684A, 1017, 1047, 1601A, 2260A, 3053; the exception is 3224). 2307. Riesner, Early Period, 145–46. Luke himself might take it as Paul’s family name rather than his personal name, first mentioning it in connection with Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:9; Rapske, Custody, 85–86; idem, “Citizenship,” 216). 2308. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 8–9. 2309. Rapske, Custody, 86; idem, “Citizenship,” 216; Judge, Rank, 36n20; idem, First Christians, 562; see fuller comment at Acts 13:9. Given Tarsus’s good relations with Pompey, Caesar, Marc Antony, and Augustus, some scholars suggest his full name as Cn. Pompeius Paulus, C. Julius Paulus, or M. Antonius Paulus (Rapske, Custody, 86); these guesses would be less relevant if, as I think, he is descended from freed Roman slaves who may have settled in Cilicia (Acts 6:9).

2523

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 227

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Thus, although Paul does not claim his citizenship in his letters, much of his audience would assume it as likely because of his name unless he made a claim to the contrary. Paul could have gone by a non-Roman name had he so chosen, but only Luke (the same source who reports his citizenship) provides us this non-Roman name, and Luke suggests that Paul shifted to his more useful Roman name in the Diaspora. Further, Paul obtained his Roman name somewhere, and this despite the fact that he was raised in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), where it was hardly merely for decoration.2310 Even Greek names were not dominant in Judea (see comment on Acts 6:5), and Roman names were still less popular there. Like Paul, Luke probably expects his audience to recognize Paul’s citizenship from his name; although it is possible that Luke uses the revelation of Paul’s citizenship in 16:37 to pleasantly surprise Luke’s audience (cf. the possibility of surprising some at 13:9), it appears more likely that he presupposes rather than emphasizes it. If Luke merely wished to underline Paul’s status with the claim, he could have introduced it earlier and more emphatically. Second, only as a citizen would Paul appeal to the emperor and be sent on to Rome (25:10–12). Luke had no reason (especially in a “we” section) to invent Paul’s transport in custody,2311 and it is difficult to explain it without an appeal, the successful granting of which is even more difficult to explain apart from his citizenship.2312 Some scholars doubt that Paul’s appeal to the emperor indicates his citizenship,2313 but this doubt is highly questionable. Denying his citizenship should probably also entail denying his appeal to Caesar, but if Festus did not allow an appeal to Caesar it is difficult to understand why Festus would have sent him to Rome instead of deciding the case himself. 2314 If one responds that Judean politics made a fair hearing impossible in Judea, we may note that, were Paul not a citizen, local politics would have trumped Roman justice long before this point (under Felix if not Festus).2315 Paul’s citizenship is the best explanation for the divergence in immediate outcomes between Jesus’s and Paul’s trials despite Luke’s interest in paralleling them.2316 To deny the fact and success of such an appeal would essentially render the final quarter of Acts fictitious, although it is the most detailed part of Acts and belongs to the most sustained period covered in the “we” narrative. Some might prefer to dismiss the final quarter of Acts anyway, but Luke’s portrayal of events fits our incidental and scattered information in Paul: he hoped to come to Rome (Rom 1:15; 15:24); he expected opposition in Judea first (15:31); when we do find him in Rome, he is there in Roman custody (Phil 1:13).2317 The hypothesis of Paul’s Roman citizenship does resolve some questions that its denial does not. 2310. If we dismiss Luke’s appeal to Paul’s early years in Jerusalem (though Luke is again our only explicit source that Paul was born in the Diaspora, Acts 9:11), we must still postulate that he moved there early enough to explain Paul’s “progress in Judaism” (Gal 1:14), persecution of Judean Christians (1:13, 23), and Pharisaism (Phil 3:5). If we appeal to Paul’s birth in Tarsus, we appeal to the same source (Luke) who reports his Roman citizenship. 2311. Indeed, it would be problematic for Luke to invent such a major portion of Paul’s fate in an era when much remained known about it in the churches (see Omerzu, “Fallstudie,” 248). 2312. E.g., Riesner, Early Period, 155–56; Légasse, “Career,” 371–72; Omerzu, “Fallstudie,” 248; cf. idem, “Angeklagter,” 131–32. Lüdemann, Christianity, 240–41, though skeptical of many points in Acts, thinks Paul a Roman citizen because Romans imprisoned him in Palestine and then transported him to Rome (also noted in Witherington, Acts, 683). A foreigner’s appeal might be possible (cf. Libero, “Provocatio”), but a citizen’s was far more normal and apt to be granted. 2313. Koester, Introduction, 2:99. 2314. Or perhaps further deferring it, if politics demanded. 2315. A noncitizen would have been condemned quickly, and certainly the case would not have dragged on for up to five years (Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 7). Cf. Jesus’s trial before Pilate (see my comments in Keener, Matthew, 662–67; idem, John, 1103–7). 2316. For an enumeration of some of the parallels, see the introduction to Acts 25:1–12. 2317. If, as is likely and the majority of scholars hold, Philippians was written from Rome.

2524

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 228

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Third, Luke’s account is consistent with his claim of Paul’s Roman citizenship even when this is not the point that Luke is emphasizing. If Paul was from the synagogue of the libertini (Acts 6:9), as the narrative almost certainly implies (7:58; cf. Cilicians in 6:9), this background alone could explain Paul’s Roman citizenship.2318 Yet if Luke were merely inventing such citizenship, why would he not have Paul possess it not just as one personally freeborn (22:28) but as a descendant of one granted the franchise for merit, rather than (as one might infer from 6:9) as a freedperson? Such a change would raise Paul’s status still higher and could work well if Luke were ready to indulge in such free fictionalizing to establish Paul’s status. Freedperson status was also more questionable for some Jews; especially if any of one’s female ancestors were slaves,2319 one could be viewed as ethnically mixed. Had Luke invented citizenship to flaunt Paul’s status, we might also expect it to appear at other points in honorable relations with Romans (e.g., 13:7, 12; 18:14) and not only under extreme circumstances. Indeed, if anything, Luke’s narrative portrays a Judean who has never made much use of his privilege and who may only gradually acquire the realization of its concrete benefits, an attitude we might expect from a member of a minority that initially mistrusts the dominant society. It might have even taken the converted jailer to explain to him that appeal to his privilege could prove effective in Philippi. Some scholars have provided some additional supporting arguments that are secondary in character. The epistolary Paul has significant interaction with Romans; although his letters to the Corinthians are in Greek, the names of the church’s members suggest that he did in fact reach many of the colony’s Roman citizens.2320 That Paul was able to reach Roman citizens or those with special Roman sympathies in Greek-speaking areas is evident from the high proportion of Roman names overall in his circle, especially—but by no means exclusively—in Corinth.2321 Moreover, in Paul’s letter to the Romans, he tells the believers in Rome, many of whom are Greekspeaking peregrini,2322 that “you” are subject to tribute rather than saying “we” (Rom 13:7). Some argue that this fits Luke’s suggestion that Paul was a Roman citizen not subject to tribute (φόρος).2323 Paul also targets locations appropriate for encountering Roman citizens.2324 He focuses on a higher proportion of Roman colonies than is their percentage among ancient cities, and he sometimes does so even when (as in the case of Philippi) their 2318. See also Minnen, “Roman Citizen.” Classicists employ such interlocking evidence for analogous cases: e.g., Aesop’s alleged slavery, his non-Greek name, and his foreign origins (perhaps from a region known for fables and for exporting slaves) may support one another (Kanavou, “Names”), though (in contrast to Acts, where our evidence is much more secure) the extant accounts are many centuries after any historical figure behind them. 2319. For the sexual use of slaves, see comment in the excursus at Acts 12:13 (Keener, Acts, 2:1929–33); for Jewish questions about the sexual status of even proselytes from an early age, b. Yebam. 60b. Some Romans had also objected to polluting their stock with those from slave ancestry (Suet. Aug. 40.3). For Roman Jewish avoidance of mentioning slave ancestry, cf. Fuks, “Freedmen.” 2320. Cf. Grant, Paul, 19; McRay, “Corinth,” 230; Judge, “Roman Base.” See Witherington, Acts, 683, who also notes Paul’s cultural versatility (1 Cor 9:19–23); though Roman citizenship was hardly a prerequisite for that skill in the East, it would have facilitated his ministry to Roman citizens. 2321. Judge, Rank, 13, finds the proportion (one-third of the ninety-one persons) ten times higher than his large control group from inscriptions (see also idem, First Christians, 553, 556–57, 563–66). That missionaries most easily reach those of their own social class is not difficult to document (see, e.g., Castleberry, “Impact,” 106–35, esp. 106–29, 134–35). 2322. On peregrini, i.e., provincials who were not Roman citizens, see Buckland, Roman Law, 96–98 (also Sherwin-White, “Peregrini”); of these, normal peregrini were eligible to become citizens. Provincials continued to dominate the Roman church longer than the church in Corinth, however. 2323. Haacker, Theology, 121n19. 2324. Lüdemann, Christianity, 241; Witherington, Acts, 683; Riesner, Early Period, 149.

2525

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 229

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Jewish communities were apparently small; his desire to go to highly romanized, Latin-speaking Spain (Rom 15:24, 28) also suggests his comfort level (by that point, at least) with Roman civilization. Such arguments are not absolutely compelling by themselves: Paul targeted strategic areas for reaching an empire that Rome ruled, and after significant experience in Roman Corinth, he would be more than ready for romanized areas of Roman Spain. But these observations about Paul’s interest in Roman colonies and the West are consistent with the other evidence supporting his Roman citizenship. Paul’s assumption that the Philippian Christians, some of whom were Roman citizens and probably most of whose patrons were, would share the outcome of his trial (Phil 1:7, 30) may also support his citizenship. Paul expected potential conflict with hostile Judeans in Judea (Rom 15:31). Scholars skeptical that Paul was a Roman citizen (or that his citizenship played a part in the trials) have a harder time explaining how Paul ended up in Roman (as opposed to local Judean) custody in Jerusalem (and hence why he did not die there) and very likely how he ended up in custody in Rome.2325 Although Paul hoped to voyage to Rome after he finished in Jerusalem, if all went well (15:22–25),2326 we need not assume that all therefore went well; Luke would probably not invent a lengthy Roman custody in Caesarea if none occurred (this would run against his Tendenz), especially when our record from Rom 15:31 indicates only the expectation of Judean opposition in Judea. Luke’s claim that Paul was sent by the Romans themselves after custody in Judea seems plausible. Further, if Luke invented Paul’s citizenship to fictionalize his high status, why did he not make him of equestrian status or offer him higher rank than citizenship alone conferred? And why did he not reserve Paul’s known troubles with Roman authorities for his famous execution under the tyrant Nero instead of extending his captivity under other Roman administrators such as (the historical governors) Felix and Festus? Why do Paul and Silas need to raise the point of citizenship at all, once they are being released? An important reason is that in the eyes of Philippi’s inhabitants (and perhaps the new Christians among them), their condemnation appears to reflect poorly on their mission and the church they have started; securing at least some degree of vindication will encourage the church and, it is hoped, discourage later aggression against it.2327 That this concern was a valid one, whether or not the attempted solution proved successful, may be surmised from that church’s later sufferings (Phil 1:28–30). Paul’s own mention of the events indicates that he felt keenly the shame of the public humiliation (1 Thess 2:2); only by contesting the affront can the pair regain dignity in the eyes of anyone in Philippi.2328 Public beating and imprisonment incurred shame, a shame that would attach to the mission if not corrected.2329 Prisons and bonds were linked with shame regularly 2325. Phil 4:22 (though some dispute whether this text indicates detention in Rome itself). With Riesner, Early Period, 155–56. 2326. Making more plausible Luke’s suggestion that Paul had something to do with it (Acts 25:10–12). 2327. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 157; Bruce, Commentary, 341; Tannehill, Acts, 205; Dunn, Acts, 223. 2328. Rapske, Custody, 302–4. For other comments on the honor-and-shame dimensions of the situation, see Meeks, Moral World, 37. 2329. Paul’s extant letter to Philippian Christians shows that he was concerned for the church’s welfare in the face of opposition; it also may suggest his concern for the congregation’s continuing witness (on congregational evangelism more specifically, see Keown, Evangelism [for the principle in Acts, cf. idem, “Evangelism”]; though Miller, “Review of Keown,” warns that the limitations of available evidence might allow different interpretations of the data). Luke’s low-key account of the redress probably suggests that enough honor was recouped to satisfy the Christians (providing at least grounds for defending themselves) but not to persuade significant elements of the community.

2526

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 230

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

in ancient literature,2330 and public “pressure to abandon the prisoner” was great even for friends.2331 That the small, new Christian movement would face pressure and need encouragement may be regarded as certain. One humiliated even in a public debate or case might avoid the public sphere (the forum in Suet. Rhet. 6). But just as being led in chains publicly shamed prisoners (Dio Cass. 58.11.1F; Suet. Vitell. 7.17.1), sometimes producing even lifelong dishonor (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.34–37),2332 so publicly leading the apostles out in more honorable fashion might offer a quiet way for the authorities to present the victims more honorably without losing too much face in the process.2333 iii. The Officials’ Reversal (16:38–39)

If the officials have wrongly had the missionaries beaten and imprisoned, the tables of law and shame could be turned. The officials are reduced from merely granting the missionaries release to begging for their departure. (1) The Officials’ Danger (16:38)

That Paul would be lying, especially once he is being released and has nothing to gain from it except lost honor, neither makes sense of the narrative nor would make sense to the magistrates. Those who made false citizenship claims could be punished severely (Epict. Diatr. 3.24.41) or even be publicly executed (Suet. Claud. 25.3);2334 even to claim citizenship and fail to prove it could lead to death.2335 “Even a desperate person could scarcely have risked two citizenship claims and an appeal to Caesar without the right to do so” (cf. Acts 16:37; 22:28; 25:10–11).2336 It would make no sense at all for one being released from detention, albeit disgraced (perhaps in contrast to someone about to be executed), to risk such a claim if it could be disproved. Romans of high status more often than not flaunted it on their travels, gaining special privileges.2337 High status of any sort improved one’s standing in court.2338 Paul was not of high rank apart from his citizenship (which was shared by all citizens of Philippi), nor was he flaunting his status (consistent with his perspectives in his letters, he would not emphasize his status the way many other people did). But he had been treated inhospitably enough to warrant redress. The officials have reason to fear (cf. similarly ἐφοβήθη in 22:29). The duumvirs had authority to practice coercitio without trial2339 but could not legally exercise this right over Roman citizens. The magistrates omitted a trial because they simply assumed 2330. Rapske, Custody, 288–91; idem, “Prison,” 829, cites Plut. Solon 15.2–3; Paus. 6.13.1; Cic. Verr. 2.5.148; Epict. Diatr. 1.4.23–24; 2.1.35; 2.6.25; Suet. Vitellius 7.17; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 85.41. Rapske, “Prison,” 830, notes the same problems for those publicly flogged, as the apostles had also been (Dig. 48.19.28; 50.2.12). Even prisoners themselves often viewed this as a great disgrace, especially if they were of high status (Rapske, Custody, 296–97). 2331. Rapske, “Prison,” 830, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.9; Lucian Tox. 18, 28–29; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.37; Antiph. Her. 18; Rapske, Custody, 293. For families’ experience of shame, see Rapske, Custody, 293–94 (citing, e.g., Pass. Perp. 5.2). 2332. Rapske, “Prison,” 829. 2333. People of status could not admit error without losing face, but they could issue new decrees that basically revoked older ones without admitting as much (cf. 2 Sam 19:29; Esth 8:8, 11; Dan 6:15, 24). 2334. Rapske, Custody, 87; idem, “Citizenship,” 216 (comparing also Paulus Sent. 5.25.11); cf. Black, “Law,” 213–14. 2335. Rapske, “Citizenship,” 216; idem, Custody, 87 (citing Cic. Arch. 4.7; Verr. 2.5.169). 2336. Rapske, Custody, 87. 2337. Casson, Travel, 198. 2338. Rapske, “Prison,” 827; Grant, “Social Setting,” 23. 2339. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 200. Coercitio normally involved intervention to establish order by means of compulsion through punishment (Treves and Lintott, “Coercitio”).

2527

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 231

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

without proper investigation that the apostles were not Roman citizens.2340 It is not Paul’s late disclosure of his citizenship that is problematic legally but their failure to allow for the possibility of it.2341 In the Roman period, local officials of cities throughout the empire requested official permission on even minor matters, such as starting a fire department (rejected) or replacing the city baths (accepted).2342 When they were in doubt, matters were to be checked with higher authorities, albeit without troubling them unnecessarily.2343 The danger now is not that these Jewish Roman citizens might appeal (the punishment having been inflicted already, there would be little point) but that they could bring a case against the magistrates themselves, providing a better vindication of their honor.2344 Specific laws prohibited the abuse of Roman citizens; although these laws were sometimes flouted, the consequences could be serious if the abuses were brought to the attention of higher Roman authorities.2345 If the magistrates had deprived Roman citizens of their legal rights, they could be removed from office and disqualified from holding public office again (Cic. Verr. 5.66); a city could also lose privileges (as happened in Rhodes; Suet. Claud. 25).2346 From a much earlier time, the Porcian law imposed “a heavy penalty if anyone should scourge or put to death a Roman citizen” (Livy 10.9.4 [LCL, 4:389]). A Roman should never be punished without trial (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.70.2; cf. 7.50.3); when one (in this case, a veteran) was scourged with rods, this breach of law warranted the deposition of witnesses for legal action.2347 In establishing reasons for the Judean revolt, Josephus invites Gentile readers’ sympathy by noting that Florus crucified Jewish Roman citizens (even those of the equestrian status, War 2.308), an illegal act.2348 Cicero offers the classic examples, widely remembered in the first century c.e. He condemns Verres for torturing and executing Roman citizens “like slaves” (Verr. 1.5.13); 2340. The officials would not likely have anticipated a need to show accountability for their actions beyond Philippi. Those enforcing the laws often mistreated innocent people; when mistreated, the poor had little recourse and rarely even sought redress (Toner, Culture, 162). 2341. Rapske, Custody, 300–302. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 135, counters that the Philippian magistrates would have nothing to fear if they used “police privilege” against one who had not yet “revealed his citizenship.” But they neither asked Paul his status nor gave him the chance to explain it (in either Acts 16 or 22). Their embarrassment for their assumption that “Jew” and “Roman” were incompatible categories (16:20–21) might be akin to the humiliation of a dominant-culture North American leader today publicly challenged for racist assumptions (e.g., for having assumed that an African-American doctor is a nurse’s aide or that a Latina professor on campus is a student), except compounded by more direct legal ramifications. 2342. Meeks, Moral World, 27. 2343. The proconsul of Macedonia resided in Thessalonica in this period (Witherington, Acts, 488). 2344. With Rapske, Custody, 300–302. 2345. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 340 (citing Valerian and Porcian laws of 509–195 b.c.e.); Conzelmann, Acts, 133 (citing Livy 10.9.4; Cic. Rab. Post. 4.12–13; Paulus Sent. 5.26.1); Taylor, Party Politics, 87 (concerning Cicero himself); Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 23 (from Witherington); see esp. Sherwin-White, Society, 71 (for exceptions, not directly relevant here, see 72). Exceptions may reflect cases of obvious violation of established statutes (Black, “Law,” 216, following Jones, Roman Government, 59ff.). Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 124–30, argues that there were exceptions to rights of Roman citizens; governors had considerable latitude in their decisions. This point, though true, is not relevant to Acts 16 or 22, since neither are governors and both have acted already. Lentz’s point is important for Acts 24–26, where Paul’s status, including his leadership in the Nazarene movement, is more relevant. 2346. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 201. Cf. comment on Acts 19:40; for the fasces being broken for particular misbehavior, see Libero, “Fasces,” 359. Cf. also Robinson, Criminal Law, 49: “Abuse of office, such as killing, torturing, flogging or imprisoning a citizen who was appealing to the people or the emperor, fell under vis publica.” 2347. “Deposition of a Witness” (153 c.e.), SPap 2:186–89 (Greek text from H. Kortenbeutel, “Ein Kaisereid,” Aegyptus 12 [1932]: 129–40, here 129–30). 2348. On the other hand, a Roman citizen properly condemned for a particularly heinous offense would generate little sympathy even if crucified (Suet. Galba 9.1).

2528

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 232

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

for crucifying them in spite of their pleas as Romans (2.1.3.7); and for chaining, imprisoning, flogging, torturing, and even crucifying them (2.1.3.9; 2.3.24.59). Their blood now demanded his punishment (2.1.3.8).2349 Any act against Roman citizens’ rights anywhere impacted Romans’ liberty and honor everywhere (2.5.55.144); would not all advocates of Roman rights thus be enemies of Verres, who scourged and crucified citizens (2.3.3.6)?2350 Cicero expresses such indignation particularly vehemently in 2.5.66.170 (LCL, 2:655–57): “To bind a Roman citizen is a crime, to flog him is an abomination, to slay him is almost an act of murder:2351 to crucify him is—what? There is no fitting word that can possibly describe so horrible a deed.” Not surprisingly, Verres fled Rome before Cicero finished his prosecution case. More than a century after Paul, texts continue to affirm that it was illegal to imprison a Roman citizen without trial (or, in the case in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.27 [42], against the decision of the other tribunes). The evidence suggests both that it happened and that it could have consequences if persons of influence raised protests in the right circles; magistrates in Philippi apparently valued the city’s close connection with Rome too much to ignore the law. (2) Begging Them to Leave (16:39)

The officials could disbelieve Paul and demand evidence, but given his raising of the issue after they have already decreed his release, his claim is credible; they would not expect one to lie at this point, unless the person was a complete fool. Now Paul appeared not as a fool but instead as a proud person of honor who preferred to endure beating and then recoup his honor by publicly shaming the foolish authorities! At this stage, asking him to prove his citizenship would simply prolong their public embarrassment (while awaiting documentation from Tarsus, unless Paul has documentation at Lydia’s home, which is not as likely) if he turns out to be telling the truth. It is more expedient to take him at his word and urge him to leave without further complications. A “secret” expulsion (Acts 16:37) would simply “reinforce the formal degradation”; Paul demands instead “a significant status transaction,” with the officials humbling themselves to escort them out in full public view.2352 If, as seems likely, the prison was close to the forum, the magistrates humbly escorting out those they had beaten the previous day would reverse some of the status degradation the apostles had experienced.2353 Whatever Luke’s audience may have known of Philippi (which, as suggested, may be one of the cities whose churches Luke had in mind in conceiving of his target audience), it is of interest that Philippi displayed an especially lavish interest in status and public honor, perhaps even more than most other Greco-Roman cities.2354 2349. The repeated (and often climactic, e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.3.3.6; 2.3.24.59) mention of crucifixion was meant to stir special anger (2.4.10.24; 2.4.11.26; 2.4.11.26), though Cicero may have only one certain case (in addition to some from gossip). Verres allegedly executed other citizens after disguising them as pirates (2.5.28.72) and allegedly admitted to this crime (2.5.29.73–74). Ironically, Clodius is said to have gotten Cicero banished for having a citizen executed (Vell. Paterc. 2.45.1–2). 2350. His beheading of one citizen (Cic. Verr. 2.5.60.156) led to an outcry among all the Roman citizens in Syracuse (2.5.60.157). If he killed one citizen, he might like to have crucified all Romans (2.5.66.170, with prosecutorial hyperbole). 2351. Literally parricidium, which, in its strictest sense, would be “parricide”; but it may simply be a graphic way to denounce judicial murder as equivalent to private murder. 2352. Rapske, Custody, 304. Rapske compares Metellus waiting in prison till his opponent was shamed enough to have to desist (Dio Cass. 37.50.1–2). In a different way, Martin Luther King Jr. sought to shame his holders (see, e.g., Lomax, “Nonviolence,” 162; cf. Bennett, “Hour,” 22–23, 29–30, 54–55; Halberstam, “Peace,” 193–94; cf. others remaining in jails during the U.S. civil rights movement to make statements, in Branch, Parting, 286, 391–95; Perkins, Justice, 136–37). 2353. Rapske, Custody, 305. 2354. Hellerman, “Humiliation” (with an even stronger emphasis than I have expressed above).

2529

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 233

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Luke’s narrative artistry does not obscure his historical material. Despite Luke’s positive and almost humorous twist, his audience would probably recognize this concession as less than full vindication if they pondered it. The crowd was smaller and this “vindication” was far less explicit than the public charges; shame remains (1 Thess 2:2), probably as in the case of someone today stung by a false newspaper report seen by many who may have missed the newspaper’s later retraction. But word would spread, and not everyone participating in the previous day’s shouting would feel personal commitment to opposing the movement; many might not even draw the connection between the movement and those beaten in the forum. When reproached, local Christians could appeal to “public knowledge” that their foreign founders turned out to be innocent after all. Some vindication was better than no vindication, in any case. The entreaties to leave are now insistent requests or pleas rather than demands, suggesting a reversal of status in the situation. Part of the authorities’ desire to secure the apostles’ departure may be to prevent the situation’s escalation, as some scholars suggest. The people would be confused, and some would be angry, perhaps making it more difficult (as the Western text suggests) to protect the apostles.2355 But the magistrates probably especially desire their hasty departure to minimize their own embarrassment and potential consequences for themselves.2356 They escort them personally out of the prison (as requested in Acts 16:37), but to do more than this would require them to lose face themselves. Once the missionaries left town, however, Roman opponents, such as the slave girl’s owners, may have renewed their opposition toward Paul and Silas’s allies to keep from losing face as well. (Friendship networks created alliances and hence shared enmity networks.)2357 Although Luke puts a good face on Paul’s suffering in Philippi (contrast the less comic notes in Phil 1:30; 1 Thess 2:2), preferring to end happily (a pattern with Luke, who ends Acts on a positive note in 28:30–31), we cannot doubt that Paul was released in some way. Paul did, after all, continue his ministry and started a church in Thessalonica, farther along the same road. Though expelled from the city, Luke’s Paul will also remember the invitation of “a certain Macedonian” to come help them (16:9). iv. Leaving Philippi (16:40)

Although accommodating the officials’ request to “go away” (16:39), Paul and Silas first “go in” to Lydia’s home (16:40), not intimidated (cf. 14:20; 18:18; 20:1). Given the presence or rapid gathering of believers at Lydia’s home, we may assume that she was now hosting a house congregation. As she once “exhorted” Paul’s company to stay with her (16:15), Paul and Silas now exhort Lydia’s group of believers, probably to stand firm in the faith (as in 14:22; cf. 11:23; 20:2). Lydia would probably not invite direct persecution, partly because her trade was useful but perhaps also partly because of her gender. Persecution was less often directed against women (see further comment on Acts 8:3), and women could also get away with bold acts and speech that men would not dare. Thus, in one story, when Alexander sold thirty thousand Thebans into slavery (Plut. Alex. 11.6), a noble captive killed the Thracian officer who raped her (12.1–2), and Alexander, impressed with her defiance, freed her (12.3); later he protected and provided for Darius’s mother, 2355. Rapske, Custody, 306; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 341. Protecting the mission may have been a paramount concern (with, e.g., Peterson, Acts, 473). 2356. A prisoner refusing to leave and causing an awkward situation for the jailers is intelligible; cf. the experience of Wang Mingdao, though probably for different reasons (Noll and Nystrom, Clouds, 261). 2357. Marshall, Enmity, passim; Plut. Many Friends 6–7, Mor. 96AB.

2530

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 234

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

widow, and daughters (21.1–3).2358 See comment on Acts 8:3. The manner of the missionaries’ departure here might also help (Acts 16:39–40), although ultimately believers in Philippi faced some conflict (Phil 1:30; probably less than in Thessalonica, 1 Thess 1:6; 3:4). That Paul and Silas visited Lydia and others2359 shows that Paul has the upper hand in terms of honor—at least for the local Christians and Luke’s audience. Paul displays the same courage and tenacity as when he returned briefly to Lystra immediately after being stoned (Acts 14:20). The magistrates ask Paul and Silas to leave immediately (16:39); the missionaries finish their business first, including explaining the new situation to the church.2360 They would at least need to stop by Lydia’s home to gather their few possessions2361 as well as to pick up Timothy (if the absence of the “we” is any indication, and it is argued above at Acts 16:10 that it is, Luke apparently remained in Philippi; perhaps at least one member of the party needed to remain behind and offer instruction).2362 That they greet the “brothers” implies that they have won converts in addition to the women whom they originally met (16:13, 16).2363 This fits what we read in Philippians (cf. Phil 4:3), suggesting that even in Philippi, where Luke’s report is particularly detailed, Luke has abbreviated much of his material.2364 Paul and Silas, however, have not demonstrated a high degree of resistance to the officials’ request. That the apostles leave so quickly after visiting Lydia and the others, acceding this much at least to the magistrates’ request (Acts 16:39), “implies that there was some face-saving on both sides,” especially on the level of the events behind the narrative.2365 Paul certainly did not have fond memories of the event when he reached Thessalonica shortly afterward (1 Thess 2:2).2366 Luke himself does not report Paul’s returning to Philippi until Acts 20:1–6, some years later. Luke naturally wishes to emphasize the positive side of what happened, fitting the usually upbeat character of his narrative (with its emphasis on the gospel’s unstoppable progress), just as he completes his narrative before Paul’s death. But neither would Luke wish to portray Paul and Silas disobeying officials, and so their 2358. Cf. further examples in Keener, Matthew, 485. 2359. “Siblings” (ἀδελφούς) indicates some converts in Philippi, able to gather. In Greek, the masculine is appropriate if any of the believers were male (and at the very least, one was, Acts 16:30–34, though it is not clear that the jailer could be present here), though certainly a number were not (16:13–15). 2360. Tannehill, Acts, 205; Rapske, Custody, 306. 2361. Perhaps Paul’s leatherworking tools, if he already had some at this point (see comment on Acts 18:3). Certainly, Paul was working in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–9; cf. 1 Thess 4:11), where he would arrive shortly (Acts 17:1). 2362. Cf. 17:15, where Silas and Timothy appear to remain behind for a time, though perhaps because they faced less direct danger. Lydia’s house seems the basis for a house church (Barrett, Acts, 805; Witherington, Acts, 499), and Spencer, Acts, 165, even suggests that Lydia, as the host, held a leadership role. (This is surely plausible; patrons did hold leading roles, although these were not always identical with teachers or elders.) Lydia was a longer-term resident of Philippi, and the same might be true for Luke (though from Acts 16:8–10 Troas seems likelier); in any case, it seems that only Paul and Silas were expelled (and possibly Timothy, but likelier he went with or after them voluntarily; cf. 17:14–15). 2363. “Brothers” can include even a majority of women but must include some men. It would not need to include the jailer, whom Paul has just left. 2364. It is possible, since the women would risk less persecution, that Luke omits naming men for apologetic purposes, but since he mentions the jailer, writes many years later, and does not presuppose extensive persecution, this guess is not particularly probable. 2365. Dunn, Acts, 224. Schnabel, Acts, 695, notes that the imperfect verb depicting the magistrates’ request could suggest repeated action, as if they insisted on the leading missionaries’ departure despite the missionaries’ desire to remain. 2366. In view of this Pauline text, Bornkamm, Paul, 61, doubts that the conflict in Acts 16 really ended “in such a conciliatory way” as Luke describes. It may have ended as Luke describes, yet it may have felt much less positive to any of the real participants than the way Luke optimistically portrays it at some years’ remove.

2531

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 235

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

hasty departure, and not just the limitation in their compliance, makes sense in terms of his narrative purposes. There can be no question historically which way they headed, and on which road they left, when they departed Philippi, following the Via Egnatia westward. If the prison was located near the forum, as is likely, they would have walked (had they not had the detour to Lydia’s home) perhaps 1,300 feet (400 m.) to the city’s western gate. The Via Egnatia quickly ran north alongside the Krenides stream to avoid a marshy area, then crossed the stream westward across Philippi’s plain to the Gangites River. A Roman arch, probably from the first half of the first century, stood over the road east of the Gangites.2367 Although the present road was originally a Roman military road, Paul may well have known that it lay on the same route by which Xerxes invaded Greece.2368 This road was the primary land conduit between “Europe” and “Asia,”2369 and now the Asian missionaries were pressing farther into Europe (see comment on Acts 16:8–9). The Macedonian cities of Apollonia, Amphipolis, and Thessalonica lay ahead on this road (see 17:1).

4. Ministry in Thessalonica and Beroea (17:1–14) Paul’s experiences in Thessalonica and Beroea are meant to be read together. Although Paul’s epistles tell us much more about the church in Thessalonica, the two paragraphs in Acts are parallel in how they begin and in the groups summarized as responding (17:4, 12). These paragraphs go on to juxtapose contrasting responses to Paul’s ministry, a contrast Luke makes explicit in 17:11.2370 a. Ministry in Thessalonica (17:1–9) As on his first mission, Paul continues to reason from the Scriptures but also continues to face Jewish opposition (though in Thessalonica far more than in Beroea). A common pattern in Luke-Acts appears here: just as Jewish leaders delivered Jesus to Gentiles, so often (albeit not always) in Acts resentment from parts of the Jewish community causes Paul problems with Gentiles as well. As with Jesus (Luke 23:5) and Paul later (Acts 24:5), Paul is accused here of sedition (17:6–7). Although Paul and Silas face a pattern of continuing hostility in Macedonia (in Thessalonica as in Philippi), they are not deterred from their mission. Their activity fits Luke’s (and for that matter, the epistolary Paul’s) theology concerning Spirit-inspired bold preaching even in the face of persecution (e.g., Luke 12:4–12; 21:12–15; Acts 1:8; 4:8, 31; 5:32; cf. Phil 1:12–13), including in Paul’s own brief recollection of his ministry in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:5–6; 2:2, 13). Luke’s brevity in reporting about the church in Thessalonica is more likely due to his interest and his space and subject constraints than to a lack of available information; the testimony about the Thessalonian church was apparently widespread, even beyond Macedonia and Achaia (even if 1 Thess 1:7–9 is hyperbolic). Certainly, if Luke or his “we” source was in Philippi at this time, he would have had access to some further information, and if his ideal target audience is partly in Achaia and Macedonia, they would have had some knowledge about this church. Luke apparently presupposes 2367. Finegan, Apostles, 103. 2368. Blaiklock, Cities, 45. 2369. Cf. McRay, Archaeology, 283. 2370. Tannehill, Acts, 207; Lestang, Annonce, 123–24.

2532

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 236

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

such knowledge, mentioning one “Jason” (Acts 17:5) without explanation as if this person was already familiar to the ideal audience that he takes for granted.2371 Some knowledge about Thessalonica helps modern readers appreciate better Luke’s narrative; for discussion, see comment on Acts 17:1; for religions there, see comment on Acts 17:4. i. Comparing the Thessalonian Correspondence

In view of the range of approaches employed in ancient historiography, comparison with Paul’s Thessalonian correspondence helps us evaluate how Luke pursued his historical task. In examining the historical questions, this discussion focuses its attention on 1 Thessalonians, but it will also appeal at points to 2 Thessalonians, despite the rejection of its authenticity among many scholars.2372 Most persuasive to me in favor of the latter’s authenticity is the extreme unlikelihood that any writer would speak of a man of lawlessness seated in the temple after its destruction in 70 c.e. Most pseudepigraphic works were authored long after the purported author’s death (though 2 Thess 2:2 does imply that some forgeries already existed).2373 Paul’s occasional mention of ministry in 1 Thessalonians corresponds with several points also mentioned by Luke. To avoid arguing from silence (as those inevitably do who complain that one source omits something included in the other), especially given the occasional nature of Paul’s letters and the brevity of Luke’s report about Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9), I highlight only the parallels below (see the table on p. 2534). There are, however, differences as well. The most significant differences are Luke’s emphasis on Jewish opposition and that Paul seems to presuppose a longer stay in Thessalonica than Luke reports. Riesner’s comparisons are more detailed and more optimistic. Of twenty-five details in Acts, most (eighteen to nineteen) of them “are either directly or indirectly confirmed by 1 Thessalonians.” Luke has some independent details, of which “four can be checked” by external means and two are possible; using minimalist criteria, four of his details appear questionable “or one-sided,” but “none of them is impossible. On the whole,” Riesner concludes, “these are quite admirable findings for an ancient historian.”2374 2371. In connection with my suggestion of a north Aegean setting for Luke’s ideal audience (Keener, Acts, 1:433–34), Richard Fellows (personal correspondence, Oct. 15, 2012) noted to me that many benefactors Luke names (including Jason, Lydia, and others) were from this region (see also on this point Lestang, Annonce, 219). Fellows also concurs that the focus of Luke’s narrative is what is relevant to how the faith came to the Aegean churches (personal correspondence, Feb. 26, 2013). 2372. Doubting its authenticity, see, e.g., Keck, Paul, 12–13; Koester, Introduction, 2:242; Grant, Paul, 6; Bailey, “Thessalonians”; Donfried, Thessalonica, xxiii, 51–53 (suggesting authorship by Timothy or Silvanus); favoring its authenticity, in my opinion persuasively, see, e.g., Malherbe, Thessalonians, 349–75; Dunn, Beginning, 714–15 (citing, e.g., Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 3–18; Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 17–28); Weima, Thessalonians; Marshall, Thessalonians, 23–45; Morris, Thessalonians, 29–31 (rev., 17–23); Bruce, Thessalonians, xxxix; Wright, Paul, 61; Ford, Abomination, 195–96; Mealand, “Extent”; Neil, Thessalonians, xix–xxvi; Frame, Thessalonians, 19–20, 28–37, 39–54; Milligan, Thessalonians, xxxix, lii–lxxvi; Still, “Macedonian Believers,” 36; Robinson, Redating, 53–54; Klausner, Jesus to Paul, 238; more tentatively, Best, Thessalonians, 50–58. In my opinion, the alleged “radical differences” in eschatology between 1 and 2 Thessalonians (which are to be expected in apocalyptic imagery; see Thiselton, Corinthians, 580–81) are “radically” overstated (and the complaint that the similarities must reflect imitation suggests a double standard of argument). 2373. Further, a work with eschatological elements resembling apocalyptic sources suggests a Palestinian Jewish author whose authority was accepted before Hellenistic elements eclipsed earlier Christian apocalyptic predilections. (Later Gentile “apocalypses,” such as Shepherd of Hermas, differ in character from their Jewish predecessors.) 2374. Riesner, Early Period, 366–67. For Paul and the Thessalonian church, see Milligan, Thessalonians, xxvi–xl.

2533

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 237

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Comparing Paul’s Correspondence and Acts 1 Thessalonians The church knows Silvanus and Timothy (1:1) Converts turned from idols (1:9) Paul preached eschatology (1:10; cf. 3:13; 4:13– 5:11, esp. 5:2), possibly including the kingdom (1 Thess 2:12; cf. 2 Thess 1:5) and a royal parousia (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15;* 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8) Paul came to Thessalonica from Philippi, where he suffered shame (1 Thess 2:2) Paul spoke boldly but faced much opposition (2:1–2), perhaps accused of being a charlatan (2:3–11)† They became like the Judean churches, suffering from their fellow Macedonians as Judean churches did from Judeans (2:14); this apparently began while Paul was with them (2:13–14)‡ Some Jewish people have proved hostile to the Gentile mission (2:16) Satan thwarted their return (2:18); it was safe for Timothy to return but not for Paul (3:1–2) Unemployment was a major local problem (4:11– 12; 2 Thess 3:6–12)

Acts 17:1–9 Luke implies the presence of Silas (17:10, 14) and Timothy (17:14) Converts included Gentiles (though many were already God-fearers; 17:4) Paul was accused of preaching “another king,” Jesus (17:7) They left Philippi under duress (16:40) and, after traveling through two other towns en route, reached Thessalonica (17:1) They encountered opposition (17:5–9), including false accusations of being politically subversive (17:6–7) The church had to suffer publicly (17:7, 9), though Paul’s situation was more severe (17:10) Paul faced Jewish opposition (17:5) The politarchs’ decree against Paul made his return dangerous until they left office (17:8–10) Unemployed men from the marketplace constituted a local problem (17:5)

*The connection with “meeting” in 1 Thess 4:17 confirms the likelihood of this sense of parousia (Best, Thessalonians, 199; Bruce, Thessalonians, 102; idem, Books, 68–69; Marshall, Thessalonians, 131; see further comment at Acts 28:15). †See here Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” ‡It might even relate to some dying (1 Thess 4:13), though this is questionable.

We can also place Paul’s Thessalonian ministry securely in the larger context of this “missionary journey”:2375 Public beating in Philippi Successful but persecuted ministry in Thessalonica Paul in Athens Paul in Achaia with his companions

1 Thess 2:2 Phil 4:15–16; 1 Thess 1:1, 5–6 1 Thess 3:1 2 Cor 1:19; cf. 1 Thess 3:6

Acts 16:22–23 Acts 17:1–10 Acts 17:15–34 Acts 18:1–18, esp. 18:5

One point that requires special examination for both correspondences and contrasts is treated at Acts 17:15 (“Flight to Athens”), below. ii. Relocating to Thessalonica (17:1)

It is unclear why Luke describes the details of travel here when such detail is normally reserved for itineraries in the “we” sections.2376 It makes sense, however, for a partly Macedonian ideal audience. Moreover, Luke must bring the missionaries to Thessalonica somehow, and he summarizes their travel fairly sparingly (as in, e.g., 13:13–14; 14:24–25). Ancient itineraries attest the route and explain the distances recounted in this verse. As Paul and his companions travel westward on the Via Egnatia, they travel thirty-three miles (more than some 50 km.) to Amphipolis, then twenty-seven miles (40 km.) farther to Mygdonian Apollonia and thirty-five miles (some 50 km.) more to Thessalonica.2377 Ancient sources recognize Amphipolis and 2375. Cf., in further detail, Witherington, Acts, 446–47. 2376. Knox, Acts, 57. 2377. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:121; Gill, “Macedonia,” 410; Bruce, Acts1, 324. The key itinerary is the Itinerarium Antonini.

2534

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 238

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Apollonia as stations between Philippi and Thessalonica.2378 If Luke mentions these as overnight stops, it provides three stages of roughly equal distance (some 30, 27, and 35 mi.).2379 The first two stages had a slight incline uphill, but the third day was “almost exclusively downhill.”2380 The journey to Thessalonica is about a hundred miles, but if the missionaries were able to travel quickly despite their wounds (16:22–23), they may have paused only in the major stopping centers en route that Luke mentions and made the journey in three days.2381 On the other hand, it was no longer early in the morning (as it was in 16:35) when they left Philippi (despite the urgency of their departure, 16:39–40), and they may have been traveling on foot and been weakened by their wounds. (No dramatic healing is reported.) These factors could invite delays. Nevertheless, because accommodations were better in the towns, the same wounds might encourage them to expedite their journey to accommodate these stops. If they traveled this quickly, it might mean that they were able to rent mules or horses,2382 perhaps from a monetary gift from Lydia and others in Philippi (16:40); for help from believers in Philippi soon after this time, see Phil 4:15–16. Perhaps they may have stopped to rest for a day or more in these towns along the way. (1) Amphipolis

Amphipolis was known to be near Philippi; Marc Antony had prepared here for his battle at Philippi in 43 b.c.e. (Appian Bell. civ. 4.14.107).2383 Athenians founded it on an apparently well-traveled location called “the nine roads” (Strabo 7 frg. 35).2384 Excavations reveal a considerable measure of religious diversity and syncretism there in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.2385 Amphipolis is “505 feet above the east bank of the Strymon River overlooking the sea, which is 3 miles to the south.”2386 People in the city or traveling on the Via Egnatia would readily see the Lion of Amphipolis, built in the late fourth century b.c.e., in the valley by the bridge where the Strymon curves.2387 One excavated Roman villa, from the second or third century c.e. (after the revival of Greek culture), contains numerous mosaics from Greek mythology.2388 Excavated sanctuaries include an early one to the Muse Clio and another to Attis, apparently a Phrygian import. This city, too, was strategic;2389 since 168 b.c.e. it was the main city in the province’s first (eastern) district, out of four districts (Strabo 7 frg. 47).2390 It was a free 2378. Hemer, Acts in History, 108. 2379. Ibid., 115. 2380. Riesner, Early Period, 313. 2381. So Witherington, Acts, 503. This is longer than the average pedestrian’s 20–25 miles per day (30–40 km., Weeber, “Travels,” 871), but fully plausible under duress. 2382. Barrett, Acts, 808; Witherington, Acts, 503. 2383. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 3–10, provide extensive information on Amphipolis, especially archaeological finds; see also Wineland, “Amphipolis.” 2384. See also Androtion Atthis bk. 8, frg. 33. Conflicts over whether Athens or Macedonia held rightful claim to Amphipolis (Aeschines Embassy 21) had earlier precipitated war (Embassy 70; cf. Libanius Invect. 3.6). The site earlier housed a Thracian town (Cormack and Hammond, “Amphipolis,” citing the “nine ways” in Hdt. 7.114). 2385. Riesner, “Amphipolis.” It was said that lightning had consumed a sacrifice during sacred rites there (Plut. Aem. Paul. 24.1). 2386. McRay, Archaeology, 289. 2387. Ibid. (noting [290] that Paul and Silas would surely have seen it); on the bridge, see also Fant and Reddish, Sites, 9. 2388. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 7. Its old tombs, however, are clearly Macedonian in style (10). 2389. In a report about earlier times, Philip allegedly said that he would trade Amphipolis (i.e., as a significant city) to obtain Demosthenes (Dio Chrys. Or. 2.19). 2390. See further Gill, “Macedonia,” 414; Riesner, Early Period, 294.

2535

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 239

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

city under the Romans (Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.29), and excavations have shown the high quality of walls and buildings.2391 Though not a coastal town, it was estimated as only twenty stadia (ca. 2.5 mi.) inland on the Strymon (Strabo 7 frg. 35), and this location established its commercial importance. It acquired its name from being built on both sides of the river.2392 For now at least, however, Paul and Silas merely “traveled through”2393 this strategic location. The term διοδεύω itself does not require us to think that they did not preach there ( Jesus preaches in Luke’s [and the nt’s] only other use of the term [Luke 8:1], though apparently he did not stay long), and Luke might simply compress the material. Macedonia was mostly rural,2394 but Amphipolis and Apollonia should have had enough people to start a new church. Yet the missionaries might also wish to place some distance between themselves and Philippi before risking trouble again, and Thessalonica would appear a more promising destination. (2) Apollonia

Apollonia was twenty-seven miles past Amphipolis, considered a day’s journey past Amphipolis by ancient travelers (Livy 45.28).2395 It was also farther inland than Amphipolis, as Pliny the Elder notes (N.H. 4.10.29). Strabo declares that this Apollonia2396 was right after Amphipolis (Strabo 7 frg. 35), between the mouths of the Strymon and the Nestus rivers (7 frg. 33).2397 Although Apollonia was once thought a way station, it is now usually estimated to have had a population of about ten thousand.2398 Some scholars suggest that Amphipolis and Apollonia lacked synagogues; Thessalonica, however, certainly had one (Acts 17:1), and this would fit Paul’s pattern of starting with the Jewish community and its Gentile adherents.2399 Others, however, argue that Apollonia was so large that it must have had one or more synagogues.2400 In any case, Paul and Silas had sufficient reason to target the major city of Thessalonica and leave considerable distance between Philippi and their next place to begin significant public ministry. (3) Thessalonica

Historically, we know that Paul traveled to Thessalonica after Philippi (1 Thess 2:2) and that he went soon after to Athens (3:1; Acts 17:10–15); probably we can add that he went to Corinth afterward (2 Cor 11:7–9).2401 Naturally, even if we lacked these details, the fact that Paul evangelized these areas would lead us to expect this basic sequence based on geography. Thessalonica was a very strategic city by Paul’s day.2402 Even beyond other factors (such as putting as much distance as possible between himself and denunciations in Philippi), its size and influence would have made it attractive from the stand2391. See further Cormack and Hammond, “Amphipolis.” 2392. Thucyd. 4.102.2–3 (Barrett, Acts, 808; Fitzmyer, Acts, 593). 2393. Bruce, Acts1, 324, translates etymologically, “taking the road through.” 2394. Much of rural Macedonia continued ancient regional cults along with Greek cults that the Macedonians had adopted centuries earlier (Gill, “Macedonia,” 408). 2395. Barrett, Acts, 808. For details on Apollonia, see Gill, “Macedonia,” 413. 2396. Another Apollonia lay farther west than Thessalonica on the Via Egnatia (Polyb. 34.12.2a, 7, excerpts in Strabo 7.7.4); Riesner, Early Period, 313, mentions a city to this mansio’s southwest. 2397. It earlier suffered under Philip of Macedon (Strabo 7 frg. 21, 35) but was rebuilt. 2398. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 11 (further on Apollonia, see 10–12). 2399. McRay, Archaeology, 289. 2400. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 11. 2401. Riesner, Early Period, 233. 2402. See, e.g., Milligan, Thessalonians, xxii–xxiii; Riesner, Early Period, 337–39; McRay, “Thessalonica”; for its history, see Strabo 7 frg. 21, 24 (founded by Cassander and named for his wife); Milligan, Thessalonians,

2536

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 240

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

point of missions strategy.2403 We know less about ancient Thessalonica than about Philippi because it is difficult to excavate, having been continuously inhabited since its foundation in 316 b.c.e.2404 At any rate, it became one of the most prominent Mediterranean ports and trade centers shortly after its founding.2405 It was both famous (Strabo 7 frg. 20) and the most populous Macedonian city by this period (7.7.4). Many of the following estimates are generally held to be much too high for the first century, but they are useful for comparing the relative size of Mediterranean cities.2406 Thessalonica was not one of the giant cities, such as Rome (with as many as a million inhabitants on a frequent estimate) and Alexandria (sometimes estimated at six hundred thousand), but with Smyrna it followed close after the second tier of cities (Carthage and Antioch, each with some half million, and Ephesus, with four hundred thousand, on the highest estimates), with more than two hundred thousand inhabitants on the highest estimates. More-conservative estimates run from forty thousand to sixty-five thousand,2407 but these figures remain substantial. Although several other cities had more than seventy-five thousand inhabitants, most cities had only about twenty thousand, about one-tenth of Thessalonica’s highest-estimated population.2408 Thessalonica was also a self-ruled free city with its own coins and no Roman garrison;2409 this “free” status was a significant privilege, though less than being a Roman colony would be. Previously already one of the four administrative centers of Macedonia (Amphipolis was another; 7 frg. 47), it was now the provincial capital, where the proconsul resided.2410 As Macedonia’s largest port2411 and as a city lying close to the center of the Via Egnatia land route connecting east and west, Thessalonica was an important commercial center. Along with Corinth in Achaia (on another strategic east-west route), it was one of the two most prosperous mercantile cities in Greece.2412 Its Greek character probably provided Paul and Silas easier access to its people than they had in Roman Philippi; its large population would also give them more opportunities to find members for the nucleus of a church. Thessalonica was not only strategic but on the Via Egnatia, the crucial route west from eastern Macedonia;2413 if heading west, the missionaries had to at least travel xxi–xxv; Vickers, “Hellenistic Thessaloniki.” Further on Thessalonica, see Hendrix, “Thessalonica” (and sources cited there); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 132–40; Blaiklock, Cities, 45–49. 2403. So John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 17.1 (Martin, Acts, 211): Paul and his companions passed through the smaller Amphipolis and Apollonia to reach the larger Thessalonica, “since the word was to flow to nearby cities as from a source.” 2404. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46. 2405. Errington, “Macedonia,” 69. 2406. For the problems in such estimates, see the discussion of Ephesus at Acts 18:19. 2407. See Schnabel, Acts, 703. 2408. Jeffers, World, 57, 283 (offering the figures above except for Schnabel’s lower estimate). Ephesus’s population in this period seems likelier to have been less than half the above figure, and Thessalonica probably also should have a lower figure. 2409. Haenchen, Acts, 506; Conzelmann, Acts, 134; Johnson, Acts, 305 (citing Pliny E. N.H. 4.36); Riesner, Early Period, 339. 2410. As noted by most commentators (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 202; Haenchen, Acts, 506; Munck, Acts, 164; Reicke, Era, 231–32). The governor’s residence established there in the second century b.c.e. had been restored to Thessalonica after 44 c.e. (Riesner, Early Period, 339). 2411. For its fine harbor (Hdt. 7.121; Livy 44.10) on the Thermaic Gulf (Pliny E. N.H. 4.10.17), see Riesner, Early Period, 338. 2412. Meeks, Urban Christians, 46 (noting also another important road stretching from Thessalonica to the Danube). The purple-dyeing industry there (46) probably competed successfully with the stronger Tyrian purple industry (see comment at Acts 16:14) for the local market. 2413. With, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 60–61; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 201–2. Strabo traces the Via Egnatia only as far as Thessalonica, from a western, Illyrian Apollonia, a distance supposed to be 4,280 stadia (more than 700 mi.; 535 Roman mi.; Strabo 7.7.4; 7 frg. 10, 13, 21).

2537

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 241

6/19/14 1:59 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

through it. Many scholars think that Paul intended to take this route westward toward Rome until political realities (see Acts 18:2) made this objective impossible, and it is possible, though Luke omits it, that Paul did journey westward on the Via Egnatia as far as Illyricum (Rom 15:19) at this time; perhaps a delay before returning would explain why it took his enemies in Thessalonica time to learn that he had arrived in Beroea (Acts 17:10).2414 (Luke’s narrative, however, makes it easier to accommodate the visit to Illyricum in the period in 20:1–2; see comment on Acts 17:10.) Although Paul and Silas stayed in homes where they could (see comment on Acts 16:15), in Thessalonica they may have been forced to spend at least the first few days in inns.2415 Then again, Jason (17:7) or other members of the Jewish community may have taken them in immediately. Perhaps likeliest of all in light of ancient hospitality and benefaction customs, their friends in Philippi may have provided them contacts in Thessalonica (cf. 16:40).2416 Jewish synagogues are well attested in Greece;2417 Philo mentions Jews in Macedonia (Embassy 281). There is also more specific epigraphic evidence for the Jewish community in Thessalonica, though little of it can be securely dated early.2418 If the ninth-century Jewish quarter reflects the earlier site, the Jewish community seems to have been located between the forum and the temple of Dionysus,2419 suggesting (possibly relevant in view of Acts 17:5–6) that this community was near the center for the city’s political and legal activity.2420 Samaritans are also attested in Thessalonica, though the sources derive from the fourth century or later; 2421 for Gentile cults, see comment on Acts 17:4. (Christianity also came to flourish in Thessalonica, as elsewhere.)2422 That Paul went to synagogues fits the pattern of his ministry in Acts (13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8), continuing that of Jesus (Luke 4:44). 2423 Luke also reports a pattern in which Paul typically encounters opposition from some 2414. On his possibly thwarted westward plans between Thessalonica and Beroea, cf. Riesner, Early Period, 295; Trocmé, “Apôtre et Rome”; Cadbury, Acts in History, 61. 2415. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 29 (and 79n27 [to p. 29]), citing many examples of lodging at inns when necessary (Sen. Y. Ben. 6.15; Luke 10:34–35; Ach. Tat. 5.2.3; 7.6.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.39; Casson, Travel, 200–211). 2416. Because Lydia was engaged in trade (Acts 16:15), she would undoubtedly have some contacts in Thessalonica, perhaps even linked with the same business. Cf. below the possibility of Paul’s prior connection with Jason (based on Rom 16:21); but it is very unlikely. 2417. Goodenough, Symbols, 2:70–77. 2418. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 154–56; Riesner, Early Period, 344–45; sources cited by Stern, “Diaspora,” 160n1. Some cite the synagogue in CIJ 1:504, §693 (Hemer, Acts in History, 115), but locating where the synagogue stood is a complicated and uncertain exercise (see Riesner, Early Period, 345–46). Meeks, Urban Christians, 46, thinks a Thessalonian Jewish community likely, comparing the synagogue at the much more out-of-the-way Stobi, ca. 150 km. north on a major road from Thessalonica. 2419. Riesner, Early Period, 347. 2420. Certainly, a large Jewish community existed in later times; the twenty thousand Jews who settled there in 1492 after being expelled from Spain presumably would have preferred to settle where a Jewish community already existed. By the 1500s, Jewish residents may have constituted more than half of Thessalonica (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 134). In the 1870s, Abbott, Acts, 185, included a report of an estimated ten to twenty thousand Jews there. But the Third Reich deported about sixty thousand Jews to Poland, decimating Thessalonica’s Jewish population (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 134). 2421. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159n9 (citing Lifshitz and Schiby, “Synagogue samaritaine”); Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 156; Koester, Paul and World, 39; cf. sources in Riesner, Early Period, 346, who is skeptical about what some have made of the evidence. 2422. See Finegan, Apostles, 109–16, noting (116) that at one point in the Byzantine era, Thessalonica was said to boast 365 churches; the twenty that remain are full of Byzantine art. Arabs conquered it in 904, and the Ottomans again in 1430 (Berger, “Kaminiates”); today it is part of Greece. 2423. This particular pattern may not be as significant as it first appears, once we grant that synagogues were by far the most common places to find Jewish people gathered for religious instruction. Despite his

2538

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 242

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(Acts 14:2) or many (13:45, 50; 18:6; 19:9) members there, though even in the latter cases many believed (18:7–8; 19:9; cf. also 14:1; 17:4). No opposition is reported in the synagogues in 17:10–12, 17 (cf. also 16:12). The local variations in the pattern probably indicate that Luke, like other historians, looks for patterns in his historical sources without conforming every instance in his sources to fit the pattern. iii. Ministry in the Synagogue (17:2–4)

As elsewhere, Paul begins in the synagogue (see comment on Acts 13:5), engages in debate, and finds Jewish and God-fearing adherents as well as opponents. (1) Three Sabbaths of Ministry (17:2)

Historically, Paul was apparently in Thessalonica long enough to work (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–8)2424 and to receive more than one offering from the church in Philippi, several days’ journey away, supporting his spreading of the gospel in their regional capital (Phil 4:15–16; we may imagine the merchant Lydia and others with at least some means).2425 By itself this data would not require us to suppose that Paul stayed significantly longer than the three Sabbaths mentioned here,2426 though they push the probability strongly in this longer direction.2427 Three weeks would not allow time to build a customer base for his work, but it is not impossible that Paul began such work before being quickly expelled. Transients desiring to settle and work temporarily even in Egyptian villages needed to first acquire “temporary permits from the local collector of the tax on their occupation.” (This requirement was so pervasive that prostitutes sometimes received one-day permits for a fee.)2428 Harder to accept in a mere three weeks is that Paul was apparently able to appoint leadership before he left (1 Thess 5:12)2429 and was also there long enough to deposit significant elements of Jesus tradition (4:15–5:7; 2 Thess 2:1–12, esp. 2:5–6, 15),2430 though perhaps not long enough so that all remembered and understood them (cf. 2 Thess 2:2). Most scholars thus suggest that Luke has compressed a longer period of ministry in Thessalonica.2431 Many of these scholars note that Luke himself does not claim that distinctive emphasis on Gentiles, Paul plainly ministered to Jewish people as well (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:23; 9:20; 2 Cor 11:24; McKechnie, “Paul,” 114); see much fuller comment on Acts 13:5. 2424. Luke knew of Paul’s work (cf. Acts 18:3; 20:34), though he never emphasizes it, perhaps because it conflicts with his emphasis on higher-status elements of Paul’s identity. 2425. The Philippian Christians apparently also sent him funds elsewhere (Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8–9), including later in Rome (Phil 2:30; 4:10–14, 17–19). 2426. See Marshall, Thessalonians, 5; Bruce, Thessalonians, 18. 2427. In the nineteenth century, Lightfoot (citing still earlier Paley) also noted from 1 Thessalonians that Paul stayed longer than these three sabbaths, reaching also many Gentiles (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). 2428. Lewis, Life, 171–72, citing (for the prostitute) WO 1157. 2429. He could not have done it afterward, though Timothy might have done so; see 1 Thess 3:2, 6. 2430. On the parallels with the Jesus tradition, see Waterman, “Sources” (citing 24 parallels, mostly compelling); Wenham, Rediscovery; idem, “Apocalypse”; Keener, Matthew, 564–66; cf. also Hunter, Predecessors, 49; Barrett, Gospel Tradition, 12; Mounce, “Eschatology”; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 42; Hill, Prophecy, 130; Plevnik, “Authenticity”; Robinson, Coming, 113–14; Ford, Abomination, 22; Crossan, Jesus, 243–47. 2431. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 809; Dunn, Acts, 226; Riesner, Early Period, 362–63; Bruce, Acts3, 369; Peterson, Acts, 477; Schnabel, Acts, 704. Though often disagreeing with Jewett’s estimates for Paul’s itinerary, Riesner, Early Period, 312, concedes that he may well be right in suggesting three to four months for Thessalonica. For Luke’s technique of summarizing longer periods of time, see comment on Acts 9:23; even more conspicuously, compare the forty days of Acts 1:3 with Luke 24:36–53, which condenses the entire period into a single scene: Luke expects his audience to understand that he sometimes condenses time. At other times he suspects Mark of doing so (cf. Luke 6:6 with Mark 3:1; also Matt 12:9).

2539

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 243

6/19/14 2:00 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul spent only three weeks in Thessalonica but that he reasoned only three weeks in the synagogue (Acts 17:2). This may allow some preliminary time to become acclimated to this relatively large city (cf. 16:12–13), as well as significant time after (perhaps) needing to leave the synagogue (cf. 18:7, 11; 19:8–9). His departure from the synagogue is not narrated, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was forced to leave the synagogue sometime before the opposition became strong enough to provoke a public backlash (17:5). Paul also could reason in a synagogue while working at his trade (18:3–4), though with the help of his coworkers he could devote more of his time to preaching (18:5). Some argue that Paul in Acts gives speeches in town after town, like the itinerant sages (such as the Cynics) or charlatans condemned in Lucian’s Peregrinus or Did. 11–13. They contrast this with the epistolary Paul’s intimacy with the Corinthian Christians and others (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–21; 2 Cor 6:11–13; 12:14–19).2432 But this portrait caricaturizes Luke’s portrayal of Paul; Paul stays in Corinth eighteen months (Acts 18:11) and Ephesus two years (19:10), and certainly in the latter develops great intimacy with the believers (20:36–38). Luke certainly implies Paul’s intimacy with believers elsewhere (e.g., Acts 21:4, 12). Luke, however, probably does play on the model of the wandering sage, just as Paul himself adopts peristasis catalogues to portray himself (albeit in something less than even disjointed narrative) as a wandering sage (1 Cor 4:11; 2 Cor 11:25–26). Both Paul and Luke draw on a legitimate aspect of Paul’s ministry (namely, that it was sometimes itinerant, following the sort of model established in the Jesus tradition in Mark 6:7–13; Luke 9:1–6; 10:4–11),2433 though Paul develops it by hyperbolic example and Luke by emphasizing only highlights in various locations before moving on. Luke specifically mentions the “Sabbaths” not to delimit Paul’s entire stay in Thessalonica but to delimit his synagogue ministry there, because that was when the local synagogue community gathered. Evidence suggests that normal synagogue attendance was mostly limited to Sabbaths and feast days in the first century.2434 (2) Dialogue in the Synagogue (17:3)

That Paul “reasoned” or “dialogued” with the Jews in the synagogue suggests the sort of dialogical method found in Plato and other philosophers,2435 used widely also in early Judaism.2436 (Some of the Jewish examples include dialogues against pagan 2432. This perspective is reported by Porter, Paul in Acts, 101. 2433. For an argument for genuine historical tradition in the sending of the Twelve, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 312. Teachers usually gave disciples practice for their future work, so it is intrinsically likelier that Jesus sent disciples to carry on some of his works during his lifetime than that they merely picked these practices up after his death. Even in Mark, which emphasizes discipleship failure, Jesus expects disciples to demonstrate more faith; only the particularly difficult instances (such as Mark 9:18–19, 28–29) confound them. 2434. Safrai, “Synagogue,” 918, citing Jos. Life 276–79; Philo Contempl. 30–32; the Tannaitic evidence for readings on Mondays and Thursdays may have taken place in the market, along with tribunals (919). If the latter evidence is relevant to the first century, it probably applies to Judea rather than the Diaspora. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 25, also concluded that the Sabbaths are mentioned to indicate when Paul could speak to the gathered Jewish community, not to imply his inactivity on other days. 2435. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites Plato Rep. 5.454A. Some ancients thought that Plato introduced the question-and-answer style (Diog. Laert. 3.24), though dialectic was at least as old as Protagoras (9.8.51). On Plato’s dialectic, see Sinaiko, Love. 2436. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites m. Šabb. 16:1; b. Meg. 26b–27a; cf. Keener, John, 67. For rabbinic-controversy dialogues, see, e.g., Barrett, “Anecdotes”; with pagan interlocutors in general (b. Sanh. 39a; Bek. 8b; y. Meg. 1:11, §3; 3:2, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 4:7; Num. Rab. 4:9; 9:48; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §2); Sadducees (b. ʿErub. 101a); Samaritans (y. Maʿaś. Š. 4:6, §5; Yebam. 1:6, §1); and minim more generally (b. Sanh. 38b, 39a; Ḥul. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b–57a [if the Soncino note is correct; otherwise this may refer to a Sadducee]; Herford, Christianity, 226–27, also lists other sources; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff.). The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a is based on fanciful wordplays.

2540

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 244

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

philosophers,2437 even “Epicureans.”)2438 That Paul reasoned from the Scriptures “as was his custom” probably particularly recalls Jesus reading Scripture on the Sabbath “according to his custom” (Luke 4:16, employing the identical Greek phrase). Some scholars suggest that Paul had brought the Scriptures with him, in the newly emerged codex form rather than unwieldy scrolls.2439 But even in codex form, these documents would be too expensive, and probably bulky, to transport.2440 The text does not claim that he paused to look up all the references (though in Beroea his listeners must have examined scrolls to find what he had said, Acts 17:11), but presumably a synagogue selected by Paul in a large city such as Thessalonica would have its own Scripture scrolls. For explaining Jesus’s death and resurrection from the Scriptures (17:2–3; cf. Luke 24:25–26; Acts 26:23), Luke probably assumes at least the same texts implied in Luke 24:46—namely, those summarized in his other samples of Scripture exposition: the pattern of God’s rejected messengers (Acts 7:35–37) and possibly Isa 53:2–3, 8–9 (cf. Acts 8:32–33) support the Messiah’s death whereas Pss 2:7; 16:10–11; 110:1 and Isa 55:3 would be used to support his resurrection (Acts 2:22–36; 13:16–41).2441 The participle παρατιθέμενος in 17:3, translated “proving” or “giving evidence,” probably carries its conventional rhetorical sense of providing evidence.2442 Luke reports Paul’s premise, that Christ must suffer and rise, and the conclusion of his argument: Jesus is the Christ. This argument assumes the intermediate minor premise (in syllogistic logic)2443 that Jesus suffered and rose; although Paul would have had to make the latter premise explicit in preaching, Luke is within proper rhetorical form to leave it implicit. Syllogisms with an element left implicit were often called enthymemes.2444 (3) Jewish and Gentile Converts (17:4)

A number of people were “persuaded,” reflecting an important emphasis in Luke’s narrative world2445 and in the apologetic function of his own work. Paul likewise persuaded others publicly in the synagogue in Ephesus (19:8); perhaps the closest parallel is Paul’s attempted persuasion of both Jews and Greeks in the Corinthian synagogue (18:4). Some who were hostile to his message viewed his “persuasion” as a threat (19:26), but Paul continued to work to “persuade” even in the closing scene of the 2437. In Athens, see b. Bek. 8b–9a; in Rome, see t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 54b, bar.; for a magus, see b. Sanh. 39a. 2438. T. Sanh. 13:5; y. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. ʾAb. 2:14, expounded in b. Sanh. 38b. The title may be employed in its general denigrating sense for those who denied divine providence and judgment (Geiger, “’Pyqwrws”). 2439. Donfried, Thessalonica, 302 (arguing that they already existed in some parchment notebooks, 298–99). 2440. Even if Paul brought these codices with him, would his dialogue partners trust his texts during debates rather than their own scrolls? 2441. For the resurrection passages, cf. Holtz, “Geschichte und Verheissung.” Cf. also 1 Cor 15:3–4. 2442. Johnson, Acts, 305, cites Lucian Prof. P.S. 9; Jos. Life 6; Dio Chrys. Or. 17.10. 2443. For syllogisms, see, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.34.57–1.35.61; Quint. Inst. 5.14.24–25; Aul. Gel. 15.26. Philosophers (e.g., Lucian Fisherman 42), especially Stoics (Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.15; frg. 44, p. 138.22; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.1–3; Diog. Laert. 7.1.76), were famous for syllogisms, though these were often used wrongly and hence qualified, challenged, or mocked (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.14, 1357a; 2.24.1, 1400b; Cic. Fin. 4.18.48–4.19.52; Tusc. 2.12.29; Inv. 1.47.87–89; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 82.10, 19–20; 83.9, 27; 85; Epict. Diatr. 1.22.19; 1.29.34; 2.1.38; 2.3.5; 2.21.21; Lucian Phil. Sale 22, 24, 25). In rabbinic logic, see Neusner in Sifra: An Analytical Translation, 1:38. 2444. Johnson, Acts, 306. On enthymemes (with various definitions), see, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19– 23; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 150–57; Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21; Anderson, Glossary, 44. A leg of the syllogism, when self-evident, may be omitted from being stated explicitly (Aul. Gel. 2.8). 2445. Luke employs the verb πείθω twenty-one times (not all of them relevant), including for persuasion from Scripture (Luke 16:31) and other exhortation (Acts 13:43); Agrippa realizes that Paul seeks to persuade him (26:28, perhaps echoing Paul’s use of the verb in 26:26).

2541

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 245

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

book (28:23–24). Those who were persuaded “joined” (προσεκληρώθησαν) with Paul and Silas; that is, it was a matter not simply of intellectual assent but of adherence to the new way. Paul’s correspondence with the Thessalonian church confirms that many were converted (1 Thess 1:5–10), a persuasion that Paul attributes to God’s Spirit.2446 The significant Gentile component in the church is apparent in 1 Thess 1:9, where many converts turned from idolatry.2447 At the same time, the Thessalonian correspondence includes allusions to ideas that would be barely intelligible to Gentiles lacking any familiarity with some Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14–17; 5:13; 2 Thess 1:7–8; 2:1, 3–10); Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they should not emulate (1 Thess 4:5), as if even the Gentile believers recognize that they have converted to a new way of life. These points may well imply at least some Jewish believers in the community who could explain such elements to others (if Paul is yet aware of how foreign such words would sound to Gentiles unfamiliar with Judaism).2448 This is what we find in Acts 17:3–4, although Luke, consistent with his purposes throughout Luke-Acts, emphasizes the Jewish component both of the church and of the opposition. It is thus an overstatement to suggest that Luke’s account contradicts 1 Thessalonians, where most converts are Greek.2449 The overstatement nevertheless points up a fairly consistent emphasis of Luke’s (see also comment on Acts 17:5). Thessalonian Gentiles worshiped an assortment of deities, of the sort found in most of Greece with a few more exotic foreign deities attracted by the city’s port (in addition to Judaism).2450 The Egyptian cult of Sarapis (Latin Serapis), associated with the goddess Isis, is particularly well attested in the city and was probably several centuries old there by this point.2451 We even have an account of the founding of the city’s Serapion (Latin Serapeum).2452 There is evidence for the cult of Dionysus;2453 there is also evidence for the cult of Cabiri from Samothrace, although this cult was very different in Thessalonica and may not have come directly from Samothrace.2454 (4) The Leading Women (17:4)

The phrase “the leading women” employs the word πρώτων; that is, they are of the “first” rank, a term Luke elsewhere uses to indicate the elite (Luke 19:47; Acts 13:50; 28:7, 17; cf. 16:12).2455 His use of πείθω probably suggests conversion 2446. Cf. also Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 65. Paul attributes persuasion to the Spirit also in 1 Cor 2:4–5. 2447. Cf. further Brocke, Thessaloniki, 114, cited in Schnabel, Acts, 705n9. 2448. Paul’s circle included a Jewish “Jason” (Rom 16:21); though his relation to Thessalonica is not explicit in Romans, many connect him with the Jason possibly known to Luke’s audience (Acts 17:5–9; see comment below). If the Corinthian believers met him during Paul’s first extensive stay in Corinth, it is not improbable that Jason was from Macedonia (cf. Sosipater in Rom 16:21 and Acts 20:4). 2449. E.g., Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 241. 2450. See, e.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 22–29; idem, “Cults”; for Egyptian cults there, Koester, Paul and World, 46–54, 166; on religions in Roman Thessalonica, see now especially Steimle, Religion. 2451. For texts, see esp. Sokolowski, “Sarapis in Greece.” See also Donfried, Thessalonica, 22–23; Gill, “Macedonia,” 408; on the Serapion, Koester, Paul and World, 47–49. 2452. See Horsley, Documents, 1:29–32, §6. 2453. Donfried, Thessalonica, 23–25. He suggests that the sexual emphasis in the Dionysus cult may be relevant to 1 Thess 4:1–6 (pp. 24–25), and its drunkenness to 1 Thess 5:5–7 (p. 31); but sexual immorality (from a Jewish and Christian perspective) was pervasive in Greco-Roman antiquity (see Keener, “Adultery,” 7–15; further comment at Acts 15:20; 16:15), as was drunkenness (see comment on Acts 2:13). 2454. See Donfried, Thessalonica, 25–29, esp. 27. He notes that the Samothracian Mysteries, like the cult of Dionysus, included “frenzy” (29). Harrison, Authorities, 49–50, notes that Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 127–32) finds parallels in 1 Thessalonians with the Cabiri, but Harrison also cites the caution of Koester (“Eschatology,” 443–45) and Vos (Conflicts, 140–42) on the basis of our very limited knowledge of the cult in Thessalonica. See also Concannon, “Archaeology,” 69–70. 2455. Some later manuscripts made the men more prominent here, comporting with the editors’ bias (Ehrman, Introduction, 484; idem, Misquoting, 185–86). Once Luke has mentioned their prominence, he

2542

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 246

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and faith rather than merely interest (cf. Acts 18:4; 19:8, 26; 28:23–24), though Luke uses the term other ways as well (e.g., 21:14; 23:21).2456 Most Eastern cities, even outside the direct Greek sphere, had hellenized local elites.2457 Throughout the empire, municipal aristocracies thrived on inherited (or sometimes earned) wealth and exercised local political power as decurions on local town councils.2458 Social deviation was considered more dangerous among men of this class than for others because the elite influenced by their example (Cic. Leg. 3.14.32). Despite expectations of social conformity especially for this class, we know of wealthy devotees of foreign cults,2459 and an inscription reveals high-status Roman citizens engaged in the worship of Egyptian gods in Thessalonica.2460 Whatever the criticisms of Judaism in Greco-Roman paganism (see comment on Acts 16:20), Egyptian cults were also widely ridiculed, 2461 yet they had wealthy adherents in Thessalonica. Luke has literary reason (cf. Luke 1:3) to emphasize the conversion of aristocrats and other people of influence (Acts 13:7–12), including some wealthy women (Luke 8:2–3; Acts 17:34).2462 The poor could minister to the rich (cf. Socrates in Max. Tyre 1.9), but the examples of rich converts would especially encourage higherstatus members of Luke’s ideal audience.2463 If Luke’s language is pressed fully (with προσεκληρώθησαν implying divine allotment),2464 he may emphasize that “the conversion of such groups was not a matter of course (see [Acts] 13:50!).”2465 Such interests explain Luke’s consistent mention of such converts where they are available for mention (not in every city), but do not imply that Luke simply invented them. The emphasis on manual trades in the Thessalonian church suggests that most of the church was working class (1 Thess 4:13), but this no more excludes some high-class members (or continuing sympathizers) than does the mention of labor in 1 Cor 4:12 for Corinth (cf. Rom 16:23). The term employed for the quickly formed authorities of 1 Thess 5:12 may imply patrons and patronesses.2466 does not need to specify their social power, which could be safely assumed (Arlandson, “Lifestyles,” 169–70). Aristocratic women could combine social power with traditionally “feminine” qualities (Wiersma, “Novel,” reflecting social reality as well as novels). 2456. The term προσκληρόω is a nt hapax legomenon but, if analogous to προστίθημι, would signify conversion (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 11:24); this would also be the case if it retains its metaphoric association with κλῆρος here (cf. 1:17, 26; 8:21; 26:18). 2457. See, e.g., the urban “metropolites,” who despised Egyptian culture and were taxed less heavily than fellow Egyptians, though Rome considered them Egyptians (Lewis, Life, 36, 40–41). 2458. For further details, see Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 111. 2459. E.g., of Isis, in Horsley, Documents, 3:43–45, §12; Jos. Ant. 18.70; an aristocratic woman attracted to Judaism in Jos. Ant. 18.82. 2460. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 136, following Edson, “Cults of Thessalonica.” 2461. E.g., Lucian Astr. 7; Parl. G. 10–11; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.81, 85; see fuller comment on Acts 7:22, 41. Both Judaism (e.g., Philo; Letter of Aristeas) and the cult of Isis (e.g., Plutarch Isis; cf. Maximus of Tyre Orationes) were more acceptable in their philosophic, noncultic forms. 2462. For the mention of prominent Gentile women’s support as a propagandistic device useful for Josephus, see Matthews, Converts, 29–50 (cf. also idem, “Ladies’ Aid”), who notes Josephus’s usual praise of Gentile noblewomen (40–42) and their support for Jewish causes (e.g., 45–46), patronage that he may portray as more exclusive or ideologically driven than it, in fact, was (see 47–50). Josephus may well follow a more general Jewish sentiment here (61). 2463. For the obedience of some wealthy persons removing the excuse of other wealthy persons (likewise the poor for the poor, etc.), see ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 12, §30 B; b. Yoma 35b; 3 En. 4:3. 2464. So Dunn, Acts, 227, citing Acts 2:47; 13:48. The term has a broader usage, but it is easier to understand why Luke would employ this nt hapax legomenon if he intends such a specialized sense. 2465. Reimer, Women, 245. 2466. Riesner, Early Period, 350. For women patrons in house churches, see, e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 194–220; Osiek, “Diakonos.” The sense here is the common English sense closer to benefaction than to Roman patronage in its legal sense.

2543

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 247

6/19/14 2:00 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Women could be patronesses (see comment on Acts 16:15), even of cities.2467 Further, high-status Macedonian women tended to be more independent than Greek women.2468 Haenchen wonders why these women whose sympathies Luke claims proved unable to prevent persecution,2469 but women had less influence than men of the same rank, and defending speakers was all the more difficult when the charge was that of stirring unrest.2470 Aristocratic women could exercise some influence (cf. Cic. Verr. 2.4.61.136), but men of the same class could circumvent it; elsewhere we know of men circumventing their wives’ Jewish sympathies ( Jos. War 2.560–61), and Luke in any case does not claim that Paul converted all or even the majority of aristocratic women. Many of the leading women may be God-fearers (cf. Acts 13:50; 16:13–14), though Luke’s grammar does not require us to include them in the “God-fearing Greeks” just mentioned. As mentioned above, some aristocrats were attracted to “foreign” cults, even some very maligned ones. We know that more women than men were attracted to Judaism2471 and that their number included some women of status (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.195).2472 Contrary to many expectations (based on segregation in the temple and in later orthodox practice), early synagogues do not appear to have had means to segregate genders, at least not in any clear architectural way.2473 iv. Jewish and Gentile Opposition (17:5)

The backlash from the unpersuaded members of the Jewish community provides a contrast both with the positive Jewish reception in Beroea (Acts 17:11) and the anti-Jewish persecution by Gentiles in Philippi (16:20–21). Whether from Jews or Gentiles, God’s servants must expect opposition from any side (cf. Acts 4:27; 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:24–26). The apostles endure opposition as a necessary cost of their mission; without proclaiming, they would face no opposition, but they would also not start new churches.2474 (1) Extrinsic Historical Evidence

On the historical level, there can be no question that the hostility was severe in Thessalonica and that it also continued after Paul left (Acts 17:13). The believers there received the word amid affliction (1 Thess 1:6); Paul preached there amid hostility (2:2). Facing hostility from their fellow Thessalonians, the believers there became imitators of the Judean churches that had faced the situation of some being killed and others being driven out for their witness (2:14–15). Paul’s inability to safely return there is attributed to Satan hindering him (2:18). Paul was worried about their perseverance in faith (3:5), because they were continuing to endure affliction 2467. See Hemelrijk, “Patronesses.” 2468. See Riesner, Early Period, 351; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 58; cf. Wiseman, “Macedonian Family”; although this would be truest of all in a Roman colony such as Philippi, it was relevant in all Macedonia. Historically, cf. Olympias (e.g., Aul. Gel. 13.4). 2469. Haenchen, Acts, 507. 2470. On the greater influence of men in ancient society, even Roman society, see Keener, Acts, 1:605–37, esp. 619–26, 629–37. In Rome, and apparently elsewhere (cf. Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:1), wives’ conversion from the husbands’ religion could even provoke the latter’s hostility. 2471. Women composed half of all proselytes and 80 percent of God-fearers in inscriptions, though only 40 percent of tomb inscriptions relate to them (Riesner, Early Period, 351). Cf. Matthews, “Ladies’ Aid.” 2472. Because elite women were less prominent in public than elite men, they probably formed a higher proportion in the church, as in Judaism (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 54; cf. Rom 16:1–2; Schüssler Fiorenza, Memory, 177). 2473. See Brooten, Women Leaders, 103–38; idem, “Segregated”; Safrai, “Synagogue,” 939; idem, “Segregated”; idem, “Place of Women.” In later Sardis, see Seager, “Synagogue,” 170–71. 2474. Cf. the principle in Prov 14:4.

2544

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 248

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

in his absence (3:2–3;2475 2 Thess 1:5). Some had died (1 Thess 4:13), though lack of praise of their martyrdom weakens the suggestion by some scholars that these believers died martyrs’ deaths.2476 What was the source of opposition? First Thessalonians emphasizes Paul’s local opposition there, perhaps because the largest threat to the church was now the opposition of public officials (especially before current politarchs finished their terms). This is opposition “from your countrymen,” as the churches of Judea received it from theirs (2:14). This may be primarily Gentile opposition, but it does not rule out Jewish involvement.2477 Paul’s digression2478 about Judean hostility and God’s wrath, especially that they hindered “us” from preaching to Gentiles, makes much more sense if relevant to the local situation.2479 The Gentile mission was a mainly Diaspora phenomenon, although opposition to it was not restricted to the Diaspora (cf. Gal 6:12). Luke’s combination of Jewish hostility to the Gentile mission and serious restrictions coming from the Gentile authorities (Acts 17:8–9) adequately coheres with Paul’s description.2480 (2) Luke’s Narrative Purposes

Although Luke’s source is historical, his emphasis here fits his consistent apologetic emphasis throughout Luke-Acts. It is not Paul who stirs sedition here, any more than Jesus really stirred unrest (Luke 23:5). Rather, it is consistently Paul’s opponents, whether Gentile (Acts 16:19–22; 19:24–29) or Jewish (14:2, 5, 19; 17:13; 21:27–36), who stir up unrest. (This neatly sidesteps the question Romans might ask—namely, why unrest happens wherever Paul goes; Romans might view him as at least a catalyst for disturbances and would prefer civic stability to his freedom to evangelize at the risk of antagonizing other groups.) Following the standard rhetorical convention of reversing charges against accusers, Luke subverts the charge against Paul in 24:5. In the wake of events of Claudius’s reign, Gentiles would find the charges against Jews and Christians plausible historically; in the wake of 70 c.e., such accusations might appear even more serious to Luke’s audience.2481 (Luke’s concern about the hostility of the Thessalonian Jewish community did not, however, extend to all Jews, even in Macedonia. Note the explicit contrast in 17:10–12: Beroean Jews acted more nobly than Thessalonian Jews.)2482 2475. First Thessalonians 3:3 was probably an eschatological warning about affliction similar to Acts 14:22. 2476. Most commentators do not connect the passage with martyrdom. 2477. Riesner, Early Period, 352, takes συμφυλετῶν in a local, geographic sense, contending that in Koine the term had usually lost any reference to ethnicity; he includes the local Jewish community, noting that their inclusion in Paul’s passage is otherwise inexplicable (cf. similarly Donfried, Thessalonica, 200–202). Riesner, Early Period, 352, takes the aorist verbs in 1 Thess 2:15 as implying that Jews “drove us out” of Thessalonica. This case is reasonable (unless, less likely, Paul had narrated to the Thessalonians and expected them to envision here events such as Acts 8:1 or 9:29–30), though “Jews” (i.e., “Judeans”) were probably still viewed as resident aliens, and the verb could mean simply “persecute.” 2478. I take this passage as authentically Pauline; see esp. Das, Paul and Jews, 129–36; Schlueter, Measure; Donfried, “Test Case”; idem, Thessalonica, 198–99; Collins, “Integrity”; pace Setzer, Responses, 16–19; Schmidt, “Linguistic Evidence.” I do so, however, because I hold a high standard for the burden of proof regarding interpolations not identified by text criticism; neither context nor Pauline theology would incline me to accept the passage if the textual tradition proved more ambiguous. To omit it without textual evidence, however, then use that omission to challenge Luke’s description, is a double argument from silence offered after dismissing our only two accounts of the events! 2479. Paul does not normally lapse into complaints about Jewish persecution in his letters, and so when he does, it may be presumed relevant to the context rather than merely convention. It could serve as a comparison with the Thessalonian believers’ own persecution by others, but opposing Paul’s speaking to Gentiles (1 Thess 2:16) probably goes beyond Judean complaints. 2480. Cf. also Dunn, Acts, 226. 2481. Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 240, sees the presentation in Acts 17:5–7 as Luke’s apologetic, denouncing Jews, rather than Christians, as “troublemakers.” 2482. Likewise, the trouble in Beroea stems not from Beroean Jews but from outside agitators, Thessalonian Jews, stirring Beroean crowds (17:13).

2545

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 249

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The Jewish accusation provides narrative balance; on this journey, Paul is twice accused by Jews (17:5–7; 18:12–13) and twice by Gentiles (16:19–21; 19:24–27), with charges sometimes accepted (16:20–23; 17:5–9) and sometimes rejected (18:14–17).2483 Nevertheless, the occasions lack perfect symmetry. Although the accusers here are Jewish, Thessalonica’s Jewish community at this point may have been neither large nor influential, and so Jewish accusers would need to stir Gentile support for their claims.2484 In view of the incitement of the mob (see comment below), the claim of 17:5 thus serves an ironic function for Luke (especially clear in view of 24:5): those who accuse Paul of stirring unrest are themselves its authors. Even in Thessalonica itself, the informed reader sees that it is those who accuse Paul of stirring unrest (17:6) who themselves prove guilty of this behavior (17:5).2485 Theophilus (Luke 1:3) and other persons of status would also be interested to note that whereas “lowlifes” opposed the gospel (Acts 17:5), many nobles in 17:4 accepted it.2486 (3) Stirring a Mob (17:5)

The imputed motive of “envy” is frequent in ancient sources,2487 including for Jewish leaders (Acts 5:17) or other Jewish accusers (13:45) in Acts (see full discussion at Acts 5:17); the biblical prototype is Joseph’s brothers’ jealousy of him (ζηλώσαντες, 7:9), linked to the behavior of “our ancestors” (7:11–12).2488 (We should not think here of Paul’s positive purpose for Israel’s jealousy in Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14.) By forming a mob,2489 their opponents are able to lend credibility to the claim that the missionaries foment (or at least facilitate) unrest. Ancient literature, both historical and fictitious, speaks of idlers in the marketplace as easily stirred for rabble-rousers’ political agendas.2490 This portrait partly reflects literature’s frequent aristocratic disdain for demagogues (see comment on Acts 4:21) but probably also depicts social reality. Idlers sitting in a marketplace (ἀγορά) would not be difficult to exploit,2491 and such idlers were in the marketplace.2492 Luke calls them ἀγοραῖοι, those who spent most of the day in the marketplace; usually these people were marginalized, unemployed day laborers.2493 The term, when used more generally, means “loafer” or “lowlife rabble”;2494 2483. Witherington, Acts, 502–3. 2484. Munck, Acts, 165. 2485. With Conzelmann, Acts, 135. 2486. With Witherington, Acts, 507. 2487. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.213; Apul. Apol. 28, 66–67, 101. 2488. The term may also connote zeal; see Schnabel, Acts, 706. 2489. The term ὀχλοποιήσαντες may be Luke’s own coinage, though it is an obvious one (and hence may have been coined by others too); Hesychius regards it as equivalent to δημαγωγία (Bruce, Acts1, 326). Some Thessalonian religions may have sanctioned wild behavior, at least in cultic settings (Donfried, Thessalonica, 29–31). 2490. Hock, “Novel,” 139. 2491. Cf. Rackham, Acts, 297. One phenomenon that I observed in northern Nigeria in the late 1990s was the number of unemployed rural boys consigned to city streets by urbanization and rural poverty, boys often thus susceptible, for good or harm, to imams and others willing to lead them. Some became volunteer martyrs when some more extreme teachers called for jihad. 2492. This may place them close to the legal action before the politarchs (on their archives probably in the agora, see Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425); but we cannot know where Jason’s house was located. 2493. Plato Prot. 347C; Xen. Hellen. 6.2.23 (cited in Bruce, Acts1, 326; Johnson, Acts, 306; Witherington, Acts, 506–7). Day laborers were “the most deprived group of working people,” with “very little security in their family life” (Arlandson, Women, 98; more fully, 92–98). Although highlighted for Thessalonica in both Acts and Paul’s letters, underemployment and consequent public loitering characterized ancient Mediterranean urban life more generally (see Toner, Culture, 110). 2494. E.g., Arist. Pol. 1291a; Aristoph. Frogs 1015; Theoph. Char. 4.2; Hdt. 2.141 (cited in Johnson, Acts, 306; Witherington, Acts, 507). It often contrasts with the wellborn, refined, and educated (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 204). For many people’s mistrust of the unemployed, see Reden, “Unemployment,” 112.

2546

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 250

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

sometimes it also connotes still more fully, as here, “malcontents” or “agitators.”2495 Some ancients complained about “the idle, disorderly, . . . fickle mob” easily exploited by demagogues (Max. Tyre 27.6 [Trapp, 228]).2496 Others also associated such debased persons with loiterers in marketplaces.2497 (Luke’s “certain wicked people” is more explicit.)2498 The old Greek agora of Acts 17:5 is attested in an inscription of 60 b.c.e., found near the forum, the presumed site of 17:6, but we cannot be certain that the inscription was in situ.2499 Since the rabble may have left the market for Jason’s house anyway (although this is specified clearly only for those who aroused them, 17:5), it would not make much difference for the story whether the agora was near the forum or not. The forum, where the politarchs will be found (17:6), stands in the center of the current city of Thessaloniki.2500 Although Thessalonica as a whole had a strong economy, the resources were inequitably distributed. The unemployment rate was high, and much of the urban proletariat lived off the frumentatio, the public grain dole from the city or wealthy benefactors.2501 The church itself included artisans (1 Thess 4:11), perhaps won when Paul worked among them (2:9), and perhaps even some poorer members (2 Cor 8:2–4) who needed to avoid depending on others’ support (cf. 2 Thess 3:12).2502 Idlers in the marketplace, however, were neither artisans nor hardworking farmers in the countryside (though unemployed day laborers were not all idle deliberately).2503 Few ancient readers held a high opinion of those who simply sat and criticized without doing much work (Polyb. 29.1.1–3);2504 idleness2505 and laziness2506 were universally condemned. Wealthy citizens who worked hard in public affairs (or at least attended social functions) held a low opinion of other people of means who wasted time gossiping in public locations (Pliny Ep. 1.13.2).2507 Some in the Thessalonian church 2495. Most commentators (e.g., Bruce, Acts1, 326; Conzelmann, Acts, 135; Witherington, Acts, 507; Larkin, Acts, 247; Fitzmyer, Acts, 595) here cite Plut. Aem. Paul. 38.3–4. 2496. For untrustworthy and fickle mobs, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.148–53 (where a person of nobility quiets them); Tac. Hist. 2.29; comment on Acts 19:29; cf. also the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matt 27:22–23). 2497. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.33; 32.9 (cf. 22.1); in Rome, see Stambaugh, City, 111; cf. idle loiterers, who are damned, in b. Ber. 28b, bar. All were likely men; even in modern Greek villages, the agora is mainly “male” space (Pizzuto-Pomaco, “Shame,” 30). 2498. His use of πονηρούς links them with such crimes as rejecting the Messiah (Acts 3:26) and evil hearts (Luke 6:45; cf. 11:13); with such characters as Herod Antipas (3:19); with Pharisees (11:39); with a signs-seeking generation (11:29); and with demons (Luke 7:21; 8:2; 11:26; Acts 19:12–16). It also contrasts them with false accusations against Paul himself (Luke 6:22; Acts 18:14; 25:18; 28:21). 2499. Finegan, Apostles, 108. 2500. Ibid. This forum’s evidence may come from the second century (McRay, Archaeology, 294), though it is likelier than not that it would have retained an older site. 2501. Riesner, Early Period, 376. 2502. Ibid., 376–77, comparing Dio Chrys. Or. 3.124–25 (while also acknowledging [378] the church’s need to respect its patrons in 1 Thess 5:12–13). 2503. Cf. comments in Keener, Matthew, 481–83. 2504. Cf. Diogenes, who busies himself instead of merely sitting (καθῆσθαι; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.9–10). 2505. E.g., Cic. Sest. 10.22; Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.24–25 (on the idle who never have enough; contrast 70.26 on lovers of toil); frg. 44, p. 139.16–17 (on those lazy in study); Plut. Educ. 17, Mor. 12E (citing Pythagoras); Dio Chrys. Or. 10.6–7; 17.4; Pliny Ep. 4.16.3; 7.24.5; Max. Tyre 5.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; Hrk. 1.5; Porph. Marc. 12.210–12; Ps.-Phoc. 153–54, esp. 154; m. ʾAb. 2:2; cf. Tac. Germ. 15. 2506. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 2.2.23–25; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 8; Plut. Demosth. 1.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; Tac. Hist. 2.90; 3.76; Lucian Runaways 17; Fronto Pr. Hist. 11; Iambl. V.P. 9.49; 28.153; Porph. Marc. 6.105–7.127; 4Q424 1 6; Sent. Syr. Men. 67–71; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A; b. Ber. 32b, bar.; Ned. 49b. For the positive example of hard work, see, e.g., Plut. M. Cato 1.3; 2.2; 4.1; Cic. 36.3; Pliny Ep. 3.5.18–20; Acts 20:35. 2507. Many of the wealthy of course also valued leisure but often viewed themselves as diligent in its pursuit (cf., e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.3.3; 2.8.2; Plut. Cato Minor 20.1; Symm. Ep. 1.1.2; 1.47.1; perhaps Vell. Paterc. 2.98.2–3). Others recognized its dangers (cf., e.g., Plut. Lucullus 30.3).

2547

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 251

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

may have shared the temptation of economic dependence on others to at least some degree (cf. 1 Thess 4:11–12; 2 Thess 3:6–12). That Luke reports this exploitation of the unemployed “rabble” paints Paul’s opponents in a very bad light for Luke’s urban ideal audience. Higher-status hearers in particular would recognize the danger of such means of vilifying the apostles. Thus one Greek historian complained that Aristodemus used the basest, “the filthiest and the most unprincipled of the citizens” to slay the aristocracy (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.8.3). For many high-status hearers, few things appeared more dangerous than mob rule (e.g., Philo Decal. 155).2508 (4) Attempted Prosecution (17:5–6)

The frequent accusations from various sources remind us of how litigious ancient urban society really was2509 as well as how often justice must have miscarried.2510 The elite were always at a great advantage in the courts (cf. Jas 2:6); for example, a prosecutor might prove unable to win against a powerful defendant (P.Ryl. 119, from 54–67 c.e.; P.Fouad 26.21–24; Cic. Caecin. 73), and witnesses’ reliability was regularly evaluated by their wealth ( Juv. Sat. 3.136–44).2511 Roman administration was insufficiently staffed to initiate investigations against private individuals; it waited for accusers (delatores) to bring charges against them.2512 Thessalonica did not depend on Roman administration or law, but accusers were also the primary mover of cases in Greek traditions (as one may confirm by surveying the classical forensic orators). Paul’s accusers could have acted in “the spirit of the imperial loyalty oaths” by searching for Paul, reporting his allies, and even pursuing him to Beroea (17:5–9, 13).2513 Deceptive accusers were, however, widely despised,2514 and Luke’s informed audience would so view enemies of his protagonists. Emperors often overlooked the political rhetoric of philosophers,2515 since barely anyone took their stronger political claims seriously;2516 these charges, however, would make the missionaries difficult to overlook. Their opponents sought to bring the missionaries forth into the δῆμος, the citizen body as a popular assembly with judicial and legislative authority.2517 The δῆμος was appropriate to a free city such as Thessalonica, where city officials were not directly 2508. See further Grant, Paul, 70. 2509. See, e.g., Hor. Sat. 1.9; Ovid Fasti 1.165–70; Suet. Aug. 29.1; 33.1; Vesp. 10; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66; earlier, Plut. Demosth. 15.1.2. 2510. See, e.g., in Polyb. 31.29.8, 10; Cic. Verr. 2.3.13.32–34; Quint. fratr. 3.1.5.15; 3.4.1; Quinct. 1.1–2; Suet. Tib. 33; Apul. Metam. 9.42; Grant, Paul, 32 (citing Apul. Metam. 10.33); Winter, Left Corinth, 61–62; idem, “Litigation.” 2511. Winter, Left Corinth, 62–64, though noting exceptions (SEG 8.527.9–10). He notes (63) that some rich people could even threaten to have others killed for filing against them (citing Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.2, 7, though this is hypothetical). 2512. See, e.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; Caird, Revelation, 22–23. For the abuse, see, e.g., Suet. Claud. 37; Tit. 8.5; Tac. Agr. 2; Hist. 1.2; Hdn. 7.3.2; Mommsen, History, 179; O’Neal, “Delation.” 2513. Harrison, Authorities, 54. 2514. See, e.g., Suet. Tib. 61.2–3. 2515. Many philosophers emphasized that only philosophers understood how to reign properly, perhaps developing the kingly instruction found in older wisdom texts (e.g., “Instruction of Vizier Ptah-hotep” [ANET]; Prov 1:1, 8; 31:4). For philosophers as ideal rulers, see, e.g., Plato Rep. 5.472; Quint. Inst. 2.17.28; Dio Chrys. Or. 49.13; Iambl. V.P. 27.129; in Stoicism, see Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.5; Plut. Flatt. 16, Mor. 58E; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, pp. 78–79.1–3; Lucian Hermot. 16; Diog. Laert. 7.1.122; for kings needing philosophic wisdom, e.g., Isoc. Ad Nic. 10–11; Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.8–9; Diog. Laert. 7.1.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.36; 6.31; Let. Aris. passim. 2516. In the reign of a mild emperor (comparable to Claudius), see, e.g., Lucian Peregr. 18–19; under a brutal one, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.16; 8.7. The harmless “mild” version of Cynics did not seek to upset the social order (Malherbe, Philosophers, 20–22); Jews and Christians might also be seen as more politically involved than the Isis cult, which did not scruple at favoring particular officials for aediles (Grant, “Christian and Roman History,” 24). 2517. Bruce, Acts1, 326; Tajra, Trial, 33. See also Acts 12:22 and comment on Acts 12:23.

2548

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 252

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

under Roman oversight.2518 Aristocrats believed that a δῆμος was easily exploited, since democracy depended on the unlikely virtue of the masses.2519 However many weeks Paul and Silas had been in Thessalonica, they had probably not yet completely healed from their wounds from the most recent public “assembly” riot. Before a hearing was possible, however, the accusers had to bring the object of accusation to trial.2520 Others in antiquity sometimes evaded or, better, postponed hearings for some time by ignoring a summons.2521 Such behavior could, however, also lead easily to one’s condemnation (Epict. Diatr. 2.2.19–20) or to a heavy fine (Aeschines Tim. 46, noting a thousand drachmas in classical Athens). Unable to locate Paul, these accusers instead produce Jason, a local householder with much at stake. Attacking an opponent’s supporters was common practice (e.g., Tim. 193–95). Dragging the accused before a court was the most assured way to ensure their appearance (Acts 6:12; 18:12; cf. 17:19),2522 though sometimes, as on this occasion, the primary target proved fortuitously unavailable (again in 19:29). (5) Jason (17:5–9)

Luke mentions Jason as if he were already known, perhaps because Luke may write for a partly Macedonian audience2523 or perhaps because he has again condensed material overzealously.2524 Jason, as Paul’s host, may have provided for Paul’s work (cf. 1 Thess 2:9) but probably, at the least, also provided for his home (hence the explicit mention of the “house” here).2525 Perhaps this house became Paul’s base of operation after he faced opposition in the synagogue, analogous to Acts 18:6–7, though Luke does not state this.2526 Jesus had instructed his missionaries to depend on household hospitality (Luke 9:4; 10:5–8). These arrangements are comfortable and contrast with others that would have been available for those without ethnic or personal connections. The lowest-status artisans often lived in the rear of their shops and sometimes even on the street.2527 Cynic philosophers deliberately lived in public, begging and sleeping under temple porticoes; Paul’s arrangements help distinguish him from Cynics.2528 Some scholars argue that Paul, who labored with his hands (Acts 18:3; 20:34–35), may have also sought to 2518. Riesner, Early Period, 355; Hemer, Acts in History, 115. This would not grant them license to abuse a Roman citizen, but the very charge of treason (Acts 17:7) would be sufficient to taint even a citizen. 2519. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.47–49. Δῆμος appears in the nt only at Acts 12:22; 17:5; 19:30, 33; the first instance is technically correct whereas the others associate the legal δῆμος with unruly mobs! Yet these portraits contrast with the concord of Acts 15’s resolution, despite initial disagreement in that case. 2520. This was not the responsibility of local police, who, in any case, never proved very effective except in two colonies (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34). 2521. E.g., Suet. Jul. 23.1 (as governor of Gaul, claiming that he was away from Rome on government business); cf. Winter, Welfare, 108–9. Romans did not consider capital trials fair in a defendant’s absence (Cic. Verr. 2.2.39.95), though one who deliberately fled would likely be assumed guilty (Aeschines Embassy 6; later, Verres himself). For examples of court summons, see P.Hib. 30, lines 13–26 (before 270 b.c.e.); P.Tebt. 303 (180 c.e.); P.Hamb. 1.4 (87 c.e.). 2522. On using force to get someone to court, see Lintott, Romans, 18–19. For a figurative example, see Apul. De deo Socr. 155. 2523. “Jason” might also be remembered in Corinth as well if he is the same Jason as in Rom 16:21 (see comment below). 2524. Cf. Suet. Nero 15.2, which mentions one “Caninius Rebilus” as if known; Suetonius earlier described this case but apparently forgets that he omitted the official’s name there (Jul. 76.2). 2525. On patronage in Thessalonica, see Hendrix, “Patron Networks.” 2526. Matson, Conversion Narratives, 169. One might doubt this reading because Luke does not state it, since it fits his pattern well enough to merit explicit statement; but given his frequent compression of narrative, we cannot be certain either way. 2527. Hock, Social Context, 29–30, following Frier, “Market in Rome,” esp. 30–34. 2528. Hock, Social Context, 30.

2549

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 253

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

avoid the appearance of being a household client, the danger attached to a teacher’s long stay in a patron’s household.2529 Luke, however, does not report how long Paul depended on local hospitality; in some especially trustworthy cases (e.g., 18:3), it may have been longer than the normal expected duration of hospitality (i.e., a week).2530 “Jason” was a Greek name famous for its association with the leader of the Argonauts.2531 But it had long been a frequent name for Jewish people,2532 perhaps with an unstated Jewish equivalent.2533 Jewish accusers could more easily seize Jason with impunity if he was a member of their own resident-alien community2534 (though anti-Jewish sentiment was likely weaker here than in Philippi, 16:20–21), though they could arraign him, in any case, in their role as delatores. That Paul would be staying with a sympathetic Jewish host, especially in a city where he had spoken in the synagogue, is more likely than not. That Jason became or remained Paul’s host after Paul’s Sabbath dialogues and the rise of his Jewish opposition (17:2, 5) suggests that he also had become a follower of Jesus at some point in the process.2535 Many scholars identify this Jason with Paul’s “relative” (meaning at least fellow Jew) in Rom 16:21.2536 Though the name for Jews was not so uncommon that we must suppose that a Jewish-Christian Jason in Corinth must be the same person as the Jason here, some secondary support points in this direction. In a letter written during Paul’s stay in Corinth in Acts 20:2–3, Paul mentions him next to Sosipater (Rom 16:21), who is probably the Sopater of Beroea who was there at the same time (Acts 20:4).2537 If “relative” means more than “fellow Jew,” depending on which of Paul’s ancestors received the citizenship grant, he might have been able to have distant Diaspora relatives with Greek names.2538 But the latter point is at best speculation and on the whole quite unlikely, since the term used for “relative” might mean simply someone 2529. Ibid., 30–31 (noting esp. Lucian Posts 3, 20, 37 and Paul’s refusal to be a “burden,” 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Cor 11:9). 2530. Hock, Social Context, 29. 2531. On whom see, e.g., Dräger, “Iason”; Dowden, “Jason.” Despite Luke’s occasional classical allusion (Acts 17:19), he intends no connection with the mythological Jason here. Thessaly (which also had a Jewish community, Philo Embassy 281) was not Thessalonica (apparently confused in Le Cornu, Acts, 938); Pelias the oppressor was not the same as the politarchs; and Paul is certainly not compared with Jason’s Eastern religious patron (and temporary wife), Medea the witch, who slew her brother, Pelias, her children, and Jason’s second wife (Arist. Poet. 14.12, 1453b; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.16, 24, 27–28; Cic. Tusc. 4.32.69; Hor. Epodes 3.9–14; Ovid Metam. 7.391–97; Virg. Ecl. 8.47–50; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.19; 4.13.14–15; Plut. Poetry 3, Mor. 18A; Paus. 2.3.6–7; Lucian Hall 31; Char. Chaer. 2.9.3; Philost. Letters 21 [38]; Gr. Anth. 7.354)! 2532. E.g., 1 Macc 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; 2 Macc 4:7, 13; 4 Macc 4:16; CIJ 1:25, §32; 1:205, §289; 2:15, §749; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; 3:179 (listing abundant evidence); Let. Aris. 49 (albeit fictitiously attributing it to a Palestinian elder); Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 80; perhaps CIJ 1:267, §341. Cf. also the rhyming Μνάσων (Acts 21:16; but see comment there). 2533. Some (Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 25 [from Witherington]; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 205; Milligan, Thessalonians, 133; Bruce, Acts1, 326) suggest that it was a hellenized form of “Joshua” (which appears in the lxx and early Christianity as Ἰησοῦς, “Jesus,” Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8; 1 Clem. 12.2). 2534. Judge, First Christians, 565, allows Jason as a probable Roman citizen; despite the use of the name for some citizens in a colony like Philippi, however, we cannot be certain that it refers to a citizen in this case. 2535. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 205, think this unclear, though noting that later tradition (eager to fasten on canonical personages) deputized him a bishop of Thessalonica. 2536. Milligan, Thessalonians, 133; Riesner, Early Period, 348; Gillman, “Jason”; Jewett, Romans, 977; Moo, Romans, 934; Dunn, Romans, 909; cf. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 26 (from Witherington). Already in the church fathers, see Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:21 (CER 5:272, 274); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:21 (IER, PG 82:224) (both in Bray, Romans, 378). Meeks, Urban Christians, 62, doubts the identification (as does Fitzmyer, Acts, 595; Bock, Acts, 551, is neutral) and also (with less reason—namely, the Greek name) supposes him a Gentile. 2537. Riesner, Early Period, 348; Jewett, Romans, 978; cf. Dunn, Romans, 909. 2538. It could be speculated that Jason was Luke’s close relative if Luke was from Philippi and provided the contact and if the same Lucius is in view in Rom 16:21. But “Lucius” was a common name, rendering that identification suspect; Luke would also have to be a Jewish relative of Paul’s (which is also unlikely).

2550

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 254

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

from the same tribe or nation, especially given Paul’s usage of the term in Romans (though its use in Rom 16:7, which refers to believers possibly already from the early Jerusalem church, might have a slightly stronger claim to a narrower sense). Converts from Thessalonica apparently include Aristarchus and Secundus (Acts 20:4; 27:2); Aristarchus, at least, seems to have been Jewish (Col 4:10).2539 v. Denunciations in Court (17:6–9)

The accusers arraign Paul’s host and some converts on charges more serious than those in Philippi—namely, of sedition and treason against the emperor (Acts 17:6–7). The Gentile charge against the missionaries in Philippi is that they are Jews undermining Roman customs; here fellow Jews charge them with disloyalty to Caesar (cf. a similar apologetic irony in John 19:12–15). But as in Philippi, the authorities’ response seems to be political accommodation of mob sentiment; they act on conventional charges, but their handling of the matter does not suggest that they envision any real threat of social subversion. Although the empty rhetoric of the opposition is useful for Luke’s apologetic, it also reflects accurately the way many cases were conducted in antiquity, even without mob support. (1) The Authorities (17:6)

Although the proconsul governing the entire province of Macedonia resided in Thessalonica, the officials would not need to involve him; Thessalonica administered its own local affairs as a free city within the province. Thus the city’s “politarchs” (πολιτάρχας, 17:6, 8) held considerable authority, overseeing administration and police matters; it was they whom Rome would hold responsible for keeping peace and stability in the city.2540 The title “politarch” was rarely used for magistrates outside Macedonia, but it is common in Macedonian inscriptions and is well attested in Thessalonica.2541 Given the term’s rareness in extant literature,2542 it seems likely that only one who traveled to Macedonia and had some sort of business with local officials would readily learn the title. Confirming Luke’s use of the plural, Thessalonica had five politarchs under Augustus and six under the later Antonines.2543 From the early first century c.e. until late in the second century, the number in Thessalonica seems to have varied between three and possibly as many as seven (IG 126, 133, 137).2544 They convened the city council (βουλή) and the citizen assembly (ἐκκλησία) and introduced the motions into each. “When a decree was passed, the politarchs set their seal on the papyrus copy,” and it was deposited in city archives, probably in the agora.2545 (2) The Charge of Sedition (17:6)

Slanders against minorities, including Christians, were common in the first and second centuries;2546 they were also directed against Paul (Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8). The 2539. Observed by Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” page facing p. 26 (from Witherington). 2540. See Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425; Riesner, Early Period, 358. 2541. In Amphipolis and Beroea (McRay, Archaeology, 292, 295), but at least twenty of the politarch inscriptions are from Thessalonica (295, updating Schuler, “Politarchs”). For a photo of one of the earlier discovered politarch inscriptions, now in the British Museum, see Blaiklock, Cities, plate after p. 32. 2542. Finegan, Apostles, 108, claims that the title never occurs in Greek literature apart from Acts 17:6, 8. 2543. There seems a consensus on the politarchs’ title and role (Cadbury, Acts in History, 41; Bruce, Acts1, 326; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; Haenchen, Acts, 506; Malherbe, “Life,” 12; Hemer, Acts in History, 115); for some of the data (out of at least nineteen inscriptions so far), see also Rossano, “Note archeologiche”; Horsley, Documents, 2:34–35, §5. 2544. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 426 (noting that the number may have reached even nine by the early third century c.e., IG 127). 2545. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425 (for a full survey of the inscriptional evidence, see 419–31). 2546. E.g., 1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:16–17. Charges included cannibalism ( Justin 1 Apol. 1.26.7; Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.15) and incest (Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4; Tert. Apol. 2.5, 20; 4.11; 7.1; Min. Fel. Oct. 31.1).

2551

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 255

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Jesus movement was spreading more quickly even than Luke, limiting his focus at this point to the Pauline mission, can chronicle, and Paul speaks of proleptically propagating the gospel to all the world (Rom 15:19; Col 1:23);2547 but here we are dealing with hyperbole. Hyperbole such as “stirred up2548 the inhabited world” appears regularly in ancient literature (cf. Acts 24:5);2549 it would be mentally acknowledged as hyperbole while emotionally inciting greater feeling in a crowd. A late and probably fabricated document accuses Jews of “wishing to stir up the entire world [ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην]” (CPJ 2:78–79, §156c). More relevant is that the popularity of pagan charges against Jews as stirrers of unrest under Claudius (esp. P.Lond. 1912, from 41 c.e.) would provide a popular hearing for such a charge among Gentiles. In the wake of Claudius’s expelling Rome’s Jews (or some of them) in 49 c.e., possibly for some debate about the identity of the Messiah, officials may have been especially wary about some Roman Jews coming their way.2550 The irony of the charge is that it is some Jews here who bring it against other Jews. Any traveling teachers, including pagan philosophers, not accountable to a local government were potential threats to the stability of the Roman order.2551 The charge of causing unrest2552 would prove plausible to those who knew the history of riots or hostility following Paul’s activity (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:19–22). Given the few days’ distance between Philippi and Thessalonica, word of Paul’s troubles in the former may have reached the latter,2553 though it is possible that it would not have; given the relatively small and supportive Jewish community in Philippi, Thessalonian Jews would not likely receive word from coreligionists there. Luke’s apologetic irony is that it is not Paul here but his accusers who stirred up a mob (17:8; cf. again in 17:13, with the same verb). This irony reinforces Luke’s apologetic (see comment on Acts 24:5). (3) The Charge of maiestas (17:7)

Treason was the one offense the exhortation to commit which was a criminal act.2554 Treason, or maiestas, was a broad category of offense that could cover a wide variety of crimes.2555 Such acts as killing hostages without the emperor’s command, or a gover2547. Cf. Rom 1:8; 10:18; Col 1:6; 1 Thess 1:8. For the late second century, see, e.g., Tert. Apol. 1.7; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 186–90. Some think that the movement reached even Pompeii before its destruction in 79 c.e. (Filson, “Christians in Pompeii”; Botha, “Research”); the Rotas-Sator Square, however, does not demonstrate this (Baines, “Square”). 2548. The term appears elsewhere in Luke’s extant work only at Acts 21:38 (and elsewhere in the nt only at Gal 5:12). Ironically, it is Paul’s Jewish opponents who “stir” (different term) the mob in 17:8 (cf. 17:13), fitting the Gentile stereotype falsely applied to Paul and Silas in 16:20. 2549. One may fill “the world” positively (Ovid Tristia 2.324; Her. 9.16; Apul. Flor. 16.48; Eunapius Lives 493; Song Rab. 1:3, §1; John 21:25 [on the hyperbole in John 21:25, see Keener, John, 1241–42) or (as here) negatively. Caligula tormented the world ( Jos. Ant. 19.1) and “filled it up” with suffering (19.14). Cf. events affecting “the world” in Vell. Paterc. 2.4.6; 2.31.1–2; 2.100.1. Ironically, the God whose agents Paul and Silas are would judge the “world” they were accused of subverting (Acts 17:31). 2550. Witherington, Acts, 507n164; cf. Judge, First Christians, 462. On this expulsion, see comment on Acts 18:2. 2551. Witherington, Acts, 508n168 (following MacMullen, Enemies, 144ff.). 2552. Ἀναστατόω, as in Acts 21:38; “throughout the world” in this case refers to the empire (cf. Luke 2:1; Acts 11:28) and fits other hyperbolic complaints against Paul’s ministry (Acts 24:5; cf. 19:27), perhaps allowing Luke to implicitly praise its geographic range. 2553. With, e.g., Marshall, Acts, 279. 2554. Robinson, Criminal Law, 19. On maiestas, or treason, see more fully ibid., 74–78. Maiestas was a capital offense (Quint. Decl. 260 intro. with [esp.] 260.5–6), but declaimers could associate forms of treason with exile (Quint. Decl. 266 intro.) as well as death (Quint. Decl. 272 intro.; probably implied in Quint. Decl. 294 intro.; 348 intro.). 2555. Cases ranged from mere disobedience or offending state symbols, which could be punished mildly at times, to offenses inviting execution (Gizewski, “Maiestas,” 186). This crime could be investigated by torture

2552

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 256

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

nor refusing to surrender his province to his successor, constituted treason.2556 More relevant here, “internal treason or sedition” included “assembling a mob” (as Paul’s opponents do in Luke’s account, though not directly against the state) to attempt, for example, to make another king.2557 There is no clear line between “sedition” and full-fledged treason; the former might be easier to prove, but the latter was an even more dangerous charge if it could be made to stick.2558 The charge of treason is also dangerously plausible in Paul’s case.2559 The eschatological content of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, probably recalling some of Paul’s instruction while in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:5, 15), could easily enough be construed as predicting a new ruler and the timing or signs of his reign; the emperor had already decreed that such predictions constituted treason, a charge local magistrates would be quick to investigate.2560 Witherington cites elements in Paul’s message to Thessalonian Christians that would support the charge of subversion:2561 1. The demand that they turn from idols (1 Thess 1:9) would include statues of Caesar; the imperial cult was important in Thessalonica as elsewhere. 2. The parousia (4:15) of God’s Son (1:10) could sound like a claim to rival the parousia of the emperor as the divine son. 3. Paul speaks of Jesus’s kingdom and glory (2:12). 4. Paul denies the reality of the emperor’s claim of “peace and security” (5:3).2562 or other means outside normal law (187). Classical Athens had also defined treason against the state fairly broadly (Thür, “Prodosia”). 2556. Robinson, Criminal Law, 76. 2557. Ibid.; Ungern-Sternberg, “Seditio.” Simply reading a poem to lament the death of a member of the imperial family when, in fact, the person was not dead could bring execution (Tac. Ann. 3.49–51). Beating a mere citizen was punishable generally, but beating a magistrate could be construed as maiestas (Quint. Decl. 252.5); most relevant, “seditious incitement” counted as maiestas (Rowe, World, 73, citing Tac. Ann. 1.72). Despite the emperor’s refusal of the label, sources in the East (and a few in the West) call him “king” (Rowe, World, 97–98). 2558. Robinson, Criminal Law, 78–80. 2559. Even today a number of interpreters find Paul’s message to be subversive against the empire or imperialism (cf. Eisen, “Streitwagen”; Horsley, “Assembly,” 386–92; “Society” [and see more generally Paul and Empire]; Pascuzzi, “Battle”; Elliott, Liberating; Wright, “Perspective on Paul”; “Paul and Empire”; Perspectives, 169–90, 237–54; Long, “Political Theology”; Keesmat, “Capital” [e.g., 62, seeing love of enemies as counter­ imperial]; for a survey of relevant recent perspectives, see Carter, “Empire”; Harrison, “Paul,” 147–50; cf. also approaches in Kim, Introduction, 13–14), even though most comparable groups did seek to function peacefully within the empire (and had little practical alternative). Cf. also anti-kingship in Vinson, “Touch” (although in light of ancient sources I am not persuaded by this reading of Luke 19:11–27; see my similar critique in my review of Preaching Matthew, on Graves and May, Matthew, a mostly helpful book); in Luke-Acts as a whole, essays in Rhoads, Esterline, and Lee, Empire; cf. observations in Keener, Acts, 2:1754, 1784–86, 1799, 1963–64. Classicists also read other texts in light of the dominance of imperial models (e.g., Coffee, “Theseus”; Harrison, “Paul,” 152). Some, however, warn that many recent approaches to imperial studies go too far (see, e.g., Miller, “Imperial Cult”; Strait, “King”; McKnight and Modica, Caesar, 18–19, 213–14), arguing, for example, that empires are not all the same (as ancients eventually recognized; Fitzpatrick, “Carneades”). Definitions of “anti-imperial” matter; most would concur that Paul’s monotheism relativized the emperor’s role and condemned his worship, but also that he did not foment violent revolution. For attempts to nuance judgments or compare Paul with the range of ancient options, see, e.g., Punt, “Agency,” 54; Zerbe, “Politics,” 72–73; Lopez, “Visualizing,” 77; Wright, Paul, 312–43. Paul, like other minority subjects in empires, experienced hybridity (Barreto, Negotiations, 50–51; see discussions of hybridity on 45, 49–53, 140–80, esp. 140, 166–80; for a probable example of such hybridized perspectives on the empire, see Taussig, “Melancholy,” 291). 2560. See esp. Judge, “Decrees.” 2561. Witherington, Acts, 508 (citing also the discussion in Cassidy, Society, 89–91); more briefly, Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426; Donfried, Thessalonica, 34, 249. But cf. Galinsky, “Cult.” 2562. On the imperial claim to provide “peace and security,” see Ovid Her. 9.15; Weima, “Peace”; Herz, “Emperors,” 310–11; Bowley, “Pax”; Koester, “Silence,” 341; Donfried, Thessalonica, 34; for suspicions about it, see, e.g., Seneca’s critique in Huttner, “Zivilisationskritik.” But note also White, “Peace and Security”; he

2553

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 257

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

5. The language of 2 Thess 1:5–2:12 (with its king figure usurping even the temple for worship) is even more politically sensitive. That Jesus, Paul’s rival “emperor,”2563 was indeed known to be executed by a Roman governor on the charge of laesa maiestas (lèse-majesté)2564 made the matter even worse.2565 This charge could be construed as broadly as needed;2566 under the earlier, paranoid emperor Tiberius,2567 it applied even to beating a slave near a statue of Augustus or being honored in one’s hometown on a day once dedicated to Augustus (Suet. Tib. 58). Romans could have construed even Jesus’s preaching of God’s imminent reign (Luke 4:43; 9:27; 10:9, 11) as seditious,2568 if extracted from a purely religious context. Speaking in support of one viewed as a traitor could be construed as treason (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 48.8),2569 and so it was natural that alleged crimes of Christians were connected with Jesus’s execution (Min. Fel. Oct. 9.4–5). James Harrison, in a recent monograph, abundantly parallels Paul’s language in the Thessalonian correspondence with imperial language;2570 whether or not Paul intended all such language as a reference to another ruler, his language could easily have been construed as such by those with reasons to do so. The accusation that Paul proclaims another king represents a (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of Paul’s message, somewhat like philosophers’ (nondeliberate) view of him as preaching “Anastasis” as a deity alongside Jesus (Acts 17:18). Luke may employ the Christians’ opponents as a literary foil, emphasizing their denseness to highlight the rational superiority of the Christian message.2571 After all, Jesus was argues that this was not a “widely recognizable political catchphrase” (382n1), although texts do mention them together (392). 2563. Judge, First Christians, 395–403, argues that in this period the emperors (literally, supreme military commanders) were not called kings in Roman sources (though allowing it in some Greek sources, 400–401). While this nomenclature reflects imperial propaganda, however, emperors exercised more power than their client kings. Even seeking a client kingdom without Caesar’s blessing could be deemed dangerous political overreaching (see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.245, 252). 2564. Cf. Brown, Death, 968; Tajra, Trial, 36–42. On the charge (and its flexible application in this period), see Balsdon and Lintott, “Maiestas.” Tiberius was not the only paranoid emperor (e.g., Hdn. 1.13.7), but he reportedly viewed even negative remarks as maiestas (e.g., Dio Cass. R.H. 57.9.2; 57.19.1; 57.23.1–2; cf. Caligula, 59.11.6), leading to many false accusations (57.4.5–6). Among Romans, treason was the greatest crime (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.80.1). Earlier rulers had of course also treated it harshly (see, e.g., Turin Judicial Papyrus, trans. Ritner, in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 3.8, pp. 27–30). 2565. Bruce, Thessalonians, xxiii. That Jesus was thought to be descended from David (Rom 1:3), is called “Christ” (e.g., Rom 1:4; 9:5; 1 Cor 15:3), and has a kingdom (e.g., Rom 15:12; 1 Cor 15:24–25; Col 1:13; 2:10) would, even without the accounts in the Gospels, lead most ancient hearers to assume that he was crucified on the charge of treason (see Allison, Jesus, 398). 2566. Dig. 48.4.1.1; Blinzler, Trial, 213; cf. also Cic. Fam. 3.11.2. One accused of treason complained that he had not spoken of either the emperor or his mother, noting that the charge technically applied only to that crime (Tac. Ann. 4.34). Even a tetrarch’s desire to be named “king” like his brother-in-law might lead to banishment ( Jos. Ant. 18.244–46, 252; War 2.182–83; though in this case false accusations were the primary cause, Ant. 18.247–51; cf. War 2.183). 2567. Cf., e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.50; 3.38; 4–5 passim (e.g., 4.17–21, 30, 60, 66, 69–70, 74; 5.3–6). 2568. Grant, Christianity and Society, 13. Donfried, “Rethinking,” suggests that Paul’s gospel used potentially political language in tension with the empire’s language; indeed, even Jewish apocalyptic imagery with its earlier Eastern roots could be laid against images of the Augustan new era in Virgil. Some modern ethicists have also understood Paul’s eschatology politically (see discussion in Kroeker, “Messianic Ethics”). Walton, “State,” 34–35, argues that Luke is often positive toward the empire but not uncritically; by raising Jesus, God reversed Rome’s verdict and hence demonstrated that he is over Caesar. 2569. Cf. Brown, Death, 1217; Blinzler, Trial, 236; Hdn. 1.13.4–6; 3.5.6; 4.6.1. 2570. Harrison, Authorities. See, e.g., 47–69, on the imperial gospel at Thessalonica, suggesting competition with Roman politics; and 71–95, on how the antichrist figure in 2 Thess 2 may evoke the emperor cult. He notes (with others) the imperial parousia (56–57), apantesis (59–60), and peace and safety (61–62), though parousia (paralleled in Matthew) could be pre-Pauline. Cf. idem, “Paul,” 150–74, esp. 154–60. 2571. For literary foils, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 1.8; Dion. Hal. Demosth. 33; cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, 135; Keener, John, 539, 545–46.

2554

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 258

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

charged with forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar as well as claiming to be king (Luke 23:2), even though Jesus had advocated paying taxes and appropriate loyalty to Caesar (20:22–25). That is, Jesus’s opponents charged him with the crime to which they had tried to make him confess, despite his refusal to confess to it!2572 From Luke’s first volume, especially Luke 23, Luke’s audience is privy to information Paul’s accusers lacked: Jesus was executed as king of the Jews to appease a mob (23:23), but Rome’s agents recognized his innocence (23:4, 14–15, 22, 47). At the same time, the misunderstanding or distortion by the missionaries’ accusers may serve Luke’s literary purposes on a higher level. Luke may intend some irony here that would be lost on the accusers in the story world (and about which he could not afford to be explicit): though Paul’s message is no threat to Roman order, he does announce a king whom God has enthroned (Acts 2:33–35); who will reign forever (Luke 1:33; Acts 1:6); and whose birth is set in deliberate contrast to the majesty of the emperor Augustus in Luke 2:1–14, a passage that also mentions Caesar’s “decree” and “all the world” (2:1).2573 Paul must later fend off the charge that he has offended against Caesar (Acts 25:8). As a free city and the seat of the governor (who might well hear about these charges), Thessalonica would not be willing to risk its favored status by allowing talk of another king.2574 Thessalonica was fully committed to not only the honor but the worship of the emperor, like most other prominent cities of the East. Its coins included both Julius and Augustus Caesar as gods.2575 Thessalonica had had its own temple for the cult of the emperor since the time of Augustus.2576 Archaeologists have found a statue of Augustus and part of another imperial statue in the western part of the city, suggesting that the imperial temple was in this area.2577 Although Rome supported various client kingdoms,2578 the ideology of imperial propaganda mythologically emphasized the emperor’s, hence Rome’s, cosmic authority.2579 It is possible that some Thessalonians may have understood even some traditional local cults in ways that would keep the local elite, ever sensitive on Rome’s behalf, attentive. In older times, Thessalonians expected the return of the mystery god Cabirus to help the poor; if representatives of the current order were anxious to prevent any revival of such notions, they could have also heard the Christian message about the return of Jesus suspiciously.2580 It is possible that even the cult of Serapis and Isis at some point was connected with the veneration of the emperor.2581 (4) Caesar’s “Decrees” (17:7)

Technically, maiestas was a matter of public law, not “decrees of Caesar” as stated by Paul’s accusers here.2582 But a number of imperial decrees could be relevant, and 2572. For Jesus’s not posing a specific political alternative, cf., e.g., Casas García, “Ambiente.” 2573. See on that passage Danker, New Age, 24. Some thus find in the subversion charge an element of truth (cf. Hays, Moral Vision, 125–29; Lestang, Annonce, 119–20). Pelikan, Acts, 189, finds historical irony in the early potential reception history of the passage: within a few centuries, the emperors themselves proclaimed Jesus another king. 2574. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 135; Green, “Anuncio.” 2575. Smith, “Correspondence,” 274, following Hendrix, “Thessalonicans,” 170–73, 179. 2576. McRay, Archaeology, 294, cites IG 10.2.31; on the imperial cult there, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 36–38. 2577. Gill, “Macedonia,” 415. The Serapeum was farther west, nearer the sea (Gill, “Macedonia,” 415). 2578. Cf., e.g., Plut. Cic. 36.1 (earlier); Rev 17:10; Aune, Revelation, 951. 2579. Cf. Fears, “Ideology of Power”; cf. the nationalistic, mythical revision of old Pharaonic ideology in later periods (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 244). 2580. Riesner, Early Period, 379–81. 2581. Cf. McRay, Archaeology, 294, noting from an inscription that they shared a temple or were closely related. 2582. Sherwin-White, Society, 103; Donfried, Thessalonica, 32; Judge, First Christians, 456–57. Luke elsewhere employs δόγμα for both Caesar’s (Luke 2:1) and the Jerusalem church leaders’ (Acts 16:4) decrees.

2555

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 259

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

local magistrates’ loyalty oath to the emperor would compel them to enforce such edicts.2583 Two Caesars,2584 both Augustus (Dio Cass. 56.25.5–6) and Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 36; Dio Cass. 57.15.8), had decades earlier issued decrees against predictions of new rulers or otherwise implying a current emperor’s demise.2585 Another possible element in the allusion is laws prohibiting voluntary associations’ political functions.2586 Riesner thinks that news of Claudius’s edict expelling Jews from Rome (see comment on Acts 18:2) reached Thessalonica just before or during Paul’s stay in Thessalonica or just after Paul’s departure, making Gentile Thessalonians unwilling to be associated with Judaism.2587 Paul’s abandonment of his westward journey on the Via Egnatia, heading southward into Greece, would also make sense of such news (especially if he heard of it after reaching Illyricum farther west, Rom 15:19). It is just as likely, however, that this edict was already known among at least some in Thessalonica and that it informs the suspicion of rabble-rousers that is revealed in this account. If Roman Jews were expelled over debates about the Christ (a possible reading of the events; see comment on Acts 18:2), the charges offered against the missionaries are precisely the right ones to be offered by Jews who wish to head off trouble in their own communities.2588 By Luke’s day, the exact timing of Caesar’s decree might be forgotten (though cf. Acts 18:2), but it makes excellent sense of the events that Luke reports. Even if Paul knew of the decree already during his time in Philippi, and hence may have abandoned any plan to go on to Rome, he had to proceed west before he could go south into Greece by land. Charges of subversion would stir hearers’ basic loyalties to the state. Though not everyone in the empire would value Rome so highly (even in a privileged, “free” Macedonian city), Romans, at least, ideally valued country even above family.2589 More threateningly, such charges were dangerous for Thessalonica even as a free city; if a city knowingly harbored enemies of Roman stability, the city could be censured and lose imperial benefactions.2590 Thessalonica had to be careful; the Thessalonians had lost their administrative seat under Tiberius and regained it only through Claudius’s intervention in 44 c.e., probably about five years before the events depicted in this passage.2591 The purpose of such stirring charges was not to generate objectivity; indeed, rhetorical handbooks advocated beginning with personal character attacks, including 2583. Judge, “Decrees”; idem, First Christians, 460–62; Riesner, Early Period, 356–57; Witherington, Acts, 508; Hemer, Acts in History, 167; Donfried, Thessalonica, 32–33. On the loyalty oaths to Caesar, including the pledge to report disloyalty, see also Judge, Pattern, 34–35. 2584. The title continued to be passed to successors after the time of Julius Caesar and hence would not specify one particular emperor (Fitzmyer, Acts, 596). 2585. See also more extensive discussion in Judge, First Christians, 458–60; he cites later jurists on 459–60 (Paulus Sent. 5.21.1–2; Ulpian in Comparison of the Mosaic and Roman Laws 15.2). Cf. also later imperial decrees against astrologers (Tac. Hist. 2.62; Suet. Vit. 14.4; Dom. 15; earlier, Val. Max. 1.3.3; generally, cf. Robinson, Criminal Law, 77, 93–94; MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Koester, Introduction, 1:316). Past edicts could still function as precedents, even if not legally in force. Perhaps citing such imperial precedents rather than already obvious public policy might function to amplify the charge rhetorically. Rowe, World, 99, notes that the issue is not a decree with this specific wording; certainly the law’s spirit treated such actions as treason. 2586. Hardin, “Decrees.” On the city’s associations, see Nigdelis, “Associations”; Ascough, Associations. 2587. Riesner, Early Period, 357. 2588. Judge, First Christians, 462, notes that the similarity of language in 17:6 could recall Claudius’s recent reproof to Alexandrian Jews (noted above), in turn informing the recent ban on “messianic agitators” in Rome. Because the present passage omits mention of “Christ,” he thinks it less likely; but local Jews might naturally connect the title “Christ” with kingship. 2589. E.g., Val. Max. 5.6.pref.; 5.8.3; 6.3.6. 2590. Witherington, Acts, 508. For Thessalonica’s dependence on its relationship with Rome for prosperity, see, e.g., Green, “Patrón.” 2591. Riesner, Early Period, 357.

2556

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 260

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

against the opponent’s friends and witnesses (see comment on Acts 24:5–6). “No rules of evidence guarded against this,” Winter notes, “and defendants were subjected to muckraking and fabrication.”2592 It is not clear, however, that the politarchs believed the accusers (see comment on Acts 17:9). (5) Released with a Pledge (17:9)

Although Luke focuses his narrative on Paul, there can be no question that the Thessalonian church was also persecuted;2593 Jason’s public embarrassment provides only a hint. Persecution, associated with the populace (1 Thess 2:14), occurred even at the church’s founding (1:6). The mention of some deaths in the relatively short interval between Paul’s departure and his letter (4:13) could imply that some martyrdoms occurred; the charges in Acts 17 were sufficient to have produced “even a bloody persecution.”2594 But that Jason may be known to Luke’s audience (17:5) and that he is treated so lightly in this verse suggest either that persecution was not fatal or that Luke suppressed something in his emphasis on Christians’ positive relationship with the government. Christians fell sick and died in Corinth (1 Cor 11:30) without the help of persecution.2595 As their host, Jason can be held responsible for his guests’ local behavior, and this responsibility would compel him to post bond on their behalf.2596 For a pious Jew, hosting an important teacher would be an honor (b. Ber. 63b). But just as patrons and clients, or anyone bound by the permanent ties of guest friendship,2597 owed mutual obligations of loyalty, the last thing a good guest would wish was to bring trouble on the host unnecessarily (cf. comment on Acts 19:31). Cicero, for instance, flees farther while in exile so as not to bring suspicion against his host (Cic. Att. 3.4). Not only for his own sake but for Jason’s, Paul must leave town (Acts 17:9–10). The punishment, however, is quite light for the weighty charge of maiestas—unless the politarchs in fact regarded the charges as false.2598 Demagogues had long used mobs to achieve their ends in Greek democracies, and the politarchs would have some experience in dealing with such tactics.2599 By receiving a pledge from Jason to guarantee no further trouble from him or his associates, the politarchs achieve two ends: first, they respond to the mob’s demands concretely enough to quell the immediate unrest, and second, they can keep out of Thessalonica any presence that would cause the unrest to recur.2600 Probably the security relates only to concern for the behavior of Paul and Silas, not to Jason himself.2601 Most scholars claim that the phrase λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανόν reflects the Latin construction satis accipere, a Roman legal phrase (appearing here in the Old Latin and 2592. Winter, After Corinth, 66. 2593. With Haenchen, “Acts as Source Material,” 274. 2594. Riesner, Early Period, 386–87. 2595. Believers in Thessalonica and Corinth admittedly experienced the surrounding culture differently, and hence differed in their social boundaries (see Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth”). 2596. Meeks, Urban Christians, 63 (on this legal liability for household heads in general, see also 76 and 221n10 [to p. 76]). 2597. On which see Keener, John, 913. Guest friends might even send their son to avenge the death of a former host (Philost. Hrk. 46.2). 2598. Riesner, Early Period, 358. Anyone tempted to doubt this conclusion need only consider the usual punishments for maiestas. 2599. Dunn, Acts, 229. 2600. Riesner, Early Period, 358; Dunn, Acts, 228–29. 2601. By contrast, Barrett, Acts, 816–17, thinks that Jason and his colleagues are also the object, citing the “brothers” in Acts 17:6. This is possible, though the charge against Jason is only that he welcomed those guilty of maiestas.

2557

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 261

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Vulgate) that means taking or receiving security or bail.2602 Although the grammatical construction may be Latin, the practice was both Greek and Roman.2603 One could deposit money to guarantee one’s own2604 or another’s2605 appearance in court. Giving a pledge that will be forfeited if one fails to appear was a more lenient treatment (for those with funds) than imprisonment until trial (Livy 3.13.5–6; 25.4.8–11). If the idea here is that Jason guarantees the missionaries’ presence in court, he loses his money, probably (assuming he and his colleagues who were arrested are among the “brothers” of Acts 17:10) willingly.2606 But the point may be simply that Jason was legally liable for Paul’s behavior and that subsequent trouble would forfeit the money and bring Jason to court again.2607 A fine constituted “a relatively lenient penalty” in Roman justice2608 and could be consistent with the view that the authorities treated the Christian gatherings merely as unauthorized associations with political interests.2609 That is, it might be advisable to ban such meetings, but harsh punishments, such as executing leaders, would be unnecessary. When Paul speaks of Satan hindering his return to Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:18), he may have in mind the politarchs’ decision, reported by Luke, that made his return difficult, as many scholars suggest.2610 This would explain why Timothy could go there freely but Paul, though not detained in Corinth, could not do so (1 Thess 3:1–2).2611 The missionaries’ strategy, though uncomfortable for themselves, may have been the only way for this small band to deal with the opposition. Since laws in Greek cities applied only to their own territory, Paul and his companions would keep moving; when their opponents pursue them, the opponents would have to reinitiate their hostilities afresh (Acts 17:13; cf. 13:50–51; 14:20).2612 The decree would be binding. Once a decision was made, a politarch who tried to introduce measures contradicting decrees that the citizen body had already passed could be fined.2613 Some hostility clearly continued in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:6); this might have even included a small number of martyrs, perhaps explaining how they imitated what Judean believers had suffered2614 and how some died so quickly (4:13).2615 But as suggested above, if the deaths were due to martyrdom, it seems strange that Paul does not state this explicitly (though this objection is not a strong argument from silence). 2602. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 206; Conzelmann, Acts, 135; Tajra, Trial, 43; Fitzmyer, Acts, 597; Witherington, Acts, 509. 2603. In the papyri, see Lewis, Life, 187–88. 2604. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.12.2; Aul. Gel. 16.10.8. 2605. Lysias Or. 23.9–10, §167; cf. Thür, “Katengyan” (citing also Demosth. Zenoth. 29; Isoc. Trapezidicus [Or. 17] 12). The older Roman practice depended more on friends (Livy 3.13.8; 25.4.8–10; 39.41.7; 43.16.5; 46.7–8), but later it became more common for a person to post his own bail (Aul. Gel. 16.10.8). 2606. A person’s friends might pay his fine to prevent his humiliation (Appian Hist. rom. 2.8.2). 2607. C. Williams, Acts, 198 (following Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 231); Tajra, Trial, 43; O’Rourke, “Law,” 175. 2608. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 35. 2609. See Hardin, “Decrees.” Cf. Ascough, “Mission,” 81, on this church growing like an association. 2610. E.g., Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 426; C. Williams, Acts, 198; Bruce, Acts1, 327; Hemer, Acts in History, 186; Riesner, Early Period, 359; Witherington, Acts, 509; Donfried, Thessalonica, 39. For continued Jewish hostility as the point, see D. Williams, Acts, 296, citing the context of 1 Thess 2:14–16. 2611. Paul was not detained in Corinth simply by effective work; he would not have spoken then of “Satan” as hindering him (1 Cor 16:8–9), which better characterizes opposition (cf. 2 Cor 12:7, which I apply to his persecutions in 11:23–24; 1 Cor 4:11, also using κολαφίζω). 2612. With Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 33; Riesner, Early Period, 359. 2613. Horsley, “Politarchs,” 425. 2614. Cf. 1 Thess 2:14–15 with the report of Stephen’s death, though ἐπάθετε is aorist and Paul specifies the death of only Jesus and the prophets here. 2615. See Donfried, Thessalonica, 41–43, 161.

2558

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 262

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

b. Ministry in Beroea (17:10–14) Whether Paul had planned to travel southward through Beroea or obstacles diverted him onto that route, he found there a nobler response than in Thessalonica. Here, too, however, he soon faced opposition, as his nemeses from Thessalonica learned of his presence and aroused hostility (just as Jewish opponents traveled to warn other towns to oppose him in Acts 14:19; communities within regions were generally networked through travelers). Here, as in Thessalonica, Paul had to be hurried out of town, perhaps before the conflict reached the level attained in Thessalonica. Although Paul does not mention Beroea in his extant letters, it fits geographically; Luke is unlikely to have invented a city so far from the main road instead of a betterknown city,2616 and 20:4 is consistent with this report. i. Night Flight from Thessalonica (17:10)

That some “siblings” were arraigned along with Jason (17:6) and that others now helped Paul and his companions escape indicate that Paul’s mission in Thessalonica had been successful. Granted, the missionaries had faced opposition, but they had also planted a church where none had existed before. Because Paul and Silas already learned that the leaders of a movement would suffer the harshest opposition (16:22–23), disciples from this point forward often try to spirit them out of town before they can suffer worse hardships (17:10, 14; 20:3; cf. 19:30–31; earlier, 9:25, 30), until the unexpected opposition in Jerusalem. If a leader remained safe, victory could be salvaged, but the death of a leader often spelled the end for his followers’ objectives as well.2617 Someone who fled trial might be presumed guilty (at least in the rhetoric of someone who agreed to stand trial or an opponent, Aeschines Embassy 6; Quint. Decl. 249.5). Some disciples in Thessalonica may not have understood this immediate departure (cf. 1 Thess 2:1–8),2618 but because each city’s decrees applied only to the city itself, Paul would be safe in the next city. Concern for how others would view Paul’s flights may have also motivated Luke’s specificity here: sometimes Paul flees or fails to appear to defend his case openly, but only at others’ insistence (Acts 17:10, 14; 19:30–31; cf. 9:25, 30).2619 Luke is emphatic that Paul exhibited the respected virtue of courage, ready to sacrifice his life for his mission (20:24; 21:13; cf. 9:16; Phil 1:20–23). Fleeing by night was sometimes considered cowardly,2620 but it was always acknowledged as most effective if one wished to escape notice (see comment on Acts 9:25).2621 Night travel was more dangerous because it increased the danger of robbers, a danger of which Paul was certainly well aware on his journeys (2 Cor 11:26).2622 2616. Nevertheless, the possibly Macedonian provenance I have suggested for Luke-Acts would allow for Beroea to be better known to hearers there than in many other parts of the empire; see discussion of Beroea below. 2617. Polyb. 10.33.2–5; Arrian Alex. 4.24.4–5; 4.27.2; Sil. It. 15.807–8; 2 Sam 18:3; 1 Kgs 22:35; John 16:32. 2618. So Riesner, Early Period, 359. Although his language here is conventional (see Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse”), anxiety that his speedy departure has sent the wrong message is a plausible reason for the convention’s relevance here. 2619. Likewise, concern for Paul’s honor may inform Luke’s emphasis that Paul did not simply flee dishonorably in Acts 14:20 and 16:40 and may explain why Acts 20:16 does not provide further detail for Paul’s avoidance of Ephesus. 2620. Cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.159. 2621. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 31.6 (though in that case it fails); cf. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1025–26. 2622. E.g., Hor. Ep. 1.2.32–33; Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.11; Gen. Rab. 92:6; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 119; cf. thieves in Catull. Carm. 62.34–35; Exod 22:2–3; Sib. Or. 3.238, 380; Lewis, Life, 123; Schiemann, “Furtum,” 626.

2559

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 263

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Still, although night travel was normally not preferable, it was better than risking a treason charge, which was more certain to bring trouble (see comment on Acts 17:6–7). In the past Paul’s opponents usually did not follow him quickly when he left town, but it had happened before (Acts 14:19) and could happen again (17:13). ii. Shifting Southward to Beroea (17:10)

Heretofore Paul had been journeying westward on the Via Egnatia; many scholars believe that he had been doing so with Rome as a goal until he was diverted at this point.2623 The Via Egnatia led beyond Thessalonica through more rugged territory to Illyricum (Rom 15:19). From the Roman colony Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic coast he could sail to Brundisium in Italy and then travel the Via Appia to Rome. It is possible, though unlikely, that at this time Paul traveled farther on the Via Egnatia than Luke records, since at some point he probably2624 ministered in Illyricum (Rom 15:19);2625 but it is also possible that he made that journey from his secure base in Corinth (when visiting churches that were planted on the road) or, most likely, on his next journey to Corinth (Acts 20:1–3, before writing his letter to the Romans from Corinth). A journey to Illyricum in the period of 20:1–3 is likelier than such a journey here for three reasons. First, there is the reported immediacy of 17:10, though Luke’s compressed style might allow for that in any case (cf. 9:23). Second, such a journey would also explain why it was fresh in Paul’s mind in Rom 15:19; again, this is at best a supporting argument. The third, and by far the most important, reason is that Luke records many details of Paul’s evangelistic mission in this section, but his mere summarizing of a large journey in Acts 20:1–3, otherwise detailed in Paul’s letters, explains the omission of details in Acts that would have covered the events of that period.2626 If Rome was Paul’s immediate goal at this time (his letters suggest that it had long been a goal, Rom 1:13), he was unable to travel farther in that direction because of the expulsion of Jews from there (Acts 18:2).2627 Still, though Paul had long planned to go to Rome eventually (Rom 15:23), we cannot be sure that Paul had planned to go to Rome immediately, in any case. Claudius’s decree was probably a factor in Paul’s inability to go there (1:10, 13),2628 but Paul also desired to fully establish self-propagating congregations in regions before Rome (15:22–23). Paul also may have wished to remain in the sphere of the Greek language for now; he had traveled through the three hellenized districts of Macedonia, but its fourth district, to the west, was not hellenized and would be less accessible to Paul than to Macedonian Christians from Philippi and Thessalonica traveling the Via Egnatia who might share their faith.2629 Paul does have a practical reason, however, 2623. Cadbury, Acts in History, 60–61; Hemer, Acts in History, 115–16; Trocmé, “Apôtre et Rome”; Riesner, Early Period, 295. Cf. the similar turn southward in Acts 14:6. 2624. Dunn, Romans, 864, points out that μέχρι could mean “up to,” and hence as far as, the province rather than into it (also Talbert, Romans, 329). 2625. Does Luke omit the Illyrian mission (whether here or elsewhere) because Greeks and Macedonians would have considered these people less “civilized” or advanced? Or because it was too brief or not successful enough to warrant space in his compressed account of Paul’s travels? But cf. 2 Tim 4:10. 2626. Luke is interested enough in Paul’s mission and evangelization of peoples (Acts 1:8) that he probably would not have omitted it in any detailed section, especially since, by his day, there were churches in that region (2 Tim 4:10; Titus 3:12). 2627. With Riesner, Early Period, 296, 359–60; Haacker, Theology, 17. 2628. Judge, First Christians, 451, rightly points out that Paul’s fugitive status determined his turn to Beroea, rather than new word of Claudius’s expulsion (pace Harnack and Bornkamm); the timing is roughly correct (Acts 18:2), but the decree may have reached Macedonia before Paul’s flight (helping to explain local hostility in Philippi and Thessalonica). 2629. Gill, “Macedonia,” 416. Schnabel, Missionary, 272, also notes that Beroea had a Jewish community, whereas Pella and Edessa further to the west may not have had one.

2560

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 264

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to go “off the beaten path” (see comment on Beroea below). Luke’s account leaves little room for an Illyrian trip here; if the brothers in Thessalonica sent Paul away in haste (17:10), Beroea (rather than Illyricum) would seem to be where he went. This means shifting from his previous westward journey along the Via Egnatia and turning instead toward Greece.2630 Beroea (modern Véroia) was not only not on the Via Egnatia westward; it was not even on the main highway south, near the coastline. Instead it was farther (ca. 25 mi.) inland, nearly fifty miles (more than 70 km.) southwest of Thessalonica. Its location in Mount Bermium’s foothills (Strabo 7 frg. 26) made it slightly less easily accessible.2631 Most commentators cite Cicero’s verdict, speaking of an earlier fugitive from Thessalonica, that it was “off the road” or “out of the way,” at least for travelers west to Rome.2632 Presumably, Paul’s journey took all that night as well as most of the next day, even if some Thessalonian Christians or sympathizers lent the missionaries animals for travel.2633 Traveling “out of the way,” however, may have been precisely the objective: opponents would be more likely to look for Paul on the main roads west (the Via Egnatia) and south (toward Achaia; cf. 1 Kgs 13:12). It also appears that Paul hoped to receive word that circumstances had changed in Thessalonica, since he seems to have attempted more than once to return (1 Thess 2:17–18); in this hope he was apparently disappointed, but Beroea allowed him greater access to Thessalonica than he had once he journeyed farther south.2634 Claiming that Paul went to Beroea to avoid the beaten path, however, does not imply that it was an insignificant town. Indeed, even in republican times, Roman merchants gathered there; Pompey used it as a base in 48 b.c.e. (Plut. Pomp. 64).2635 It was now the center of the province’s imperial cult. Under Claudius’s successor, Nero, it was the city where Macedonia’s council (κοινόν) assembled (hence Macedonia’s second most important city) and held the title μητρόπολις (which could be rendered “capital city” of an area); two centuries earlier (167–148 b.c.e.) it had been the capital of one of Macedonia’s divisions for nearly two decades. Lucian considered it a large city with many people (Lucius 34).2636 Though some distance from the coast, it had its own Roman trading colony.2637 Beroea had surrendered to Rome shortly before Thessalonica and Pella (Livy 44.45.5, on 168 b.c.e.); such prudent openness 2630. Riesner, Early Period, 295, thinks that Paul would have viewed the Greek mission as a fulfillment of Isa 66:19. This is possible after the fact, though I doubt that it was part of Paul’s original program. 2631. Strabo mentions that this Macedonian Beroea was earlier inhabited by Thracians (Strabo 7 frg. 25). 2632. Cic. Pis. 36.89 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 206; Bruce, Acts1, 328; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157; Larkin, Acts, 249; Witherington, Acts, 509). 2633. A possible route was 30 mi. west on the Via Egnatia to Pella, mounted during the night, then roughly 20 mi. southwest to Beroea (Gill, “Macedonia,” 410). 2634. See Riesner, Early Period, 360. 2635. Errington, “Beroea.” 2636. As often noted (Conzelmann, Acts, 136; Gill, “Macedonia,” 415; Witherington, Acts, 509; Fitzmyer, Acts, 597; see Macleod in Lucian, LCL, 8:107). In the first century, it is well enough known to appear in Pliny the Elder’s list of western Macedonian towns (N.H. 4.10.33). Some of the evidence (for the titles νεωκόρος and μητρόπολις) dates from later, from Nerva’s reign (Errington, “Beroea”). 2637. Riesner, Early Period, 360. It had Syrian cults by the second century (Gill, “Macedonia,” 409) and the mother goddess by the late second or third or fourth (Koester, Paul and World, 177–79), and it lay beside a large river that emerged from a mountainous ravine ca. 5 mi. away (Abbott, Acts, 187). Beroea lay between the coastal lowlands and the hill country; 2 mi. to the east, the land was below 250 ft. (76 m.) above sea level; roughly the same distance to the east, it rose to more than 2,000 ft. (more than 600 m.) above sea level; within 8 mi., it was more than 9,000 ft., rising into Mount Bermion (Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 50, 3B). On Beroea, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 38–41 (though not enough remains for much archaeological comment); Pattengale, “Berea.”

2561

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 265

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to outside ideas might have also exerted some influence on the local synagogue culture here (although this is not by any means the only possible explanation for their open-mindedness). The missionaries entered a synagogue after they had arrived (presumably not on the Sabbath; they probably had opportunity to rest from their journey, if not to heal completely from their wounds).2638 Perhaps some Jewish believers in Thessalonica provided contacts in the synagogue, but the missionaries could have acted directly without these (cf. Acts 13:14–15). Although our evidence from Beroea is limited, we do have some later evidence (two epitaphs from perhaps the fourth or fifth century c.e.) confirming the Jewish presence in the town.2639 iii. Received Favorably in the Synagogue (17:11–12)

The members of the Beroean synagogue proved more honorable than the members of the synagogue in Thessalonica, open to whatever they would find in the Scriptures. How they searched the Scriptures upon listening to the missionaries is not easy to determine. Perhaps their dialogue with Paul was based on communal memory, but they may well have had a Torah scroll and perhaps other Scripture scrolls, presumably in Greek translation.2640 Most Diaspora synagogues would seek to have them (cf. Jos. Ant. 16.164; see comment on Acts 13:15). As suggested above as a possibility, Beroea’s openness to change, suggested two centuries before in its being one of the earliest cities of Macedonia to surrender to Rome (Livy 44.45.5), may have been part of the culture that also informed the openness of these resident-alien Jews among the inhabitants. Given the distance between the periods in question, this is at best a guess, but our information about Beroea is limited beyond such statements. Those who heeded the wisdom of sages or philosophers were widely praised as virtuous.2641 Here the Jewish hearers’ faith rests on the Scriptures; that many “therefore” (οὖν) believed (Acts 17:12) implies that those who searched the Scriptures with an open heart (17:11) would embrace Paul’s message. Luke calls them “noble.” Their “nobility” may reflect an image drawn from the common notion that the high-born2642 (cf. Luke 19:12) acted more rationally (in part because their class had more to lose).2643 The term, however, applied not only to aristocratic birth but to acting graciously or exhibiting noble character,2644 as here. 2638. Despite probable meetings on the Sabbath (cf. Acts 16:13), we cannot be certain that the missionaries went to the place of prayer (16:16) only on the Sabbath, or how many days (16:18) the mantic person followed them before Paul expelled the spirit, nor whether they might have rested in Amphipolis or Apollonia if the Sabbath intervened, so we cannot know when in the week they arrived. 2639. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 157; Schnabel, Missionary, 272n35, citing Noy, Inscriptiones, 1:76–87. 2640. They may have been (or temporarily become) what Judeans called a “house of study,” including on weekdays (so Dunn, Acts, 229; weekdays may not have been normal in this period, however). In later sources, scrolls were present at synagogue services (e.g., b. Yoma 68b; 69a; Taʿan. 28a; Soṭah 40b; 41ab; Giṭ. 19b; for synagogues as related to, but distinct from, houses of study, see, e.g., b. Ber. 64a; Meg. 29a; B. Meṣiʿa 21b, 24a; Sanh. 111b; ʿAbod. Zar. 38a; for children’s schooling there, b. Qidd. 30a). But see Ciampa, “Examined,” 540–41. 2641. See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 60 (citing Plut. Lect., Mor. 46D–47D). 2642. For noble birth as the subject of epideictic, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 29.2–3. 2643. The prejudice was that, in general, noble birth could prove more apt to predispose one toward noble behavior; cf. Eurip. Danae frg. 329 (Stob. 3.7.5); Aeschines Tim. 42; Lysias Or. 30.1–2, §183; Dio Chrys. Ep. 1; Theon Progymn. 9.15; Char. Chaer. 2.10.7; Eunapius Lives 498; Jos. Ant. 19.164; see further comment at Acts 23:6. Such noble birth was distinct from wealth (Eurip. Meleager frg. 527 [Stob. 4.29.31]; frg. 1066 [Stob. 4.29.40]; Alcmene frg. 95 [Stob. 4.31.35]; Arist. Rhet. 2.9.11, 1387a; Phaedrus 27.1–2; Apul. Metam. 7.2); it was an advantage by fortune (Eurip. Heracl. 302–3), a topic for encomium (Demosth. Epitaph. 4; Rhet. Alex. 35, 1440b.17–19), and sometimes evident by sight (Philo Jos. 106). Many felt humiliated by low birth (Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB); others rejected being intimidated by those nobly born (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 42.1). 2644. See, e.g., Eurip. Alexander frg. 61c (from Stob. 4.29.7); Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.17; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.34; 1.9.32; 2.19.19; 4.6.33; 4.10.11; 4.11.19; Wis 8:3; 2 Macc 14:42; 4 Macc 6:5, 22, 30; 8:4; 9:13, 22, 24, 27;

2562

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 266

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Applied to Diaspora Jews, it undoubtedly functions as a behavioral rather than class designation. Luke’s Greek term for “examining” the Scriptures is appropriate, though he employs it elsewhere only for a legal examination of guilt (Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 24:8; 28:18).2645 “Noble” (and the socially honorable people of Acts 17:12) contrasts with the “rabble” at Thessalonica.2646 Writers were happy to appeal to the special favor of “the better class of people.”2647 But Luke’s audience could also know that in times of persecution, people of prominence also had much to lose in terms of status and wealth.2648 Perseverance in commitment or even express interest could prove costly. Paul’s success here is also suggested by the later mention of one of his converts from there who became one of his ministry associates (20:4). In view of 17:13, it is possible that some Beroean converts did not persevere (cf. Luke 8:13), but Luke seems clear that many, at the least, did (Acts 17:14–15; cf. Luke 8:15); he names one (from this period or afterward) in Acts 20:4. iv. Enemies Arrive (17:13–14)

There would be no question of extradition from one city to another for local charges; that Thessalonica’s politarchs seem not to have taken the charges too seriously (17:9) would also prevent any official delegation from warning nearby towns of the Christian “agitators.” But individual opponents could again raise the charge of sedition (17:7) and highlight the negative precedent of 17:9. Ironically, it is again Thessalonian Jews who “stir up” (the same verb, ταράσσω, as in 17:8) the crowds.2649 It is thus safer for everyone if Paul, who is clearly the mission’s leader, leaves (17:14; cf. 17:10). Out of Macedonia, he will be not merely outside troublesome local jurisdictions but also removed from the sphere of Thessalonian Jewish influence, able to plead his case afresh with new groups for whom he may be no more foreign than his accusers would be. (Indeed, in local synagogues, his Judean connection might be hoped to provide him an “edge” over Thessalonian Jewish challengers.) His departure leaves Silas and Timothy, who will be in less danger, to finish instructing the church,2650 though even they could not continue there very long (17:15); Paul was later anxious for the church’s need for more instruction and encouragement (1 Thess 3:1–2). The Beroean Christians saw Paul off (Acts 17:14), but some people (apparently Beroeans) took him on to Athens (17:15). To accompany someone to a ship was a part of hospitality (see comment on Acts 20:38), but for members of the group to undertake the trip with Paul to ensure his safe arrival shows special concern. The phrase “those who accompanied him” (17:15) might refer in this instance to travel by land, since a major road ran near the coast; sea travel would require fares for each traveler. Land travel, however, makes sense of the mention of the “sea” only if Luke expected his ideal audience to know Greek geography well (which they may 10:3, 15; 12:14; 13:11; Philo Sobr. 56. This did not always accompany “genetic” nobility (Dictys frg. 336 [Stob. 4.29.1]; Arist. Rhet. 2.15.3, 1390b; Philost. Letters 28 [47]; Philo Abr. 265). 2645. Cf. also 1 Cor 4:3–4; 9:3; 14:24; for the cognate noun, Acts 25:26; 3 Macc 7:5. 2646. Johnson, Acts, 307–9. 2647. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.24 (LCL, 2:389). 2648. E.g., Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 7.5–6; 2 (Themistocles), 8.1–7; 3 (Aristides), 1.1–5; 7 (Alcibiades), 4.1–2; Babr. 4.6–8; 31.23–24; 64.10–11; Phaedrus 1.21.1–2; 2.7.14–15; 3.5.1; 4.6.11–13; Tac. Hist. 4.47; Philod. On Death 35.4–5. 2649. Luke also uses σαλεύω, a graphic term that he elsewhere applies to physical shaking (Acts 4:31; 16:26), to describe their “disturbing” or “inciting” of the crowds (see BDAG). 2650. It is Paul’s isolation, not the temporary limitation of the rest of the team to two members, that is unusual; as in the gospel tradition (Mark 6:7), heralds traditionally traveled in pairs (Hom. Il. 1.320). For Paul’s dependence on colleagues in Acts, see, e.g., Murray, “Evangelism.”

2563

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 267

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

have). But the statement that Paul went to the sea (17:14) probably implies that he sailed once he reached the sea; in this case, those who accompanied him (17:15) stayed with him on the ship until they had safely reached Athens’s harbor, Piraeus (or Phalerum, a proposed alternative harbor).2651 If, as many scholars think, there was a direct land route from Beroea thirty miles southeast to Dion (Latin Dium), Paul probably would have taken this, since he was seeking to travel quickly by night. (From Dion, he could then sail down the Baphyras River to the sea.) If such a route did not exist, he would have had to travel northeast and journeyed around Mount Pieria; after that he could have continued southeast to Dion, for a total of fifty miles (adding twenty to the direct route to Dion). Or he could have sailed from any of the three harbors north of Dion so long as a ship was heading south to Athens and could carry passengers.2652 Why would Paul go all the way to Athens, skipping Thessaly? He might have needed greater distance from Philippi and Thessalonica than he had secured, to prevent his enemies’ following him; moreover, his Macedonian enemies probably would not have pursued him outside the province. In any case, Thessaly was politically insignificant by this period, and Dio Chrys. Or. 33.25 even speaks of it as desolate (ἐρήμου, likely an exaggeration).2653 Sea travel was the most convenient way to reach Athens; in summer the Etesian winds favored the voyage, and Athens would offer a “different jurisdiction remote from nearer land-routes where opponents might be expecting him.”2654 A sea voyage to Athens might start from Pydna or Dion on the Macedonian coast2655 and proceed to a port of Athens. The church in Beroea (here, “the siblings,” as with the Thessalonian converts in Acts 17:10 and in other churches, e.g., 18:18; 21:17; see comment on Acts 9:17) proves significant enough to warrant representation for the collection in 20:4; that we have no extant Pauline letters to it might be by chance.2656 That some believers act as Paul’s attendants and messengers (17:15) suggests a thorough commitment to his teaching, of the sort one might expect from (by analogy) disciples of a sage (cf. 2 Kgs 2:3; 3:11; 4:25, 43; 6:15).2657

5. Ministry in Athens (17:15–34) In Athens, Paul preaches a successful message that communicates on some shared ground with Greek philosophy, though concluding with the same gospel that appears elsewhere in Acts. Paul contends that God is both transcendent beyond creation and immanent in humanity, and hence that idols reveal nothing relevant to him and offer no benefit to humans. God’s ultimate revelation is not in human artistic representation but in the gospel (Acts 17:29–31). 2651. With, e.g., Gill, “Achaia,” 441; cf. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 15. The land journey would have been ca. 222 mi. or 357 km. (Peterson, Acts, 485). 2652. McRay, Archaeology, 297. 2653. On Thessaly’s history, see concisely Helly, “Thessaly,” and sources cited there. 2654. Hemer, Acts in History, 116. 2655. Riesner, Early Period, 361. He notes that Dion hosted a famous shrine of Dionysus and, along with Cassandreia, was one of Macedonia’s first two Roman colonies; it held the high honor of ius italicum. For the possible journey to Pydna or Methone, see Schnabel, Acts, 711. 2656. After this, we hear little of the Beroean church until a bishop there is mentioned in 343 c.e. (Schnabel, Mission, 1169). 2657. E.g., 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.12; 7.5.170; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:30; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56 B; y. Soṭah 5:5, §4. See also Joshua’s subordinate “apprentice” role (Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; cf. CD VIII, 20–21; Mek. Pisha 1.150–53; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11, §28 B).

2564

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 268

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

a. Introduction This narrative, in which Paul fails to experience the violent persecution he encountered in Macedonia, represents a shift, possibly also allowing for a shift in strategy that climaxes with Paul as a Christian philosopher in 19:9.2658 Contemporary readings often use Paul’s ministry in Athens as a model for contextualization—that is, cultural sensitivity without syncretism.2659 Luke himself may have also intended his portrayal of Paul’s example as a model.2660 Certainly, historically Paul’s background facilitated his communicating a Jewish message cross-culturally among Gentiles.2661 i. Athens 2662

Perhaps Athens was too large2663 and too proud and perhaps its people too thoughtful in this period to host the kind of hostile mob justice suggested in Thessalonica (17:5–9) and Beroea (17:13). But Thessalonica was also large (indeed, probably much larger than Athens in this period) and a governor’s seat, and so perhaps a more likely and important factor is that Athens was too far south (in Achaia) for pursuers from a different province (Macedonia) to trouble themselves with it. Mountains surround the Attic plain on most sides except the south (from which a seafarer would reach the city). These included, on the west, Mount Aegaleus (1,532 ft.; 467 m.); to the northwest, Mount Parnes (4,636 ft.; 1,413 m.); to the northeast, Mount Pentelicus (3,635 ft.; 1,108 m.); and on the east, Mount Hymettus (3,369 ft.; 1,027 m.).2664 Closer than these, again to the northeast, was Mount Lycabettus (1,112 ft.; 339 m.).2665 At least two of these, Hymettus and Pentelicus, were sources of marble.2666 The sea route was a much simpler way to reach Athens. Everyone acknowledged Athens’s glorious past;2667 this glory was no longer, however, the glory of a military empire. Rome controlled the city completely, and new (Roman) Corinth surpassed it in power. Horace (Ep. 2.2.81) calls it vacuas, “empty.”2668 The Athenian economy was much weaker than Corinth’s: its new buildings came only from imperial handouts; likewise, its population was declining, with few new 2658. Witulski, “Erzählstrategien,” views the passage as climactic within Acts 15:36–19:40. 2659. E.g., Dalton, “Areopagus”; Flemming, “Contextualizing in Athens”; Ukachukwu Manus, “Areopagus Speech”; Samuel, “Paul on Areopagus”; Isizoh, “Areopagus Speech”; Losie, “Speech on Areopagus,” 221–38; Schütz, “Prédication” (for homiletics); Haak, “Approach”; Tipei, “Speech” (on natural theology as a common ground); Campbell, “Scratching”; expressing concerns about some uses, see Yarnell, “Bridges”; for an alternative grammar from Stoicism rather than common ground, see Rowe, “Grammar.” African readings tend to focus on praxis (Reed, “Acts 17:16–34”) and proper contextualization (LeMarquand, “African Readings,” 495); cf. Muthuraj, “Mission.” For an examination of earlier use for models of inculturation (as well as debates about orthodoxy) in patristic sources, see Fiedrowicz, “Rezeption.” 2660. See, e.g., Zweck, “Areopagus Speech”; Vakayil, “Dialogue” (respectful and sensitive proclamation); further discussion below. 2661. With, e.g., Maloney, “Cultures.” 2662. On Athens, see further, e.g., the survey in Fant and Reddish, Sites, 12–38; Schnabel, Mission, 1170–74; Martin, “Athens” (and sources cited there); briefly, Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 389–90; or Paus. 1. For bibliography on this passage, see, e.g., Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 441–42. 2663. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103, estimate the population at a quarter of a million at most in the period of Pericles; it had probably shrunk considerably since that time. The walls of Athens proper were ca. 7.5 mi. around; eleven of its gates are known by name, and there were others as well (Abbott, Acts, 190). 2664. Finegan, Apostles, 126 (citing Paus. 1.32.1). 2665. Finegan, Apostles, 126. 2666. Ibid. 2667. See, e.g., Pliny Ep. 8.24.2 (the originator of civilization); Char. Chaer. 3.4.18; 3.10.8. Athens remained Greece’s most important city in the second and early first centuries b.c.e. (cf. the Isis aretalogy in Horsley, Documents, 1:11–12, §2). An entire traditional branch of Greek historiography (in Athens) dealt with Attica’s local history (Harding, “Atthis”). 2668. Fitzmyer, Acts, 600–601.

2565

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 269

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

immigrants and probably a significantly smaller population than Corinth.2669 While Athenian academies recycled the glories of the city’s classical era, the Hellenistic megacities, such as Syrian Antioch and Alexandria, set the new urban fashions.2670 Even as a university center, it was eventually surpassed by other centers; Alexandria certainly surpassed it even in prestige by the early second century and probably long before.2671 As an intellectual center, however, Athens continued to hold high reputation.2672 Someone highly educated might be guessed, rightly or wrongly, to hail from Athens (Pliny Ep. 7.25.4); philosophy was naturally linked with Athens.2673 Athens remained a popular subject of epideictic rhetoric.2674 A later orator claimed that everyone knew that rhetoric started with Athens (Ael. Arist. Panath. 2, 150D);2675 its emphasis on freedom of speech allowed it to develop many orators (Tac. Dial. 40). A biographer emphasizes Atticus’s wisdom by noting that though he was a Roman, he endeared himself to the people of Athens, “the city which surpassed all others in antiquity, culture and learning.”2676 A letter attributed to Demosthenes, a classical Athenian orator, had claimed that Athenians were recognized as more skilled than anyone else in understanding and instruction.2677 Athens continued to remain a center for rhetorical study in Roman times. In the first century b.c.e., Cicero, for example, went to study there (Plut. Cic. 4.1–2). Menander Rhetor associates “eloquence and philosophy” especially with Athens (Men. Rhet. 1.3, 362.19). A sophist might mention his studies in Athens, implicitly bolstering his status.2678 Decades before Paul, Athens filled open space in its agora with an odeum (the Agrippeion, built by one Agrippa), a concert hall useful also for other public functions.2679 This was one of the largest roofed odea in the empire.2680 It was assumed that Athenians would be better trained rhetorically than Boeotians (Babr. 15.7, 11). This benefit was apparently more appreciated by foreigners who came to study there than by the native population, but even less educated Athenians were thought to speak better Greek (at least by the intellectual standards that defined traditional Attic Greek as “better”) than “Asiatics” and other Greek-speakers did (Cic. De or. 3.11.43).2681 Athens also remained famous for philosophic training (e.g., Cic. Off. 1.1.1), and someone 2669. Engels, Roman Corinth, 113. Corinth eventually made more sense as Paul’s long-range goal. 2670. Meeks, Moral World, 24 (even calling Athens “a museum of the past”); cf. Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 3. 2671. Argyle, “University.” 2672. On the city’s continuing reputation, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.24 (Witherington, Acts, 513). Some philosophers spent years cultivating learning there (Philod. On Death 38.7–8, first century b.c.e.). 2673. Lucian Nigr. 12–14 (also simplicity in contrast with luxury, but Lucian is mocking philosophy). 2674. E.g., Aelius Aristides Panathenaic Oration; Plut. Fame Ath., Mor. 345C–351B. Cf. Isocrates’s much earlier Panathenaicus. 2675. Literature also originated there in Pliny Ep. 8.24.2. 2676. Corn. Nep. 25 (Atticus), 3.3 (LCL, 291–93). The claim about antiquity was certainly false, as its minimal role in Homer (if even that is original) demonstrates. 2677. Demosth. Ep. 3.11 (though DeWitt and DeWitt in LCL, 7:233, translate παιδεία here as “culture” rather than “instruction”). 2678. Apul. Flor. 18.16; 20.4. 2679. Athenian Agora, 59–63; Gill, “Achaia,” 441–42; McRay, Archaeology, 58, 305; MacKendrick, Stones, 386, 392–94; Paus. 1.8.6. Cf. the later date in Owens, City, 140, perhaps due to its renovation. The roof collapsed in the mid-second century, and it was rebuilt with a smaller seating capacity (Athenian Agora, 62). 2680. See Tomlinson, “Odeum”; Athenian Agora, 59–63; on these structures (often connected with theaters, as at Athens) in general, see Balty, “Odeum” (for another example, see the odeum in Gortyna, in Sanders, Crete, 65–66). 2681. Even in the Second Sophistic, some regarded Atticist purists as too fastidious (Pliny Ep. 7.12.2–4); Atticism valued the style of classical orators, versus the intervening Hellenistic rhetoric (Calboli, “Asianism,” 156; idem, “Atticism,” 325; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 68).

2566

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 270

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

who stayed there could well have attended philosophic lectures (Cic. Tusc. 2.11.26).2682 (On philosophy in Athens, see further comment on Acts 17:18 and 17:22–31.) Athens’s very fame, however, invited the criticism of others, who often advanced their own people’s status by comparing themselves favorably with the Athenians. A Roman claimed that Athens and its education were not as great as the disciplines of behavior learned by the Romans of old (Val. Max. 2.1.10). Josephus noted that not only Jews but also others ridiculed what many famous cities, such as Athens, stood for (Ag. Ap. 1.220–22). Some intellectuals also critiqued elements of the larger popular urban culture that had taken hold in Athens. When the Stoic philosopher Musonius protested Athens’s gladiatorial games in a religious place, his critique encountered such hostility that he wisely left Athens (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.122).2683 The late first-century orator Dio Chrysostom complained that the Athenians had surpassed even the Corinthians in their love for watching slaughter (31.121; cf. also Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.22). ii. The Narrative’s Plausibility

That Paul visited Athens at about this time is not in doubt (1 Thess 3:1);2684 that he indeed spoke before the Areopagus is not so easily settled by the data (outside Acts) available to us. (On the content of his speech, see the discussion below.) There arises the question of whether he might have offered a speech there. Because none of Paul’s extant letters describes what happened in Athens or addresses congregations that would have cared much about the events, and because he nowhere recounts any of his evangelistic speeches to particular audiences (except, by implication, to his hearers; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:13), Paul’s failure to mention preaching in Athens in his letters does not endorse an argument from silence against the speech. Given the propaganda value of narratives showing protagonists trumping Athenian philosophers, the cultural standard of secular wisdom, Luke certainly had reason to report such an event.2685 Whether Luke might have had such a tradition or chose to invent it if he did not is another question, one that must be settled mainly on the basis of our view of Luke as a historian in general. We would naturally suppose, and ancient sources leave no doubt, that many people spoke in Athens, and many were allotted even some time to be evaluated by influential hearers. More important, what we know of Paul suggests that he would have taken any available opportunities to preach his message in any city where he remained long enough to do so, and, as noted above, he did stay for a time in Athens. That Luke does not portray an overwhelming triumph at the conclusion (Acts 17:33–34), as in some fictitious narratives, but merely takes the opportunity to provide a sample of Paul’s Hellenistic philosophic apologetic seems consistent with his usual pattern of adapting genuine tradition instead of fabricating events. Had Luke wished merely to insert philosophic apologetic, other scenes also provided this 2682. Conzelmann, Acts, 138, notes that Athens continued to be remembered as the birthplace of learning (Cic. Flacc. 26.62) and attracted tourists for its history and festivals, and visitors for its intellectual reputation (Ovid Ep. 2.83; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17; Cic. Fin. 5.2.5; cf. Weeber, “Travels,” 876). On its welcoming climate, see Eurip. frg. 981; cf. Medea 829–30, 837–39. 2683. Lutz, “Musonius,” 17. For another critique of Athens’s games, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.22. 2684. Lüdemann, Paul, 126, believes that Paul ministered in Athens because Luke’s failure to report persecution there (in contrast to Luke’s preferred narrative pattern) renders his narrative more likely. 2685. Later traveling speakers such as Dio Chrysostom also gave orations in various cities (cf. also Apul. Flor. 1.2 and the note by Hilton in Apuleius’s Rhetorical Works, 137n4), a model probably appealing also to Luke’s audience. That Luke offers no oration in Corinth or Ephesus, however, shows that Luke does not seek to create for Paul contextualized speeches for each major locality.

2567

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 271

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

opportunity (19:9; further development, albeit at a less sophisticated level, would have been possible in 14:15–17), though Athens’s historic reputation would make it a tempting venue. (See the distinct treatment, below at Acts 17:22–31, of questions about the speech itself.) Further, as noted below, a new speaker in town could well be brought before the Areopagus (or any local board for accrediting new teachers). This does not require us to suppose that it happened in Paul’s case, but neither should Luke’s claim be dismissed out of hand, as if Paul were not a prominent enough figure to address this court; he might be brought before them for reasons other than prominence. Luke of course writes with specific interests. The Socratic allusions are Luke’s, and the court’s agenda was more likely evaluating Paul than deliberately providing an opportunity for an example of missionary preaching. Luke portrays Paul as moderately successful, at least given the low expectations most of his readers would have for Paul’s philosophic audience. Paul did not win over most of his hearers, but some were open minded and at least several were won over; a divided audience was characteristic of other preaching locations as well (e.g., 14:4; 23:7).2686 That Paul won over at least a few hearers as Luke suggests, however, is rendered plausible by the naming of two of them, one of them explicitly associated with the Areopagus (17:34), though the way they are named does not imply that they were known to Luke’s audience. Luke apparently does present Paul as a sort of Christian philosopher,2687 though I believe this strategy becomes clearer in 19:9 than it yet is at this point (and may have become a clearer strategy for Paul historically by that point in his ministry than here; see comment on Acts 19:9). One argument that has been offered against authenticity (treated below on the speech itself), however, cannot be granted the credence it once held—namely, that Paul would not have spoken in philosophic language to a philosophic audience. Not only is Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a sage consonant with Paul’s own self-portrayal at times (see, e.g., his peristasis catalogues appropriate to a suffering sage); Paul’s letters employ far more Stoic language (or general moralist language compatible with Stoic thought) than many earlier critics have acknowledged (cf. esp. Rom 1:19; 1 Cor 6:12; 8:6; Phil 4:11–13).2688 Paul could reject philosophic theology (cf. Col 2:8) without rejecting philosophic questions as a strategy for communicating his own message, 2686. Other ancient narratives also report divided responses to claims (e.g., Apul. Flor. 19.7); certainly this happened at times after speeches (e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.45; Hist. 4.43–44). Some scholars think that Paul counted his visit to Athens a failure, on the basis of 1 Cor 1:17–2:5 (Knox, Gentiles, 25–26; Case, Origins, 127; Neil, Thessalonians, 62; Dupont, Salvation, 30), but this belief depends on a misunderstanding of that passage (see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 35), which never addresses Athens (though Paul had come from there; cf. 1 Cor 2:1; 1 Thess 3:1; Acts 18:1). Both views assume that Paul did try to evangelize there. 2687. Malherbe, Philosophers, 151–52. 2688. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics (though I see it less in the pattern that Engberg-Pedersen presents and more in the many texts where commentators have traditionally found it); idem, “Stoisk” (with comparisons and contrasts; also in idem, “Relationship”); Paige, “Stoicism”; esp. (for comparisons on more individual points) deSilva, “Paul and Stoa”; Thorsteinsson, “Paul”; for comparison and contrast with Seneca, cf. Lightfoot, Philippians, 270–333; Sevenster, Seneca; Rincón Alvarez, “Mensajes” (though Seneca can be used even to inform less philosophically sophisticated works, e.g., the Fourth Gospel; see Lang, “Abschiedsreden”). Engberg-Pedersen’s heavy dependence on Cicero’s portrayal (Paul and Stoics, 46) may, however, invite adjustment, since we know that Cicero added to Aristotle (see Fortenbaugh, “Cicero”) and he may have distorted Stoicism as well (Erskine, “Cicero”) or neglected apocalyptic (Wright, Paul, 1389–90). For Paul and popular philosophy, see, e.g., Malherbe, Philosophers; idem, “Philosopher”; Holloway, “Paul”; for some (less relevant here) comparisons between early Christian writers and Plato, see, e.g., Gawlina, “Paulus und Plato.” This is not to claim that either Luke or Paul directly studied with philosophers: from about age 15, Greek boys were exposed to some philosophic views; ideas were hawked on street corners; samples appeared in handbooks (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 10; cf. Glover, Paul, 23; Deming, “Indifferent Things,” 388).

2568

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 272

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

which he based on revelation (Gal 1:12). It is unlikely that Paul had direct training in Stoic philosophy, but his dialogues with outsiders undoubtedly exposed him to elements of Stoic thought that circulated in mid-range intellectual discourse. We lack historical evidence to conclude whether the historical Paul offered the specific line of reasoning emphasized in Luke’s account, but the resonances with Stoicism are by no means contrary to Pauline practice. iii. The Narrative’s Function

Although scholars will reach different conclusions about the narrative’s historical authenticity on the basis of their overall approach to Luke’s historiography, there is less disagreement on the narrative’s function. Dibelius sees it as “a climax of the book,” thinking that it is “the only sermon . . . preached to the Gentiles by the apostle to the Gentiles.”2689 If we do not discount Paul’s participation in Acts 14:15–17 because 14:14 includes Barnabas as one of the speakers, this is not in fact the only sermon to Gentiles; it is, however, the most complete, fleshing out some ideas from the earlier speech. Taken together, these speeches do provide a natural apologetic approach, probably even a model for Luke’s audience, whom he encourages in the church’s mission (cf. again 1:8).2690 Athens is “the representative City of Philosophy,”2691 and so the gospel’s triumph there reinforces the convictions of Luke’s audience concerning its truth (fitting Luke’s stated purpose, Luke 1:3–4). Athens had prestige and symbolic value that Luke could enlist for his cause.2692 Some ancients even allegedly believed that everyone from Athens was literate (Alciph. Paras. 29 [Pexanconus to Rhigomachus], 3.65, ¶3). Even Attic farmers were thought to be educated, at least compared with rural Lydians and Libyans (Aelian Farmers 20 [Phaedrias to Sthenon], end). One writer complains about fake philosophers swarming all over Athens, including the Areopagus and the temples.2693 Some connected themselves with Athens to advance their own status by association: we are no less great than Athens, claimed one city, because we send them our best students and receive them back “perfected” (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 426.27–32).2694 Others used Athens as a symbolic foil by which to advance their own intellectual claims.2695 Apollonius reportedly criticized its decadence (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 70; Vit. Apoll. 4.21–22) and claimed a wisdom greater than the kind traditionally embraced by Athenians (Vit. Apoll. 6.11). Romans could claim the superiority of their own virtues to those of Athens (Val. Max. 2.1.10); some Jews also resented Athens’s reputation ( Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.220–22).2696 Some later rabbis claimed that Athenians could not understand Jerusalem’s wisdom even after much study (Lam. Rab. 1:1, §§12–13) or that a rabbi defeated the 2689. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 26. 2690. For the speech as a model for apologetics, see Charles, “Engaging the Mind”; Witulski, “Erzählstrategien”; for Luke’s audience’s missionary preaching, Zweck, “Areopagus Speech”; for evangelism and formation, see Geraghty, “Before Areopagus.” O’Neill, Theology, 170, thinks that Luke invites readers to follow the model of Dionysius in Acts 17:34. Flender, Theologian, 88, thinks the speech’s purpose is “to open the pagan mind to the Christian message” and make it relevant. 2691. O’Neill, Theology, 170. 2692. Dupont, Salvation, 30. 2693. Lucian Fisherman 42. 2694. Comparisons with classical Athens or Sparta should flatter his audience, Dio Chrys. Or. 50.2 notes. 2695. With Rome, it remained a standard for comparison (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 427.1–3). Aesop proves wiser than one who boasts of study under Athens’s philosophers in Vit. Aes. 36. One’s rhetoric might be worthy of note even in Athens (Symm. Ep. 1.2.1). 2696. Some members of the Herod family, however, became Athens’s benefactors, apparently admiring it (see IG 2.2.3449; Sherk, Empire, 80–81, §42F).

2569

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 273

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

sixty Athenian sages in a debate (to their doom, b. Bek. 8b–9a). One philosopher, converted through a rabbi who had just been martyred, happily defends him and shares his martyrdom to achieve eternal life (Sipre Deut. 307.4.2). Rabbinic stories of rabbis defeating philosophers in debate were meant to underline the claim that whatever Gentile intellectuals could do, students of Torah could do better;2697 such claims serve to authenticate a minority culture or intellectual tradition in light of the dominance of a larger culture. Sages became an increasingly important subject for biography in late antiquity,2698 and Luke’s interest in Paul’s prowess as a teacher serves both the historical record and Luke’s apologetic interests. With Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, as well as the distinguished Areopagus, as his foil, Paul advances the intellectual respectability of the Christian message for members of Luke’s audience for whom this would prove a matter of serious interest. b. Reasoning with Jews and Philosophers (17:15–21) The bulk of Luke’s narrative about Athens consists of a speech (Acts 17:22–31), which was also perhaps Luke’s primary interest when he decided to include this narrative. Nevertheless, the setting that Luke provides for the speech is intriguing. i. Paul’s Setting in Athens (17:15–16)

Although the timing of Paul’s journey to Athens is involuntary (17:15) and his colleagues have not yet reached him (17:15–16), Paul is too stirred by the idolatrous affronts to God to remain silent (17:16; cf. 17:29). (1) Flight to Athens (17:15)

Paul’s letters inform us that he went to Athens shortly after his time in Thessalonica (1 Thess 3:1). Differences in sequence, however, indicate that Luke is clearly independent of 1 Thessalonians here (as Luke is probably independent of Paul’s letters in general).2699 This independence underlines the many points of correspondence, revealing the accuracy of Luke’s basic portrait. At the same time, the differences also suggest the sort of limits to which we ought to press our modern understanding of accuracy in an ancient historian. The picture in 1–2 Thessalonians is roughly as follows: 1. After Paul left Thessalonica, he desired to return there, but Satan hindered him (2:17–18). 2. Thus he remained in Athens by himself (3:1) and sent Timothy to encourage the Thessalonian believers (3:2). 3. Timothy returned with good news that the Thessalonian Christians still loved Paul and desired to see him (3:6). 4. If we may admit 2 Thessalonians as Paul’s: The Thessalonian Christians continued to experience sufferings (2 Thess 1:4) from others (1:6). The second point is where Luke covers the same ground yet notably diverges from the epistles: Paul is alone in Athens (Acts 17:15–16) until Timothy joins him (17:15). We could then suppose that after Silas and Timothy join him in Athens, Paul can send Timothy back to Thessalonica; the “we” left at Athens would thus be Paul and 2697. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 125. Philosophers’ applauding Jewish doctrine is likewise helpful apologetic in Let. Aris. 200–201. 2698. Aune, Environment, 33. 2699. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:233–37. Normally those dependent on letters cited them, thereby displaying their research.

2570

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 274

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Silas (1 Thess 3:1).2700 But while Luke leaves the impression that Paul expected his companions in Athens (Acts 17:15–16), they do not arrive until 18:5 (in Corinth), and then “from Macedonia.” Did Paul send both Silas and Timothy from Athens? But why then would he mention only Timothy as having undertaken the trip (1 Thess 3:1)? Perhaps Paul sent Silas elsewhere in Macedonia, probably Philippi (whence perhaps the offering in 2 Cor 11:9),2701 or perhaps only Timothy had come to Paul initially in the first place, leaving Silas to continue the work in Beroea.2702 One could also argue that Paul’s “we” in 1 Thess 3:1 refers to himself alone (a rhetorical plural, as plainly in 2:18), and that he may have sent Timothy from Beroea (where he left Silas) before he himself reached Athens.2703 These approaches are all plausible; we have enough information to see that some pieces of the puzzle are missing (reinforcing our conviction that Luke does not have Paul’s Thessalonian correspondence in front of him), but not enough to determine which reconstruction of missing information is correct. Although the harmonizing approaches are plausible, not everyone is persuaded, and the possibility that Luke has abridged in such a manner as to obscure the precise details would not contradict what we see of his usual pattern of abbreviation in the Pauline section of Acts (cf., e.g., Acts 9:23).2704 Thus it is also possible that Silas and Timothy rejoin Paul in Athens, as Paul’s letter states and as Acts implies was the objective, but that Luke, in condensing material (or reporting material already condensed when it reached him), omits Timothy’s journey and simply reports in Acts 18:5 the concluding time when both his companions have joined him in Corinth.2705 Such condensing reflects the same freedom to which comparison of various Gospel accounts accustoms us,2706 and would have troubled Luke no more than his own differences of reporting between Luke 24:47–49 and Acts 1:4–8. We find the same range of variation in other ancient biographies and histories.2707 Abridgment was a standard rhetorical technique and a regular narrative practice.2708 Skipping information in a condensed narrative was hardly problematic; it was unavoidable. As Witherington points out, both Acts and 1 Thessalonians provide “partial and 2700. Although “we” in 1 Thessalonians may often be Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1), it is sometimes explicitly Paul alone (1 Thess 2:18; see comment below). Some make ἐπέμψαμεν in 1 Thess 3:2 an epistolary aorist, so that Paul is presently sending Timothy from Athens, but this is implausible if the earlier part of letter is from Corinth (cf. Donfried, Thessalonica, 218–19). 2701. Bruce, Acts1, 330; Witherington, Acts, 510. Witherington, citing Rom 16:21 with Acts 20:4, also suggests that perhaps Sopater of Beroea and others traveled with Timothy to Corinth; this is not impossible, though it assumes that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians during Acts 18 rather than during 20:2–3. 2702. Neil, Thessalonians, 62. 2703. Riesner, Early Period, 362; Donfried, Thessalonica, 209–19, esp. 218–19. In this case, we would read καταλειφθῆναι not as implying where Timothy “left” him but as simply stating that he was left alone (cf. the use in Rom 11:4). 2704. Observing the divergences, Fitzmyer claims that “Luke’s information is either abridged or inaccurate” (Acts, 598). Sometimes ancient writers left matters unclear because they abbreviated too much (one possibility, if Lucian and Apuleius had a common source, in Lucian Lucius 7 [cf. Apul. Metam. 2.11]; 24 [cf. Apul. Metam. 6.29]; 38; 44 [Apul. Metam. 9.39]; 54; but Apuleius might expand and clarify). 2705. In any case, Paul may be in Corinth rather than Athens when Timothy reaches him, so that there is no inherent tension between 1 Thess 3:1 and Acts 18:5 (see Conzelmann, Acts, 136). 2706. Compare, e.g., Mark 11:11–25 with Matt 21:12–22; or Mark 14:53 and 15:1 with Luke 22:66. 2707. Comparisons of other ancient biographies yield the same kinds of differences; see Keener, “Otho,” 338, 348–51; also Licona, “Biographies.” Preliminary explorations by some of my students, following works on Galba (noted by Liesel Ackey and by my doctoral student Benson Goh) and (with much greater variation) descriptions in varying works of Josephus (noted by Jordan Henderson), have yielded similar results. 2708. See Keener, Acts, 1:143–47; also idem, John, 18–19; idem, Matthew, 18; 2 Macc 2:24–25, 28; Theon Progymn. 4.37–42, 80–82.

2571

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 275

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

elliptical” accounts,2709 the character of any finite narrative. Paul leaves out the time in Beroea, skipping from Paul’s expulsion in Thessalonica (perhaps 1 Thess 2:15) to his sending of Timothy (3:1), but if one argues from silence that nothing happened between the expulsion and the sending of Timothy, one might as well argue that he talked with no one on the journey, because he does not mention it. If Paul is allowed to skip events, we should show the same courtesy to Luke, whose agenda was hardly to record all of Paul’s movements.2710 The problem is that Luke’s omissions leave an impression that Silas and Timothy reached Paul only in Corinth, an impression contradicted by Paul (1 Thess 3:1) and in tension with Luke himself (Acts 17:15–16), the latter passage revealing again how Luke’s narrative sometimes “deconstructs” on details for the uninformed reader because of its condensed nature. But Luke is probably not concerned so much with explaining all details as with telling the story. “Thus,” Conzelmann opines, “the Lukan picture is simplified.”2711 Ancient historians did not share our insistence for precision on what they considered secondary details. Whereas a persistent defender or attacker of scriptural details, focused primarily on canonical materials, may fixate on the differences, a reader accustomed to ancient historiography in general will be far more impressed with the degree of independent, mutual confirmation on major points in the two accounts. See also comment on Acts 18:5. (2) Paul’s Arrival in Athens (17:15–16)

Athens itself was at least three miles inland and so had smaller port towns on the coast.2712 The original (single) Athenian port was Phalerum, but the naval genius Themistocles found a better location and had three harbors built at Piraeus, then attached Piraeus to Athens, helping to make Athens a maritime empire.2713 Both Piraeus and Phalerum were walled seaports, and a long, populated street enclosed in walls connected Athens with these coastal ports.2714 Nevertheless, the Long Walls (as the walled street between the ports and Athens was called) had fallen into disrepair. Even after Conon had restored the walls, they had fallen again into ruins (Paus. 1.2.2), though first-century reports still speak of walls there (Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24).2715 Local tradition claims that Paul landed at what is now Glyfada, south of the main ports,2716 but his landing site is not the sort of matter that Paul likely would have emphasized or the first generation of Christians in Athens would have likely cared to preserve. Some scholars think that Paul landed at Phalerum, which was the port closest to Macedonia; Piraeus was in more common use but lay on the other (western) side of the peninsula.2717 Certainly Phalerum had altars of unknown gods and of heroes (Paus. 1.1.4),2718 but Paul’s port of entry need not be 2709. Witherington, Acts, 510. 2710. With, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 24. Matthew similarly feels freedom to abridge his sources, e.g., omitting messengers in Mark 5:35 (cf. also Luke 7:3–6//Matt 8:5–8). 2711. Conzelmann, Acts, 136. 2712. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24 claims that Athens was 5 mi. inland from its ports, Piraeus and Phalerum. 2713. Plut. Themist. 19.2–4; Paus. 1.1.2. Many ancients report sailing into Piraeus (e.g., Lucian Ship 1, 9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24) or Phalerum (cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24). On Piraeus, see further Garland, Piraeus; idem, “Piraeus.” 2714. Abbott, Acts, 188. Abbott claims (190) that the walls around the ports were roughly as large as the walls around Athens itself. 2715. See further Dunbabin, Eliot, and Hornblower, “Long Walls.” 2716. McRay, Archaeology, 299 (skeptical of the tradition). 2717. Abbott, Acts, 189. 2718. This altar is singular in Lucian Patriot 9, but this source is Byzantine, reflecting dependence on Acts 17:23. Citing the altars at Phalerum, Dyer, Athens, 191–92, thinks that Paul arrived there (but also notes on 192 that such altars “were not uncommon in the Attic demes”).

2572

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 276

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the only place that he visited, and such altars may have existed elsewhere. Piraeus had displaced the older Phalerum,2719 and it is not clear that the latter was in much use in this period. If Paul instead sailed to the better-known Piraeus, though this destination could be farther for a ship arriving from the north, Paul would have also seen sites rich in Athenian history. Piraeus could receive large ships, including Egyptian grain ships en route to Italy (Lucian Ship 1). Although Sulla destroyed it in 86 b.c.e., it was restored in the early empire and was in use by the time of Paul’s visit.2720 One writer, denouncing Athens’s decadence, complains about parasites loitering around Piraeus and Phalerum (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 70). If one entered Athens from Piraeus (to the southwest), one would enter through the double gate on the northeast side of the city onto the Dromos, a wide street leading to the Agora.2721 Although wheeled traffic would start only near sundown, streets would be full of people walking, probably some litters for the elite, and probably also willing tour guides.2722 Luke says that Paul was stirred about the idols in Athens (Acts 17:16), but he would have had his first taste of them even before entering the city. Whoever approached Athens from afar, a pagan orator opined, would be awed by the glorious sight (Ael. Arist. Panath. 12, 156D–157D). Had Paul approached, for example, Piraeus, he would have been able to view Athens’s temples, especially on its acropolis, long before entering the Piraeus harbor.2723 As the ship passed Sounion, he could already view the spear tip and helmet crest of the huge statue of Athena constructed on the Acropolis (on which see discussion below) to celebrate the ancient victory at Marathon; this statue was more than fifteen meters high.2724 It was Athena’s most sacred symbol in all of Attica, and some ancients claimed that it had fallen from heaven (noted in Paus. 1.26.6, who refuses comment on this claim). In the harbor town of Piraeus, if this was where he entered, Paul would have seen the sanctuary of Athena and Zeus with their bronze images; an Aphrodite sanctuary was near the sea (1.1.3). From Piraeus to Athens proper was about seven kilometers (more than four miles).2725 Even had he entered a different harbor, he could not have evaded the signs of idolatry; in one of the other harbors (Munychia) stood a temple of Artemis, and near Phalerum veneration of Demeter, Athena, and Zeus was obvious, in addition to altars of unknown gods (1.1.4). The rest of Attica also displayed evidences of its religious perspectives. Pausanias details the sanctuaries and graves of both heroes and mortals outside Athens, including along the roads (1.29.2). One could hardly enter Athens without noticing them. Its port towns connected Athens with the sea, a notion also reflected in their mythology and worship. Athenians claimed that Poseidon competed with Athena (who won) to be the city’s patron deity (Apollod. Bib. 3.14.1; Paus. 1.24.5). Within Athens, in the Erectheum was a seawater cistern noted for its sound of waves, with a 2719. See Spawforth, “Phaleron.” 2720. Eickstedt, “Piraeus,” 289; McRay, Archaeology, 299. On the population of Piraeus in this period, see Grigoropoulos, “Population.” 2721. Finegan, Apostles, 128. The term δρόμος can mean a running course or public walkway; the walking distance from Piraeus to the city was not considered great (see Galen Grief 40). 2722. Le Cornu, Acts, 951. 2723. Broneer, “Athens,” 3–4. Temples were common on an acropolis (Owens, City, 4), but Athens outdid most others (see discussion below; for the Acropolis in Pausanias and nineteenth-century archaeology, see Dyer, Athens, 353–440). 2724. Gill, “Religion,” 85–86 (citing Paus. 1.28.2); for the more general sight of Athena’s temple there, see Paus. 1.1.1. 2725. Eickstedt, “Piraeus,” 286.

2573

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 277

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

trident outline on the rock; according to Athenian legend, Poseidon had given these signs when desiring to be the land’s patron deity (Paus. 1.26.5).2726 (3) Disturbed by Idols (17:16)

Paul could be deeply disturbed even in a “tolerant” intellectual environment where, in contrast to his recent experiences in Macedonia, he was unlikely to face more than ridicule. One factor that could have additionally contributed to Paul’s disgust with idolatry in Athens is that it was famous for philosophy, which was probably how he knew of the city before he saw it in person. The supposed “best” in representatives of Gentile culture had failed to elevate their concept of deity in a way that would affect most Athenians’ practice of religion. The strong term (παροξύνω) used here for Paul’s disturbance over idolatry appears only twice in the nt but is fairly common (about fifty times) in the lxx, often for God’s righteous anger, including several times for God’s anger toward Israel’s idolatry (Deut 9:18; Ps 105:28–29 [106:28–29 ET]; Hos 8:5).2727 For a Judean who believed that all creation owed honor to its Creator, the sight of such lavish yet misdirected devotion must have been traumatic indeed, and Paul could never grow accustomed to it (cf. Acts 14:14; 19:26). That Paul will prove conciliatory (17:22) despite his internal reaction reveals his commitment to bring his gospel everywhere (gently; cf. 2 Tim 2:25). For one’s (human) “spirit,” see also Luke 1:47; 8:55; 23:46; Acts 7:59; more disputable proposed uses are in Acts 18:25; 19:21. Paul’s response to idols was very different from the usual polytheistic visitor’s typical response. Travelers who had been to large cities such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or Ephesus would not be impressed with Athens’s size or magnificence in the period of the empire; it was in this sense “a provincial backwater, a small university town of about twenty-five thousand people, more concerned with ideas than with commerce.”2728 For those taken with Athens’s history and what it symbolized, however, Athens meant much more. “I have already stated,” Pausanias notes, “that the Athenians are far more devoted to religion [τὰ θεῖα] than other” people are (Paus. 1.24.3, noting that they were the first to do many things).2729 Because local statues of gods were among the tourist sites (Pausanias passim), those who came to a city normally expressed goodwill by praising its gymnasia, theaters, harbors, and temples (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 382.15–16), and the orator Aristides certainly did so. He praised Athens’s resources for caring for temples and images and hence for revealing gratitude to the gods (Panath. 21, 161D–162D). The ancient Mediterranean world was full of deity statues; the ancient estimate of thirty thousand (Hesiod W.D. 252; Euseb. P.E. 5.36.2) was purely a guess, but there were many of these statues.2730 As one reads Pausanias’s second-century description of Greece, it becomes quickly evident that all Greece—and not only Athens—was full of idols, many of them commemorating alleged events of the past. Yet tourists 2726. For Poseidon’s prominence in artwork on the Acropolis, after the Persian Wars, see Bäbler, “Poseidon,” 677. 2727. Witherington, Acts, 512. For the term’s strength, see also Bruce, Acts1, 331. 2728. McRay, “Athens,” 139; cf. MacKendrick, Stones, 424; Rives, Religion, 55. This probably means only five thousand “voting citizens” (Haenchen, Acts, 517, following voting records), but such citizens were always a minority of Athenian residents (Polhill, Acts, 365). 2729. He also narrates, among other things, the portrayal of a bull dedicated by the Areopagus (Paus. 1.24.2). From a less favorable perspective, Apollonius, who rejected animal sacrifices, thought the Athenians too addicted to these (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.19). 2730. Grant, Gods, 45; the huge numbers in Rome in Toner, Culture, 149, citing Pliny E. N.H. 36.121. Cf., e.g., the many statues of Rhodes (Dio Chrys. Or. 31). Schnabel, Acts, 722, notes that Pliny (Pliny E. N.H. 34.36) even estimates 73,000 statues in Rhodes, “with ‘no fewer’ in Athens” and sanctuary cities.

2574

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 278

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

often specifically remarked on the Athenians’ manifold signs of religious devotion (as Paul puts it diplomatically in Acts 17:22), some even affirming that they were the most religious Greeks ( Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.130).2731 (4) The First Idols Encountered

Paul would have seen symbols of pagan worship even when nearing Piraeus, as already noted (he would have also encountered them if entering by any other route). Luke does not tell us how far Paul explored Athens before reacting so strongly to the idolatry there. But assuming that Paul explored the city itself (since he claims to have passed through and observed closely the Athenians’ objects or sites of worship, Acts 17:23a), any impressions formed before reaching the harbor would have been confirmed in the city itself. Pausanias is a reliable mid-second-century tour guide, and most of what he reports would have also been visible a century earlier, in Paul’s day. As soon as one entered Athens, one would see the building for processions;2732 the temple of Demeter (containing images of Demeter and Persephone and a torchbearer, relevant to the Mysteries); and soon after a statue of Poseidon (Paus. 1.2.4). A nearby portico contained sanctuaries; a gymnasium devoted to Hermes; a house used for Dionysus worship; and images there of Athena the Healer, Zeus, Mnemosyne, the Muses, and Apollo. After the area sacred to Apollo came another building containing clay statues of various deities, including Dionysus (1.2.5). Next to the statue of Demosthenes the orator was a shrine for Ares, containing not only the image of Ares but also one of Athena and two of Ares’s paramour, Aphrodite (with other images of Heracles and Apollo nearby; 1.8.4). Near a temple of Hephaistos (1.14.6) stood a sanctuary of “Heavenly Aphrodite” (1.14.7; Aphrodite technically married Hephaistos, though she had relations with many of the male deities). There was also a sanctuary for the Dioscuri (1.18.2), a temple of Serapis (1.18.4), and near it a temple of Eileithyia (1.18.5). Hadrian later dedicated a temple of Olympian Zeus, with a statue of Zeus larger than any other statues except those in Rome and Rhodes (1.18.6),2733 but the original sanctuary beneath this temple was much older (according to local myth, harking back to Deucalion and the flood; 1.18.8).2734 Near this temple of Zeus stood a sanctuary of Delphinian Apollo (1.19.1), followed by a temple to Aphrodite (1.19.2). From the Prytaneum, the symbolic city center, supposedly founded by Theseus, led a road named Tripods for all the shrines containing tripods there (1.20.1). Near this was the temple of Dionysus (1.20.2), but Dionysus’s earliest sanctuary in the city was close to the theater and contained “two temples and two statues of Dionysus” (1.20.3).2735 If one left for the Acropolis from the theater, one would come across the sanctuary of Asclepius (1.21.4) and, farther along, the temple of Themis (1.22.1) and the sanctuary of Earth and of Demeter (1.22.3). 2731. As commentators often observe (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 209, citing Livy 45.27; Paus. 1.17.1; Strabo 9.1.16; Soph. Oed. Col. 260; others, repeating the citations, e.g., Bruce, Acts1, 335; idem, Commentary, 355n34; Conzelmann, Acts, 138); Malherbe, “Life,” 11–12. Cf. also Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7; Paus. 1.24.3. 2732. This was the (generally) annual procession on the Panathenaic Way to the Acropolis, for honoring Athena; the Parthenon’s friezes depict it eloquently, including “warriors, maidens, sacrificial beasts and even a wheeled ship” (Athenian Agora, 63). Bases along the way held dedications. Thousands could watch “from the high terraces and steps of the Middle Stoa and the Stoa of Attalos” (63). 2733. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 33, point out that this temple was one of antiquity’s most massive: “135 feet wide and 340 feet long with 104 Corinthian columns, 55 feet tall, constructed from 15,500 tons of Pentelic marble.” Construction had stopped in 164 b.c.e.; although Augustus resumed construction, it was Hadrian who completed it in 130 c.e. 2734. On Deucalion, briefly, see comment on Acts 14:11. 2735. Jones and Ormerod, LCL, 1:97.

2575

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 279

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(5) Acropolis Idolatry

Because the way up to the Acropolis was so steep, only one path led there (1.22.4). To the gateway’s right was “a temple of Wingless Victory” (1.22.4),2736 and at the entrance stood a “Hermes of the Gateway” and statues of the graces (1.22.8).2737 If Paul ascended the Acropolis2738 during the time he was being repulsed by the idols, he would have walked up the marble stairs that the emperor Claudius contributed less than a decade earlier (in 42 c.e.).2739 After exiting the porch at the top of the staircase to the summit of the Acropolis, visitors would confront Phidias’s half-millennium-old giant bronze figure of Athena about forty paces in front of them.2740 Phidias portrayed her as beautiful, tall, and with gray eyes (Max. Tyre 8.6).2741 The most impressive temple on the Acropolis was the Parthenon.2742 Its front pediment sculptures depicted Athena’s birth, and those on the back, her contest with Poseidon for Attica (Paus. 1.24.4–5). Long after Paul’s day, Athena continued to be associated with the city named for her.2743 As Pausanias emphasizes, all of Attica was sacred to Athena, and even those devoted to the worship of other deities reverenced her (1.26.6). Also on the Acropolis stood the sanctuary of Brauronian Artemis (1.23.7). More impressive (though not comparable to the Parthenon) was the Erechtheion, in front of which was an altar dedicated to “Zeus Most High”; three altars stood inside—one to Poseidon (for sacrifices both to him and to Erectheus), another to a hero (named Butes), and the last to Hephaistos (1.26.5). Just below the Acropolis gateway, one would find a cave sanctuary of Apollo (1.28.4);2744 not far from this was a sanctuary of the Erinyes (Furies; 1.28.6). (6) Agora Idolatry

We know that Paul went at least to the Agora (Acts 17:17; on agoras in general, see comment on Acts 16:19), and so he would have seen the idols there. Though he probably spent more time in the Western Roman marketplace (with its bustling activity) than in the Eastern Greek agora (with its many monuments and some philosophic conversation), he probably saw both. He would not necessarily recognize all of the idols; although the altar to the unknown deity had an inscription (17:23), many statues would not (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.91–92). Athens had many hermai, pillars with Hermes heads and erect phalli, throughout the city but most notably at the Agora’s northwest corner, near the Stoa Basileios, where Paul presumably spoke.2745 2736. LCL, 1:110. This was allegedly where Aegeus hurled himself into the sea thereafter named for him (Paus. 1.22.4–5). 2737. For Hermes and gates in general, see further Johnston, “Gates,” 705. 2738. McRay, Archaeology, 302, regards this as “a legitimate assumption,” but since Paul was a missionary rather than a tourist, it cannot be taken for granted. On the Acropolis, see also, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 24–32. From the marketplace, one would take the Panathenaic Way up to the Acropolis (Finegan, Apostles, 128). 2739. McRay, “Athens,” 139; idem, Archaeology, 301 (citing IG 22.3271, lines 4–5). 2740. McRay, “Athens,” 139. 2741. Describing statues was a conventional rhetorical exercise (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xli), and they often drew the attention of historians (Polyb. 4.78.3–5). 2742. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8 lists it among the world’s most famous temples. It is named after “the virgin,” a title also translated into Latin in Mart. Epig. 9.23.1. On the Parthenon, see further Höcker, “Parthenon.” 2743. E.g., Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.12; Lucian Sacr. 10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.1; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 70; Vit. Apoll. 4.22. On Athena and Athens, see also Graf, “Athena,” 117–18. 2744. On sacred caves in antiquity, see discussion in Keener, “Cave”; cf. also, e.g., Apul. Flor. 1.3. 2745. See Wycherley, “Athens” (though he may overestimate their applicability to this passage); Gill, “Achaia,” 444; Witherington, Acts, 512 (citing Livy 45.27; Paus. 1.14.1–1.15.7). The hermae were square (Paus. 1.19.2), and Athenians were the first to erect these (Paus. 1.24.3).

2576

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 280

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

The Agora also included a cult center for the Tyrannicides.2746 Standing in the Stoa Poikile in the Agora, one would see temples of Ares2747 and of Roma and Augustus; to the right would be the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios (perhaps housing the imperial cult).2748 The temple of Ares, along with the odeum lecture hall, consumed much of the previous open space of the Agora.2749 The Roman forum included “the Tower of the Winds,” an “octagonal marble tower containing sculptured images of the eight winds around the top of its eight sides.”2750 (7) Other Idols

As if all of these images were not enough, Pausanias goes on to mention various statues elsewhere in the city, so that we gain a fuller sense of the “city full of idols” Paul experienced in Acts 17:16. Although Paul would not have seen all of these, he would have seen some. Pausanias notes the statue of Hermes in the marketplace (Paus. 1.15.1), the entire precincts of Zeus’s temple full of statues (1.18.6; but this is from generations later), and Pythian Apollo’s statue nearby (1.19.1). After entering the gate to the Acropolis, a visitor would meet statues of numerous deities, including Hygeia (Health), daughter of Asclepius (1.23.4).2751 On the Acropolis stood a statue of Athena striking a satyr (1.24.1), a statue of Heracles and another of Athena (1.24.2), statues of Zeus (1.24.4), a statue of Athena in the Parthenon (1.24.5–7), and a bronze Apollo across from the Parthenon (1.24.8). The Acropolis also included a bronze statue of Artemis earlier dedicated by Themistocles’s sons, and a statue of Athena seated (1.26.4). One Athena temple contained a Hermes statue made of wood (1.27.1); next to this temple stood a temple of Pandrosus (1.27.2). Some other ancient Athena statues also remained, black and brittle from the burning of the Acropolis (1.27.6). Statues of underworld deities appeared in the Erinyes’ temple (Pluto, Hermes, Earth; 1.28.6). Other statues included personified deities, mortals, and heroes; Paul himself probably could not distinguish all of them by sight. Figures of Peace and Hestia stood in the prytaneum (city hall; 1.18.3); in addition to the personification of peace, personified mercy also received an altar (1.17.1). Among mortals and heroes, there was the sanctuary of Theseus (1.17.2); altars to children of Theseus and Phalerus and to a son of Minos (1.1.4); altars to Heracles and Hebe, and one to Alcmene and Iolaus (1.19.3); and the “hero-shrine” (ἡρῷον) of Aegeus (1.22.5).2752 As noted above, a hero named Butes received sacrifice in the Erechtheion (1.26.5).2753 To one who had 2746. Gill, “Achaia,” 444–45. For statues of tyrannicides, cf., e.g., Libanius Topics 4.6. 2747. On which see Athenian Agora, 56–58. Along with a temple of Demeter and probably one of Athena, this temple had been moved from the surrounding countryside (Gill, “Achaia,” 442). Gaius Caligula was honored at the Ares temples as a “new Ares” (IG 2.2.3250; Gill, “Achaia,” 442–43). 2748. Gill, “Achaia,” 444. On the Stoa of Zeus, see also Athenian Agora, 50–52 (noting that some identify this with the Stoa Basileios, where the Areopagus sometimes met, 51–52). 2749. Gill, “Achaia,” 445; cf. Camp, “Athens, Topography,” 206. 2750. McRay, “Athens,” 140; likewise, idem, Archaeology, 306 (citing Vitruv. Arch. 1.6.4; Varro Rust. 3.5.17; IG 12.5.891); MacKendrick, Stones, 385; for discussion of ancient views of the winds, see comment on Acts 2:2. Sometime in the first century, a latrine with sixty-six seats was added near the tower (McRay, Archaeology, 306). For deity statues (and esp. Fortune) in the city center, see Libanius Descr. 25.2. 2751. Farnell, Cults, 1:348, allowed for the possibility of an Athena Hygeia in Athens but regarded Asclepius’s daughter as the likelier dominant recipient of entreaties for health. 2752. Cf. the statues of Egyptian kings (Paus. 1.8.6) and of Philip and Alexander (1.9.4). Marketplace statues of mortals preserved their memory (Libanius Anecdote 3.19). 2753. Paintings of myths were also pervasive. One building on the left of the Acropolis’s gateway contained various paintings, e.g., about Diomedes, Odysseus, Orestes, and Polyxena (Paus. 1.22.6; none of these were deified); other myth paintings and deity paintings, 1.24.3. Depictions in 1.25.2 include the war with the giants, the Athenians battling the Amazons, etc.

2577

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 281

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

suffered violence after rejecting worship (Acts 14:13–19), the thin line that Greeks allowed between deity and mortals would have been appalling. (8) Further Cults

Athens experienced temporary building booms under Augustus, Hadrian, and the current emperor Claudius.2754 On the Acropolis, next to the famous Parthenon, Augustus built “a circular Ionic temple to Roma and Augustus”;2755 he also built a massive temple for Jupiter Olympius (Suet. Aug. 60). Some older temples from surrounding Attica had been moved into the Agora,2756 which was itself already full of idols.2757 Yet Athens had statues of deities not only in temples but in the open.2758 Literary attestation, abundant as it is, does not reveal the full picture. As David Gill notes, “Acts hints at the diversity of cult at Athens which archaeology is revealing only now.”2759 Together, the archaeological and the literary evidence suggest a city devoted to artistic praise of traditional Greek deities, with a few newer deities added. Athens also hosted emperor worship;2760 archaeologists have discovered thirteen “altars dedicated to Augustus . . . in the lower city,” in the Agora, not including other statues for the imperial family.2761 Because the current emperor, Claudius, restored what his predecessor, Gaius Caligula, looted, he proved especially popular; inscriptions hail him as a “savior” and link him with Apollo Patroos (IG 2.2.3269, 3271, 3274).2762 Claudius’s successor, Nero, was hailed as a son of a god (2.2.3277) and as “the new Apollo” (2.2.3278).2763 The famous cult of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis was nearby.2764 Athens was particularly crowded in autumn for the mystery celebrations.2765 The Mysteries were popular and were held utterly sacred by the vast majority of Athenians.2766 Even Augustus was initiated there (Suet. Aug. 93); although originally accessible only to Athenians, they were open to even non-Greeks by this period.2767 2754. McRay, “Athens,” 139. 2755. Gill, “Achaia,” 442. 2756. Ibid. On the Agora over the centuries, see also comments in Camp, “Athens, Topography.” 2757. Athenian Agora, 42–44, covers the peribolos (enclosed sacred court) of the eponymous heroes; for the altar of Zeus Agoraios, see 44–45; the (later) statue of Hadrian, 45; seats and stairway to temple of Hephaistos, 45–46; temple of Hephaistos, 46–47; temple of Apollo Patroos, 48–49; temple of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, 49–50; and the Stoa of Zeus, 50–52. On the peribolos and altar of the Twelve Gods, see 55–56; the temple and altar of Ares, 56–58. For the Eleusinion mentioned by Pausanias, with dedications to Eleusinian deities, see 82–83. A forum was a natural site for temples (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.49.1–2; Owens, City, 4). 2758. Gill, “Achaia,” 443–44. 2759. Ibid., 453, emphasizing that this must be an eyewitness account. But while Luke might have visited Athens (perhaps en route to visit Paul in Corinth if he had reason to do so) sometime during his sojourn in Macedonia, he is not with Paul on this occasion (contrast the “we” in much of Acts 16), and his report of this occasion is not firsthand. Ruins of many temples remain in Athens—e.g., the Hephaesteum (Finegan, Apostles, 130), the Erechtheion on the Acropolis (135), and the temple of Olympian Zeus (136). 2760. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28. 2761. McRay, “Athens,” 139; Gill, “Achaia,” 444. Altars could be consecrated to celebrate even Augustus’s safe return to Rome from abroad (Res Gestae 1.11; 2.12). 2762. Gill, “Achaia,” 443. 2763. Sherk, Empire, 115, §78A. 2764. Gill, “Religion,” 86. Athens controlled the rites (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 4). 2765. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.17 (mentioning philosophy students stripped to enjoy autumn heat there). 2766. See Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 3.5; Plut. Ten Or. 2, Andocides, Mor. 834CD; Lucian Dem. 11; Diog. Laert. 6.2.39; Athenag. Plea 4; Tatian Or. Gks. 27; cf. Mylonas, Eleusis, 224–25. For their popularity among Greeks, see also, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.34; cf., e.g., Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 23–24; Reitzenstein, Religions, 432. 2767. Winslow, “Religion,” 241; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 342; cf. Lucian Dem. 34. For Roman appreciation and involvement, see, e.g., Cic. De or. 3.20.75; Leg. 2.9.21; 2.14.36.

2578

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 282

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

ii. In Synagogue and Agora (17:17)

Philo in the first century knew of a Jewish community in Attica (Embassy 281–82; it would almost certainly have settled in Athens). Epitaphs from the second century b.c.e. to the third century c.e. attest the presence of Jews in Athens (some of whom, like other residents, had moved there from the Diaspora).2768 Some scholars think that the subject of Paul’s dialogue in the synagogue was the protesting of idolatry, since this is his concern in the context (Acts 17:16, 29–30).2769 But Luke has simply compressed the account too much for us to infer this agenda; more than likely, Luke expects us to assume the same topic of discussion in which Paul typically engaged in synagogues (cf. 13:16–47). The “therefore” of 17:17 may imply that the prevalence of idols influenced Paul’s preference for the synagogue as a more welcoming venue, but Paul normally began in synagogues anyway (9:20; 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10), and Paul also reasons with people in the agora. An agora was the epitome of a public place (e.g., Polyb. 32.5.10; Dio Chrys. Or. 51.2).2770 What is in question is whether Luke refers to the traditional Greek agora or to the city’s newer Roman forum, which would also be identified by the same Greek term, ἀγορά (marketplace). The Greek market lay directly north of the Areopagus; it included the temple of Hephaistos2771 and the Stoa of Attalos;2772 full of monuments, it was “a virtual museum by the first century,” though poets and philosophers strolled and discussed there.2773 Orators still spoke from the bēma in front of the Stoa of Attalos, which remained useable;2774 but after Augustus’s death, political activity in the Greek agora nearly vanished; it was not the best place to draw crowds.2775 Too much of its space was consumed by the odeum and the temple of Ares, built in the early empire.2776 By contrast, the Roman agora in the east was the city’s current commercial center.2777 About the same size as Julius Caesar’s forum in Rome, this eastern market would have hosted more people in Athens with whom Paul could dialogue.2778 Paul may have spent more of the time depicted in Acts 17:17 in the eastern agora, but in 17:18 he may have been in the western agora as well. Both sections composed a single large agora until the Stoa of Attalos divided them in the second century b.c.e.2779 They 2768. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 158–62; Schnabel, Mission, 1174 (citing, e.g., CIJ 1:712–15). These include a Jewish resident in the second century b.c.e. (IG 2.2.12609), a first-century c.e. Ammia from Jerusalem (IG 2.2.8934), and a Jewish immigrant from Asia Minor in the first centuries b.c.e. or c.e. (IG 2.2.7931; Stern, “Diaspora,” 158). For synagogues in Greece in general, see Goodenough, Symbols, 2:70–77. For other foreign cults in Athens, see, e.g., the Serapis temple in Paus. 1.18.4 (but the Athenians had introduced his worship from Ptolemy). 2769. Dunn, Acts, 232, suggesting that Luke is characteristically portraying Paul as more faithful to Judaism than are the local synagogues (cf. Acts 19:26, 33). 2770. Further on agoras in general, see Kolb, “Agora”; von Reden, “Market,” 376–77; comment on Acts 16:19. On Athens’s Greek agora, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 19–23. 2771. On the temple of Hephaistos, see, e.g., Athenian Agora, 46–47; Paus. 1.14.6. 2772. On the Stoa of Attalus, see, e.g., Athenian Agora, 65–67. 2773. McRay, “Athens,” 139; idem, Archaeology, 40, 302. Philosophers still debated in Athens’s agora in the late second century (Lucian Eunuch 1; Indictment 8). 2774. McRay, Archaeology, 302–5. 2775. Ibid., 305. 2776. Ibid., 304–5. 2777. Ibid., 41, 306. On Athens’s Roman forum, see further Fant and Reddish, Sites, 32; on forums generally, von Reden, “Market,” 376–77. It was begun by Julius Caesar and finished by Augustus (Owens, City, 140). 2778. McRay, “Athens,” 139–40; idem, Archaeology, 305. McRay notes (306) that this forum “was 364 feet long by 321 feet wide” and Rome’s was 430 by 295 ft., but whereas Rome’s forum was “for public business” (following Appian Hist. rom. 2.102), Athens’s “was used for commercial purposes.” 2779. McRay, Archaeology, 302.

2579

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 283

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

were connected by a walkway, though, like the rest of Athens, this walkway lacked colonnades until Hadrian’s era in the second century.2780 Dialoguing with whomever he found in the marketplace fits the “university” climate of Athens; public speakers in temples and public places were common in Greek cities, but they were especially noteworthy in Athens. If Paul began to draw the interest of other teachers (see comment on Acts 17:18) as a potentially rival public speaker, however, he would probably have needed to be accredited through the Areopagus (see comment on Acts 17:19); Athens had more eager prospective teachers passing through than it could accommodate. Some scholars suggest that Paul could have entered these discussions from his workshop in the market,2781 but neither Luke nor Paul (1 Thess 3:1) offers the impression of a long stay in Athens. Paul had given public lectures at other locations (Acts 14:8–9), probably following the method pioneered by Cynics and other traveling sages (see comment on Acts 14:8–10), though undoubtedly without Cynic eccentricities such as accosting passersby for funds. Philosophers who were not Cynics also often preached in streets and marketplaces, since many lacked their own lecture halls (see comment on Acts 19:9) or patrons to host them.2782 This style of discourse would be even more familiar in Athens, and it seems that Paul was growing increasingly comfortable with it.2783 (Although Paul’s own writings include notable correspondences with the ideals of the traveling preachers, second-century Christians grew still more comfortable with portraying Paul in these semirespectable, or at least culturally intelligible, terms.)2784 Socrates also dialogued with individuals in the marketplace, an allusion that many scholars find paramount here in view of 17:19.2785 There were certain traditional limitations to such public dialogue. At least in an earlier period, those who were too young to speak wisdom in the marketplace itself might lecture instead in a shop nearby (Xen. Mem. 4.2.1). Securing approval might also be necessary if one began to draw significant hearers (see discussion below). Paul would so far lack a proper Attic accent, but Tarsus was a leading center of both rhetoric and philosophy (see comment on Acts 9:11), and so he might be heard as more honorable than some visiting teachers. iii. Responses of Stoics and Epicureans (17:18)

Luke portrays the responses of Epicureans and Stoics, probably especially the former mocking, and the latter bemused by, their misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching. (1) Dialoguing with Philosophers

Long stoas (colonnades) surrounded the Agora (Acts 17:17), and lecturers and others had long employed these porches for gatherings (the Stoics, in fact, derived 2780. Ibid., 306. 2781. Hock, Social Context, 42, as a possibility, though he thinks Paul probably dialogued near the stoa. 2782. Malherbe, “Life,” 35; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 36 (citing Stoic examples in Hor. Ep. 1.12.20; Sat. 1.1.120–21; 2.3.32–33); cf. Barrett, Documents, 75–76. On philosophers and means of support, see comment on Acts 18:3. 2783. Johnson, Acts, 312, thinks that Paul adapts the method for the first time here (for Cynics’ “open-air” preaching, he cites Epict. Diatr. 3.22.26–30; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9); Liefeld, “Preacher,” 220, also thinks this approach different from Paul’s usual strategy (because impromptu). But Dunn, Acts, 232, rightly recognizes that Acts 14:9 also implies the same strategy. 2784. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 290. For Pauline parallels, see comment on Acts 14:8–10. 2785. Ramsay, Discovery, 96; Haenchen, Acts, 517; Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 219; idem, Acts, 139 (comparing διελέγετο with Plato Apol. 19D), though admitting that Luke elsewhere employs the term for preaching (Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8–9; 20:7, 9); Hansen, “Preaching,” 310 (citing Plato Apol. 17; cf. Apol. 23); Barrett, Acts, 829 (comparing παρατυγχάνοντας here with ἐντυγχάνω in Plato Apol. 29D); Dunn, Acts, 232. The practice itself was more widespread than Socrates, so that only Luke’s more explicit allusion in Acts 17:19 clarifies the connection here.

2580

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 284

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

their name from this practice on a porch). Paul’s dialogue with philosophers probably occurred in one or more stoas.2786 The rhetorical practice of prosopopoeia, writing speeches “in character,” meant that one would compose speeches appropriate to the speakers and the occasion. As Luke probably affects a Semitic style in his infancy narrative, so here he quotes the Athenian philosophers using the rare optative, striving “for a cultured style.”2787 That the philosophers discuss Paul’s speech among themselves fits the ancient rhetorical situation (Polyb. 9.32.1); Paul might even wait for them to finish before speaking further (9.32.2). The contrasting responses of Epicureans and Stoics fit the stereotype (in this case, a mostly accurate one) of these schools (see discussion below). They also fit the Lukan style of “divided reaction to Paul’s speech.”2788 Paul divides and conquers his audience, as he does elsewhere (Acts 23:6–10); he establishes common ground with Stoics and (in 23:6–10) with Pharisees whereas far less such ground was possible with the Epicureans (and Sadducees).2789 (There is some common ground with Epicureans, such as lack of need for temples, but much more with Stoics.)2790 Luke’s first audience could probably imagine, without explicit instruction to this effect, which remarks came from Epicureans and which from Stoics; the former may have called Paul a cock sparrow and the latter a proclaimer of foreign deities (17:18);2791 in general, the former mocked whereas the latter maintained an open mind because Paul had found common ground with them (17:32).2792 Like the Sadducees, Epicureans now represented a minority position more often maligned than respected; by linking the Christian movement instead with Stoics and Pharisees, Luke presents it favorably.2793 Certainly by the second century, when pagans lumped Christians with Epicureans (both denying traditional deities),2794 Christian apologists had become emphatic in polemically distinguishing themselves from Epicureans.2795 2786. Gill, “Achaia,” 445–46. 2787. Conzelmann, Acts, 139; cf. also Ramsay, Discovery, 96. 2788. Haenchen, Acts, 517 (citing Acts 2:12–13; 14:4; 23:6; 28:24); Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121. For two groups, see also perhaps Luke 7:32 (though this is not specifically Lukan redaction; Matt 11:17). 2789. See Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121; later but independently, Keener, Background Commentary, 372–73; also others, e.g., Klauck, Magic, 78; cf. Lang, Kunst, 251–314 (note p. 258 on Acts 17:18); idem, “Self,” 169; Schnabel, Missionary, 171–73 (also noting smaller common ground with Epicureans on 173, and contrasts with both on 174–78; see also idem, Acts, 746–48). Witherington, Acts, 534, rightly notes that Paul’s speech conflicts with both (his emphasis on immanence in Acts 17:27–28 conflicts with Epicurean thought, but his distinction of God from creation and an epistemology of direct revelation as well as nature in Acts 17:30–31 conflict with Stoic thought); Winter, “Public,” 136–38, finds correspondences in Paul’s speech with Epicureanism. But Paul’s thought accords much better with Stoicism and would have accorded reasonably well until Acts 17:30. Paul’s letters may also start with common ground; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 363, contends that Paul starts the body of Romans (Rom 1:18–3:20) with assumptions that Judaism shared (this is surely true at least in 1:18–32). 2790. For some common ground with Epicureans, see also Schnabel, Missionary, 173, noted above. 2791. So Soards, “Setting,” 45; Hansen, “Preaching,” 311. Epicureans could conceivably have spoken of foreign deities as well, but they rejected local ones also (see discussion below). 2792. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311, 313; Croy, “Philosophies and Preaching”; idem, “Epicureanism,” 326. 2793. Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121–22. Paul’s letters reflect far more Stoic than Epicurean influence; see, e.g., Downing, Cynics, 267–86. 2794. Cf. Lucian Alex. 38 (for the view of followers of Alexander). Some scholars see Epicurean elements in the Corinthian Christians’ views (cf. 1 Cor 15:32; Tomlin, “Epicureans”), though this might reflect Paul’s polemic. 2795. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124 (following Glad, Paul and Philodemus, 9 and n. 16); later, cf. Ambrose Letters to Priests 59 (Bray, Corinthians, 167).

2581

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 285

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

A bewildering array of philosophic options existed,2796 many of them known and popular in Athens. In the second century, Stoics, Epicureans, Peripatetics (Aristotle’s school), and Platonists2797 even received subsidized professorships in Athens.2798 Yet of these schools, Stoics and Epicureans were most influential as contrasted poles of thought.2799 (Apart from the dissimilarity of Stoics and Epicureans, the age favored a degree of eclecticism, borrowing popular elements from various systems.2800 Platonic and Aristotelian views were adopted eclectically by others; Stoic and Epicurean views also were disseminated beyond their schools.)2801 Stoics and Epicureans were the two most prominent schools of the period,2802 representing in the popular mind two stereotypical approaches to ethics. Stoics noted that they and Epicureans differed on most issues (Sen. Y. Dial. 8.3.2); a satirist from this period classifies philosophy into Cynic, Stoic, and Epicurean forms but regards the first two as closely alike ( Juv. Sat. 13.121–22). Another satirist portrays Stoics and a Cynic disputing an Epicurean and a Peripatetic, with a Platonist supervising.2803 (2) Conflict with Philosophers

Not everyone liked philosophers. Many rural farmers, for example, apparently thought that philosophers distracted people from hard and honest work (Alciph. Farm. 11 [Sitalces to Oenopion, his son], 3.14). Many others considered them insincere, lazy, and greedy (Quint. Decl. 268.5), contending that their best insights were not limited to philosophers (268.6–8). Aristocrats learned about philosophic views at the tertiary stage of education but rarely committed to particular philosophic schools; they approved of philosophic literacy but disapproved of philosophic commitment, which often entailed flouting social convention.2804 Traditional Romans did not fully trust philosophy and demanded that all knowledge be practical.2805 One ground for conflict with many philosophers was their opposition to traditional religion; this complaint, however, pertained especially to the Epicureans (see discussion below). Philosophers also held a long-standing rivalry with sophists, whose artistic speech they judged devoid of content and as prizing eloquence above truth.2806 Indeed, even 2796. Lucian Hermot. 14–15, 25–27, 29–30. One might summarize the major options as Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists (or Skeptics), and Peripatetics (Par. 27; Hermot. 16); a fuller list would add Pythagoreans (Fisherman 43). 2797. On a Middle Platonist—specifically, on the Middle Platonist Plutarch—see Klauck, Context, 401–26; esp. Plut. Plat. Q., Mor. 999C–1011E. 2798. Lucian Eunuch 3 (noting two chairs for each school); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.2.566 (on Herodes). See also Johnson, Acts, 313; Witherington, Acts, 514. Another school (without a chair) was that of the Skeptics; they denied any natural universals, even for morality (Lucian Indictment 25; Diog. Laert. 9.11.101), and suspended judgment on what they could not know (Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.2.5–6), without asserting everything to be false (1.7.14). Others claimed that they denied knowledge, knowing nothing (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 88.44; Lucian True Story 2.18; Phil. Sale 27). They denied the validity of arguments (Diog. Laert. 9.11.74, 79, 90, 102); with more nuance, cf. Aul. Gel. 11.5.1–8, esp. 11.5.8 (Academics affirm that nothing can be known with certainty whereas Pyrrhonians doubt that even this statement is knowable). 2799. Cf., e.g., Lucian Par. 30. 2800. See Poster, “Affections,” 24–25 (esp. Middle Platonism as an amalgam, 24); see also the nuance and examples in Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 538–39. 2801. Though Plutarch opposed Epicureanism, his ethical theory betrays some Epicurean traits (Smith, Symposium, 62). 2802. With, e.g., Malherbe, “Life,” 32–33; Matheson, Epictetus, 25 (citing esp. Epict. Diatr. 2.20; 3.7); Klauck, Context, 334. Nevertheless, Plato commanded respect over a long period (Cic. Tusc. 1.17.39–40; 1.23.55; Sen. Y. Dial. 7.18.1). 2803. See Lucian Symp. 48, discussed in Smith, Symposium, 64. 2804. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 131–32. 2805. Carcopino, Life, 109, 113; MacMullen, Enemies, 46–94. 2806. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.40; p. 64.1–4; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.7–8; 3.23 (e.g., 3.23.20); Tac. Dial. 31–32, 42; Anacharsis Ep. 1, to Athenians; Lucian Fisherman 43; Marc. Aur. 1.7; 1.16.4; 1.17.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll.

2582

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 286

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

nonphilosophers, and sometimes orators themselves, denounced sophists.2807 Against those emphasizing truth, orators could plead either side of a matter,2808 annoying most philosophers.2809 (By this period, many philosophers, especially Stoics, did, however, find a place for rhetoric and used it;2810 in one sense, they had little choice, since rhetoric had already won the public argument.)2811 Rhetoricians often responded in kind to philosophers’ disdain;2812 Lucian portrays as laughable a Stoic who does not communicate well and hence ends up shouting and losing his temper.2813 Many intellectuals, however, did appreciate the distinctive contributions of both philosophy and rhetoric.2814 Some of the strongest voices against various philosophical schools, however, were their academic rivals. Naturally, philosophers often critiqued adherents of competing philosophic schools,2815 and they also critiqued philosophers whom they thought to be phony or hypocritical.2816 Stoics and Epicureans abused each other with stereotyped polemic,2817 knowledge of some elements of which may be presupposed among Luke’s 4.30; 8.6; Ep. Apoll. 1; Porph. Marc. 17.284–85; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 20.2; 40.4; 86.16; 100.1; 108.23, 38; 115.1–2; Philo Creation 45; Worse 38; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42–60; Pearcy, “Did Galen Understand?”; Litfin, Theology, 46–58; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlvii. Socrates had a special reputation for challenging sophistry (Plato Theaet. 164CD; Hippias major; Hippias minor; Xen. Mem. 4.3.1; Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1). For a more qualified rejection of rhetoric, see, e.g., Winter, Philo and Paul, 121–25 (on Epict. Diatr. 3.23); Pogoloff, Logos, 37–39 (on Plato). 2807. E.g., a rhetorical sage such as Dio Chrysostom (Dio Chrys. Or. 4.123–24; 6.21; 12.5; 13.22; 54.1, 3–4); a Jewish historian ( Jos. War 1.13; Ag. Ap. 1.27); and others (Xen. Hunt. 13.1–2; Isoc. Antidosis; Against Sophists; Aeschines Tim. 31; Demosth. Lacr. 40–41, 56; Val. Max. 6.2.pref.; Plut. Themist. 2.4; Educ. 17, Mor. 12F; Suet. Rhet. 1; Alciph. Court. 7 [Thaïs to Euthydemus], 1.34, ¶¶4–5; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.483; 1.15.499). 2808. Rhet. Alex. 15, 1432a.1–2; Dion. Hal. Lysias 18; Isaeus 16; Cic. Or. Brut. 14.46; Lucian Dial. D. 450–54 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 1–3); Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.27 (42); cf. Rhet. Her. 3.3.6; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 46; so also Skeptics, who denied any standard of justice (Lucian Indictment 15, 25; cf. Peripatetics in Tac. Dial. 31). Rhetoricians discussed even which vowels sounded more euphonic (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 14). 2809. E.g., Aul. Gel. 5.3.7; 5.10; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.13. See the early rabbis in Nádor, “Sophismus.” 2810. See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–4; 108.12; Epict. Diatr. 1.8.7; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11p, pp. 96–97.30– 32; Synesius Dio, ch. 1, pp. 35ff. Petav. (in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 5:364–87, here 5:371); cf. Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 197–202; even Plato made significant use of rhetoric (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 342–43, §114D; Philost. Letters 73 [13]; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42; Litfin, Theology, 58–59), despite his detractors (Dion. Hal. Demosth. 23). For both perspectives among Stoics, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.19–26. 2811. Winter, Philo and Paul, 98; Pogoloff, Logos, 57; but Dion. Hal. Anc. Or. 1.1 blames specifically Asianist rhetoric for eclipsing philosophy. If one had wisdom, rhetoric remained essential for persuading others of such wisdom for the common good (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 4; Cic. Brut. 24.110; 31.117; Inv. 1.1.1; Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 3). 2812. E.g., Fronto Ad am. 1.15; cf. Speeches 2; Eloq. 3.4; Cassin, “Philosophia.” More conciliatory, Fronto Eloq. 1.18; cf. Hermog. Progymn. 11, “On Thesis,” 25. Rhetoricians defended rhetoric, praising it (Cic. De or. 3.14.55) and noting that its abuse did not discredit its proper use (Isoc. Nic. 1–9 [Or. 3.26–27]; Cic. Inv. 1.3.4–1.4.5; cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 33–34). 2813. Lucian Z. Rants 16, 27, 51–53. 2814. E.g., Cic. Off. 1.1.3–4; Or. Brut. 3.12–13; Quint. Inst. 1.pref. 13, 18; Dio Chrys. Or. 22, esp. 22.1–2; Plut. Cic. 13.1; 32.5; Max. Tyre 1.7; 14.8; 25 (e.g., 25.3, 6); 26.2; 27.8. Possibly, Lucian Par. passim mocks the debate altogether. 2815. E.g., Graeser, Plotinus and Stoics, 1–2; Pogoloff, Logos, 175; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; Quint. Decl. 268.9; for sophists, Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; Winter, Philo and Paul, 170–76; for the same pattern in medieval academics, see, e.g., Shelley, History, 198. One generally more tolerant example is Arius Didymus (see Pomeroy, “Introduction,” 3; citing also Strabo 14.5.4). 2816. See, e.g., Plut. Isis 3, Mor. 352C; Lucian Icar. 16 (both a Stoic and an Epicurean); Carousal 30, 34; Tim. 54–57; Runaways 4; Dial. D. 329 (1/1, Diogenes 1); 332 (1/1, Diogenes 2); Fisherman 42; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 3–4, 51. Cf. Zeus’s complaint in Lucian Icar. 29–31. Members of philosophic schools could never master even all the teachings of their own school (Hermot. 48). 2817. See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; against Epicureans, see, e.g., idem, Philosophers, 82–86; cf. complaints about Epicureans abusing others (Plut. Pleas. L. 2, Mor. 1086EF; Diog. Laert. 10.1.7–8); they might ridicule early Stoic pantheism (e.g., Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24). The earliest Epicureans probably ignored Stoics more than they combated them (Kechagia, “Rivalry”). On typical ancient stereotyped polemic in general, see Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 307.6; Johnson, “Slander.”

2583

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 287

6/19/14 2:05 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

first audience. Such polemical definition of other groups may have been helpful in defining each group’s own boundaries, since the critiques of most groups had influenced the others.2818 Further, a range of views existed even within schools; Seneca the Younger, for example, sometimes disagreed with his fellow Stoics (Ep. Lucil. 67.5).

Excursus: Epicureans Epicurus (341–270 b.c.e.) had earlier schools, but he settled in Athens in 307/6 or 305/4 b.c.e.2819 His disciples, known as “friends,”2820 were aloof from city life, which led to gossip that they engaged in hedonism; in fact, they lived austerely.2821 Because Epicurus’s school met at a house with a garden, his school became known as the “School of the Garden,” in contrast to the Stoic “School of the Stoa,” or “Porch.”2822 His followers held monthly communal banquets, and annual banquets for his birthday (Diog. Laert. 10.1.18).2823 Most philosophic schools died out, but Epicureanism persisted through the leadership of generations of scholarchs (10.1.9).2824 The school declined in Athens in the mid-first century b.c.e., but revived and spread during the empire.2825 Epicureans’ initial attempts to establish a school in Rome (155 b.c.e. and about a century afterward) failed, but many Romans were converted in the first century b.c.e. By 121 c.e. Trajan’s widow made a request to Hadrian on behalf of the Epicurean school in Athens (IG2 1099), and Hadrian wrote to them in Athens (SEG 3.226; IG2 1097).2826 Even before Epicurus’s death, schisms occurred in his school. Although Epicureans were not allowed to introduce “new” ideas into Epicurean thought, social changes required that they make changes even while pretending not to do so.2827 This school focused on remembering and imitating its founder more than other schools normally did.2828 Epicureans could speak of obeying Epicurus, “according to whom we have chosen to live.”2829 Some who favored this school boasted that Epicurus was divine and brought true freedom.2830 2818. Cf. Meeks, Moral World, 41. 2819. On Epicurus and Epicureans, see esp. Diog. Laert. 10; Bailey, Epicurus; DeWitt, Epicurus; Rist, Epicurus; Long, Philosophy, 14–74; Clay, Epicurus; relevant material in Sharples, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics; more succinctly, Klauck, Context, 385–400; Croy, “Epicureanism”; Dorandi, “Epicurean School.” For sample texts on Epicureanism, see Shelton, Romans, 420–24. For one survey of recent publications on ancient philosophy, see Gill, “Philosophy”; idem, “Studies.” 2820. On Epicurean friendship, see, e.g., Culpepper, School, 101; Stowers, Letter Writing, 66; Meeks, World, 57; Stambach and Balch, Environment, 143. Epicureans valued friendship as a source of pleasure (Diog. Laert. 10.120; 148.27–28; Cic. Fin. 1.20.65–70); Stoics, by contrast, valued friendship for its own sake (Cic. Fin. 3.21.70). The view of the Epicurean Lucretius, in Nat. 5.1019–23, sounds like later social-contract theories; the Epicurean Philodemus, in Prop. 24.20–29; 24.41–25.4, urges financial generosity toward friends. 2821. Fitzmyer, Acts, 604. Epicurus himself was thought to have lived simply (Cic. Tusc. 5.31.89–5.32.89). 2822. Knowling, “Acts,” 365. 2823. Smith, Symposium, 58, noting that the custom continued in this period (Cic. Fin. 2.101; Pliny E. N.H. 35.5). On their communal and egalitarian ideal, see also Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074; for the annual feasts and mourning honoring Epicurus and his relatives and friends, see Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074–75. 2824. Seneca’s first-century dialogues with Lucilius concerning Epicureanism offer further support for their continuance (cf. Meeks, Moral World, 56). 2825. Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1072. 2826. Ibid. 2827. Ibid., 1073. 2828. Ibid., 1074. We might exclude Pythagoreans if they functioned as a continuing movement. 2829. Philod. Crit. frg. 45 (Konstan et al., 57). Epicurus offers correction in frg. 55. 2830. Lucian Alex. 61; for his bringing freedom, see also Alex. 47.

2584

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 288

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Although the Stoics viewed the Epicureans as their primary philosophic competitors, Epicureans apparently exercised little influence in this period except among the educated elite.2831 In Rome, even among the elite, their influence, though strong in the first century b.c.e., declined in the imperial period.2832 Scholars have noted some organizational similarities between Epicureans and early Christians,2833 but most of these resemble more general social patterns.2834 Epicureans, like Christians, sought converts,2835 though this practice likewise was not unique to these groups.2836 Pagans sometimes associated Christians with Epicureans because both “denied the gods”; for this reason, Christians (who had little genuine common ground with Epicureans anyway) became all the more polemical against them.2837 Since Christians plainly denied most of the gods and the need for temples and sacrifices (Acts 17:24–25, 29), dissociating Christians from Epicureans and associating them more closely with the more popular Stoics would serve Luke and his successors as a useful apologetic.

1. Epicureans and Pleasure2838 Epicureanism was widely known for valuing pleasure.2839 Epicurus articulated a more nuanced understanding of pleasure than outsiders usually credited to him.2840 Skeptical and empirically fairly reductionist in his ethics, he claimed that nature taught an emphasis on pleasure and pain (Cic. Fin. 1.7.23), with pleasure as the chief good (summum bonum) and pain as the chief evil (1.9.29).2841 By “pleasure” he meant not sensual desires (“as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice, or willful misrepresentation”) but “the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.”2842 That is, he advocated not drinking parties, sex, and food but sober reasoning (Diog. Laert. 10.132).2843 Indeed, Epicurus viewed sex as potentially harm2831. Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 379, notes the philosophy’s appeal among the wealthy, though also noting the proliferation of a similar view of afterlife among others. 2832. Koester, Introduction, 1:145–47, esp. 147. An Epicurean’s freedman taught philosophy, rhetoric, and grammar (Suet. Gramm. 6), illustrating the Epicurean’s status; but another grammarian was accorded less respect because he was also an Epicurean (Gramm. 8). 2833. Cf. Malherbe, “Epicureans,” 47; Meeks, Urban Christians, 81–84. 2834. See the caution in Meeks, Urban Christians, 84. 2835. See Wallace and Williams, World, 129–30. 2836. See Nock, Conversion, passim. 2837. See Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124 (following Glad, Paul and Philodemus, 9 and n. 16). 2838. On Epicurean views of pleasure, see, e.g., Long, Philosophy, 61–69; Irwin, Philosophy, 272–75 (§§412–18); Sorabji, Emotion, 201–3, 235; Klauck, Context, 395–98; for Epicurean ethics in general, see at length Cic. Fin. 1.5.13–1.21.72. On emotions more generally, cf., e.g., their view on anger in Procopé, “Epicureans,” esp. 188–89; Sanders, “Notion”; for Stoics on emotion, see Sorabji, Emotion, 29–333 passim. For philosophy banishing useless emotions such as pain or fear, see Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 1. 2839. E.g., Lucian Indictment 20–21. On a popular level, this was readily abused (Phil. Sale 19), and ordinary hedonists might think their own pleasure better than that of Epicureans (Par. 11–12). This may have appealed to many of the elite (Winter, Left Corinth, 106). 2840. Many ancients critiqued Epicurean views of pleasure (Lucian Hermot. 16), some even while practicing the opposite of their critique (Runaways 19). A Stoic seeking pleasure like an Epicurean was particularly hypocritical (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 5), but Pythagoreans (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.7) and others who sought pleasure acted “Epicurean.” For the contrast between Epicurean and Stoic views of pleasure, see also Frede, “Pleasure,” 367–68. 2841. On Epicurus’s regarding pleasure as the chief good, see also Lucian Slip 6; cf. Athen. Deipn. 12.546e; on pleasure as the τέλος (goal) of life, see Epicurus in Diog. Laert. 10.131. 2842. Diog. Laert. 10.131 (LCL, 2:657); cf. also 10.144.17; Cic. Fin. 1.11.37. The division into “static” and “kinetic” pleasures may reflect a later misinterpretation of Epicurus rather than his teaching (Nikolsky, “Epicurus”). 2843. Epicurus, in fact, advocated a simple, spartan life (Diog. Laert. 10.1.11); the claim of his twice-daily vomiting was a slander (10.1.6).

2585

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 289

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ful, and he generally discouraged marriage.2844 Although defending the pleasurable use of resources,2845 Epicurus’s followers could discourage wastefulness.2846 Epicurus advocated pursuing virtues because they yielded such pleasure, not for their own sake (10.138), but he did aver that controlling the passions leads to happiness and that virtue is necessary for genuine happiness (Cic. Fin. 1.18.57–58).2847 Most Greek philosophic schools sought as their goal “happiness,”2848 but Epicurus’s language exposed his school to misrepresentation. Epicureans protested that Stoics misunderstood what they meant by pleasure; Stoics replied that the Greek and Latin meanings of the terms (ἡδονή and voluptas) were clear and it was the Epicureans who failed to articulate clearly (2.4.11–2.6.18). Most philosophers disagreed with the Epicurean view of pleasure (Aul. Gel. 9.5),2849 and the Stoics were known especially for mounting refutations of such views (Cic. Fin. 2).2850 Some thinkers denied that Epicurus was a valid philosopher (Max. Tyre 33.2), though others (like the Stoic Seneca) simply blamed his followers for distorting his teaching. Seneca the Younger conceded to an Epicurean that Epicurus himself did not teach abuse of pleasure but that others abused his teachings (Dial. 7.12.4; 7.13.1, 2).

2. Epicureanism and Religion2851 Some ancients praised Epicurus’s piety (ὁσιότητος) toward the gods (Diog. Laert. 10.1.10), but among outsiders this attitude was plainly exceptional. Epicurus accepted the existence of gods, but only those known directly through sensation, not the gods that the masses accepted merely on the basis of tradition.2852 Instead of fearing deities, people should recognize that the gods exist in eternal bliss, untouched by mortals.2853 He counted the common beliefs about deities as impious (10.123–24); religion, rather than philosophy, hosts impiety—for example, its story that Agamemnon murdered Iphigeneia to procure divine favor for the Achaian fleet (Lucret. Nat. 1.80–101).2854 Epicureans sought freedom from fear of the supernatural.2855 2844. See Brennan, “Epicurus.” 2845. Philod. Prop. col. 18.40–47. 2846. Philod. Prop. col. 4.6–15 (esp. 4.11, 13); col. 23.42–46; for love of money as a vice, see Prop. col. 17.13. 2847. Epicurus also said that one should pursue virtue, rather than pleasure, to yield the end of pleasure (Murray, Stages, 138). He was a “psychological hedonist” (viewing pleasure as the goal of human choices and behavior; Woolf, “Hedonist”). 2848. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.14–15; Dio Chrys. Or. 25.1; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b5, pp. 20–21.15–16; 2.7.5g, pp. 32–33.8–9; 2.7.6d, pp. 38–39.34–35; 2.7.6e, pp. 40–41.11–13; Lucian Dem. 19–20; Max. Tyre 29, esp. 29.7; cf. Meeks, Moral World, 46–47; Hossenfelder, “Happiness.” 2849. Cf. Plut. Pleas. L. 3, Mor. 1087D; 13, Mor. 1095C, for one critique of inconsistency in Epicurus’s doctrine of pleasure; cf. also Galen Grief 62, 68. 2850. Also Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10a, pp. 58–59.8–11 (grounding it in their faulty atomic theory); Lucian Indictment 20. For another critique of Epicurean views of pleasure, see Max. Tyre 30–33, esp. 30.3–5; 31; 33. 2851. On Epicurean religious views, see esp. Festugière, Epicurus; Farrington, Faith of Epicurus; Obbink, “Atheism of Epicurus.” His theological views reflected his development of Leucippus’s and Democritus’s atomism; the world consisted of atoms and void, and atoms collided randomly (Rouse, “Introduction,” viii–xiii, esp. viii–ix). On Epicurean randomness or chance, see, e.g., Lucretius Nat. 1.958–1115; Iambl. Soul. 5.25, §376. 2852. E.g., Epicurus Let. Men. 123–24 (Grant, Religions, 157). Nevertheless, Philodemus mentions Zeus (On Death 3.32–33) and uses myths for illustrations (23.13–14). Against the religious ignorance of the masses, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 122; for their depravity more generally, 125–26. 2853. Erler, “Epicurus,” 1081. Although speaking as a Platonist, Apuleius (De deo Socr. 146) also describes the gods’ tranquility as impervious to “pain and pleasure.” 2854. Other thinkers could also critique nonphilosophers as impious (Apul. De deo Socr. 122). 2855. See Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios,” on the views of one Epicurean named Diogenes; cf. Cic. Fin. 4.5.11.

2586

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 290

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Epicureans came to be known for “attacking” myths (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K119.2–3); a later Epicurean declared that Epicurus was the first man with sufficient courage to deny the myths of the gods and believe only what his mind taught (Lucret. Nat. 1.62–79). Divinity, by its nature, was transcendent, unmoved by human pain; we may call such things gods but should not be so superstitious as to think them involved with human affairs (2.646–51).2856 The gods have no visible abode, no dwelling in the universe here (5.146–55).2857 Indeed, nature operates independently of the gods; surely gods would not hurl thunderbolts at their own temples (2.1090–1104)! While discussing various views of divine providence (an important element of Paul’s discourse here, Acts 17:24–27), philosophers assigned to Epicurus the view (which we might compare with later deism) that God does not care (προνοεῖν) for human affairs (Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218).2858 Philosophers sometimes clashed with traditional religion. Protagoras claimed to be agnostic as to the gods’ existence (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.10.494). Many philosophers were thought to be atheists (Cic. Inv. 1.29.46);2859 some who were religious may also have viewed philosophers as more apt to be impious against the gods.2860 This charge was leveled especially against the Epicureans, from whom early Christians had ample reason to strive to distinguish themselves (for both points, see comment on Acts 17:18). Many philosophers regarded religion as socially necessary for the masses but found no enlightenment or (apart from Pythagoreans) way of life there.2861 Others embraced some critiques of traditional religion but presented themselves as defenders of true piety; later Platonists, for example, believed that the heavenly gods (both invisible ones and the visible celestial ones) were uninvolved with the world but that their will was mediated through daimones (see the excursus at Acts 16:16).2862 Although some atheists—always a small minority—existed in antiquity2863 and the Hellenistic period saw a rise in criticisms of traditional Greek religion,2864 religion 2856. Also Lucian Indictment 2. Epicureans denied even an original creation by deities (Cic. Nat. d. 1.9.21– 22); being infinite, matter accidentally collected into the known world (Lucret. Nat. 1.958–1115). As Furley (“Epicurus,” 533) notes, though deities were “atomic compounds like everything else,” they lived in bliss; but while mortals should respect them, they should not expect their interest or intervention. 2857. This belief appears inconsistent with Democritus’s reductionist atomism, but how Epicureans finessed this inconsistency is unclear (Rouse, “Introduction,” xiv). 2858. Cf. also Quint. Decl. 268.11; Hippol. Ref. 1.19. On Epicurus’s denial of providence, see Long, Philosophy, 41; for his emphasis on free will (through the unpredictability of atomic swerve; opposing Stoic beliefs), see 57–61; briefly, Furley, “Epicurus,” 533. This denial of providence corresponds to Pharisaic critiques of Sadducees as well (on fate and free will, see comment on Acts 2:23; or, much more briefly, Keener, John, 572–73). 2859. For a survey including ancient rationalism and atheism, see Meijer, “Philosophers.” For their arguments, see Plut. [De placitis philosophorum] 1.7.1–10, esp. in Runia, “Atheists.” On Prodicus’s atheism, see Henrichs, “Notes” (though even Prodicus did not reject all deities, only the Olympians; idem, “Atheism”). But such an approach could not easily become widespread; religion is fairly pervasive in human culture (so also Arist. Heav. 1.3, 270b), probably rooted in something characteristically human (Clyde Kluckhohn, foreword to Lessa and Vogt, Reader, v–vi, here v). Others also could jest glibly about those who doubted deities’ existence (Mart. Epig. 4.21). 2860. So Zeus in Lucian Tim. 7 (though it is traditional religion that Lucian mocks). Apuleius, an eclectic Middle Platonist, attributes this perspective only to the ignorant (Apol. 27). In view of the evidence, Stoics held it evil to deny the existence of gods (Cic. Nat. d. 2.16.44). 2861. Nock, Conversion, 120. 2862. For the visible celestial deities, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 116–20; for the invisible twelve, 121–23; for both, 115, 128. For the heavenly deities mediating their will through daimones, see, e.g., Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37. 2863. See Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218; Quint. Decl. 268.11; Winiarczyk, “Altertum?” For Epicurean “theology,” see comment on Acts 17:18. 2864. See Grant, Religions, 71–104; cf. also the Skeptics (discussed above); in the Roman period, Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14.

2587

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 291

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

was not in decline in this period as some have asserted;2865 it was merely changing its character. For syncretism that led to the assimilation of various deities into fewer entities, see comment on Acts 8:10. Some scholars have regarded the increasing assimilation of deities as a trend toward a sort of monotheism2866 (though a sort of “pantheon pantheism” might be a more nuanced description). Some limited monotheistic trends might appear in much earlier eras in Egypt2867 and Syria,2868 but it was Xenocrates the Eleatic philosopher (sixth century b.c.e.) who probably introduced the idea into Greek philosophy.2869 Except in pantheistic forms such as traditional Stoicism (e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 4.8.1–3),2870 this “monotheism” usually did not, in fact, claim only one deity but spoke of “one God” as a supreme deity with many manifestations or powers.2871 Middle Platonists, however, saw one ultimate deity behind the various manifestations of deity.2872 Hellenistic Jewish apologists such as Philo knew and were able to exploit these tendencies.2873 It appears, however, that only intellectuals, in fact, embraced this trend toward something resembling monotheism; it was not shared by the masses.2874 Moreover, apart from the God-fearers, most thinkers interested in a sort of monotheism did not derive it from Judaism, whose one God was often treated by polytheists as simply another god among many.2875 In contrast to Epicureans and some other doctrinaire philosophers, most educated people accepted the utility of religion, but many regarded superstitio (which usually meant foreign cults such as Judaism, Isis worship, and Christianity) as no less subversive than atheism.2876 Romans viewed barbarians as superstitious for their credulous 2865. Cf., e.g., Momigliano, “Theological Efforts” (for trends in first-century b.c.e. Rome). Criticisms concerning the decline of traditional religion (e.g., Juv. Sat. 6.342–45) belonged to the more general critique of cultural decline. 2866. E.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 114, 252; Meunier, “Dieu chrétien”; cf. Nilsson, Piety, 115–24; Winslow, “Religion,” 242; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 326–30; Choat and Nobbs, “Formulae” (on the second to fourth centuries c.e.). Some (Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 36–37; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 71) even speak of this trend in the Mysteries (though here we find only assimilation of deities). 2867. Egyptologists debate the character of Akhenaton’s “monotheism” and its influence on the elite (cf. Blumenthal, “Wesen”); it was partly a political move against the priests of Amon (Sarna, Exodus, 151–57); some argue that the educated in the New Kingdom generally accepted a unity of the godhead while worshiping many gods, with Akhenaton differing by rejecting the others (Yoyotte, “Egypt,” 126). For henotheistic tendencies in Egypt, see Gordon, Introduction, 129. 2868. Albright, Yahweh, 231. Supposed Assyrian influence on Jewish monotheism is not at all likely (Cooper, “Prophecies”). 2869. See Winslow, “Religion,” 242; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 252. Among the philosophers, see Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 326–30; see also the intellectual orators Dio Chrys. Or. 31.11 and Max. Tyre 17.5 (in Winslow, “Religion,” 242). Some cite the influence of syncretism from Alexander’s conquests (Angus, Mystery-Religions, 22). 2870. For Stoic pantheism, see Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24 (an Epicurean mocking); 1.13.34 (likewise); 2.7.19–20; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; Ep. Lucil. 95.52; Lucian Hermot. 81 (a commoner mocking); Baltzly, “Pantheism”; Klauck, Context, 353–54; cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24; Marc. Aur. 4.40; perhaps also 6.38; 7.9; further discussion at Acts 17:24. But Stoics in this period often viewed deity more personally (see Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 15). Some may have also viewed Israel’s God by way of Stoic pantheism (so Ludlam, “’Lwhy,” on Strabo 16.2.35–37). For discussion of Stoic monotheism of a sort (really better, henotheism), see sources in Ramelli, Hierocles, lxxi n. 125 (including Frede, “Monotheism”; Barnes, “Monotheists”; Klauck, “Pantheisten”). 2871. Nilsson, Piety, 115–24, esp. 124; cf. Rose, Parke, and DeLaine, “Monotheism”; Kahn, “Xenophanes”; Bloch, “Monotheism,” 172; Philo was able to exploit the idea of mediating powers. This is comparable to some perspectives on current traditional religions (Mbiti, Religions, 37–38). 2872. See, e.g., Plut. E Delph. 20, Mor. 393 (on Plutarch’s Platonic “monotheism,” see Grant, Gods, 79); Max. Tyre 2.10; 11.8. Cf. discussion in Rives, Religion, 205. 2873. See Goodenough, Introduction, 81 (citing Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; cf. Prov. 2.41). 2874. Meeks, Urban Christians, 165 (following MacMullen, Paganism, 83–94). 2875. See Bohak, “Impact.” 2876. Wilken, “Collegia,” 271; see esp. Plutarch Superstition. Christians could be linked with Epicureans as “atheists” (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 124; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 189–90); for Christians as “atheists”

2588

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 292

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

adherence to strange cults, among which many included Judaism.2877 Many philosophers, but especially Epicureans, viewed traditional religion in general as superstition.2878 Philosophers had various views about divinities: Aristotle and his followers claimed that God was “incorporeal . . . , the Stoics that he is a breath [πνεῦμα] which permeates even through things foul, Epicurus that he is anthropomorphic, Xenophanes that he is an impassive sphere.”2879 But despite many philosophers’ disagreement with traditional religions, other philosophers, excepting especially the Epicureans, “refused to make it their business to purify popular beliefs and would even contend that it was right in its own place.”2880 Members of the elite sometimes even became benefactors of new cults.2881 Most people saw practical value in retaining religion. Some saw its main value in providing sanctions for custom, and some who discarded belief in gods as superstitious for intellectuals allowed it for the masses.2882 A few centuries before Paul, Polybius averred that the ancients were right to create religion and gods, not for thinkers but for the common people (Polyb. 6.56.9–12); the Romans remained more virtuous because of such beliefs (6.56.7–15), but Greeks had become more corrupt by denying them (6.56.12–15). Although Plato’s emphasis was more metaphysical and Cicero’s more on the primacy of ancestral tradition, both regarded religion as vital for preserving the state.2883 Their interest, however, was in state religion; Plato would have eliminated private worship altogether from his ideal state because it lapses too easily into superstition and does not serve the good of the whole.2884 Indeed, because much of public religion was a civic affair, some Epicureans were, apparently, able to become priests, at least in Syria.2885 The popular stereotype was that Epicureans denied the gods, denied providence, and rejected theodicy; this critique might be presupposed in Luke’s account.2886 Many charged them with impiety,2887 but Stoics took the lead in attacking Epicureans for “atheism, hedonism, and hatred of humanity,”2888 for their unconventional views (since they rejected all but one God), see, e.g., Mart. Pol. 3.2; 9.2; Justin 1 Apol. 6; Athenag. Plea 3; for the same charge against Jews, see Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.148. Jews were ready, however, to apply the title to others (e.g., Philo Flight 180; Decal. 91; Spec. Laws 1.345; to wicked Jews, Jos. War 5.566). For the historic Roman contrast between religio and superstitio, see Margel, “Religio/superstitio”; for superstitio in interreligious polemic, see Frateantonio, “Superstitio,” 953. 2877. Scheid, “Superstitio.” Quint. Curt. 7.7.8 regards popular diviners as superstition. 2878. Winslow, “Religion,” 245 (citing esp. Lucret. Nat. 5.1194ff.; Celsus in Origen Cels. 3.17); for Hellenistic critiques of traditional religion, especially from sophists, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 202–6 (citing Polyb. 6.56; Cic. Nat. d. 1.3.1–2; Ovid Ars 1.645; Hor. Odes 2.15.13–20; 3.6.1–8; Varro in Aug. City 6.5.1–3); Grant, Religions, 71–104. 2879. Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218 (LCL, 1:473). As a Skeptic, Sextus Empiricus himself could only summarize various views, not concur with them. 2880. Mattingly, Christianity, 28. 2881. Muñiz Grijalvo, “Elites.” 2882. Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 202–6 (citing Polyb. 6.56; Cic. Nat. d. 1.3.1–2; Varro in Aug. City 6.5.1–3; Ovid Ars 1.645; Hor. Odes 2.15.13–20; 3.6.1–8; Juv. Sat. 2.149–52). In a crisis, some might suppose that even “the gods” had perished (Pliny Ep. 6.20.15). 2883. Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 52. 2884. Lodge, Ethics, 284–85. Contrast the importance of religious cults in classical Greece (Polignac, “Argos”). 2885. Smith, “Epicurean Priest” (a head of Apamea’s Epicureans as a priest of Bel). Epicureans and civic priests tended to come from the same wealthy class of citizens. 2886. See Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 121. 2887. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36–37; the speaker in Lucian Phil. Sale 19. The gods complain against Epicureans’ views about them in Lucian’s satire (Icar. 31), and Zeus seems happy to destroy an Epicurean in Icar. 26. Euripides portrays the impious Cyclops Polyphemus as worshiping only eating, drinking, and avoiding pain (Cycl. 336–38). 2888. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12. For Stoic dislike of Epicureans, see, e.g., Lucian Carousal 6.

2589

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 293

6/19/14 2:06 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

concerning the gods, pleasure, and political quietism.2889 It was said that Epicureans reserved their religious devotion for their sect’s founder (cf. Plut. R. Col. 17, Mor. 1117BCE); this did at least make them useful for deflating religious charlatans (Lucian Alex. 25, 43–44).2890 They sought to banish gods from the state and denied any intelligent design in nature (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.37).2891 Many who sought to refute Epicurean belief targeted especially its allegedly anthropomorphic view of deity.2892 Epicureans denied the traditional gods; in Lucian’s Zeus Rants, a Stoic defends these gods against the Epicurean (Z. Rants 4); Lucian’s own sympathies are clear (as the Epicurean is defeating the Stoic, e.g., in Z. Rants 41).2893 Some other intellectuals adopted Epicurean-type critiques of popular views. Thus Pliny the Elder argued that one could not know anything beyond the perceptible universe (N.H. 2.2.3–4). It was foolish to try to discern God’s nature; if there was a deity, he would consist completely of mind,2894 and so believing in innumerable deities personifying vices, virtues, and so forth, is absurd (2.5.14). Mortals divide deities into sections so that they can worship what they most need; different peoples give different names for deities, even for deities associated with plagues (2.5.15)!2895 Instead, mortals helping mortals is divine (2.5.18), and such men should be honored by counting them divine (2.5.19). Deities would not care about human affairs (2.5.20; but cf. Pliny’s response that gods do care and punish wickedness eventually, 2.22.26).

3. Epicureanism and Afterlife For the Epicureans, if one denied traditional religion, there was no reason to fear death.2896 (Overcoming fear of death was a central question for philosophers and those influenced by them.)2897 The mind and soul consisted of tiny particles of something 2889. For their preference for political inactivity, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.32 (on a mostly Epicurean senator who held important posts, but only as necessary); Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25; idem, Moral Exhortation, 148; cf. Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios.” Political quietism was more respectable after retirement (e.g., Pliny Ep. 7.25.2; though even here, cf. Plut. Old Men, Mor. 783B–797F). 2890. Johnson, Acts, 313 (for their rejection of traditional religion, he cites also Lucret. Nat. 2.581–725; 5.81–90, 146–94). 2891. For populist identification of atheists and Epicureans, see also Lucian Alex. 38, 46. 2892. Cic. Nat. d. 1.21.57–1.44.124; cf. the discussion in Quint. Inst. 7.3.4–5. 2893. Some ancients (perhaps in parody) claimed that Pythagoreans deified numbers (Lucian Phil. Sale 4; Icar. 9). 2894. The idea of a deity related to pure mind fits Maximus of Tyre, Porphyry, and other later writers, but it is noteworthy in this first-century eclectic Roman intellectual (though the idea of the soul’s divinity was fairly common, e.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 12). 2895. Pliny the Elder mocks the ideas of marriages among gods, some staying ever old with some (like Apollo) ever young, some who alternated days of living (Castor and Pollux), etc., as children’s fantasies, corrupted further by adulterous, thieving, fighting deities (N.H. 2.5.17). He mocks further in 2.5.21–22. For other such mockery, see, e.g., Lucian Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Sacr. 11; the more extensive comment at Acts 14:15–17. 2896. Lucret. Nat. 1.102–6; 3.1–30 (through the knowledge of nature, 3.87–93); for denial of Tartarus, 3.978–1023; cf. Long, Philosophy, 42; Neyrey, “Polemic,” 410ff., 420ff. Lucretius designed his poem especially to dispel fear of death (Rouse, “Introduction,” vii). In Nat. 3, he supplemented traditional Epicurean arguments by pointing out that death was part of the life cycle (O’Keefe, “Lucretius”); in 3.832–42, 972–75, he provided the Epicurean argument that the afterlife is equivalent to the nonexistence that precedes birth (Warren, “Lucretius,” comparing Epicurus Let. Men. 125; one might also note Pliny E. N.H. 7.55.190). On Lucretius, see further Classen, “Poetry”; De Lacy, “Lucretius.” 2897. E.g., Cic. Leg. 1.23.60; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 4; 2.58.3; 6.32.12; Dial. 9.11.4–5; Ep. Lucil. 24; 80.6; 82; 98.10; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.31–33; 3, p. 40.35; p. 42.1, 3–4; 4, p. 48.5–6; 6, p. 54.31–37; p. 56.1–7 (admitting that even philosophers struggle with this); 17, p. 110.1–2, 12–13; Epict. Diatr. 1.17.25; 2.1.13; 2.5.12–14; 2.18.30; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 37A; Max. Tyre 11.11; 36.2; Marc. Aur. 8.58; 9.3; 12.35; Iambl. V.P. 32.220, 228;

2590

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 294

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

like air, scattered through and affecting the body.2898 Thus the soul, being material, perished at death; neither bliss nor sorrow awaited humans after death.2899 This “realism” was somehow intended to dispel human fears of death, since one would not miss anything one had lost.2900 For Epicureans, it is fear of death that obliterates tranquility (Cic. Fin. 1.18.60);2901 Epicureanism’s goal was thus to banish fear of superstition and death.2902 Many thinkers warned that lack of belief in divine retribution would lead to immorality.2903 Some thus criticized Epicureans’ denial of afterlife for the pious;2904 from a pragmatic standpoint, they contended that the Epicurean denial of the afterlife could lead to immorality.2905

4. Pagan and Jewish Critiques of Epicureanism Anti-Epicurean sentiments are common in this period.2906 Some disagreed with Epicurus but, in the spirit of toleration sanctioned by a movement’s antiquity, conceded that he was himself a good man.2907 His movement had corrupted his teachings, some opined, and behaved in ways he would not have approved (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.12.4). A Stoic might thus emphasize Epicurus’s moral goodness and add, “In these discussions it is his intellect and not his character that is in question.”2908 Yet even if he intended well, he would do better to emphasize as the highest good the soul and virtue rather than the body and pleasure (Cic. Tusc. 3.21.50). The eclectic first-century Stoic Seneca quoted Epicurus liberally to attempt to wean Lucilius away from Epicurean cf. Diogenes Ep. 28; on a more popular level, Val. Max. 9.13.pref.; 9.13.3; cf. Test. Ab. 16:5; 17:18 A; 14:5 B; Exod. Rab. 41:7. Socrates did not fear death (Max. Tyre 3.7). 2898. Rouse, “Introduction,” xiii; cf. Martin, Body, 9. The spirit’s atoms do not correspond closely with those of the body, being sparser and smaller (Lucret. Nat. 3.370–95). Compare the Stoic view of the material spirit (cf. Lake, “Spirit,” 103; Scott, Spirit, 52–53; Martin, Body, 21; the soul as a body in Stoic and some other thinkers in Iambl. Soul 3.16, §371; cf. the soul consisting of fundamental, spherical atoms in Iambl. Soul 1.2, §363.2). Part of the spirit could leave the body in sleep, but full separation meant death (Lucret. Nat. 4.916–24). 2899. Moore, “Life,” 237; Henry, Philodemus, xvi–xvii; Lucret. Nat. 3.417–829; Philod. On Death 1; 17.3–6; 21.6–11; 28.5–13; 30.15–17; cf. Hippol. Ref. 1.19. Others also doubted an afterlife (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.55.188–90; epitaphs noted in Toner, Culture, 43). Because Stoics anticipated a cyclical conflagration (see comment on Acts 3:21; 17:31), personal “immortality” even for “the wise” (cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3; 12.11.7; Ep. Lucil. 57.9; Epict. Diatr. 2.1.17) was temporary (Bels, “Survie”; Sorabji, Emotion, 394; Klauck, Context, 358; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 6.26.7; Marc. Aur. 4.21) except perhaps in the sense that one could be cyclically reborn. Stoics could affirm a sort of immortality by redefining terms (see Ju, “Immortality”). 2900. See Epicurus Let. Men. 124 (in Grant, Religions, 158); Lucret. Nat. 3.417–829; esp. 3.830–977 (e.g., 931–45, 976–77); cf. 1.102–26; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 36.9; Diog. Laert. 10.124–25. 2901. So also Epicurus Let. Men. 125 (in Grant, Religions, 158); thus, Lucian emphasized, Epicurus sought to teach tranquility (Alex. 47). 2902. Cic. Fin. 4.5.11; Nat. d. 1.20.56; cf. Diog. Laert. 10.125. Cf. also Wright, Paul, 212. 2903. E.g., [Eurip.] Sisyphus 12–42, esp. 12–14 (the wicked Sisyphus claiming that mortals invented gods to control morality); Wis 2:1–24, esp. 1–9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 5 A; b. Roš Haš. 17a; cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 4:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:8. Denial of creation similarly leads to impious behavior (Philo Creation 9–11). For Platonists such as Proclus, atheism would remove motivation for virtue (Poet. 5, K51.11–14). Not only Plato but other thinkers were ready to employ religion and its fears as a means of social control over the masses’ morality (e.g., Polyb. 6.56.7–12, esp. 9–11; he points out that Romans are less corrupt than Greeks precisely because the former still fear the gods, 6.56.13–15). 2904. E.g., Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D. 2905. For Epicurean doctrine as producing impiety, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 9.5.8. Belief in divine judgment could produce piety (Xen. Mem. 1.1.19). Later rabbis thus posited damnation for those who denied the resurrection (e.g., m. Sanh. 10:1; cf., still later, often in the Qur’an, e.g., 17.10). 2906. E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 4.2; 79.2–11. 2907. Cic. Fam. 13.1.2; Tusc. 3.20.46. 2908. Cic. Fin. 2.25.80 (LCL, 17:171). An orator with Platonist interests claims that Epicurus is wrongly called a philosopher (Max. Tyre 4.4, 8; 30.3).

2591

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 295

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

tendencies and win him to Stoicism.2909 But Seneca the Younger admitted that many of his colleagues would protest his concessions (Dial. 7.13.1), and other Stoics, such as Epictetus, harshly criticized Epicureans (Diatr. 2.20; cf. 3.7). Especially in more traditional times, many sober Romans viewed Epicureans as soft and selfish, not useful for the good of the Roman state (Cic. Fam. 7.12.1). Cicero notes that Epicurus taught that pleasure is desirable and that one assesses desirability by the pleasure it brings. Whether right or wrong, he warns, this doctrine is dangerous for a young man (adulescenti) of weaker intelligence (Cic. Pis. 28.68). Thus Piso, influenced by such teaching, began cultivating whatever lusts and pleasures were available (28.69). Epicureans could be linked with sexual immorality (e.g., the “bearded Epicurean” in 9.20).2910 Although more people entertained Stoic than Epicurean sympathies, Epictetus lamented that in practice most philosophers were Epicureans rather than Stoics, not content with their circumstances (Diatr. 2.19.20–21).2911 Dio Chrysostom denounced those who had rejected all deities except deified Pleasure (Or. 12.36). One charlatan demagogue, Alexander, denounced Epicureanism to the masses, increasing his own popularity (Lucian Alex. 25, 38). He and his followers despised and conflated atheists, Epicureans, and Christians (Alex. 38, 46). He burned Epicurus’s book (Alex. 47) and incited a crowd to stone an Epicurean, warning that if they failed to act, they would be thought Epicureans themselves.2912 A Platonist could likewise claim to have seen the underworld, then defy Epicureans for their denial of immortality (Lucian Lover of Lies 24).2913 Even Palestinian Judaism had traditions about Epicureans,2914 although Luke’s Diaspora Christian audience may have had more direct familiarity with them than did most Judeans. In the late first century, Josephus claimed that God’s predictions to Daniel refute Epicurean claims that “exclude Providence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs” (Ant. 10.277–78, esp. 278 [LCL, 6:311]). Tannaim included Epicureans among the groups that would eventually be tormented in Gehinnom,2915 and insisted that those who learned Torah should be ready to reply to Epicureans (m. ʾAb. 2:14).2916 Later rabbis also criticized their skepticism and arrogance (b. Sanh. 99ab); Korah was an Epicurean who denied the divine authority of Moses and the Torah (y. Sanh. 10:1, §7). Apart from Epicureanism’s critique of pagan religion, Jews and Christians found little of value in Epicureanism, adopting as their 2909. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 2, 4; 8.7; 9.1; 12.11; 16.7; 17.11; 18.9, 14; 19.10; 20.9; 21.3, 4; 22.5–6, 13–14; 25.4–6; 27.9; 28.9–10; 52.3 (cf. also 33.2). Seneca also endeavors to marshal Epicurean support for his position in Dial. 2.15.4; he also agrees with Epicurus in Ben. 3.4.1. For Seneca, at least, the antithesis has apparently yielded to synthesis. 2910. Alciph. Court. 17 (Leontium to Lamia), 2.2, portrays a young courtesan who loves another but is mistress to (and disgusted with) an aged Epicurus, more than eighty years old. 2911. Epictetus, preaching in Athens in the early second century c.e. (Aul. Gel. 1.2.1), contrasted true Stoics with those who merely pretend to be (1.2). In the second century, Lucian likewise criticized those who criticized Epicureans, then lived for pleasure (Runaways 19). 2912. Lucian Alex. 44 (the stoning was, happily, aborted). 2913. Lucian is mocking popular critiques of Epicureans here rather than Epicureans themselves. Despite other prevailing views, popular belief in the underworld apparently persisted on some level (cf. the influence of Virgil’s portrait in the West; Kaufmann, “Underworld”). 2914. See also the discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:30; Herford, Christianity, 120; Geiger, “’Pyqwrws.” Holloway, “Beguile,” suggests some indirect Epicurean influence on Sirach, but via an eclectic philosophic milieu. A Semitic Syrian freedman in Italy was Epicurean (see Rigsby, “Hauranus”) but could have adopted his views in the West. 2915. M. Sanh. 10:1; t. Sanh. 13:5. 2916. Amoraim argued that this principle applied only to Gentile Epicureans (b. Sanh. 38b). Rabbis regarded them as worse than polytheists (Bastomsky, “View”). Amoraim may have employed the term “Epicurean” more broadly than Tannaim, applying it to those who disrespect Torah (Labendz, “Epicurean”).

2592

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 296

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

foil the standard and often distorted views of Epicureanism fostered by its enemies.2917 If some compared Christians to atheists and Epicureans, Origen employed the title “Epicurean” to insult Celsus.2918

Excursus: Stoicism Stoic thought was widespread and affected popular culture by the first century.2919 The emperor Claudius employed the Stoic philosopher Seneca to educate members of the household; by the end of the first century, Rome’s leaders also favorably viewed the Stoic Musonius Rufus (Tac. Hist. 4.10, 40). Stoicism was the most popular sect in the period,2920 especially among those involved in public affairs.2921 Stoicism also was well known in Athens. Zeno, founder of Stoicism, reached Athens from Cilicia about three and a quarter centuries before Paul was born in Cilicia. Zeno’s Eastern background may help account for some of his views.2922 Three prominent Stoic philosophers, including the early Stoic Chrysippus, were from Athens.2923 By the Roman period, interest in cosmology had declined, but Stoic ethics “was now ready to conquer the world.”2924 Philosophic schools were increasingly concerned with ethics and moral development in the Roman period.2925 Among Greeks, ethics was more associated with philosophy than with religion, since the latter was associated especially with ritual performance.2926 Romans had little interest in Stoic theoretical speculations but appreciated Stoic ethics, especially in its more nuanced contemporary form.2927 First-century intellectual currents were primarily eclectic, but the Stoic element of the mixture was dominant.2928 Middle Platonism absorbed many Stoic elements, losing its own distinctiveness at many points.2929 Despite the many differences, some 2917. Klauck, Context, 400 (suggesting allusions in Wis 2:1–9; 1 Cor 15:32). 2918. Cook, Interpretation, 22. 2919. On Stoicism, see Long, Philosophy, 109–209; Brennan, Stoic Life; more briefly, Inwood, “Stoicism”; Koester, Introduction, 1:147–53; Wright, Paul, 213–29; for Stoic logic, see Mates, Stoic Logic; Long, Philosophy, 121–46; sources surveyed in Gill, “Philosophy”; some discussion in Liu, “Nature.” 2920. See, e.g., Lucian Hermot. 16; Fisherman 51. 2921. Lucian Phil. Sale 20. 2922. Murray, Philosophy, 19. Greco-Roman culture would not yet have pervaded Cilicia in that period. 2923. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 16. 2924. Koester, Introduction, 1:153; for Roman Stoics’ emphasis on ethics, see Ramelli, Hierocles, xxvii. For Stoic ethics, see Cic. Fin. 3; Long, Philosophy, 179–205. 2925. Meeks, Moral World, 41. 2926. Ibid., 114; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 11–12; Stowers, Letter Writing, 36–40; Wallace and Williams, World, 124–25; Rives, Religion, 50 (though noting the moral effects of belief in divine punishment, 51). Traditional societies differ regarding the connection between religion and ethics (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 270). Nevertheless, fear of judgment (see discussion of anti-Epicurean comments above) and of dishonoring deities could produce pious behavior (e.g., Eurip. Hypsipyle frg. 757.90–91/889–90). 2927. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 179; cf. Barrett, Acts, 829. Romans had long preferred Roman traditions to any Greek ideals that conflicted with these (Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 52). Still, Stoic cosmology may have influenced even Pliny the Elder’s reflections regarding metallurgy in the first century c.e. (Paparazzo, “Metals”). 2928. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12; on Stoicism’s dominance in Paul’s day, also Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 527. Paul Wendland considered Stoicism “the hallmark . . . of the Hellenistic age” (Grant, Religions, xxviii). For the demand for eclecticism that includes, but is not limited to, Stoicism, see Tac. Dial. 31 (mentioning all the major schools). Many today refine the notion of eclecticism: not random borrowing, but each school borrowing elements from the others to support their own system (Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 9–10). 2929. See Dillon, Middle Platonists, 252; idem, “Plato,” 806. Platonism, naturally, influenced Stoicism as well (see Long, Philosophy, 118, citing Diog. Laert. 7.39; p. 151, noting how the world soul of Plato Laws 10,

2593

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 297

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

similarities of Christian ethics to Stoic ethics probably helped pave the way for the spread of the former.2930 In contrast to Epicureans, Stoics associated pleasure with vice (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 59.1), though joy of spirit was good (59.2).2931 (Most other thinkers also rejected or minimized the value of pleasure,2932 leaving Epicureans in a minority among philosophers on this point.)2933 A Stoic could use the Epicurean criteria of pain and pleasure to support the Stoic emphasis on virtuous self-control (Mus. Ruf. frgs. 24–25, p. 130). Stoics emphasized enduring pain (Aul. Gel. 12.5) and valued the Cynic lifestyle (Diog. Laert. 7.1.121); a satirist remarked that Stoics merely “differ from the Cynics by a shirt” ( Juv. Sat. 13.121–22).2934 Of the major Greek philosophic schools, only Stoicism cared to fit the gods into its schema;2935 although its view of the gods was not conventional, popular piety would regard it as far more acceptable than its competitors. Like some other philosophers,2936 Stoics managed to make Homer and other myths compatible with their ideals by allegorizing them.2937 Stoics spoke of the Logos that designed and governed the cosmos (see comment on Acts 17:26). They also emphasized fate.2938 Although they were originally monistic, and hence pantheistic (see comment on Acts 17:28), Stoics in the early empire spoke of “God” in a more personal way,2939 esp. 903BD, anticipated Stoicism). Neoplatonists viewed Stoics and Peripatetics as primary threats (Graeser, Plotinus and Stoics, 1–2). Eastern thought also influenced Stoicism (Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 381). 2930. Cf. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 19. For some similarities, see, e.g., Thorsteinsson, “Stoicism”; cf. also comparisons in Sarthou-Lajus, “Goût.” 2931. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.11.1; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.22; 3, p. 40.17; 12, p. 86.29; 17, p. 108.12, 16, 25–27; p. 110.21–23; 18B, p. 118.8–9; frg. 51, p. 144.8–9; for definitions, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.12–13; 2.7.10, p. 56.10, 14–16; 2.7.10b, p. 58.29–31, 36; 2.7.10b, p. 60.1–2; 2.7.10c, p. 60.18. 2932. Notably among Pythagoreans and Platonists (Plut. Bride 33, Mor. 142E; Pleas. L. passim [against Epicurean views]; Ag. Pleasure frgs.; Max. Tyre 1.4, 9; 7.7; 14.1–2; 25.5–6; 33.3–4, 8; 38.6; Iambl. V.P. 31.204–6; Porph. Marc. 6.103–8; 7.125–26, 131–34; 9.154–56; 14.243–44; 33.508–9; 35.535–36) but also others (Xen. Mem. 1.2.23; 4.5.3, 5; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.115; 8.20; 9.12; cf. Aeschines Tim. 42; Pliny Ep. 5.5.4), though this warning indicted most of humanity (Dio Chrys. Or. 13.13; Let. Aris. 108, 223, 277; Philo Alleg. Interp. 2.17). (For Plato, cf. Lodge, Ethics, 27–31, 65.) Leaders in particular must not succumb to pleasure (Xen. Hell. 4.8.22; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.13; 3.34; Let. Aris. 245; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.19; Prov 31:3–5). In Jewish sources, see, e.g., Let. Aris. 278; 4 Macc 1:20–28, 33; 5:23; 6:35; Test. Reub. 2:8; Test. Jud. 13:6; 14:3; Test. Iss. 2:3; 3:5; Test. Benj. 6:2; Luke 8:14; Titus 3:3; Jas 4:1–3; 2 Pet 2:13; hundreds of times in Philo, e.g., Creation 152, 157, 165–67; Alleg. Interp. 1.75, 86, 104; often in Josephus, e.g., Ant. 2.201; 3.275; 4.143, 251. Some uses are more neutral (e.g., 4 Macc 9:31; Wis 7:2; 16:20; often in Josephus, e.g., Ant. 1.46, 293; 3.19; also among Gentiles, e.g., Ael Arist. Def. Or. 432, §147D; Max. Tyre 33.3; Ach. Tat. 2.8.3). 2933. Thus, despite popular desire for pleasures, the truly wise reject Epicurus as a philosopher (so Max. Tyre 33.2; cf. Aul. Gel. 9.5). But whereas Stoics wished to annihilate passions, Aristotelians sought only to moderate them (Dillon, “Philosophy,” 796). 2934. Ramsay, LCL, 255. On the Cynics, see comment on Acts 14:8–10. 2935. With, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 30. 2936. See, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.62–63; 8.33; 60.8; Plut. frg. 157 (in Betz, “Fragmenta,” 319); Iamblichus Letter 3, frg. 3 (Stob. Anth. 3.5.46); frg. 4 (Anth. 3.5.47); Iamblichus Testimonium 2 (in Olympiodorus In Gorg. 46.9.20–28 Westerink: appeal to useful myths); esp. the eclectic Middle Platonist Max. Tyre 4 passim, esp. 4.4–6, 8; also 26.5, 8–9; also Philo (also an eclectic Middle Platonist), e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1–3 passim; Posterity 7; Dreams 1.102; Plant. 36; Migr. 91–92 (nevertheless insisting on maintaining literal observance); Jos. 148 (even of Greek myth, Plant. 129); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:57–68, 87–163; Badilita, “Exégèse”; on Pythagoreans, Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 385. Josephus notes allegory’s use to evade the immorality of deities in the original stories (Ag. Ap. 2.255). Later rabbis were less fond of the method than Philo (see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 64:9). 2937. E.g., Cornutus Summ. 19 (Lang, 33, line 14), in Grant, Religions, 78–79; noted also in Mastrocinque, “Choices,” 383; Cic. Nat. d. 2.28.70; cf. Murray, Stages, 202 (citing Heraclitus); Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98 (citing esp. Chrysippus and Cornutus); Ramelli, Hierocles, lv, lxxi n. 125. It was useful for defense against Epicurean challengers (cf. Lucian Z. Rants 40); nevertheless, allegory was a polyvalent method, with no controls but the systems of those employing it (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 88.5). 2938. E.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.149; for the Stoic debate with Epicureans on this matter, see Quint. Inst. 5.7.35; Marc. Aur. 4.2; see further comment at Acts 2:23. 2939. So Malherbe, Exhortation, 15; cf. Meeks, Moral World, 47.

2594

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 298

6/19/14 2:06 PM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

having long used also the language of friendship with God.2940 The pantheistic element was never, however, completely absent; thus the real Jupiter was not only the universe’s guardian but the soul and spirit of the world (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.45.1–2).2941 The world itself would be dissolved into primeval fire;2942 this fire was the original matter, called πνεῦμα.2943 Stoic apologetic for the existence and nature of divinity resembles Paul’s argument in Acts 17.2944 Stoics would argue that gods exist, then define their character, then demonstrate that they govern the world (against Epicureans) and, finally, that they care for humanity’s needs (Cic. Nat. d. 2.4). This basic outline of argument was well enough known that it may serve as a model for the outline of Paul’s Areopagus speech, naturally again commending the speech more to the Stoics than to the Epicureans.2945 Still, pure Stoicism had its detractors, from Cicero2946 to Plutarch2947 and Lucian.2948 Many people felt that Stoics neglected ordinary human concerns, and some charged them with “inhumanity.”2949 For all their use of Stoic categories and correspondences with Stoic ethics, Christians had to differ with Stoic theology and cosmology. Some Christians might agree with Stoics that the world would be dissolved into primeval fire (2 Pet 3:7; see comment on Acts 3:21), but God the Creator must be excepted ( Justin 1 Apol. 20).2950 (3) The Cocksparrow

Paul’s hearers, perhaps especially the Epicureans, accuse him of being a

σπερμολόγος (Acts 17:18); that they fail to understand what he “wishes” to say

(employing the more cultured optative) might portray them as mocking Paul’s rhetoric in the story world but would reinforce the stereotype that Luke’s audience would already have of their dogmatic folly. Interrupting and ridiculing speakers was a common practice, and even the eventually famous orator Demosthenes had experienced such humiliation frequently in his early years.2951 Ridiculing another position was often a way to demonstrate one’s own wit.2952 It was also common for some speakers to give others insulting labels.2953 This is not the only place in Acts 2940. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5; Plut. Cic. 25.4; Diog. Laert. 7.1.125; among Cynics, e.g., Diog. Laert. 6.2.37; 6.2.72; cf. Antisthenes in 6.1.11. 2941. He claims that the ancient poets and sages knew this but just used poetic license in their descriptions (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.44.1–2.45.1). 2942. See, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 4.8.1; Klauck, Context, 354; much more fully, comment on Acts 3:21. 2943. Klauck, Context, 353. 2944. Most scholars accept Stoicism as the closest philosophic school to earliest Christianity (Klauck, Context, 335), although Platonism dominated in a later era. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.11 thinks that Paul had Stoics and Epicureans in mind in his warning in Col 2:8 (Pelikan, Acts, 191). 2945. See Hansen, “Preaching,” 312; Winter, “Public,” 136. 2946. After defending one form of Stoicism in Nat. d. 2, Cicero defends Roman religion against Stoicism (Nat. d. 3). 2947. Plut. Stoic Cont., Mor. 1033A–1057C (particularly highlighting inconsistencies in Chrysippus); St. Poets, Mor. 1057C–1058D; Comm. Conc., Mor. 1058E–1086B. 2948. E.g., Lucian Phil. Sale 20–22 (mocking). 2949. Irwin, “Stoic Inhumanity,” 219. 2950. Technically, Stoicism did except the supreme deity from the dissolution (Epict. Diatr. 3.13.4; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.16), but even this deity was not transcendent (Klauck, Context, 354). For Stoics and the dissolution of the cosmos, see Adams, Stars, 114–24. 2951. See Plut. Demosth. 6.3; 7.1; 8.5. 2952. See, e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.26.73, one ridiculing the Stoics. 2953. Dio was called, e.g., a silly prater (Dio Chrys. Or. 47.8) and a nightingale (47.16). See comment on Acts 23:3.

2595

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 299

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

where outsiders attribute Paul’s message to wrong reasoning.2954 Luke’s narrative irony, however, reverses the ridicule. Commentators often depict the term σπερμολόγος as a characteristically Athenian insult, though it was also in vogue elsewhere (e.g., Philo Embassy 203).2955 Its pervasive popular sense derived from the image of a bird pecking up seeds, figuratively applied to worthless people gathering scraps in the market and hence, eventually, gossips collecting and disseminating tidbits of information (so Embassy 203). More to the point here, however, some ancients came to apply it to hearers who collected and disseminated scraps of others’ opinions, those who sought to appear like philosophers merely by appropriating their jargon and employing secondhand ideas.2956 This term can therefore represent Paul as purveying bits and pieces of philosophic knowledge rather than being a profound, original thinker.2957 As Ramsay puts it, they viewed him as “a mere vulgar plagiarist,” noticing “the obvious and intentional analogies between many of Paul’s statements and those of pagan philosophers.”2958 At the very least, the word reflects its general application to marketplace chatter, so that Paul’s thought fails to rise above the general rabble—hardly intended as a compliment.2959 For centuries one personality type lending itself to ridicule (in Athens as elsewhere) was the incessant talker (Theophr. Char. 7); one could never accomplish anything in his presence, since he babbled incessantly (7.5–9). Paul’s situation reflects the orator’s dilemma: if one repeats what others have said, one is like a bird dependent on others’ random scraps; but it was difficult to find something “new” (cf. Acts 17:21) to say. When Paul did say something new, it apparently confused the Stoics, who apparently thought he referred to two gods.2960 (4) Preaching Foreign Deities?

Since Stoics were more open to the existence of gods than were Epicureans (see above), Luke’s first-century audience might attribute especially to Stoics the charge that he preaches “foreign gods.” It would be difficult for Paul to escape the charge of being “foreign”; Athenians were quick to detect any divergence from the “pure” Attic accent in a speaker.2961 They 2954. See Acts 26:24 (and comment there); cf. “fools” in 1 Cor 4:10; “impostors” in 2 Cor 6:8; rhetorically weak in 11:6. Among Paul’s extant letters, the Corinthian correspondence probably reflects most closely the sort of milieu found in nearby Athens. 2955. Conzelmann, Acts, 139; Lenski, Acts, 714; Hemer, Acts in History, 117. 2956. Many commentators (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 211; Packer, Acts, 146; Bruce, Acts1, 333; Peterson, Acts, 490; Horton, Acts, 297–98; esp. Johnson, Acts, 313; Witherington, Acts, 515), citing Demosth. Cor. 127; Eustathius Commentary on Odyssey; esp. Plut. Busybody 2, Mor. 516C; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20. Cf. a different bird appropriating others’ scraps in Libanius Fable 3.4. That Paul also alluded to Jesus’s parable of the sower here (Robinson, “ΣΠΕΡΜΟΛΟΓΟΣ”) seems to me unlikely; Luke would hardly portray Paul employing Judean parable rhetoric in seeking to reach Athenian intellectuals. Although Paul may well be a “sower of words” (Bede Comm. Acts 17.18b [L. Martin, 142]; citing Luke 8:5; 1 Cor 9:11), the etymological sense of the term was not its normal usage, and Luke 8:5 does not employ σπέρμα (though it employs a cognate). 2957. Although such a portrayal of Paul’s knowledge of Greek philosophy might well have been accurate on a historical level, it underestimates both his theological genius in establishing a missiological synthesis on the historical level and Luke’s probable intention to portray Paul as outwitting the philosophers (certainly his philosophic credentials appear established by Acts 19:9). 2958. Ramsay, Pictures, 195. 2959. See Dio Chrysostom’s use of the cognate σπερμολογία (Liefeld, “Preacher,” 219); cf. also BDAG. 2960. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311, noting this orator’s dilemma in Isoc. Antid. 83. The informed audience will view Paul as genuinely wise (Rowe, World, 28–29) and catch the irony: it was those who sought novelties (17:21) who accused Paul of peddling them (17:19; Rowe, World, 32–33). 2961. See Philost. Vit. soph. 2.31.624. I am assuming that the practice predates my evidence from the Second Sophistic; excellent as Josephus’s Greek appears to be, he nevertheless apologizes for his lack of facility in it, probably covering himself in the event that he falls short of Attic standards (Ant. 20.263–64). Certainly, after

2596

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 300

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

expected anyone who addressed them to be able to do so in “Athenian”—that is, Attic—speech.2962 Later, during the Second Sophistic, those who, attempting to speak in Attic Greek, made noticeable mistakes would provoke laughter (Lucian Soph. 6).2963 Eventually, ability to speak good Attic Greek could be viewed almost as a virtue.2964 Foreigners had long been second class or worse in Athens, especially in its classical days of independence.2965 This would not be Paul’s first recent encounter with xenophobia (Acts 16:20–21). That Paul is from Asia (and from a part of it not first “civilized” by Greeks) would not help his case with Greek hearers (see comment on Acts 16:8–10). Indeed, anyone who mounted the Acropolis could be reminded, by full view of the island of Salamis in the Aegean Sea, of Athens’s defeat of Persia in 480 b.c.e., breaking the Persian advance.2966 From the Iliad to Alexander of Macedon (and now “GrecoRoman” imperial power), Asia was more respectable than most barbarian lands, but it was also more a competitor; Athenians would still view themselves as the epitome of culture. In practice, cultural interchange had transformed both sides of the Aegean for centuries,2967 but prejudices die hard. Greeks might make exceptions for Romans, but Paul the Asian Jew was still a “barbarian” (see comment on Acts 28:2). Although the Athenians appreciated what was “new” (17:21), they were not equally disposed toward everything foreign. Josephus claims that Athenians had traditionally executed anyone condemned for initiating Athenians in the Mysteries of “foreign gods” (ξένους . . . θεούς, Ag. Ap. 2.267), closely akin to the charge against Paul here.2968 An impiety charge in classical Athens was quite serious;2969 for example, the accusation of sacrilege against the (Eleusinian) Mysteries could lead to trial (Xen. Hell. 1.4.14).2970 Profaning the Mysteries was so serious that even detaining a criminal about to be initiated could warrant death (Demosth. Mid. 175). An atheist named Diagoras suffered for divulging elements of the Eleusinian Mysteries.2971 the Second Sophistic, Jerome recognizes that Paul’s style often falls short of the highest standards (Milazzo, “Sermone”; cf. Jerome Ruf. 1.17; Bray, Corinthians, 292). 2962. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.26, though this text reflects a hellenizing influence in Achaia after Paul’s day. 2963. But while getting Attic diction right was valued, someone who reveled in Attic diction yet lacked intelligence and taste could also be ridiculed (see, e.g., Lucian Lex. passim); Lucian mocks one historian so excessively Atticist that he changes all Latin names to Greek equivalents (e.g., Kronios for Saturninus; Phrontis for Fronto; Hist. 21). Excessive atticizing was tasteless (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.17); Philostratus has to defend Apollonius for insufficient atticizing in a speech, arguing that he was being rhetorically subtle (8.6). Compare modern emphasis on high-quality French or other languages by some native speakers today. 2964. See, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.4, 7; 6.36. 2965. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 195 (who also mocks Demosthenes for his partly foreign blood, Embassy 22–23). Ethnocentrism was not, of course, limited to Athenians but was pervasive (e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.81). 2966. Blaiklock, Cities, 51. 2967. Athens also already had a temple of Serapis (Paus. 1.18.4), an Egyptian deity, as well as a synagogue (Acts 17:17). 2968. Josephus argued that the Athenians rejected the gods of other nations (Ag. Ap. 2.268), but this is polemic; it fits the stereotype of Athenian arrogance but not the reality of polytheism. Some compare Roman cultic xenophobia (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212); though this was also limited to specific cults, the empire (in contrast to the republic) avoided officially adopting new gods in the first and second centuries (Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 170–71). 2969. See, e.g., Alciph. Court. 3 (Bacchis to Hypereides), 1.30, ¶1; 4 (Bacchis to Phrynê), 1.31, ¶1; Athen. Deipn. 13.590d. 2970. Others were charged with profaning the Mysteries in classical Athens (e.g., Plut. Ten Or. 2, Andocides, Mor. 834 CD). 2971. Grant, Gods, 20; cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.266. He became a favorite object of early Christians’ attacks in distinguishing themselves from true atheists (Athenag. Plea 4; Tatian Or. Gks. 27); in the Roman world, comparing someone to an atheist was normally tantamount to denouncing their impiety (Apul. Apol. 56).

2597

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 301

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Such extreme sensitivity is probably not characteristic of Athens by this period, however; as the altars to unknown deities show (Acts 17:23), Athenians, like everyone else, had long been sensitive to the danger of neglecting a “new god” (νεωστὶ δαίμονα) even if otherwise yet unknown (even already in Socrates’s era, Eurip. Bacch. 219–20).2972 Closer to Luke’s day, Athenians were noted for their hospitality to foreign culture (φιλοξενοῦντες) and foreign cultic activities (ξενικῶν ἱερῶν) to the extent that they were sometimes even ridiculed for it (Strabo 10.3.18; more positively, hospitality to suffering exiles, as in Quint. Decl. 292.3). Most commentators recognize that introducing “foreign gods” recalls the charge on which Socrates was convicted centuries earlier,2973 which contributes to Luke’s implicit comparison between his hero Paul and Socrates, the now-conventional model for Greek philosophers (see discussion at Acts 17:19).2974 (Socrates is, naturally, said to deny the charge [Plato Apol. 35D].) The charge was widely known and undoubtedly familiar for Luke’s ideal audience. In the late first century, Dio Chrysostom compares himself with Socrates (Or. 43.8, 12), pointing out that Socrates was falsely charged with neglecting to honor Athens’s gods (θεούς) while introducing new divinities (καινὰ δαιμόνια, 43.9).2975 Likewise in Philostratus, Socrates was persecuted on the charge of introducing new divinities ( δαιμόνια καινά), but Domitian persecuted Apollonius simply for being wise (Vit. Apoll. 7.11).2976 As Favorinus (or another author) and Apollonius compare mockery of themselves with that against Socrates,2977 thereby turning the accusations to their favor, so Luke compares Paul’s situation to that of Socrates,2978 thereby honoring Paul for Hellenistic readers. Many scholars think that these respected philosophers misunderstand Paul as preaching “foreign deities” in the plural because he is preaching “Jesus” and “Anastasis,” “Resurrection.”2979 (This view about the misunderstanding of Paul’s detractors has a long pedigree.)2980 If so, the philosophers may understand the names as deified personifications of “healing” and “restoration.”2981 Personification of virtues and ideals 2972. Socrates was, however, charged with introducing “new” divinities (Dio Chrys. Or. 43.9). 2973. Xen. Mem. 1.1.1; Plato Apol. 24B; cf. Euthyphro 3B. 2974. See Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Packer, Acts, 146; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 354; Johnson, Acts, 313; D. Williams, Acts, 303; Dunn, Acts, 233; Parsons, Acts, 245. 2975. By contrast, Dio Chrysostom contends, Socrates really honored the gods (Or. 43.10). (It was instead the accusers whose deities were new [Plato Apol. 39CD].) 2976. The comparison is extended in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.13. Du Toit, “Vorstellung,” thinks that Apollonius’s δαίμων (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.2) evokes that of Socrates. 2977. See also Dio Chrys. Or. 37.32 (this thirty-seventh oration is most often held to be by Favorinus), comparing slanders against the speaker with those against Socrates. 2978. In the Roman period, the Athenian elite increasingly managed public religion, but some members even became benefactors of new cults (Muñiz Grijalvo, “Elites”). 2979. Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Haenchen, Acts, 518; Dunn, Acts, 234; Klauck, Magic, 78; Hamm, Acts, 82; Talbert, Acts, 152; Schnabel, Acts, 726; contrast Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 444. This interpretation would fit the philosophers’ possible disbelief that Paul could mean “resurrection” in another sense (Bowersock, Fiction as History, 103). Price, Widow Traditions, speculates that some pre-Lukan traditions accepted this pairing (arguing from silence and without offering evidence). 2980. Notably, Chrys. Hom. Acts 38. (The translator reasonably objects that one wonders how Paul could have spoken of “resurrection” so abstractly as to be misunderstood. Given Greek views of the body and the future, however, Paul initially may have had trouble communicating his point to such an audience adequately. One might compare attempting to communicate the certainty of future biblical promises in Japanese, where the language does not as easily accommodate such an idea.) In the nineteenth century, Lightfoot (“Third Notebook on Acts,” 28 [from Witherington]; also Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [from Witherington]) concurred with the Greek fathers and found no other reason that Luke would have added “the resurrection.” 2981. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 351, following Chase, Credibility, 205–6. Such a pair would not have been offensive, e.g., the way the worship of personified Impiety and Lawlessness would be (Polyb. 18.54.10–11). If hearers would have linked ἀνάστασις with ἀναστατήρια, sacrifices given the gods

2598

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 302

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

was common2982 and often descended to the absurd—for example, the rhetorical deification of smoke and dust.2983 The plural could be simply a generalizing plural2984 (even if Paul preached only Jesus, polytheists might assume an accompanying pantheon), but the interpretation remains plausible. Since worshipers often linked male deities with female consorts in this period (see comment on Acts 8:10), it is reasonable that they supposed Anastasis to be Jesus’s divine consort (like the foreign deities Osiris and Isis, or Adonis and Atargatis); John Chrysostom so interpreted the philosophers’ comments in this passage (Hom. Acts 38.1).2985 Because Anastasia was a common woman’s name, this interpretation remains a legitimately credible one.2986 Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s elite hearers as blundering in how they understand Paul likens them to the less sophisticated pagans who misinterpret Paul as a deity in Acts 14:11–12 and 28:6 (the latter comparison, with “barbarians,” would be particularly offensive to Athenian philosophers). Orators livened up their presentations with wit, typically at someone else’s expense,2987 and we should not be surprised if Luke offers some comic relief at the expense of stereotypically arrogant Athenian philosophers. Given the frequent ridicule of idolatry in Jewish sources,2988 such a critique of a polytheistically misinformed hearing of Paul would seem quite appropriate. Although such a portrayal would suit Luke’s literary purposes, it also accurately reflects the sort of difficulty early Christians (and others) must have had as they sought to communicate across significant cultural divides.2989 The narrative contains an ironic, almost comic turnabout: far from preaching foreign deities (17:18), Paul summons his hearers to abandon false gods, turning to the only true God, who is in fact not far from any of them (17:27). They have brought Paul before an official hearing of sorts; he warns them of the impending judgment against idolatry (17:30–31).2990 Such boldness would hardly characterize the normal when a sick person recovered (Le Cornu, Acts, 957), they might recall the history of the unknown deity (Acts 17:23); but the verbal connection is unlikely, and Paul has not yet mentioned that deity. 2982. E.g., SIG3 985 = LSAM 20, lines 1–11 (in Klauck, Context, 65); Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 77/78.33. Also of vices (e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9; b. Ned. 32a); death (Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 136–37, 144; Hor. Sat. 2.1.58; Sir 41:1–2; Pss. Sol. 7:4; for the angel of death, see, e.g., 2 Bar. 21:23; Test. Ab. 16–20 A; 13–14 B; Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A; 25, §51 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:14; Num. Rab. 16:24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:6; Tg. Ruth 4:22); Gehinnom (Sipre Deut. 305.3.3). On personification, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.53.66; Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 20; Aphth. Progymn. 11, “On Ethopoeia,” 44–45S, 34R; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; 2.6, 400.32–401.19; 404.29–405.13. 2983. Fronto’s encomium on smoke and dust (Naber, 211, §7; LCL, 1:44); for one critique of such activity, see Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30. 2984. See Conzelmann, Acts, 139; McKay, “Foreign Gods?” Often even paired deities would not be expected to share the same shrine (Val. Max. 1.1.8). 2985. Fitzmyer, Acts, 601, 605. Perhaps speaking figuratively, Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36 reviles Epicureans for worshiping just one divinity, the female divinity Pleasure. 2986. E.g., CIJ 1:234–35, §298; 1:378, §516; 1:424, §576; 1:597, §732; Goodenough, Symbols, 2:108; possibly CIJ 1:434, §598; cf. masculine cognates, 1:283–84, §364; 1:487, §675; 2:43, §787. If Paul had already spoken of an “unknown deity” (Acts 17:23), the plurality of altars so labeled could have also contributed to the confusion. 2987. See, e.g., Cic. Brut. 43.158; 93.322; Or. Brut. 40.138–39; also in an orator’s letters, which are much less strictly “rhetorical” (e.g., Fam. 7.32.1; 9.25.2). It should be kept within appropriate bounds (Or. Brut. 26.88–90; Plut. Cic. 5.4; cf. Cic. Fam. 7.32.1–3), a rule that Luke certainly observes here. 2988. E.g., Pss 115:4–8; 135:15–18; Isa 46:6–7; Wis 13:10–14:4. Cf. the rhetorically analogous ridicule of divine personifications in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 113, esp. 113.20. 2989. Cf., e.g., the Gentile misappropriation, presupposed in 1 Cor 11:20–22, of the Last Supper: patronal ideology and perhaps Hellenistic cultic ideals replace a Passover seder. 2990. Hansen, “Preaching,” 315–16; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 140. Insightfully, Rowe, World, 32–33, underlines how Luke inverts the Athenians’ charges: Paul brings “new” and “strange” things, yet the Athenians are the ones always seeking “new” things alongside “strangers” they welcome there. For reversal of charges as a conventional rhetorical technique, see comment on Acts 24:19.

2599

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 303

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

foreigner seeking hospitality2991 nor one being evaluated at a hearing (see comment on Acts 7:51–53), but it was good rhetorical form in some settings (see comment on παρρησία in Acts 4:13). iv. Led to the Areopagus for Questioning (17:19–20)

Although the discussion is an intellectual one, the suggestion that Paul preaches “foreign deities” (17:18) may require him to secure approval from the chief Athenian court if he wishes to engage in public teaching in Athens. The claim that he preaches such deities and his being led to the Areopagus evoke one version of the charge against Socrates, who was also tried before the Areopagus. Although even first-time hearers would not expect Paul to be martyred there like Socrates (Roman law would not permit this practice), the allusion offers suspense, given persistent public rebuffs of Paul in the preceding narratives about Macedonia (16:22–23; 17:5–8, 13). (1) The Areopagus Council

Although the Areopagus council (17:19) originally met on the hill of that name,2992 the vast majority of scholars recognize that Luke refers to the council, not the location. Luke’s two-word form in 17:19, 22 may suggest this;2993 the allusions to Socrates’s trial, the apologetic nature of the speech, and the mention of an “Areopagite” (17:34) all confirm this impression.2994 Despite some significant detractors,2995 often on the basis of the wording,2996 most scholars argue that by this period this council no longer met on the hill but most likely met in the Stoa Basileios (the Royal Porch or Colonnade), just off the Agora (or possibly at the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios).2997 Thus his Stoic and Epicurean questioners would not have far to bring Paul.2998 The Agora was to the west of both the Hill of Ares and the Acropolis.2999 Although a trial court,3000 the Areopagus was traditionally Athens’s aristocratic 2991. See the warnings in Aeschylus Suppl. 202–3, 917. 2992. On this hill (with homes on its western slope), see Goette, “Athens,” 262–63. 2993. See epigraphic evidence cited by Ramsay, Discovery, 103; more fully, Hemer, Acts in History, 117 (esp. n. 40, e.g., IG 3.1.706). 2994. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311n61. 2995. Even Barnes, the most commonly cited detractor (“Apostle on Trial”; cf. also Martin, “Areopagus”; McRay, “Athens,” 140; apparently Blaiklock, Archaeology, 94), concedes that it sometimes met at the Stoa Basileios; Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 346, allows both locations but thinks that Paul’s hearing was in a colonnade of the Agora. McRay, Archaeology, 309, argues that the council, meeting at the Stoa Basileios in the fourth century b.c.e., had moved back by this period (citing the second-century Lucian Indictment 4–12). Dyer, Athens, 452, allows that Paul was tried before the Areopagus, but thinks Paul likelier simply spoke with philosophers on the hill by that name. On the literal Hill of Ares, see, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 23–24; Martin, “Areopagus”; Dyer, Athens, 451–54 (focusing on it in myth and history); it faces the Pnyx in Lucian Indictment 9 (on the Pnyx, see Dyer, Athens, 461–70). 2996. E.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 16–17. But in this case, ἐπί means “to” the council rather than “on” the hill (Fitzmyer, Acts, 605–6). The language of “bringing” with ἐπί can mean before courts (as in Matt 10:18), and this usage fits Luke’s style (Luke 23:1; Acts 9:21; 18:12; cf. Acts 8:32, “for slaughter”); this is its normal meaning in Luke with ἐπί. 2997. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 8–9; Reicke, Era, 233; Kilgallen, Commentary, 140; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 129; Fitzmyer, Acts, 605; Witherington, Acts, 515; Chance, Acts, 307. Haenchen, Acts, 518, reasonably doubts whether sufficient room was available on the hill’s summit; Lucian (Fisherman 15) at least doubts the view it provides (contrasting the Acropolis). 2998. Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349, weighs such topographic observations in favor of the narrative’s authenticity (though it may be doubted that a longer walk should be counted against it). For the proximity, in this view, see also Wallace and Williams, Acts, 94. As noted earlier, Paul’s activity probably centered in the Roman agora rather than in the older Greek one. 2999. With, e.g., Bruce, Acts1, 332; Haenchen, Acts, 517n8. 3000. E.g., Val. Max. 8.1.amb.2; Sen. Y. Dial. 9.5.1 (on classical Athens); Tac. Ann. 2.55; Lucian Tim. 46; Lucian Affairs 29. In Lucian Indictment 4, 12, everyone with a suit is summoned to the Areopagus.

2600

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 304

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

court, distinct from the body of the people.3001 Even though Athens rarely appears in early (Homeric) epic, later mythographers spoke of a period when the twelve Olympian deities constituted the Areopagus court (Apollod. Bib. 3.14.2).3002 Historically, however, it was instituted by Solon in the fifth century b.c.e. (Plut. Solon 19.4). It exercised enormous influence;3003 in classical Athens, it sometimes tried capital cases,3004 including for murder;3005 its death sentence could be carried out on the same day.3006 Naturally, capital sentences belonged to Rome by this period, but the Areopagus remained an important court. Despite the oft-recounted report of its involvement in Socrates’s martyrdom, 3007 the Areopagus eventually gained a reputation for its seriousness and noble conduct.3008 In one example of its creative judgment in the Roman period, a woman who killed her husband, but justly, was ordered to appear for trial—in one hundred years.3009 Tradition claimed that at one point the Areopagus was charged to investigate every Athenian’s profession and lifestyle for the purpose of disciplining the indolent and promoting public virtue.3010 In a positive vein, the Areopagus could also honor a foreigner3011 (unfortunately, not the response to Paul in Acts 17:32–34). The Areopagus included about a hundred members3012 (making Luke’s report of a small number of adherents among the hearers in 17:34 less implausible than some have supposed).3013 Areopagites seem to have been people of wealth and status.3014 The Areopagus could include some members with higher status and influence than others;3015 in the first century b.c.e., some Romans became Athenians and joined this body,3016 but by Paul’s day, probably a number of its members, as leaders of a favored 3001. Isoc. Areop. passim, pleading for a restoration of its full power against the dangers of democracy; Plut. Demosth. 14.4. As early as Solon, membership depended on wealth rather than on class (Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 151). 3002. They also assumed the Areopagus’s authority in other mythical cases of manslaughter and murder (Apollod. Bib. 3.15.1, 8). Poseidon there charged Ares with murdering his son (Androtion Atthis 1, frg. 3, in Maximus the Confessor Prologue to Comm. Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, PG 4.17). For the mythical history of Athens and its deities, see Dyer, Athens, 24–69. 3003. See esp. Lysias Or. 26.11–12, §176 (though this may be somewhat hyperbolic to arouse concern about Evandros). 3004. E.g., Lysias Or. 6.14, §104 (one who admitted guilt suffered death); cf. a kidnapping charge in Lucian Phil. Sale 7. 3005. Lysias Or. 10.11, §117; Or. 1.30 (On the Murder of Eratosthenes); Lucian Anach. 19 (set in the sixth century b.c.e.). The name’s mythical origin derived from Ares being tried in the court on the original hill (Paus. 1.28.5). 3006. Aeschines Ctes. 252. 3007. Even here justice is the court’s expected standard (Xen. Mem. 3.5.20). 3008. Cic. Att. 1.14, 16. The satirist Lucian (Hermot. 64) praises them for meeting in the dark to avoid prejudice for particular speakers; but that this was their regular practice (and hence should be inferred for this narrative) may be safely doubted. 3009. Aul. Gel. 12.7.4 (the difficult case was referred to the Areopagus by the proconsul). 3010. Val. Max. 2.6.4; Plut. Solon 22.3. Writers also praised the later, similar activity of Augustus and ten assistants, who evaluated the conduct of Roman knights (Suet. Aug. 39). 3011. See Jones, “Polybius of Sardis.” For its earlier, smaller putative origins, see Androtion Atthis 2, frg. 4a (in PG 4.16). 3012. Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31. 3013. We need not suppose that all members were always present; but members of a municipal elite frequently devoted their time to politics. 3014. E.g., Lucian Dial. C. 7 (Musarium and Her Mother ¶2), 296–97. 3015. See, e.g., Alciph. Paras. 36 (Oenochaeron to Rhaphanochortasus), 3.72, ¶2 (probably socially accurate though fictitious). At least by the late second century c.e., hereditary status appears required for membership (Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31). 3016. Cic. Balb. 12.30; they had to surrender their Roman citizenship, but Roman and other municipal citizenships were no longer mutually exclusive by Paul’s day (see comment on Acts 21:39).

2601

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 305

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

municipal aristocracy, were Roman citizens.3017 All former archons, or Athenian civic officials, seem to have been part of the body.3018 Despite some changes, the Areopagus continued to exercise authority in the Roman period.3019 Because Athens was a free city, it maintained its own government.3020 Rome treated the Areopagus as one of the city’s primary corporations, alongside another council and the civic assembly.3021 The Areopagus remained the ruling council of Athens, making decisions for that city, in the first century b.c.e.;3022 it continued late into the empire.3023 Despite another, larger council of citizens, sources indicate that the Areopagus was functioning as the local governing senate within several decades before Paul’s ministry in Athens, perhaps as early as the time of Sulla.3024 We know that the Areopagus council (one of Athens’s βουλαί) continued to function administratively along with the council of the “six hundred” in this period.3025 Rome viewed it as the highest administrative body and court in the town.3026 Luke probably plays on the Areopagus’s reputation as a court for literary purposes: Paul is arraigned in Philippi, in Thessalonica (in absentia), and in Corinth (16:19; 17:6; 18:12), and Athens now fits the pattern. This also fits the model of Socrates, who like Paul was “brought” to the Areopagus (17:19)3027 and on possibly the same “charge” (17:18). Such allusions evoke the sense that something very serious is at stake. But despite the allusions, Luke hardly portrays a formal, legal trial here:3028 although the polite3029 inquiry of 17:19–20 is hardly mere curiosity3030 (the town’s highest body would not have scheduled time for entertainment), 17:20–21 makes it clear that Paul is not in any physical danger like Socrates. 3017. This might be true of some of Paul’s leading dialogue partners in the Agora as well; in the early second century, only Roman citizens could head philosophic schools in Athens (CIL 3.12283; ILS 7784; FIRA 1.79; in Sherk, Empire, 184, §144). 3018. Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 152. 3019. Apul. Metam. 10.7; Juv. Sat. 9.101; cf. Plut. Demosth. 26.1. It retained even capital authority (Tac. Ann. 2.55, on 18 c.e.; Witherington, Acts, 516n195). 3020. Ramsay, Discovery, 101. 3021. Cadoux and Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 152; Rhodes, “Areopagus,” 1047. 3022. Cic. Fam. 13.1.5 (where it also rescinds a decision); Att. 5.11. 3023. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.12–13. 3024. Horsley, Documents, 1:82, §31; McRay, “Athens,” 140. A more democratic body had seized much of its power in an earlier era (Plut. Cim. 15.2). 3025. E.g., IG 2.2.3277, in Nero’s reign (Sherk, Empire, 115, §78A); Dio Chrys. Or. 50.2 (a half century later). Cf. the council hall of the “Five Hundred,” elected for one-year terms, near the Stoa Basileios (Paus. 1.3.5; cf. 1.5.1). Cf. Athenian Agora, 81, for what the excavators thought was a large lawcourt. 3026. Gill, “Achaia,” 447. Its functions in the Roman period are far less obscure today than when Cadbury, Acts in History, 51–52, wrote. 3027. The term ἄγω need not imply official action (the verb appears thirty-eight times in Luke-Acts; cf. Acts 9:27; 11:26; 13:23; 20:12; 21:16; 23:18; as recently as 17:15), but when context warrants (as it more often than not does in Acts), it bears a more official sense (e.g., Luke 22:54; 23:1, 32; Acts 5:21, 26–27; 6:12; 8:32; 9:2, 21; 18:12; 19:37; 21:34; 22:5; 23:10, 31; 25:6, 17, 23; cf. Luke 19:27). 3028. For cogent arguments supporting a trial here, see esp. Barnes, “Apostle on Trial.” Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 219, correctly objects that Luke’s other trial narratives are unambiguous. Some sort of hearing is in view (cf. Rowe, “Grammar,” 37: “Paul is actually on trial”), since the Areopagus was a court (e.g., Tac. Ann. 2.55; see discussion above), but it could be simply a licensing hearing (see discussion below). What is clear is that Paul would not be invited merely to entertain or lecture this body. 3029. Abbott, Acts, 195, regards “May we know?” (Acts 17:19) as a polite Greek way of speaking; but it might instead (or additionally) display eloquence. Cf. Eccl 8:17 lxx, where even the wise are not “able to know” God’s work; here the answer to their question might be an implied “No” by Luke (cf. Acts 21:34; 1 Cor 2:14). Still, the use of δυνάμεθα in Acts 17:19 may also signal “a polite request” (so Parsons and Culy, Acts, 335). Their use of βουλόμεθα (17:20) might reflect the Stoic use of βούλησις for a positive expression of rational desire (though not itself a virtue; see Arius Did. 2.7.5b, pp. 10–11.16–21, esp. 19; see Pomeroy, 106n9). 3030. Though “ignorance” (Acts 17:23) may invite eager questioning for the purpose of learning (Philost. Hrk. 19.1), this is Paul’s positive characterization of the situation in the story world, not theirs.

2602

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 306

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(2) Licensed to Teach in Athens?

Although Paul’s examination is not a legal one concerning some offense, it probably does concern the propriety of his teaching in Athens.3031 In addition to other responsibilities, this highest council evaluated cults and teachers arriving in town. The Areopagus had authority to approve religious votive offerings such as those at the altar of the unknown god.3032 This council thus might wish to investigate claims about “new gods” (17:18). The Areopagus in this period apparently exercised jurisdiction over the entrance of foreign cults.3033 Of broader importance than the “new gods” claim, however, would be Paul’s teaching in general. Many scholars have argued that the Areopagus had authority to examine new doctrines.3034 Granted, local courts rarely needed to concern themselves with evaluating new lecturers. A new sophist in a town would advertise a time when he would declaim, praise the city, and then allow his audience to select a topic, on which he could declaim either extemporaneously or after a day of preparation. The audience would then decide whether to accept or reject him as a local teacher of rhetoric. If accepted, he might become a local citizen and teach the sons of the town’s elite; but competition for such positions “could be stiff,” particularly in a university town such as Athens, and undoubtedly only a minority secured positions.3035 Sometimes, however, a judicial body might step in to evaluate the lecturer’s propriety. A lecturer could enter a Greek city as a wandering scholar, disputing and lecturing wherever he could attract an audience. If individuals called attention to the lecturer, the city could then stop him, provide permission to continue, or refuse to interfere.3036 Mere discussion in the market would not constitute a problem, but official teaching positions and questionable or subversive teachings might invite examination. Given our current state of knowledge, this is the most historically plausible reason for Paul to be brought before the Areopagus, though Luke adds nuances of court language in 17:19 by his allusion to Socrates (below).3037 Although Paul was not likely to be banished, the Areopagus in stricter times ordered the philosopher Stilpo to leave the city for reasoning that questioned traditional religious views.3038 (3) The New Socrates 3039

That Paul was “led away” can connote a trial scene (Luke 22:54; 23:1; Acts 5:21, 26, 27; 6:12; 9:2, 21; 18:12; 19:37; 21:34; 22:5; 25:6, 17, 23) or condemnation (Luke 3031. Probably held by most scholars, with minor variations, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212 (noting that control of lecturers in the Agora would be a major task); Conzelmann, Acts, 139 (citing Plut. Cic. 24 for the council’s addressing “educational questions”); Judge, Pattern, 26; Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349; Johnson, Acts, 314; Witherington, Acts, 515–17; Dunn, Acts, 234. 3032. Reicke, Era, 233. Whether the Areopagus would have micromanaged to this extent is less clear, but the assembly’s own religious activity is clear; Paus. 1.24.2 mentions a depiction of the Areopagus offering a bull. Rural travelers often stopped to pray or make a small offering when coming across altars or other consecrated sites (see Apul. Flor. 1.1–3), but no one could stop for all the many sites in Attica. 3033. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 151 (following esp. Geagan, Athenian Constitution, 50); Winter, “Introducing Gods”; McRay, “Athens,” 140. Cf. perhaps later Roman law in Paulus Sent. 5.21.12 (Walaskay, Acts, 171). Monotheistic Israel was, if anything, even more opposed to “new gods” (Deut 32:17). 3034. Reicke, Era, 233; Dupont, Salvation, 31. Nonphilosophers might sometimes consider themselves competent to evaluate philosophers (Symm. Ep. 1.29). 3035. Winter, Left Corinth, 36–37; idem, Philo and Paul, 149–51 (who may be right that Paul avoided this procedure in Corinth, 1 Cor 2:1); see also Pogoloff, Logos, 176–77 (who cites, e.g., Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8–9); Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 152. 3036. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 229–30. 3037. Ibid.; Robertson, Luke, 197. 3038. Diog. Laert. 2.116. In Hellenistic times, another philosopher was nearly brought before it for inappropriate speech (2.101). 3039. Although ancients often established comparisons by calling one a “new” so-and-so, our first association of a “new Socrates” (καινὸς Σωκράτης) with Christians appears in Lucian Peregr. 12, where Lucian thinks

2603

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 307

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

19:27; 23:32; Acts 8:32; cf. 12:19).3040 In this case, however, the hearing would not be a judicial one with a potentially dangerous outcome, as in Acts 17:6–7, but would evaluate whether Paul should continue to teach openly, now with official sanction, in the city.3041 In view of the charge’s similarity to the charge against Socrates (see below), it is reasonable to see the mention of him being “brought” to a court as an allusion to Socrates’s analogous situation.3042 Nearly all commentators recognize that the charge against Paul here alludes to the charge against Socrates.3043 According to the later widely detested charge, Socrates allegedly corrupted youth and rejected the gods accepted by the polis and brought in strange new deities (καινὰ δαιμόνια; Xen. Mem. 1.1.1; cf. Luke’s foreign δαιμονίων in Acts 17:18; καινή in 17:19).3044 Later ancient writers continued to note this charge and its absurdity; the Athenians condemned Socrates for introducing novam religionem, “new religion.”3045 Many contemporary Athenians apparently supposed Socrates to be irreligious, if we may gauge by the ridicule in Aristophanes: he thinks there is no Zeus and denies the gods (Clouds 226–27, 366–67, 818–27, 1470–77), and thus he would ultimately be punished for his blasphemy (Clouds 1506–9).3046 He was charged with “disturbing the state religion and corrupting the youth” (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.28). Most thinkers of later eras noted that the charge was foolish (e.g., Eunapius Lives 464) and instead criticized the Athenians who condemned him (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 33.9). The reader who recognizes Luke’s allusion to Socrates’s boldness and integrity at Acts 5:29 will not be surprised to find a Socrates allusion here. If a Galilean fisherman can echo Socrates (perhaps unknowingly in the narrative world), how much more should it be expected of Paul, who is ministering in the Diaspora? And if the reader is unprepared for the comparison because Paul’s longest speeches so far have been in Jewish settings, the speech in 17:22–31 will dispel such doubts. Luke’s Paul (and, for that matter, the historical one) is certainly more conversant with Hellenistic thought than his apostolic predecessors in Acts have been. that Palestinian Christians so hailed a (temporarily) Christian philosopher. (That contemporary Christian sources nowhere warn against Peregrinus, among many other “false teachers,” suggests that Lucian might overestimate his importance among the Christians.) 3040. It has more positive uses (e.g., Acts 9:27; 11:26; 17:15; 20:12; 21:16), and so the context must be determinative. For cognates applying to being led to punishment, see comment on Acts 12:19. 3041. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 516–17, for whom it is adversarial, though not necessarily from malice. 3042. Ibid., 515. Haenchen, Acts, 518, however, cautions that Socrates’s judges were not the Areopagus. 3043. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212; McDonald, “Athens,” 9; Cadbury, Acts in History, 52; Bruce, Acts1, 333; Carter and Earle, Acts, 255; Haenchen, Acts, 518; Dupont, Salvation, 31; Conzelmann, Acts, 139; Meeks, Urban Christians, 26; Grant, Gods, 50 (citing also Favorinus in Diog. Laert. 2.40); Witherington, Acts, 515; Talbert, Acts, 152; Pervo, Acts, 425–27; Rowe, World, 31; Dupertuis, “Speech,” 165; see esp. Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates” (cf. further comment at Acts 17:32). Most scholars also cite Plato Apol. 24B. Some go further, suggesting that Luke uses the allusion to invite a fresh hearing of Socrates himself (a model later developed by Justin Martyr; Reis, “Areopagus”). Some also make the analogy more influential for Acts as a whole (cf. Alexander, Context, 43–68; Dupertuis, “Socratizing Paul”) than it may warrant, though I do appreciate some of the arguments and concur strongly that Luke presents Paul as a sage. With respect to arguments that the later hearings in Acts recall Socrates, it should be noted that by their nature martyr traditions, whether of Socrates or Maccabean martyrs, share many common elements. 3044. Note also Dio Chrys. Or. 43.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11; Hermog. Method 9.424; esp. Plato Euthyphro 3B (καινοὺς . . . θεούς, noted in Bruce, Acts1, 333). On the last text, cf. Hare, Euthyphro, 4: “Euthyphro thinks Socrates means his ‘divine sign.’ . . . But Meletus may have been equally interested in the new gods of the Ionian physicists with whom Socrates was associated in the popular imagination.” 3045. Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7 (LCL, 1:39); another version claims simply that he sometimes opposed conventional beliefs. Max. Tyre 3.8 reverses the charges, claiming that it was the Athenians who introduced new gods. 3046. Reportedly, Socrates simply responded by asking if Aristophanes wished “to use him for some other role” (Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.12–14 [trans. Lutz, 79]).

2604

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 308

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

On Luke’s narrative level, we may note other protests that the Christian message violated ancestral custom (Acts 6:14; 21:28). But Luke’s biblical subtext demonstrates that, contrary to the charges, this message is nothing new at all but the natural culmination of Israel’s indisputably ancient faith.3047 For Jews, Paul is too favorable to Greeks (21:28); to Greeks, he introduces foreign gods (17:19) or turns people away from honored deities (19:26–27); to Romans, he is too Jewish (16:20–21). Yet the informed reader knows that Paul is a faithful Jew (18:18; 21:24, 26), conversant in Greek wisdom (17:22–31), and a Roman citizen (16:37). The reader thus recognizes the falsehood and, indeed, absurdity of all charges against him. Paul does not preach “new” (17:19) or “foreign” gods (17:18, 20); he preaches not only a god to whom they have constructed altars (17:23) but the God who created everything (17:26) and is near to his creatures (17:27). As Luke inverts and reverses the charges against Stephen’s accusers in 7:56–60 (see comment there), so he does here, in the sort of rhetorical move later employed by a philosophically oriented orator, Maximus of Tyre, who cites Socrates’s indictment against the Athenians who convicted him: “The people of Athens have offended in refusing to acknowledge the same gods as Socrates, and introducing other new divinities instead” (Or. 3.8 [Trapp, 31]). This characteristic behavior of the Athenians also extended to other unconventional thinkers, the portrayal of some of whom in later sources may have been shaped by the charges against Socrates.3048 The Athenians banished Protagoras for questioning whether the gods existed (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.10.494). One writer notes that the Athenians banished Protagoras for his agnosticism, condemned Socrates for his “new religion,” and silenced Phidias for suggesting a cheaper substance for his statue of Athena (Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7). Although the Athenians’ original law was probably directed only against impiety in general, later sources mention a law against new divinities,3049 an idea perhaps known to Luke’s audience. (As mentioned above, however, philosophers had the greatest popular reputation for disbelief in deities; the Athenians were also reputed for their piety.) (4) Luke’s Point Here

What is the literary function of Luke’s use of a Socrates image? Following the alleged claim of the Pythian oracle,3050 many ancients called Socrates the wisest of all men.3051 Some even compared him to an “oracle” (oraculum) of wisdom (Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a).3052 His successors frequently cited his opinions as authoritative.3053 He was one of the most common models for philosophers to follow,3054 especially 3047. A valuable apologetic; see the introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:454–56. 3048. See Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 212, citing also Anaxagoras, Protagoras, and Chrysippus the Stoic (for the last, see Cic. Nat. d. 1.15.39). 3049. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.267; Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 8.187; see Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 135. 3050. On the Pythia, see comment on Acts 16:16. 3051. Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119; 7.32.119; 7.34.120; Paus. 1.22.8; Lucian Dance 25; Apul. Metam. 10.33. 3052. On his own δαίμων, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.1.2 (meaning the deity that directed him, 1.4.2, 10, 13; 4.8.1, 5–6); Plut. Alc. 17.4; Sign Soc. 10, Mor. 580C; Apul. De deo Socr. 157; Apol. 27; Socrates Ep. 1; discussion in, e.g., Kleve, “Daimon”; Brickhouse and Smith, “Sign.” Hence the charge of introducing new δαιμόνια (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11). Apollonius’s δαίμων probably reflects the model of Socrates (Du Toit, “Vorstellung”). 3053. E.g., Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.1, 22; 1.17.12 (via Xen. Mem. 4.6.1); 3.12.15; 3.21.19; 3.22.26; 3.23.22; 3.24.38; 3.24.40; 4.1.41; 4.7.29; Encheir. 32.3; Marc. Aur. 11.23, 39. A critic of Plato might claim to desist on the basis of his regard for “Socratic wisdom” (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 79.1 [Russell and Konstan, 129]). 3054. See the survey in Tiede, Figure, 30–42; cf. Lucian Dem. 11 (in Johnson, Acts, 313–14); Apul. Flor. 2.1 (as a Platonist); De deo Socr. 167 (noted with a different enumeration in Rives, Religion, 41); Plut. Poetry 2, Mor. 16C. Though without a commitment to particular applications, Plutarch uses him as a model (Pelling, “Plutarch’s Socrates”).

2605

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 309

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

prominent in Stoicism during the early empire.3055 As Seneca the Younger urges, noting the ancient sage’s endurance in hardship, Socrates was the most effective “pattern” (exemplum; Ep. Lucil. 104.27). He was a model of virtue,3056 the ideal wise man and prototypical philosopher.3057 Radical philosophers could call readers to abandon reading poetry and drama and to follow the model of Socrates (Crates Ep. 35, to Aper). When a philosopher was rejected because of his wisdom, he could be compared to Socrates; thus Lucian made this comparison because the Athenians denounced Demonax for disrespecting their sacrifices and Mysteries (Dem. 5, 11).3058 Socrates’s martyrdom3059 also became a useful pedagogic device (probably in line with Socrates’s intention), cited as a great example of facing death nobly.3060 Various writers report a quip attributed to him preceding his execution; when someone complained that Socrates would die innocent, he retorted that this was far better than dying guilty.3061 One writer opined that he was willing to die a death like Socrates’s if he might achieve his fame (Phaedrus 3.9.3–4). Socrates’s rejection was also said to have invited judgment and the decline of the Athenian state (Eunapius Lives 462). The Athenians gave Socrates hemlock, it was said, but it was they who truly drank it from his speech (Gr. Anth. 7.96).3062 That is, before the bar of history, it was not Socrates but his apparent judges, the people of Athens, who were on trial.3063 Socrates provided “a uniquely significant propaganda image” for philosophers.3064 Comparing a figure to Socrates attributed incalculable wisdom to that figure.3065 Epicte3055. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.12–14; 18B, p. 118.16–18; Sen. Y. Ben. 5.6.2–7; 5.7.5; 7.8.2; Epict. Diatr. 1.25.31; 1.29.65–66; 2.26.6; 3.1.19–23; 3.5.14–19; 3.23.32; 3.24.60; 4.1.159–60; 4.5.2–4, 33; 4.8.22–23; 4.9.6; 4.11.19; Encheir. 33.12; 51.3; Marc. Aur. 1.16.9; 6.47; 7.19, 66; 8.3; 11.25, 28; cf. Sen. Y. Ben. 7.24.1–2. Stoics would not follow his dissembling (an ironic way to mock the sophists); see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.10–11. Cicero deemed Stoic controversial views to be Socratic (St. Par. 4, in Irwin, Philosophy, 334, §509). 3056. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.3.12–13; 2.18.5; Epict. Diatr. 1.12.23. 3057. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 4.7.1; 7.25.4; Ben. 5.4.3; Diogenes Ep. 28 (to the Greeks); Dio Chrys. Or. 3.1, 29; cf. Sen. Y. Dial. 7.27.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 13; 43.8–12; 54. He even appears as a model disputer (Epict. Diatr. 2.12.5); people became his zealous followers (1.19.6). 3058. Still, Lucian was ready to have fun with the charge of Socrates corrupting youth, especially Alcibiades (True Story 2.19; Dial. D. 419 [6/20, Menippus and Aeacus ¶6]; Phil. Sale 15–16; cf. Eunuch 9; Ps.-Lucian Affairs 23, 54). Such behavior does not fit some early depictions (e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.3.8–12; Symp. 4.54) or later interpretations (e.g., Corn. Nep. 7 [Alcibiades], 2.2–3; Plut. Alc. 6.1) of Socrates, though Alcibiades’s amorous inclinations toward Socrates are laughed at in Plato Symp. 222C (cf. also Alcibiades’s comments about Socrates and others in 223A). But Epicurus believed that Socrates was attracted to Alcibiades (Max. Tyre 32.8). 3059. Regularly recalled in ancient literature, e.g., Lucian Indictment 5; Philod. On Death 33.1–4. 3060. Xen. Mem. 4.8.2 (the greatest example); the model martyr in Epict. Diatr. 1.29.16–18 (citing Plato Apol. 30C; Crito 43D); 2.2.8–9 (citing Xen. Apol. 2–3); 2.6.26; 3.18.4; 4.1.123, 162–69; 4.4.21; Marc. Aur. 7.66; probably the template for Seneca’s death, recorded in Tac. Ann. 15.62–63 (perhaps even the Atheniantype poison in 15.64) and perhaps parodied in Petronius’s in 16.19. Nonphilosophers sometimes took a different approach; the wisest man was done in by the wicked (Apul. Metam. 10.33). 3061. Xen. Apol. 28; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1d; Diog. Laert. 2.35. 3062. For knowledge about poisons in antiquity, see Touwaide, “Poisons” (for executions, 451). 3063. Max. Tyre 3.2, 8 (echoing Plato Apol. 39CD; he also emphasizes that they were not qualified to evaluate him, 3.1, 5, 7; cf. 1 Cor 2:15); cf. similarly Xen. Apol. 29; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.123. Some of Socrates’s attempted imitators, however, were too explicit (Epict. Diatr. 2.2.17–18). 3064. Aune, Environment, 36 (emphasizing its use by “competing Socratic schools”). Some outside the guild challenged earlier philosophers’ idealizations of Socrates (e.g., Athen. Deipn. 5.215–16), though usually arguing from silence (e.g., 5.219ab). Others suggested that some of Socrates’s students contributed to tyranny (Quint. Decl. 268.8), or satirized him as sexually involved with the youth he instructed (as noted above, cf. Lucian Eunuch 9; Phil. Sale 15–16; Dial. D. 419 [6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 6]; rejected by Dio Chrys. Or. 37.32; 43.9). Although not reviling him, the Epicurean Philodemus views Socrates’s economic views as impractical (Prop. col. 5.5–14). 3065. Lutz, “Musonius,” 3, for Musonius (citing Origen Cels. 3.66; esp. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.46; Julian Ap. Let. 16 [to the high priest Theodorus]). The first-century Mara bar Serapion may compare Jesus to Socrates.

2606

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 310

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

tus noted that he could not outdo Socrates but hoped not to do worse (Diatr. 1.2.36). That many of the sources cited here are of Stoic provenance shows the degree to which this image would resonate in circles attracted to Stoicism (see comment on Acts 17:18), and hence among some of the very people present in the narrative world when Paul was charged with the same offense as Socrates. From Socrates’s martyrdom in 399 b.c.e. through the fourth century c.e., the composition of “defenses” for Socrates flourished as a popular literary activity.3066 Luke sticks to his subject but makes use of Socrates in the background nonetheless, as a bit of local color for Athens and as a voice of protest once condemned but now sanctioned, analogous to the protested Paul and his mission. (5) Early Judaism as Philosophy

Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a new Socrates and his appropriation of philosophic categories did not arise from nothing; it is consistent with both Paul’s use of philosophic language (see comment on Acts 17:22–31) and Hellenistic Jewish apologetic.3067 Quite an impressive number of Hellenistic observers viewed the Jews as a nation of philosophers; this included Theophrastus, a prominent disciple of Aristotle (372–288/7 b.c.e.),3068 Megasthenes (ca. 300 b.c.e.),3069 Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 b.c.e.),3070 the ethnographer Hecataeus of Abdera (ca. 300 b.c.e.), Hermippus of Smyrna (ca. 200 b.c.e.), and Ocellus Lucanus (second century b.c.e.).3071 Apparently, Greeks commenting on the subject uniformly viewed Jews as philosophers as late as Posidonius in the mid-first century b.c.e.3072 Jewish apologists were more than happy to build on this image.3073 Josephus notes (with some exaggeration) that most peoples do not know their own laws (Ag. Ap. 2.176–77) but that Jews know every one of the laws better than their own names (2.178). If other nations were eager to keep their laws, Philo argues that this is even truer of Jewish people, who carry in their souls the laws instilled in them in infancy (Embassy 210). Educated Jews often denied that they had borrowed Greek philosophy, contending instead that they simply reappropriated the ideas Greek philosophers had plagiarized from Moses much earlier. Early traditions portrayed Abraham as a philosopher.3074 In the second century b.c.e., Aristobulus alleged Greek dependence on Jewish law.3075 Josephus insists (rightly on this point) that Moses predates Greek lawgivers such as Lycurgus and Solon (Ag. Ap. 2.154–56);3076 he further claims that Plato (2.257) and 3066. Trapp, Maximus, 24, citing, e.g., Plato Apology; Xenophon Apologia Socratis; Crito (Suda, s.v. “Crito”); Lysias (in Plut. Mor. 836b); Cic. De or. 1.231; Libanius Declam. 1.13–21; 2.127–47. Maximus of Tyre’s apology (Or. 3), claiming that he offered no defense, appears unique (Trapp, Maximus, 24–25). 3067. Not necessarily deliberate parallels with Socrates’s teaching; although some find these (most prominently, Betz, Sokratische Tradition), Judge, “Paul and Socrates,” 670–83, finds especially contrasts. 3068. Stern, Authors, 1:8–11 (esp. 1:10, where they are “philosophers by race”). Satlow, “Philosophers,” seeks to explain Theophrastus’s inference. 3069. Megasthenes Indica 3, comparing the exotic wisdom of India (Stern, Authors, 1:46). 3070. Also comparing Indian philosophers (Stern, Authors, 1:50). 3071. Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39; Stern, Authors, 1:93–96, 131–33; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:255–61. 3072. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:255; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39. 3073. E.g., Jos. Ant. passim in Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 65–69. Cf. the possible association of Solomon with philosophers in Feder, “Solomon,” 35–36, though the images are not fully clear. Historically, Israelite literacy was probably similar to Greek literacy, concentrated among the elite (see Young, “Israelite Literacy”). 3074. Mayer, “Abrahambildes,” 125–26. 3075. Aristob. frg. 3 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.1–2; OTP 2:839); frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.3–8; OTP 2:840–41). For the idea, see further Charlesworth, “Introduction to Fragments,” 775. 3076. Cf. Socrates as “lawgiver” in Proclus Poet. 6.1, K116.13–14.

2607

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 311

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

some other Greek philosophers (2.281) imitated Moses.3077 If pagan philosophers depended on Moses’s law, why do they not quote it? One document explains that God struck them with temporary blindness or insanity when they tried to quote it, because it was too holy to be used in this manner (Let. Aris. 312–16). Philo also attributed some of the most profound Greek wisdom to Moses,3078 saw Moses and Plato as similar in thought,3079 and identified Greek virtues with Mosaic laws.3080 Rabbis portrayed themselves besting philosophers in debate;3081 those with a more irenic stance could portray philosophers acknowledging the wisdom of Jewish elders (Let. Aris. 200–201, 235, 296). A repeated Jewish claim, probably especially popular in Alexandrian schools, was that Pythagoras, otherwise influential in early Greek philosophy,3082 derived some of his ideas from ancient Judaism (see, e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.165).3083 Apologetic Jewish writers such as Josephus and later Christian writers such as Origen quote the Hellenistic writer Hermippus of Smyrna (ca. 200 b.c.e.) to this effect.3084 Later Christian writers cite a second-century Phrygian, the Pythagorean philosopher Numenius, as claiming that Plato is essentially “Moses speaking Attic Greek,”3085 though the reliability of the attribution is disputed.3086 Such claims may sound extraordinary to modern readers, but they proved attractive to many ancient ones, including some Gentiles.3087 Greek philosophers were happy to claim accepted ideas of other schools for their own, so that Plato perhaps obtained his teachings from the Pythagoreans (Iambl. V.P. 30.167). Further, reverence for antiquity led many to seek a more time-honored pedigree for their own views; thus Pythagoras supposedly learned from Egyptians and Phoenicians (3.14; 4.19; 29.158).3088 It is possible that Pythagoras and Thales had some links to the Near East, even if later 3077. A view later developed by Christian apologists as well (e.g., Justin 1 Apol. 59; he cites in 1 Apol. 54ff. other pagan myths and philosophers that expropriated biblical ideas). The earlier Jewish apologist Artapanus even attributed to Moses the founding of Egypt’s animal cults (Euseb. P.E. 9.27.6; Collins, “Artapanus,” 893). 3078. Philo Good Person 57; Eternity 18–19; Mos. 1.1–3, noted by Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 163. 3079. See Sterling, “Platonizing Moses.” 3080. See Cohen, “Virtues and Laws.” Philo did allow that Moses learned Egyptian and Chaldean wisdom (Mos. 1.23–24), which was valued as exotic in Philo’s day. 3081. E.g., t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; b. Bek. 8b–9a. For the rabbinic-controversy dialogue form, see Keener, John, 67, and sources there. They portrayed Balaam and a Gadarene Cynic as the greatest philosophers (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Gen. Rab. 65:20; Lam. Rab. proem 2). Cf. similarly philosophic respect for Jewish sages in Let. Aris. 200–201. 3082. On Pythagoreanism, see, e.g., Albrecht, Iamblichus; Minar, Politics; Thesleff, Texts; Vogel, Pythagoras. 3083. See, e.g., Gorman, “Pythagoras Palaestinus”; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 143; cf. Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 11. Later Pythagoreans, at least, believed that he learned exotic foreign wisdom in Phoenicia (Iambl. V.P. 3.14) and Egypt (4.19). Some find Pythagorean influence in some rabbinic tradition ( Jacobson, “Shoes,” on b. Šabb. 61a, but this might simply reflect detailed interest in halakic precision) or on Letter of Aristeas (Berthelot, “Interprétation symbolique”) or find parallels with Nazirite practice (Green, “Pythagoras”); for a comparison of food practices, see Grant, “Dietary Laws”; cf. comment on Acts 10:12. 3084. See Stern, Authors, 1:93–96 (defending the tradition’s authenticity, 1:93–94). 3085. Clem. Strom. 1.22.150; Euseb. P.E. 9.10.14. 3086. For skepticism concerning the origin in Numenius, see Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 59–60. Edwards, “Numenius,” provides a very different objection, that Numenius’s views derived, in turn, from a superficial knowledge of Jewish apologists. 3087. The idea that Greeks plagiarized Jewish tradition (or even that their tradition bears close cultural similarity to Moses) is unlikely (the genres are not even comparable) and could be defended only on the basis of a heavily hellenized interpretation of Moses. Jewish tradition did, however, hold the undeniable advantage of antiquity, lending some credibility to these claims. Further, Greek wisdom did depend on Near Eastern varieties (cf. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:149), which some Israelite wisdom developed earlier, and some Greek intellectuals may have borrowed from Jewish material (Horsley, Documents, 3:123–25, §96, if he interprets correctly the document in question). 3088. Some Greeks readily claimed that philosophy was a pre-Greek phenomenon, though noting (correctly) that Greeks developed it (e.g., Diog. Laert. 1.prol.).

2608

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 312

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

writers such as Iamblichus exaggerate them.3089 But Jewish writers moved beyond claiming that Moses influenced Pythagoras and Pythagoras influenced Plato; in fact, they argued, Greek lawmakers copied the laws of Moses (Philo Spec. Laws 4.61). Educated Diaspora Jews had also developed a considerable command of Greek philosophy by this era.3090 Philo, whose work probably reveals more about other Diaspora Judaism than has sometimes been thought,3091 was influenced particularly by Middle Platonism3092 (including Stoic elements, like other eclectic Middle Platonists).3093 (Philo does not hesitate to even cite Plato, usually as authoritative.)3094 Wisdom of Solomon similarly betrays Platonic elements (see esp. Wis 9:15).3095 Fourth Maccabees is permeated with Greek philosophy; it portrays Judaism as the true philosophy, and Eleazar upholding the law as a true “philosopher” (4 Macc 7:7, 9).3096 This familiarity with Greek thought reflects centuries of enculturation expressed in various other literary genres as well. Pseudo-Phocylides may encourage Diaspora Jews that the best in Hellenistic ethics agrees with the law.3097 More generally, James Charlesworth, a leading scholar of early Judaism and the nt, points out that from fragments of lost Hellenistic Jewish works we learn that Greek epic poetry was written by Jews, who like Philo the Epic Poet mastered the hexameters of the Greek poets and who like Ezekiel the Tragedian demonstrated proficiency in iambic trimeters. In them we are introduced to a Jewish philosopher, Aristobulus, who combined Greek traditions (particularly those of Pythagoras, Plato, and some Stoics) with Jewish traditions (particularly those represented by Proverbs, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides, and 4 Maccabees).3098 3089. Cf. Green, “Pythagoras.” 3090. See the essays in Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, esp. 11–32. 3091. See esp. Sterling, “Recherché”; cf. also others, e.g., Kamsler, “Philo.” 3092. E.g., Dillon, “Reclaiming” (Philo being both an orthodox Jew and a Platonist); idem, Middle Platonists, 182; Früchtel, Vorstellungen; Runia, “Middle Platonist?”; Sterling, “Platonizing Moses.” One cannot attribute this ideology to later influences (given the medieval date of the current corpus), since a third-century codex preserves Philonic samples (Royse, “Papyrus”); later gnostic parallels reflect dependence on a similar source (Wilson, “Philo and Gnosticism”). Alexandria was a center of Middle Platonist development (EngbergPedersen, “Scene,” 3). 3093. Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 65–66; idem, “Background,” 337; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 80–83; Wilson, “Philo and Gospel,” 48. Philo quotes Heraclitus (see Royse, “Heraclitus”), may use both Stoic and Middle Platonic senses of τέλος (Besnier, “Migration et telos”), may use the Stoic notion of pre-emotion (Graver, “Προπάθειαι,” noting Philo QG 1.79), and makes eclectic use of Stoic and other terminology (often in a nonStoic manner, Rist, Terminology). (Long, “Allegory,” argues that Philo’s approach to allegory, however, differs substantially from that of the Stoics.) Philo probably incorporated even Peripatetic (Aristotelian) elements (see Bos, “Philo”). Some suggest that he wished to present Judaism as a universal religion to his Greek intellectual contemporaries (Hadidian, “Philonism,” 214); others, that he simply responds to Alexandrian Platonism, which was already eclectic (Dillon, Middle Platonists, 182). Reydams-Schils, “Stoicized Readings,” argues that pre-Philo Alexandrian Judaism was more Stoic on many points, forcing Philo’s attention to these elements. 3094. Philo Creation 119; Good Person 13 (praising him); Contempl. 57, 59. Cf. also Eternity 13, 14, 16, 27, 38, 52, 141; he disagrees in Creation 133. Perhaps following the more eclectic Platonism of his day, he can value as useful for education verses in Homer (Od. 17.485–86) that Plato himself (Rep. 2.380D–381D) rejects ( Jacobson, “Rejection”). 3095. On Platonic elements, see, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 176–78; idem, John, 560. On its natural theology in light of Greek culture, see, e.g., Collins, “Natural Theology”; Poniży, “Recognition.” 3096. See, e.g., Rost, Judaism, 109–10; Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 21–22. 3097. Van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 565–66. 3098. Charlesworth, “Introduction to Fragments,” 775. Cf. Collins, “Aristobulus,” 831: “The five fragments of Aristobulus’s work seem to be part of an extended attempt to relate Jewish tradition to hellenistic culture.” For Stoic elements in Wisdom of Solomon, see Wright, Paul, 238–43. Some find Greek philosophic influence in Sirach (Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 16–18; Kaiser, “Rezeption”); the claims of Stoicism in Sirach, however, are likely exaggerated (Mattila, “Ben Sira”), as also in most of the lxx (Cook, “Philosophy”). Goff, “Instruction,” finds ideas compatible with Stoicism but not clear evidence for Sirach’s knowledge of Stoic works.

2609

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 313

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The Greek hexameter form followed by the Jewish and later Christian Sibylline Oracles reflects the same thorough interpenetration of cultures. Some works, such as the Orphica3099 and Pseudo-Phocylides, are so hellenized that some scholars debate whether they are in fact Jewish works (especially in the former case). (6) Christianity as a Philosophic School

Influenced by Jewish apologists, Christian apologists gradually learned how to communicate their faith in philosophic terms. Because the early Christian movement emphasized ethics and lacked sacrificial cultus, one category into which Gentile outsiders could place it was that of a philosophic school.3100 (It is not fair to claim that all pre-Christian cultic associations lacked ethical concerns,3101 but this characteristic was not a particularly religious distinctive. Nor did all deities have temples or public cults,3102 but this was the norm.) “Philosophic sect” was far more positive and less threatening a category than some of the other ways the Christian movement was characterized. (This was also the easiest category for dealing with its monotheism,3103 though sometimes identified with “atheism.”) This approach is also consonant with the earliest trajectory of the Jesus movement, which started as a school of disciples following their rabbi and was now spread by new groups gathered around the traveling sage Paul.3104 By the second century, many ancients viewed Christianity as a philosophic school.3105 Justin presented Christianity as a philosophic school,3106 though for him the only truth in pagan philosophy derived from the Logos later incarnated as Christ.3107 Galen was the first pagan writer to treat Christians as a second- or third-rate philosophic school; this was an improvement over their previous situation, because he was the first to use a socially acceptable category to identify Christians.3108 Overlap with philosophy is not completely missing even in Lucian’s ridicule.3109 It appears that Luke’s literary strategy (probably developed from genuine Pauline apologetic and perhaps shared with other Christian contemporaries) eventually achieved its desired effect.3110 (Some scholars have even argued that Luke portrays the Christian movement as a Jewish philosophic sect, in a manner comparable to Josephus’s portrayal of various distinctive Jewish movements.)3111 3099. See Lafargue, “Orphica,” OTP 2:795–97 (introduction); and 799–801 (translation). 3100. Wilken, “Christians,” 107–10 (yet also as a religious association devoted to Christ, 110–18); idem, “Social Interpretation of Apologetics”; Aune, Prophecy, 229. Judge, First Christians, 615, notes that synagogues offered churches a closer model, but outsiders were more apt to confuse them with philosophic schools. Strelan, Strange Acts, 14–26, contends that most outsiders would have viewed Christians as strange, including (14–16) their one God without a major civic cult. By Luke’s day, with no temple in Jerusalem, this might be especially the case. 3101. For a first-century b.c.e. example of a cultic group with ethical requirements, see Seesengood, “Rules.” Associations normally had at least rules governing conduct at banquets. 3102. See Silvanus in Klauck, Context, 29; further rustic examples in Rüpke, “Kult.” 3103. Pelikan, Acts, 190 (following Jaeger, Christianity and Paideia, 29). On ancient “monotheistic” trends in philosophy (perhaps more often monistic), see comment on Acts 8:10. 3104. See Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 137. 3105. See, e.g., Schmeller, “Gegenwelten” (also examining why nineteenth-century scholars failed to recognize the analogy). 3106. Wilken, “Social Interpretation of Apologetics,” 444–48. 3107. Wright, “Justin Martyr’s Testimony,” 86. 3108. Wilken, “Collegia,” 277; see Judge, Athens, 65 (regarding an Arabic fragment). 3109. In Peregr. 11, Lucian calls Christians a θίασος and a συναγωγή, but in Peregr. 13, the governor, fond of philosophy, releases Peregrinus the Christian; in Peregr. 15, Peregrinus appears before his town as a Cynic philosopher, but in Peregr. 16 he is still exploiting Christians. 3110. Christian scholars continue to use the speech today to encourage ministry to intellectuals in various cultures (e.g., Onwu, “Acts 17:16–34 in Africa”). Cf. Irvin and Sunquist, History, 171–72, on Ricci as a sage. 3111. See Talbert, Acts, xvi–xviii. Josephus’s ideal audience, however, is much more Hellenistic elite than Luke’s, which probably mitigates much of the force of this comparison.

2610

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 314

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Early Christians eventually claimed Platonism for their own purposes.3112 (Although Stoicism was more dominant in Paul’s day, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism became dominant in the eras when the church fathers were focusing on them, especially in late antiquity.)3113 Much of first- and second-century Christian literature is elementary in its appropriation of Greek learning, but by the late second century, Clement of Alexandria proved as culturally adept as the best of the pagan writers.3114 (Clement also followed some Jewish apologists’ lead in regarding Moses as the source of Greek wisdom.)3115 That such a philosophic model would have appealed to Luke is likely (see discussion at Acts 19:9). Luke (briefly) portrays Paul as something of a new Socrates, annoying Athenians again with unconventional truth. In the following century, Justin, a Christian philosopher, developed this idea further: the Logos that prevailed through Socrates came as Jesus Christ (1 Apol. 5),3116 and Socrates, who was accused of introducing new deities, was accused on the same charges on which Christians were now accused (2 Apol. 10). Even Col 2:8, which warns against worldly philosophy (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–2:8), appears in a letter full of philosophic language;3117 such language is common in Paul’s letters, although not in a way that suggests advanced studies in any philosophic school (see extended comment on Acts 19:9). The competitive approach, however, did not completely die out.3118 Jerome believed that the Lord’s coming would expose Plato and his movement as fools (Ep. 14.11).3119 He also believed that Paul despised Greek eloquence or else avoided it because of humility (Ruf. 1.17).3120 Luke’s approach may lie between such statements of Justin and Jerome: the advanced philosophy of the schools could prove a distraction (cf. Acts 17:32), but communicating intelligently in an educated Greco-Roman milieu required some language from philosophy. (7) Going Further for Evangelism

Few apologists, even Diaspora Jews with centuries of apologetic tradition, would have ventured into the public square to convince pagans in open debate or to be examined for teaching philosophy in Athens.3121 They remained Jewish apologists, whose appeal to the broader culture therefore remained limited. Would a Jewish teacher such as Paul really have risked taking his message to the broader culture in such a dramatic manner? Other Jewish thinkers more sophisticated than Paul (e.g., Philo) probably did not do so, but Paul was not encumbered by demanding allegiance to Jerusalem’s 3112. Armstrong, “Later Platonism,” 74ff. (noting that they also distinguished their views from Platonism). Although Stoic ethics were useful, later Christians exploited Platonic theology and teaching on immortality (Pelikan, Acts, 192) once Platonism became dominant in the intellectual culture. Plato’s Phaedo influenced Greg. Nyssa On the Soul and the Resurrection (Pelikan, Acts, 192). 3113. Latourette, First Five Centuries, 19. Cf. Gaston, “Influence,” for Neoplatonism’s influence on the Apologists (though overemphasizing influence on trinitarian concepts, which also had other sources). 3114. Trapp, Maximus, p. l (Roman numeral 50), who regards Clement as superior to Maximus of Tyre. 3115. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.23 (cited by Pelikan, Acts, 102). 3116. Cf. Reis, “Areopagus.” Cf. Dafni, “Septuaginta,” for the reception of Plato in Justin. 3117. Cf., e.g., Keener, “Heavenly Mindedness”; further, Philonic and other parallels noted by most commentators on Col 1:15. 3118. Cf. the superiority of unlearned apostles to philosophers in Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 4.6 (Bray, Corinthians, 16, on 1 Cor 1:25); and the inability of many philosophers to apprehend the truth (Aug. Letter to Consentius 120). 3119. Cited in Bray, Corinthians, 180. 3120. Cited in ibid., 292. 3121. Josephus, emphasizing the Jewish priority on Jewish learning, notes the difficulty with which he has made his own presentation (Ant. 20.263–64).

2611

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 315

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

temple or to the practice of circumcision.3122 Nor, unlike Philo, did he have status to lose by public confrontation, at least in cities where he did not intend to stay. Further, Paul had nothing to lose missiologically; he did not risk turning Gentiles away from his message if he failed, since they would not otherwise know his message anyway. Perhaps most important, missions history demonstrates that figures in revival movements or others who believe themselves empowered by the Spirit often prove more daring than those whose experience with the culture is longer and deeper. Sometimes these make a lasting impact by boldly articulating arguments to the larger culture that in-house apologists never thought to propagate; although this outcome is far from always the case, strong ideas, once unleashed in a culture, can persist, be adopted by an increasing number of individuals, or even become mainstream. v. Craving New Ideas (17:21)

Luke’s parenthetical remark in 17:21 is some of the most Attic Greek in the nt3123— Luke produces stylish Attic to criticize Athenian fashions (and perhaps to demonstrate that he is able to reproduce it when necessary). But Luke was hardly the only ancient writer to criticize Athenian misbehavior.3124 The emphasis on Athenians always3125 wishing to hear “some idea newer than what they had already heard” (τι καινότερον,3126 17:21) pervades Luke’s characterization of them in this context.3127 Paul’s philosophic interlocutors identify his “new teaching” (καινὴ . . . διδαχή,3128 which they wish to know [γνῶναι] in 17:19) with Paul’s introducing “strange, or foreign, things” (ξενίζοντα, which they wish to know [γνῶναι] in 17:20). Even “foreigners” (ξένοι) visiting Athens (17:21) might thus wish to hear about Paul’s “foreign” or “strange” (ξένων, Luke’s only other use of the term) divinities (17:18; cf. also ξενίζοντα in 17:20). As noted above (in comment on Acts 17:18), the purpose of their inquiry is not merely idle curiosity. Yet 17:20–21 suggests that intellectual interest, whether for themselves or their citizens, plays a role in the inquiry. It is, however, the sort of intellectual exercise in which judges of a contest, rather than religiously humble seekers, indulge themselves (cf. further 17:32). Intellectuals might find dull any entertainment lacking new elements (Pliny Ep. 9.6.2–3). Athens was, as noted above, a well-known place of learning. Centuries before Paul, one who wished to focus on learning donated his wealth to his country, then passed years in quiet study in Athens (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 4); long after Paul, other cities boasted that they trained their own superior students there (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 426.27–32). Athenians were said to have become φιλόλογοι, lovers of words, superior to other Greeks through their own custom of discipline (Strabo 2.3.7).3129 To some, however, a life spent in the agora was a life of indolence, even though it might be spent gaining a reputation by greeting others and abusing others in lawcourts (Polyb. 31.29.8, 10).3130 3122. Or even (to the extent of typical Jewish apologists) adherence to an ethnic faith (though full Christian conversion would entail embrace of the Jewish Scriptures and heritage). 3123. Bruce, Acts3, 66, following Norden, Agnostos theos, 333. 3124. E.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.21–22; Ep. Apoll. 70. 3125. That all Athenians did nothing else is plainly Lukan hyperbole (with, e.g., Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 181), which we encounter in many other texts (e.g., Acts 11:28; 19:10). 3126. The adjective is comparative in form. Luke’s depiction might apply even to many of us academicians today. 3127. The uses of καινός in Acts 17:19 and 21 are its only two occurrences in Acts (in addition to Luke 5:36, 38; 22:20). 3128. Although Luke omits the parallel in his Gospel, this particular formulation of their interest probably reflects the language of Mark 1:27. 3129. Those at school in Athens often amused themselves with sophistries and enigmas (Aul. Gel. 18.2). 3130. Polybius likewise criticizes those who sat around in Rome merely criticizing the generals without aiding the war effort (Polyb. 29.1.1–3).

2612

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 316

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Athenian captivity to new ideas was a familiar ancient theme, as most commentators acknowledge.3131 One historian presents an unwise speaker as condemning Athenians for pursuing novel ideas (καινότητος), being slaves “of each new paradox and scorners of what is familiar” (Thucyd. 3.38.5 [LCL, 2:63]), like those entertained by sophists’ deliveries (3.38.7).3132 Athenians later mocked an orator who, when given a topic for declamation more than once, repeated the same phrases on subsequent occasions (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.579).3133 A later novel builds on this reputation, allowing a pirate to warn of the Athenians’ “meddlesome curiosity” (πολυπραγμοσύνην), in this case including interest in their identity and how they came by their cargo (Char. Chaer. 1.11.6 [Blake, 13]). Sources from this period often associate curiosity (Acts 17:21) and “superstition” (a probable nuance of “religious” in 17:22).3134 Ironically, it is not Paul, called a σπερμολόγος in 17:18, who is a dilettante but the Athenians.3135 Captivity to the newest fashion is not, of course, a purely Athenian trait, as anyone familiar with modern marketing, the political whims of the electorate, or the history of modern scholarship can attest. Ancient writers, like modern ones, could appeal to current trends in thought as a decisive argument (e.g., Dion. Hal. Anc. Or. 1.2, supporting Atticist rhetoric). One’s gifts might be forgotten if surpassed by others in intervening history (Plut. Cic. 2.4, on καινοντομίας, innovations). Jewish sages, like other academicians, thirsted for new information and ideas.3136 The image is not, however, intended to be flattering.3137 In earlier Athens, Hippias chided Socrates for always saying the same things on the same subjects whereas Hippias himself always endeavored to say something new (καινόν, Xen. Mem. 4.4.6); Socrates replied by questioning whether Hippias always tried to spell “Socrates” differently or arrive at different figures when doing addition (4.4.7). Some ancients complained that Zeno, founder of the Stoics, offered no new ideas but merely new terminology (verborum novorum) for others’ thoughts (Cic. Fin. 3.2.5; 4.8.19; 4.20.56). In fact, Paul had brought to the Athenian philosophers and council some ideas so unfamiliar to them that many were unprepared to understand him (Acts 17:18, 32).3138 3131. E.g., Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 198; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 455; Bruce, Commentary, 352; idem, Documents, 89; Haenchen, Acts, 520; Johnson, Acts, 314; Fitzmyer, Acts, 606; D. Williams, Acts, 304; Pervo, Acts, 429; Talbert, Acts, 153 (citing, from Athenians themselves, Thucyd. 3.38.4; Demosth. Philip. 1.43; Ep. Philip 156–57; Soph. Oed. Col. 260; also, e.g., Aelian Var. hist. 5.17). Conzelmann, Acts, 140, adds Aristoph. Knights 1260–63; one might find also relevant Hermog. Inv. 3.5.146, 149 (though cf. 144). The literary parallels have suggested to some that Luke depended here on tradition about the Athenians rather than on firsthand acquaintance (Barrett, Acts, 833); since the “we” ended in Philippi, this may well be the case here. 3132. Others cite Demosthenes’s challenge that the Athenians went about seeking new information when the time demanded action rather than mere words (Demosth. Philip. 1.10). 3133. Another orator praised novelty (καινοπρεπές) but used invention with a proper “sense of proportion” (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.627 [LCL, 311]). 3134. See Gray, “Athenian Curiosity.” Talbert, Acts, 153, cites Aug. Conf. 10.35, regarding the vanity of mere religious curiosity without desire for God. 3135. Witherington, Acts, 517. In a more positive vein, Areopagites were, apparently, known for not passing on others’ stories or information (Alciph. Fish. 16 [Auchenius to Armenius], 1.13, ¶1, contrasting this with passing on secrets). 3136. Goodman, State, 80 (citing m. Yad. 4:3; t. Soṭah 7:9). 3137. Cf. the negative character of always seeking what is new or novel in Max. Tyre 36.2. Zeus complains about mortals’ addiction to novelty in Lucian Icar. 24; Lucian himself mocks novelty seeking in Posts 26. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.10 points out that Diogenes the Cynic drew a crowd of visitors at the Isthmian Games, but not of Corinthians themselves, who were already accustomed to him (cf. also 9.4). 3138. With Hansen, “Preaching,” 311.

2613

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 317

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

c. Paul’s Philosophic Discourse (17:22–31) Paul preaches in different ways to synagogue audiences (13:16–47), rural pagans (14:15–17), and cultured urban philosophers (17:22–31). Adaptation to local color was an essential feature of rhetorical skill (Quint. Inst. 3.7.24).3139 Origen viewed Paul’s adaptability to a pagan philosophic audience in Acts 17 as an expression of the strategy he articulated in 1 Cor 9:21 (Comm. 1 Cor. 3.43).3140 Paul has already been preaching in Athens (Acts 17:17), but Luke has not provided the content; the Areopagus speech thus offers not only to the Areopagus (in the narrative world) but also to Luke’s own audience a summary of Paul’s message for Athens.3141 i. Introduction

Members of the Areopagus would not all be philosophers (presumably most would not be), though all, as members of the Athenian elite, would be presumed philosophically literate.3142 Yet whoever else may have been included in Paul’s audience, we know that it at least included Stoics and Epicureans (17:18), who brought him there (17:19). With the Epicureans, as noted above (see comment on Acts 17:18), Paul could establish only minimal common ground; Stoicism, however, provided considerable common ground, especially in the area of ethics but also (as emphasized in this speech) in some elements of theology and cosmology. Parallels with Stoic sources have long been noted.3143 (1) Philosophic Elements in the Speech

The speech emphasizes points of common ground between Judaism and Greek, particularly Stoic, philosophy.3144 Biblical allusions (see, e.g., comment on Acts 17:24, 26) reveal that Paul has simply contextualized a biblical message in Greek language, often even retaining biblical language intelligible to Luke’s biblically informed ideal audience. Such echoes emphasize Paul’s fidelity to earlier biblical revelation while relating it to philosophers. 3145 Using Stoic language establishes common ground for dialogue, but in light of its broader context in Luke-Acts (or even in Paul’s letters, which include more philosophic language than do most of Luke’s narratives), the language communicates a somewhat different content than in Stoicism.3146 Though most of the motifs appear together in Stoicism, they were topics of widespread discussion that would also interest other literate hearers. (Stoicism’s most representative arguments had become relatively familiar in popular culture. Attempts 3139. See, e.g., Eunapius Lives 495–96; Litfin, Theology, 65, 104–6; Glad, “Adaptability,” 19; for philosophers, Max. Tyre 1.2; Diog. Laert. 2.66; Martin, Slavery, 94–95; for others, 1 Cor 9:19–23; Thebaid frg. 8; Marshall, Enmity, 71–73. For cultural adaptability, see, e.g., Ap. Rhod. 2.1017; Hdn. 4.7.3–4; 4.8.1–3; 5.5.5. One prominent example was Alcibiades, in Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.2–6; Plut. Alc. 23.4–6. Various writers did condemn excessive adaptation that diluted convictions (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.123–24; Ps.-Phoc. 49; Litfin, Theology, 115–17). 3140. Mitchell, “Accommodation,” 208. 3141. See Kilgallen, “Acts 17,22b–31.” 3142. Certainly, many philosophers were found at the Areopagus in Lucian Fisherman 42 (even if he means the literal site rather than the council, he emphasizes that philosophers appeared throughout Athens). This may be an external stereotype, but it is clear enough that Athenians valued their heritage and reputation for philosophic learning. 3143. E.g., Nock, Christianity, 96. 3144. With, e.g., Klauck, Magic, 83. Some points could connect with other cultures as well (see, e.g., Isizoh, “Areopagus Speech”), but the speech focuses on acceptable biblical concepts that overlap with Stoic thought. 3145. See Litwak, “Prophets.” For ot texts supporting the claims in the speech, see Arnold, “Acts,” 391. 3146. See, e.g., Gourgues, “Dossier fermé?” (also idem, “¿Expediente cerrado?”).

2614

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 318

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to limit the primary background of the passage to any one thinker are too narrow.)3147 Luke eagerly portrays Paul as articulating the sort of providentialist ethical monotheism respected by many Greek and Roman intellectuals in this era,3148 though of course he goes beyond this perspective. (The pagan forms were not pure monotheism; they focused on a supreme deity without ruling out subordinate deities.)3149 (2) Paul’s Exposure to Philosophy

How many of these elements of contact could Paul have known from his Jewish background? His birth and travels exposed him, like other Diaspora Jews, to Gentiles, and all these elements would have also been available to other Diaspora Jews,3150 some of whom had long been developing traditional Hellenistic Jewish apologetics. As noted above, many Diaspora Jewish writers made use of Greek philosophy.3151 It is unlikely that Paul or Luke would have sought to create an entirely new apologetic when centuries of ground had already been broken for them. Stoic motifs pervade 4 Maccabees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; mixed with clearer elements of Middle Platonism, they also pervade Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. Some preserved Diaspora synagogue homilies from this period also betray a Stoic “conceptual framework” emphasizing “God’s providence and philanthropy.”3152 Such motifs would not have been hard to come by for any Jews who had spent years in Hellenistic environments (cf. Paul in 9:30), even if raised especially in Jerusalem (see comment on Acts 22:3).3153 Hellenistic Jewish works also display knowledge of Greek mythology,3154 allusions to which demonstrated cultural literacy in works from the larger culture.3155 Hellenistic elements pervade even Judean works,3156 though Hellenism’s effects 3147. See, e.g., Torrey’s early critique (Composition, 49–50) of Norden’s Agnostos theos for emphasizing dependence on a work of Apollonius of Tyana that is not even extant. Norden’s belief that the second-century speech was interpolated here into Acts further evades the text’s obvious Lukan characteristics (Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 225–26). Norden’s view that the unknown god reflects the unknown deity of Gnosticism (cf., e.g., in the 1923 edition, Agnostos Theos, 65–67, 102–3, 115–16, 312ff.) has been largely abandoned; see Haenchen, Acts, 521n1. 3148. Downing, “Pagan Theism and Speeches,” citing here esp. Dionysius of Halicarnassus; cf. also idem, Cynics, 212. 3149. Rose, Parke, and DeLaine, “Monotheism”; Kahn, “Xenophanes”; Bloch, “Monotheism,” 172. 3150. Cf., e.g., Nock, Christianity, 96. 3151. See, e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 11–32. 3152. Siegert, “Homily,” 435–37. 3153. See also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 209; Haenchen, Acts, 530. Kaiser, “Rezeption,” suggests the Stoic idea of providence in Sir 39:12–35 and 42:15–43:33 (but cf. Mattila, “Ben Sira”). For early Christian use of Hellenistic Jewish apologetic, see esp. Gager, Kingdom, 126–29. 3154. E.g., Philo Plant. 129; Tartarus in Sib. Or. 1.10, 101–3; Nereus in 1.232 (and perhaps in Test. Job 51:2/1); Hephaistos in Sib. Or. 2.19; demythologized Titans in 1.307–23; 2.231; 3.110–13; Amaltheia’s horn in Test. Job 1:3; the Elysian plain in Sib. Or. 2.337–38 (though this is probably later Christian redaction); an epithet of Poseidon applied to God in 2.15; see esp. the synthesis of Greek and Jewish figures in Cleodemus in Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. P.E. 9.20.2–4; Jos. Ant. 1.239–41, in Doran, “Malchus,” 887). Jewish art substituted symbols similar to pagan analogues (Goodenough, Symbols, 4:209) and sometimes simply took over pagan symbols (Symbols, vols. 7–8). Even rabbis knew the river of fire (Pesiq. Rab. 20:4). 3155. Those comfortable with both worlds valued cultural competence in both cultures (e.g., Let. Aris. 121–22); see fuller comment at Acts 22:3. 3156. On the hellenization of early Judaism in general, see, e.g., Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; Tarn, Civilisation, 233–34; Tcherikover, Civilization; Lieberman, Hellenism; Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction”; Albright, Stone Age, 256–75; Bright, History, 417; Boer, Morality, 88; Sampley, “Introduction,” 4–5; Rajak, “Location”; esp. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, esp. 1:103ff., 252. It grew significantly under Herod ( Jacobson, “Kings”), though Palestine achieved its fullest hellenization only in the third century c.e. (Meyers, “Challenge”). This reflects the broader hellenization of the entire eastern Mediterranean region (cf. Simon, “Identität”; Goodman, State, 175), and it succeeded best where it challenged traditions least (Goodman, State, 88). Earlier Romans had also resisted hellenization (Goldstein, “Acceptance,” esp. 69–70).

2615

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 319

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

were felt less in rural Galilee than in urban Jerusalem.3157 Even the phrase “by Zeus”3158 or Homeric phrases3159 can slip into Josephus’s work, but more telling is evidence for Greek learning even in rabbinic works.3160 The rabbinic tradition prohibited Greek learning primarily in times of Gentile oppression, such as the Roman invasion of 66–73 c.e. (e.g., m. Soṭ ah 9:14).3161 Even then, however, elite households continued to teach Greek as well as Jewish learning, an exception specifically applied to the house of Gamaliel (t. Soṭ ah 15:8).3162 Liebermann even argues that some rabbis demonstrate familiarity with Homer, or at least traditions based on Homer.3163 Nevertheless, rabbinic literature, in contrast to Alexandrian Jewish sources, betrays little interest in Greek philosophy per se. One knowledgeable writer even denies the occurrence of any Greek philosophic terms or philosophers’ names (except Epicurus, used for heresy) in rabbinic literature.3164 Paul’s knowledge of philosophy was probably limited indeed if learned only in Jerusalem, though he may have studied with some scholars more open to this than in what became the mainstream rabbinic opinion (see comment on Acts 22:3). Still, his letters include no fewer philosophic (especially Stoic) elements than does this speech. The question of whether Paul’s knowledge of philosophy was mediated through Hellenistic Judaism in a sense takes the sample Luke provides more seriously than the space devoted to it warrants. Luke’s report of the speech covers all of ten verses, a quantity of apologetic Paul might have learned in a few hours from any other philosophically knowledgeable Hellenistic Jew, even if he had not thought through the issues on his own. That Paul should succeed as a Christian philosopher in Ephesus (on my reading of Acts 19:9) does suggest that Paul did have more philosophic knowledge than this, but such knowledge was not difficult to come by unless Paul needed to be familiar with every matter of logic, ethical criteria, and cosmology often debated in the schools. Nor would anyone expect a sage of one school (in this case, Paul’s) to be conversant in the ideas of other schools. (Many philosophers were reportedly not familiar with 3157. See, e.g., Chancey and Meyers, “Jewish”; Chancey, “Milieu”; cf. Meyers and Meyers, “Sepphoris” (noting some). Some scholars rightly warn that Hengel and some others have overstated the evidence (Feldman, “Hellenism”); differences between rural Palestinian and Greek Diaspora Judaism remain, the former retaining connections with the Aramaic cultures of the East (see Wasserstein, “Non-hellenized Jews”). Yet even places such as Beth She‘arim reveal Hellenistic influences (Levine, “Beth-She‘arim,” 311). 3158. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.255. 3159. E.g., Jos. Ant. 1.222. Kamesar, “Endiathetos,” compares Philo with D-scholium on Hom. Il. 5.385. 3160. Jewish law reveals close correspondences to the larger Roman legal context (Cohen, Law, esp. 15–30; Jackson, “Roman Influence”; cf. idem, “Family Law”), though both may reflect many earlier Near Eastern antecedents. 3161. For an allegedly Hasmonean example, see b. Menaḥ. 64b, bar; Soṭah 49b; note also the warning that learning Torah full-time allows no time to study Greek wisdom (b. Menaḥ. 99b). The ban against Greek ways (Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 284–85) did not ultimately prevent much enculturation (284–87). 3162. More complete in b. Soṭah 49b; Giṭ. 58a; B. Qam. 83a; many cite this tradition (e.g., Davies, Paul, 6; Longenecker, Paul, 58n198). Whether this applies to Gamaliel I or II, it suggests a continuity of tradition in that household (relevant for Acts 22:3); the rabbis otherwise viewed Greek language as safer than Greek wisdom. The prohibition of teaching it may have applied mainly to children rather than to adult study (Lieberman, Hellenism, 100–102). 3163. Lieberman, Hellenism, 112–14. 3164. Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 219 (conceding Stoic ethics but noting that rabbis, unlike Philo, cared only for the praxis, not the theory); Cook, “Philosophy,” finds little technical philosophy even in the lxx. Contrast Gordon, Near East, 290n19, who contends that the form of rabbinic literature more closely resembles Epictetus than it does ot Wisdom literature. Roshwald, “Ben Zoma,” even finds similarities to Plato and Aristotle in m. ʾAb. 4:1; Hallevy, “Mhsbt,” postulates the dependence of rabbinic approaches to reproof on Hellenistic ethics.

2616

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 320

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

all the teachings of their own schools, much less those of others.)3165 Paul would need significant philosophic knowledge to engage other philosophers on their own grounds; his need of such knowledge would be far more limited if he simply articulated a rival Christian philosophy, with its own epistemology, among students who could more fully articulate his case in their own circles. Paul probably did have a somewhat advanced Hellenistic education, even if he acquired it in Jerusalem, though it was probably not in philosophy (see full comment on Acts 22:3). (His quotations suggest that he surely had primary and secondary training.)3166 Granted, his letters suggest that his main training was in Scripture, so the measure of his tertiary rhetorical training (if any) might be simply equivalent, in today’s terms, to a seminary homiletics course or two. Nevertheless, fundamental training gave him more to build on as he observed others’ rhetoric than lower levels of such training would. Further, beyond his advanced training in Jerusalem (see comment on Acts 22:3), by the time Paul began writing most of his extant letters, he had spent many years in dialogue with others in the Hellenistic world.3167 (3) Rhetoric of the Speech

Most of the Areopagus consisted of prominent persons in Athens, most of whom would be schooled to greater or lesser degrees in rhetoric. Even the few full-fledged professors of philosophy presumably among them would not eschew rhetoric. Although philosophers would concern themselves more with content than with form, by this period even the philosophers hearing Paul would expect a public speech to reflect appropriate rhetorical characteristics. Plato critiqued rhetoric (Gorg. 465C) but neither ruled it out entirely nor neglected it himself, even in writing the Gorgias.3168 His later work is more positive toward the value of rhetoric (Phaedr. 260D).3169 Because rhetoric was now pervasive in Greek culture, even Stoics taught it, though as a tool for propagating their views.3170 For more discussion of philosophers’ use of rhetoric, see comment on Acts 17:18. Athenian style set the standard by which Athenians evaluated rhetorical skills, and one might expect an emphasis on proper Attic rhetoric particularly in speeches about divine matters, the topic of Paul’s speech here. The mid-second-century rhetorician Cornelius Fronto, most of whose oratory was in Latin, apologizes if his Greek includes anything less than fully Attic quality (Ep. graec. 1.5).3171 Even after the rise of the Second Sophistic, the mid- to late second-century c.e. orator Maximus of Tyre remained moderate in his atticizing (classical) usage, except when writing about the divine.3172 Such passages, however, called for special, elevated style.3173 The demands on Paul’s skills would thus be significant. 3165. Lucian Hermot. 48. Although those with elite training, such as Seneca, knew the tenets of rival schools (such as Epicureanism), ordinary teachers of philosophy might have had only secondhand knowledge of schools other than the tradition in which they were taught. 3166. See Hock, “Paul and Education,” 208–9, on his citation in 1 Cor 15:33 and his abundant lxx quotations; Forbes, “Paul,” 132–35. 3167. Litfin, Theology, 139. 3168. As noted already by Cic. De or. 1.47; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 342–43, §114D. 3169. Pogoloff, Logos, 37–39. For Plato and rhetoric, see also Cic. Or. Brut. 3.12; Philost. Letters 73 (13); Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 42. 3170. Pogoloff, Logos, 57. 3171. This may be rhetorical humility (as in, e.g., 1 Cor 2:1–3; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Sp. G. Cotta 4; Cic. Quinct. 1.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 32.39; 47.1); Marcus Aurelius likewise claims his own ignorance in Greek (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.6.2), utterly unconvincingly. 3172. Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv. 3173. The “grand” style was used for great subjects (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 368.9; cf. Thielman, “Style of Fourth Gospel,” 173–75, citing Philo Worse 79; Heir 4; Longin. Subl. 9.3), such as hymns to deities (Max. Tyre 11.1; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 335.21–22); this approach was supposed to follow Homer (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 369.8–9).

2617

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 321

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

In his extant work, Luke does not focus on Atticist rhetoric, which he may have considered inappropriate to “scientific” history in the late first century,3174 but he probably does steer closer to Atticist rhetoric in Paul’s one speech to the Athenians, especially in his use of optatives.3175 Luke may not present Paul as a pure orator, but he is at least a “competent amateur.”3176 Paul’s description of God in Acts 17:24–28 includes many balanced clauses, syntaxis, and so forth; if not a period in the purest sense, it nevertheless points to an author capable of constructing one (as in 15:24–26).3177 Rhetorical devices here technically could include antonomasia or epitheton in 17:24, 3178 although the phrase there is common enough lxx language.The hard sounds k, p, and t are frequent in the speech (e.g., 17:26), also suggesting oral delivery “with ‘explosive’ force.”3179 Rhetorical critics have further identified the following rhetorically aimed elements in the speech:3180 1. Words grouped in pairs or by threes 2. Unifying key terms (especially πᾶς, in 17:22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31) 3. Alliteration 4. Hyperbaton (word interference) 5. Litotes 6. Several “sentences ending with recognized clausulae” 7. “A carefully-ordered periodic structure” Some scholars argue that the speech is forensic, since Paul must defend his teachings at a hearing (though it is not a formal trial).3181 On formal grounds, some find it closer to Paul’s “apologetic” than to his “missionary” speeches in Acts, perhaps reinforcing the setting of a hearing rather than a mere discussion.3182 One could even argue that much of the speech is epideictic; showpiece speeches for public evaluation were often epideictic (or at least commenced by praising the city; cf. 17:22). After the expected complimentary exordium (17:22) and propositio (17:23), most of the speech praises the Creator and Sustainer (in ways some Greeks applied to Zeus, 17:24–29).3183 Yet few assign the Areopagus speech as a whole to the epideictic category. Ultimately, the speech’s closing peroratio points in a different direction. Since Paul’s objectives are deliberative (17:30–31, 34), the speech might be better classified in this 3174. Neither does he display the bombast, wordplay, and rhythm associated with Hellenistic Asianism (for discussion, see Winterbottom, “Asianism”). On the various styles, see, e.g., Shiell, Reading Acts, 45–49 (suggesting that Luke normally uses the mediating “sophistic” style, 169–70). 3175. Witherington, Acts, 43, esp. n. 155; cf. Bruce, Acts3, 66. By the most optimistic count of optatives, more than 40 percent of nt occurrences are in Luke-Acts. 3176. Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 132. (He suggests [n. 20] that Paul “standing” [Acts 17:22] violates “the convention of the seated preliminary.” Still, given the situation, one wonders whether the Areopagus would have offered him a seat; he was not a renowned orator, and they may have lacked significant interest beyond his novelty.) 3177. On periodic style, see Rowe, “Style,” 151–52; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 347; comment on Acts 15:24–26. 3178. On these figures, see Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579–80; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53. 3179. C. Williams, Acts, 204. 3180. I derive this list from Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 369, who summarizes these points from Morgenthaler, Lukas und Quintilian, 331–34. Pervo, Acts, 432, also notes the end rhyme in Acts 17:25 (ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν) and other features. 3181. Witherington, Acts, 517–18. 3182. Porter, Paul in Acts, 165. 3183. See the correct emphasis on divine praise in Lestang, “Louange”; but the peroratio of Acts 17:30–31 (which Lestang treats instead as praising God’s present activity), unlike most of the rest of the speech, does not readily fit this category.

2618

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 322

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

manner.3184 (The possible lack of narratio could also allow for a deliberative speech,3185 but a narratio may appear in 17:23a, as suggested by some scholars noted below.) Yet in the final analysis, speeches often mixed elements from various genres, and so classification is less significant than analysis of the elements. Thus, for example, Paul’s speech in 26:2–23 (in contrast to 24:10–21) has a deliberative objective (26:28–29) despite its forensic setting (25:23–26:1). Witherington, who emphasizes forensic elements, suggests the following outline:3186 1. Exordium with captatio benevolentiae (17:22–23) 2. Propositio (17:23b) 3. Probatio (17:24–29) 4. Peroratio (17:30–31) Philip Satterthwaite proposes a nearly identical outline (but as “a textbook example of a deliberative speech”) yet finds in 17:23a the brief narratio, summarizing how the present case has arisen.3187 Luke merely summarizes the motifs Paul employed, but the philosophically literate would know how a philosophically literate speaker would have expanded each of these topics.3188 The discussion below will expand on the ancient discussions that surrounded some of these topics to better reconstruct some elements that were available to Luke’s ideally informed audience but that might otherwise elude us. Whereas judicial rhetoric advised turning the tables on one’s accusers (but not one’s hearers; see comment on Acts 7:51–53), this speech can be construed as convicting Athenian Gentiles as a whole.3189 Accused of preaching strange deities, Paul follows Hellenistic Jewish apologetic in critiquing pagan temples (17:24), cults (17:25), and idols (17:29).3190 Luke’s portrayal of Paul as maintaining his Judaism (18:18; 21:26) includes Paul’s preaching of monotheism even in uncomfortable situations (14:15; 17:24–25, 29–30; 19:26) and even without the support of his fellow Jews, who (as long-term residents rather than itinerant evangelists) had usually made peace with surrounding Gentiles who followed their own cultures (14:2, 19; 19:33–34). That Paul historically preached monotheism to Gentiles is unquestionable (1 Thess 1:9; Rom 1:19–23; 1 Cor 8:5–6; Gal 4:8; cf. 1 Thess 4:5), but Luke’s emphasis on it also undercuts the accusations of opponents in the story world that Paul undermines historic Jewish faith (Acts 24:14–15). (4) Authenticity

Certainly, Paul did minister in Athens (1 Thess 3:1–2), and Luke’s local color is excellent.3191 Given the proximity of Athens to Corinth, a center of Pauline mission, 3184. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57; Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 360. The exordium fits deliberative speeches (Zweck, “Exordium”). 3185. Witherington counters (Acts, 518) that Luke may simply omit the speech’s original narratio because it would reiterate Acts 17:18–19; but our question is the final form of Luke’s speech, not any reconstructed tradition behind it. 3186. Witherington, Acts, 518. 3187. Satterthwaite, “Acts,” 360. Martin, “Approaches,” 247, identifies the components similarly, except assigning Acts 17:23 entirely to the narratio without mention of a propositio. So also Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 265, with an exordium (Acts 17:22), narratio (17:23), argumentatio (17:24–28), and exhortatio (17:29–31). 3188. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57. 3189. For the more prosecutorial character of Acts 17:29–31, see Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 130. 3190. Dupont, Salvation, 31. 3191. See Johnson, Acts, 318–19, who attributes the accuracy in this picture to Luke’s literary skill, developing a contact into a complete scene. In 1 Thess 3:1–2 Paul is explicit about his location rather than his ministry; but from what Paul’s letters reveal of him we may be confident that his sojourn in Athens (he

2619

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 323

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

the extension of that mission to the region surrounding Corinth (2 Cor 1:1), and the strategic character of Athens, we should not underestimate the interest Paul may have had in Athens historically. But did Luke develop simply a slight nugget of tradition (i.e., the one part that we happen to be able to attest from a Pauline letter), or might he have had more information available? Since letters were delivered by messengers and messengers apparently did travel between Paul and Macedonia at times (e.g., Phil 4:15–16; 1 Thess 3:6) and since any other Christian travelers would carry news (e.g., 1 Cor 1:11), Luke could have received summary reports of significant events, including at least a summary account of the occurrence of any speech before a prominent court (though such news is not characteristic of Paul’s letters and would be more likely to be brought by word of mouth; cf. Col 4:7–9). Whether Luke was planning to write or even recount stories about Paul when he later traveled with him, it is likely that he would have heard at least abbreviated accounts of Paul’s adventures during their long travels.3192 That Luke had more information, then, is not proven but is also not implausible. But one question of consistency with extant sources does arise: Is the speech compatible with what we know of Pauline theology? I survey below both arguments that scholars cite in support of Pauline tradition and observations they offer concerning contrasts with Paul’s letters. Whichever observations scholars weigh more heavily, we must remember that this is Luke’s report of a Pauline speech, not a letter dictated by Paul.3193 A rgu m e n t s Favor ing Pauline Tr a dit ion

Many scholars argue for the substantial Pauline character of the speech. Arguments offered in favor of its Pauline character cite local Athenian elements such as Luke’s topographic accuracy,3194 though a frequent visitor to Athens could have achieved this familiarity without knowing Paul. Second, Paul may quote Epimenides, the Cretan who traditionally counseled the Athenians during the plague to establish altars to the appropriate deity (Diog. Laert. 1.110); since Luke draws no capital from this connection and most of his audience could not be expected to catch the allusion, it may well stem from a more complete source.3195 Further, the quotes usually assigned to Epimenides and Aratus are appropriate; Paul would likely have known lines from a famous fellow Cilician (Aratus), and another portion of the Epimenides quote appears elsewhere in Pauline literature (Titus 1:12).3196 Also, despite arguments to the contrary (see comment below), many scholars contend that Paul’s natural theology in Rom 1:18–32 is compatible with that in Acts 14:15–17 and here.3197 When the discussion of natural theology in each passage amounts to less than a paragraph, the fact that both the Lukan Paul and the epistolary Paul employ natural theology is far more striking than arguments from silence about which motifs present in one are absent in the other. These different motifs are no more contradictory in material attributed to Paul than they are when they occur in any other ancient author, especially one whose interest rested with Hellenistic Jewish remained there when he sent Timothy, so it was not simply an overnight stop en route to Corinth) involved ministry, not simply sightseeing. 3192. See Keener, Acts, 1:406–14; also the excursus at Acts 16:10 on the “we” material. 3193. On debates concerning the authenticity of speeches in Acts, see Keener, Acts, 1:271–319 and sources cited there; also (published too recently for me to cite in vol. 1) Adams, “Sources.” 3194. Hemer, “Paul at Athens.” 3195. Witherington, Acts, 519n205. Numerous other local “Athenian” connections are possible, but many could reflect a tourist’s acquaintance with Athens in Luke’s case as easily as Paul’s. 3196. Ibid. Some scholars argue that Luke had a hand also in the Pastorals. Whether the quotation stems from tradition about Epimenides is debated (see discussion on Acts 17:28). 3197. Klauck, Magic, 94; Porter, Paul in Acts, 150, 167–70; Dunn, Acts, 231–32; Bruce, Apostle, 244; Gärtner, Areopagus, passim; Shields, “Areopagus Sermon and Romans”; Hemer, “Areopagus Address”; Gempf, “Athens,” 52–54; R. Williams, Acts, 127–28; Polhill, Acts, 377.

2620

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 324

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

apologetic rather than a particular Greek philosophic school’s cosmology.3198 Indeed, given the range of diverse arguments concerning natural theology in antiquity, it is the parallels that appear most significant (though these may simply represent the basic structure of Diaspora Christian natural apologetic). At the very least, it should be recognized that we encounter a common strain of argument (present in diverse forms) in early Pauline Christianity, one that it is at least plausible to trace to Paul, given his intellectual stature and his role in the movement. Other early Christians could have generated the same interests independently, but Paul is the source that we know had this interest, and it is therefore probably more than coincidental that it is to Paul that Luke also attributes this argument. Apart from the Epicureans, few ancient thinkers rejected the argument for deity from design in nature.3199 (Those who suppose that these arguments today are new or that they began with early modern scientists such as Isaac Newton or theologians such as William Paley should rehearse the history of ideas.) Stoics pointed out that one did not need statues to learn of Zeus; his works in creation revealed his character3200 and, still more, his work in humanity.3201 A student of Pythagoras suggested that the most foundational law should be a consensus, based on nature, that the gods exist.3202 The Stoic Epictetus argues for the necessity of a cause,3203 then points out that we regularly prove from an object’s structure that it was humanly designed rather than random;3204 human intellect reveals a superhuman designer.3205 Anyone who sees the facts of nature, such as production of wool or milk, yet denies a creator, he insists, is stupid.3206 Many argued for or assumed a universal, rational natural law.3207 For example, the Stoic founder Zeno reportedly urged people to live according to nature, following “the common law”—that is, the law common to all—which he identified as the pervasive Logos and Zeus.3208 (Arguments based on “nature” were common in ancient philosophy, among Stoics3209 and others.)3210 3198. Paul in both cases is presenting a case, not offering to change his position in dialogue with others (cf. on this point Van Til, “Credo,” 7). Views of cosmology varied widely in antiquity (see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 30). 3199. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28–29, 34, 36–37. The design argument could also be deployed against suicide (Cic. Fin. 5.12.35–36); for design in nature, cf. also Plut. Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Max. Tyre 27.8. 3200. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24. See also Heraclitus Ep. 4 (cf. 9). First-century b.c.e. Stoics, however, identified the divine nature with the world (Gelinas, “Ex gradibus entium,” esp. on Cic. Nat. d. 2). 3201. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.25. 3202. Diod. Sic. 12.20.2. 3203. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.3–6. Later rabbis contended that Abraham reasoned back to a first cause and hence discovered the true God (Gen. Rab. 38:13; also noted by Davies, Paul, 29); the rabbis accepted both first-cause and design arguments (Pearl, Theology, 8–9). 3204. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.7. 3205. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.10. For the intellect as the gift of God or Nature, see, e.g., Cic. Parad. 14; Leg. 1.5.16; 1.8.25. For Stoics, “Nature” could be God; see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 4.7.1; 4.8.1–3. 3206. Epict. Diatr. 1.16.8. 3207. E.g., Plato, in Diog. Laert. 3.8; cf. Lucan C.W. 7.1; Max. Tyre 6.5; 11.12 (comparing mind and law; he regards God as pure Mind, 27.8); Frank, Aspects, 109. In Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 1:332–47 (though Philo criticizes the Stoic affirmation of natural law, 345); elsewhere in Jewish sources, Sib. Or. 3.757; for God’s “laws” in nature, see, e.g., 1 En. 72:2; 73:1; 74:1; 76:14; 78:10; 79:1–2; 1QM X, 12–13. See the discussion on universal law at Acts 15:20. 3208. Diog. Laert. 7.1.88. On divine law meaning living according to nature, see also Epict. Diatr. 2.16.28; on one law and Logos in the universe, see Marc. Aur. 7.9. For a full discussion of natural law in Stoicism, see Watson, “Natural Law.” Zeno himself reportedly lived consistently, not lamenting the loss of his possessions (Galen Grief 48). 3209. E.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.89; Cic. Fin. 2.11.33–34; Tusc. 5.28.82; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 30.11; 66.37–39; 90.4; 110.10; 118.12; Dial. 1.4.15; 6.7.1, 3; 7.13.1; 8.5.1–2, 8; Ben. 5.8.2, 5; 7.19.5; Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.6–8; 17, p. 106.21–22; p. 108.1–4, 7, 16, 26; p. 110.12–13; frg. 40.18–19; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.6; 1.4.14, 29; 1.6.15, 20; 1.11.17; 1.12.17, 19; 1.26.2; 4.11.9–18; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b3, pp. 16–17.18–19, 26–28; 2.7.5b5, pp. 20–21.16–17; Marc. Aur. 1.9.1; 1.17.5; 2.9, 11–12, 16–17; 3.1; 3.2.2; 3.9, 12; 4.1, 5, 9; for further discussion or documentation, see Brisson, “Nature”; Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49, 188; Keener, Paul, 42–43, 66. Stoics reasoned ethics both from nature and from virtue or happiness (see Annas, “Ethics”). 3210. Among others, e.g., Arist. N.E. 8.12.7, 1162a; Rhet. 1.15.6, 1375ab; Poet. 4.18, 1449a; Pol. 1.1.4, 1252b; 1.1.8–9, 1252b–1253a; Rhet. Her. 3.22.35; Cic. Inv. 2.53.161; Leg. 1.10.28; 1.12.33; 2.4.10; 3.1.3; Off.

2621

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 325

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul’s arguments in Rom 1:18–23 build on the natural theology articulated in the widely read Wisdom of Solomon, as is often noted.3211 Stoics also argued for God’s existence from nature, and Hellenistic Jewish apologetics seems to have borrowed and adapted this argument long before Paul.3212 The Letter of Aristeas contends that God’s power is manifest in everything (Let. Aris. 131–32), especially the human body (Let. Aris. 156–57). Philo likewise offers arguments for God’s existence,3213 many of them drawn from Stoic sources.3214 Gentiles’ perversion of God’s revelation in nature made them morally responsible.3215 By the time Paul wished to adapt natural theology, a variety of early Jewish models, which he could exploit at different times in different ways, had long been available.3216 In Rom 1:19–20, Paul seems to allow that there is enough knowledge about God from nature3217 to make pagans morally responsible for idolatry. Paul’s point in the passage is not to prove God’s existence but to argue that Gentiles do have access to knowledge about God3218 and hence are accountable for their idolatry. Some scholars deny natural theology there;3219 most, however, contend that although God’s revelation is available and natural theology is ethically possible, it is never appropriated or realized because of human depravity.3220 But in both Rom 1 and Acts 17:22–31, the natural theology must be qualified. In Romans, the revelation in nature makes humanity morally responsible for idolatry (Rom 1:18–23), but this natural revelation contrasts with the revelation in the gospel, which provides salvation (1:16–17).3221 As F. F. Bruce, a classicist who became a nt scholar, observed in his presidential address to the Society of New Testament Studies some years ago, the substance of 1.16.50; Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 5; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.63; Plut. Educ. 5, Mor. 3C; Tac. Hist. 4.64; Diogenes Ep. 7, 21; Porph. Marc. 25.387–89; 28.440–43; 31.484; 35.534–35; even Justin. Inst. 1.2.1–2. Contrast Hor. Sat. 1.3.113–17; Sext. Emp. Pyrr. 3.220. 3211. E.g., Klauck, Magic, 120; deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” 1274; Haacker, Theology, 103–4; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 91; Hooker, “Adam,” 299; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 52; Bruce, Books, 169; Bornkamm, Experience, 53. Naturally, I do not agree with the scholars who date Wisdom of Solomon too late for Paul’s use (ca. 50 c.e.; earlier estimates include 50 b.c.e., but the point is simply that it needed to be in wide circulation before Paul wrote). Elsewhere in early Judaism, see, e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 1 En. 2:1. Philo argues from divine order in the world, though balancing this with divine ineffability (Mondin, “Esistenza”; on ineffability in Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38); cf. also Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167. 3212. Kennedy, Epistles, 26; Poniży, “Recognition.” Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie,” recognizes the major emphasis in Stoicism and Wisdom of Solomon and also notes some ot antecedents. 3213. Wolfson, Philo, 2:73–93; for his natural theology, see also Di Mattei, “Physiologia.” 3214. Wolfson, Philo, 2:75–83. For Platonic antecedents, see 2:74. 3215. E.g., Test. Naph. 3:3. 3216. Cf. Longenecker, Paul, 54–58. Other early Christians also argued that God revealed himself in his works (Theoph. 1.5–6). 3217. Cf., e.g., Stuhlmacher, Romans, 44 (citing Jewish thought); Jewett, Romans, 153–54 (less persuasively, contrasting Jewish thought). Grant, Paul, 9, argues that for both Paul and Philo, God’s revelation in nature offered at least some profit to everyone. Owen, “Scope,” 142–43, thinks that Paul would have preferred to idolaters the philosophers reasoning about God from nature. Patristic interpreters typically read this natural revelation as inseparable from the revelation in Jesus Christ (Vandermarck, “Natural Knowledge”). For the (usually limited) patristic perspectives on natural theology, see, e.g., Reasoner, Full Circle, 11–13 (for Aquinas, Calvin, and others, see 14–17); for patristic readings specifically of this speech, see Sánchez Cañizares, “Filosofia.” See also Bray, Romans, 34, 37–38, who cites texts where God’s truth is obvious in creation, such as Origen Comm. Rom. on 1:19 (CER 1:136–42) and on 1:20 (especially regarding philosophers) (CER 1:142); Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 39, 41); Apollinaris of Laodicea in Pauluskommentare 59. 3218. O’Rourke, “Rom 1,20,” 306. 3219. Some of those who deny natural theology in Rom 1:19–25 reflect a Barthian prejudice against natural revelation in general. 3220. Reicke, “Theologie”; Johnson, “Knowledge,” 73; Ott, “Röm. 1, 19ff,” 50; cf. Coffey, “Knowledge,” 676; Hooker, “Adam,” 299; Dennison, “Revelation.” 3221. Cranfield, “Romans 1.18,” connects the two “revelations” by predicating both on the gospel, but this weighs too much on the connective γάρ.

2622

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 326

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul’s Areopagus speech is hardly incredible: if one brought the author of Rom 1–3 to Athens, Paul, recalling his years of success as a missionary to the Gentiles, might well seek common ideological ground (such versatility is also suggested by 1 Cor 9:22). Bruce contended that Paul would likely have said something quite like Acts 17:22–31.3222 Many of the same scholars also appeal to passages where Paul condemns idols in language no less striking than here (esp. 1 Thess 1:9; cf. also Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:5–6).3223 Paul’s preaching of Jesus to Gentile idol worshipers seems to have included the turning from idolatry and Jesus’s return at the time of divine wrath (1 Thess 1:9–10), elements fully compatible with the portrayal in Acts 17:30–31, as is Christ’s role as judge (2 Cor 5:10). Paul himself recalls “the mockery of Greek sophisticates at the gospel,” as well as suggesting a few converts from that circle (1 Cor 1:23, 26).3224 We know that challenging ideologies was central to Paul’s missionary strategy (2 Cor 10:4–5)3225 and that however weak his personal delivery, the content of his thought fared better with many of his hearers (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–4; 2 Cor 10:10). C on tr a st s w i th Paul’s L et t e r s

Other scholars are more skeptical of connections with Pauline thought here, focusing on contrasts rather than common ground between Acts 17:22–31 and arguments in Paul’s letters. Martin Dibelius, for example, doubts that Paul would have ever written a work that capitulated so thoroughly to Hellenism; he regards the speech as a precursor to the later apologists who (in his view) forfeited the biblical worldview to obtain acceptability in Hellenistic culture.3226 Yet if anything, Rom 1:19–20 offers a more explicit argument for God (or, more precisely, humanity’s accountability to recognize God) from nature than does the brief summary here. Which side in the debate about authenticity makes a better case depends on how we frame the argument for the burden of proof; that a work is compatible with Paul denies the impossibility that he authored it, yet by itself cannot prove that he authored it.3227 Although both Acts 17 and Rom 1 use natural theology, some argue that they simply share a common background in early Christian apologetic.3228 Barrett credits Luke with providing Paul the best possible sermon here (following “what had come to be the accepted Christian approach to Gentiles”) but doubts that Paul would have used even this approach. He emphasizes the differences between this sermon (which he considers more lenient) and Rom 1 (which he views as stricter and more christocentric).3229 3222. Bruce, “New Testament and Classical Studies,” 237–38; see also idem, “Paul and Athenians”; idem, Commentary, 354; cf. also others, e.g., Peterson, Acts, 486–87. Another classicist, A. D. Nock, concurred with Dibelius that the speech was not Pauline, but on the basis of 1 Cor 9:22, he warned that contrary to the speech’s most ardent critics, Paul would have “tried to meet” pagans “halfway” (Nock, Essays, 831). 3223. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 519n205; Polhill, Acts, 377. Fitzmyer, Acts, 602, points to echoes even of Paul’s ot phrasing. 3224. See Dunn, Acts, 232. 3225. Paul’s military imagery in the passage probably reflects philosophic language for battling rival ideologies or opinions (Diogenes Ep. 10; Philo Sacr. 130; Conf. 128–33; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 109.8–9; 117.7, 25; Diog. Laert. 6.1.13); see further discussion in Malherbe, “Antisthenes”; idem, Philosophers, 101; Keener, Corinthians, 217. 3226. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 60–63. 3227. Torrey, Composition, 53, conceding that nothing in the speech is impossible to Paul but contending that, as a whole, it does not sound Pauline and, more potent (in his view), ancient historians simply composed their speeches, a practice followed by Luke. The discussion of speeches in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:271–319, allowing for variation in ancient historiographic practice) responds to the second objection. 3228. Conzelmann, Acts, 146–47. Conzelmann regards it as a purely Lukan “literary creation” (“Areopagus,” 218), though it may contain elements from a hellenized Jewish source (Acts, 147–48). 3229. Barrett, Acts, 825. On the differences, see also Vielhauer, “Paulinism,” 37, who doubts that this natural theology can be Pauline.

2623

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 327

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The contrasts are easy to overplay, however, by ignoring the different rhetorical situations. Luke presents Paul as a model philosopher, and no one would expect a report of all that Paul said on that occasion; Paul does adopt this role at times in his writings (see discussion above) but in Rom 1:18–32 sets the tone for his condemnation of Jew as well as Gentile (2:9, 17–29; 3:9–23), so that all are under sin. Some argue that Acts 17 is optimistic about people finding God whereas Rom 1 is pessimistic; this difference, however, hardly demands different authors. First, the point of Acts 17:27 might not be optimistic;3230 God’s immanence may be used to drive home the accountability to God in 17:30–31 (analogously to the argument of Rom 1). Second, even if Rom 1 is less optimistic, this fits the rhetorical situation of that letter, which establishes the alienation of all humanity (both Jew and Gentile) from God so that Paul can argue his primary point, its consequent need for Christ.3231 In the final analysis, much of the debate about Paul’s speech here comes down to whether we weigh the contrasts or the shared elements with the epistolary Paul more heavily. Clearly Luke has written the speech, but in doing so he may have also given us his best possible rendition of Pauline preaching to a philosophically literate setting. Given Luke’s clear activity in shaping all his historical material and the sparse nature of the evidence, it appears to me that the shared elements are far more than we would expect if Luke simply composed Hellenistic apologetic with no awareness of Pauline tradition or theology. Dibelius finds only contrasts with the epistolary Paul yet welcomes parallels between Acts 17, on one hand, and Cicero and Seneca, on the other, though the epistolary Paul is much closer to this speech than those Gentile writers are.3232 (Indeed, I believe it is easier to parallel Cicero and Seneca with Rom 1 than it is to parallel them with Acts 17.)3233 L uk e’s Fr e e d o m a nd Fide lit y

Since Luke was not (by anyone’s reckoning) with Paul in Athens, it is entirely plausible that he would fill in some details, as ancient historians regularly did, on the basis of his knowledge of Pauline preaching. We cannot, then, assume the speech to be anything like a verbatim account, and we should compare themes, rather than phrases, with Paul’s letters. An argument that I believe cannot be soundly admitted against authenticity, however, is skepticism about Paul’s acquaintance with or use of some philosophic language, a skepticism easily refuted by philosophically informed readings of Paul.3234 Paul almost certainly lacked technical expertise in any given philosophic school, but his apologetics had required him to sharpen whatever familiarity he shared with other well-educated persons in the eastern Mediterranean. I believe that it is thus best to recognize the plausibility of both Lukan and genuine Pauline elements in the speech.3235 Paul’s missionary speeches (Acts 13:16–47; 14:15–17; 17:22–31) reveal some features peculiar to them among the speeches in Acts, suggesting either that Luke is 3230. The grammar is heavily conditional (see Porter, Paul in Acts, 147–48). 3231. That Paul himself, according to many scholars, contemplated the solution before the plight helps account for the diversity of soteriological images (forensic, ontological, political, etc.) in his letters. 3232. Cf. similarly Gasque, Criticism, 213. 3233. See, e.g., Cic. Nat. d. 2.16.44; 2.54.133–58.146; Tusc. 1.19.44; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50; 117.6; cf. also Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–29. 3234. For such readings, see, e.g., Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics; Malherbe, Philosophers; idem, Moral Exhortation; I also noted parallels in Keener, Corinthians, passim. Much philosophic language circulated widely among intellectuals; it did not require adherence to or training in a particular school of philosophy. Those who cannot detect any language familiar from popular philosophy in Paul’s letters may fail to do so in many cases because they are not themselves familiar with popular ancient philosophy. 3235. With, e.g., Hemer, “Areopagus Address”; Sabugal, “Areópago”; Dunn, Acts, 231–32; Fitzmyer, Acts, 602.

2624

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 328

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

constructing a Pauline persona or that he has access to information about Paul’s preaching.3236 Since even composing speeches in character depended on what was known of a person’s perspectives and style where possible, and since we have reason to believe that Luke had knowledge of Paul’s preaching on some occasions (see the introduction),3237 it seems likely that he intends what he offers here to be faithful to Pauline apologetic. An ancient historian would have the freedom to “assist” the speaker.3238 Paul’s letters suggest that he needed little assistance at this point, but Luke could have fleshed out what reports he had; Luke would have had some basic knowledge of at least the sort of Hellenistic Jewish apologetic that informed Paul’s own apologetic. Virtually no one argues for a version of “authenticity” that demands a verbatim account of Paul’s speech. That the speech reflects elements of Paul’s theology useful for Luke’s purposes is, however, quite likely; that it accurately reflects some themes offered by Paul on the occasion described is not capable of proof at the remove of two millennia, but it is consistent with the frequent view that Luke was a sometime traveling companion of the apostle who may have had access to such information.3239 (5) Function of the Speech in Acts

Luke often uses speeches to advance his apologetic agenda, whether toward the synagogue (7:2–53; 13:16–47), toward Roman authorities (24:10–21; 25:8–11; 26:2–29), or toward farmers (14:15–17) and philosophers (17:22–31). If Paul is like a new Socrates (see comment on Acts 17:19), then he, rather than the noveltyseeking Athenians (17:21), stands in continuity with the true philosophic tradition.3240 As Socrates reportedly used his trial to instruct Athenians about true religion,3241 so Paul can do here. Luke presents Paul’s teaching in a manner that makes it as similar as possible (probably with cues from genuine Pauline apologetic) to the ethical monotheistic thought often respected by educated pagans.3242 In this he employs the same approach as Josephus, a Jewish intellectual sensitive to concerns relevant for Hellenistic apologetic.3243 This approach could commend the Jewish and the Christian movements to intellectual pagans; Luke, however, presses for repentance, not just toleration (17:30). Given the charge that Paul is a “preacher” (καταγγελεύς) of “foreign” divinities (17:18), Paul must establish that what he preaches (καταγγέλλω) to them (17:23) is nothing other than the true Creator who, far from being “foreign,” is not far from any of them (17:27). God is surely the speech’s primary subject.3244 Yet while Paul builds 3236. See Porter, Paul in Acts, 150. For comparisons of these speeches with Paul’s letters, see, e.g., Baum, “Paulinismen,” on Acts 17, pp. 425–26 (Acts 17:31, comparing Rom 1:4; 2:5, 16), 427 (Acts 17:27 with Rom 1:19; 10:20), 428 (Acts 14:15 and 17:30 with 1 Cor 15:34; Rom 3:25b–26a; four parallels with 1 Thess 1:9), 429–30 (Acts 17:29 with 1 Cor 3:11; 11:7; Rom 1:23), 431 (Acts 17:23 with Gal 4:8; Rom 1:20; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16–17; 1 Tim 6:13). 3237. See Keener, Acts, 1:313–16, esp. 407–9. 3238. If not knowing exactly what Paul said, Luke might have given him “what he should have said” (Grant, Paul, 9). 3239. There is no indication that such information belonged to Luke’s notes, as did his travel material in the “we” narratives, and so whatever information Luke had would likely also be filtered through his memory as well as his literary design. 3240. See esp. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” esp. 79. 3241. In some versions, however, he remained silent (e.g., Max. Tyre 3.7–8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.2). 3242. See esp. Downing, “Pagan Theism and Speeches.” Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” rightly compares Paul’s appeal to common ground with Stoics with his appeal to common ground with Pharisees in Acts 23:6–10. Luke may address several implied audiences (Gray, “Implied Audiences”). 3243. See esp. Downing, “Common Ground” (citing Jos. Ag. Ap. 2; Ant. 8.102–29). 3244. Orators would repeat a term in different inflections to identify the subject of speech; θεός is inflected here “in four cases”: the dative (Acts 17:23), the nominative (17:24, 30), the accusative (17:27), and the genitive

2625

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 329

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“common ground” where it is possible, he also ultimately proclaims his message even where it violates their system. Paul’s speech is intellectually respectable (for what is obviously a précis), but the objective is not mere intellectual sophistry (a description more characteristic of the Athenians in the narrative, 17:21) but moral conversion. The latter was also recognized as a goal of true philosophers (see comment on Acts 17:30). ii. Setting, exordium, and narratio (17:22–23)

Luke’s précis follows good rhetorical form in opening with a complimentary exordium and a narratio surveying events leading up to the speech. As rhetoricians expected for an appropriate speech, both the exordium and the narratio prepare for the dominant theme of the speech: Athenians may be religious, but the “unknown God” is the true God to whom they must look, and he is revealed not in idols but in Christ. (1) Religious Athenians (17:22)

Standing in the “midst” is familiar Lukan idiom (Acts 1:15; 27:21; Luke 2:46; 24:36) but also appropriately depicts the scene of Paul before the court (cf. Acts 4:7); the scene will conclude when Paul departs from their “midst” (17:33). “Men, Athenians,” was the proper rhetorical convention for speeches in Athens;3245 its audience may include hearers observing the court (17:34). Paul appropriately begins his speech with an exordium;3246 an exordium should introduce the main points of a speech and so prepare the hearers.3247 In his complimentary exordium, Paul provides a positive statement about his audience, intended to secure its favor and consequent interest in the rest of the speech.3248 This was the standard function of the prologue or proem in a variety of kinds of speeches.3249 Quintilian emphasizes, “The sole purpose of the exordium is to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest of our speech” (Inst. 4.1.5).3250 Historically, lengthy exordia were “designed to work upon the feelings of the audience,” though by the time of the empire they were sometimes briefer, and some observers believed that they were received more critically.3251 Because the exordium set the tone for the speech’s reception, the orator was expected to give special attention to these opening comments (Cic. Brut. 43.158).3252 (17:29; Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58; idem, Acts, 249). This theme comports well with Gaventa’s reading of Acts as a whole (Acts, passim). For characterization of God in this speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 118–23. 3245. Witherington, Acts, 520, cites, e.g., Demosth. Exord. 54. For further discussion of this form of address in ancient literature generally and in Acts in particular, see the comment on Acts 2:14. 3246. The opening exordium of a speech was so important that one rhetorical collection provides fiftysix selections of it (Demosthenes Exordia [LCL, 7:86–193]), though these prove less complimentary than other sources advise. 3247. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137; esp. Quint. Inst. 4.1.1, 35. It was good for a speech to introduce the main point in its opening words (so Pliny Ep. 2.3.3). For examples of introducing points, in various sorts of works, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1.1–6; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 21; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8; Soranus Gynec. 1.intro. 2; 1.1.3; 2.5.9 (25.78); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.1. The exordium of Apuleius’s Apologia summarizes the work (Asztalos, “Apologia”). 3248. Diaspora Jews were well aware of conventional exordium patterns (see Klauck, “Rhetorik: Exordium,” on 4 Macc 1:1–12). On seeking to make a favorable impression on the judge more generally, see Arist. Rhet. 2, esp. 2.1.1–9, 1377b–1378a. 3249. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; 1436b.17–1438a.2; 36, 1441b.36–1442b.27; Cic. De or. 1.31.143; 2.80; Inv. 1.15.20; Quint. Inst. 3.7.23–24; Decl. 338.2; Hermog. Inv. 1.1.94–95. See further Heath, “Invention,” 103 (citing, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.20–26; Rhet. Her. 1.6–8; Quint. Inst. 4.1; Hermog. Inv. 93.4–108.17); Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 175–76; Calboli Montefusco, “Exordium,” 272. 3250. Butler, LCL, 2:8–9. Heracl. Hom. Prob. 59.6–7 interprets Priam’s opening words to Achilles (Hom. Il. 24.486–87) as a short proem establishing rapport. 3251. Tac. Dial. 19 (LCL, 65). 3252. Dion. Hal. Lysias 17 argues that the most effective part of a speech should come at the beginning, praising the audience when it is relevant. It could also start with self-commendation (also Lysias 17), but as

2626

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 330

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Thus one might open by expressing confidence in one’s hearers’ sense of justice3253 or by warning that the opponents were exploiting the audience, which consisted of “the best men.”3254 Paul might count his hearers’ religious sensitivity in his favor (against, in any case, the prejudice of the Epicureans against most religion—though even they could have appreciated Paul’s emphasis on a transcendent deity not dependent on ritual or temples; see comment on Acts 17:18). Even letters might open by flattering the addressee before seeking a favor (Cic. Fam. 13.66.1; Phlm 4–8) or offering reproof (1 Cor 1:5–7).3255 Great orators could sometimes get away with reproving a city, but even they usually started with praise. Dio could address a city, claiming that it was renowned and inferior to none (Dio Chrys. Or. 39.1); he praises Tarsus as the greatest of Cilicia’s cities before criticizing it (34.7–8).3256 Admittedly, philosophers were less inclined to the use of exordia than were rhetoricians;3257 because Paul’s audience included philosophers (Acts 17:18) as well as judges (17:19), he might not elaborate extensively. Some scholars object that the Areopagus forbade the use of such complimentary exordia to secure its favor.3258 It is, however, highly unlikely that many speakers addressing the Areopagus would have, in fact, refrained from complimentary exordia; it would violate one of the most basic traditions of rhetoric, including in Athens, as already noted. Servile flattery might be repudiated, but Paul’s comment is certainly not that. Indeed, flattering the Athenian court was common and welcome in the classical period so long as it was done discreetly (Lysias Or. 26.17, §177); the council’s susceptibility to flattery is a cause of later moralists’ complaints (Max. Tyre 3.7, denying that Socrates would stoop to this behavior).3259 This practice must have continued to be the case in Roman times; to fail to win an audience’s goodwill in a proem could invite rebuke from an Athenian rhetorician (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.579). When the orator Adrian praised his own wisdom rather than that of the Athenians in his proem, he revealed unusual παρρησία (boldness; 2.9.586). Likewise, Polemo was deemed arrogant for failing to make an encomium about Athens when he arrived; challenging instead Athenian pride, he simply noted the report that they were good judges of oratory and that now he would see if it was true (1.25.535). Some scholars doubt whether Paul’s attribution of the title δεισιδαιμονεστέρους to his audience is, in fact, positive,3260 and their doubt is understandable. The term δεισιδαίμων in other settings could mean “superstitious” (negatively)3261 as easily as Kennedy notes (New Testament Interpretation, 130), Paul lacked credible grounds (on his audience’s presuppositions) to offer this. Failure to even seek favor by oblique self-praise could seem arrogant (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.535), but excess boasting in one’s proem could be ill regarded by the Athenian assembly (Xen. Mem. 4.2.3–5). 3253. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 1. Or confidence that the audience is favorably disposed (Dio Chrys. Or. 41.1). 3254. Cic. Sest. 1.2. Cf. Aeschines Tim. 178 (though not in the opening): You are cleverer than others, hence pass fine laws. 3255. Cf. also Stowers, Letter Writing, 99 (citing P.Oxy. 3069). In a speech, the praise of Dio Chrys. Or. 34.7–8 precedes reproof; in Philod. Crit. tablet 4 I, praise might also need to follow reproof. 3256. Some did criticize Athenians much more harshly than Paul does here. 3257. So Fronto Eloq. 3.4. 3258. Bruce, Acts1, 335; idem, Commentary, 355; Witherington, Acts, 520 (both citing Lucian Anach. 19). Athenians were reportedly less impressed with flattery than Romans were (Eunapius Lives 493). 3259. By contrast, Fronto, a rhetorician, suggests that Socrates regularly dissembled (dissimulatum), pretending ignorance, to entrap his dialogue partners (Ad M. Caes. 3.15.2); but even Fronto admits that philosophy cared much less about exordia than rhetoricians did (Eloq. 3.4). 3260. Witherington, Acts, 520; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 29 (from Witherington); see esp. Villiers and Germiquet, “Superstition”; idem, “Religio.” 3261. Polyb. 9.19.1; Plut. Rom. Q. 61, Mor. 278F; Alex. 75.2; Iambl. V.P. 3.14. For the negative use of the Greek term δεισιδαιμονία and its closest Roman equivalent, superstitio, see, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 134–35.

2627

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 331

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“religious” (positively).3262 Although it does not mean “superstition” as unambiguously as the Latin superstitio,3263 Stoics rejected as hurtful the sort of fear that, for them, the term designated.3264 It may be helpful to survey ancient views that some thinkers considered superstitious. Some had also complained about the Athenians’ negative superstition; they had burned alive a hermaphrodite through ignorance (ἀγνοίᾳ, Diod. Sic. 32.12).3265 Theophrastus mocks the “superstitious” type of person (Char. 16) as refusing to continue on his path if a cat has crossed it, unless he first throws three stones (16.2); if mice chew a hole in his bag, he uses rites to ward off evil instead of patching the bag (16.6). Plutarch regards superstition as worse than atheism.3266 Pliny the Younger means it negatively when he calls Christianity a superstitio (Ep. 10.96.8–9).3267 A less ambiguous term for Greek piety would have been εὐσέβεια, a value that was important in Greek religion3268 and an appropriate term for Diaspora Jews to employ when desiring to honor pagan devotion.3269 Despite its generally negative usage, however, the term employed here (δεισιδαίμων) also could bear a favorable sense, determined by context.3270 Given the usual function of exordia, a positive interpretation would have appeared more likely for hearers within the narrative world.3271 Even if they feel that Paul chose an inapt word, they would assume that he meant it positively, at least initially. Apart from the Epicureans, who might resent his exordium but probably already dislike him anyway (see comment on Acts 17:18), Paul shares with his audience at least a common commitment to honor deity.3272 Athens was known for its diligence in serving the gods.3273 The most praiseworthy aspect of Athenian behavior, claimed one orator, was their unwillingness to act without seeking divine guidance in every situation (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 40). A good orator should praise what was esteemed among a given people, hence Athenian things among Athenians and so forth (Arist. Rhet. 1.9.30, 1367b); Paul certainly observes this principle, selecting the element of Athenian culture most appropriate to his own theme. 3262. That it could be used both ways appears to be clear from sources in BDAG. 3263. Versnel, “Deisidaimonia.” For the Latin use, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48; Pliny E. N.H. 16.95.251 (on a Druid practice); Pliny Ep. 6.2.2 (on appeal to soothsayers). 3264. See Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10b, pp. 60–61.3–5, esp. 4; 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.24–30, esp. 29. Epicureans also sought to banish superstition (Lucret. Nat. 6.1–42; Cic. Fin. 1.18.60; 4.5.11). 3265. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 74. Balch also points out that an earlier Stoic could teach about Moses’s God in a praiseworthy way but hold that Moses’s successors were “superstitious” (Strabo 16.2.37), an approach that would allow Paul, while praising earlier Stoic thought, to critique the current debased Stoicism. 3266. In Plut. Pleas. L. 21, Mor. 1101CD (cited by Johnson, Acts, 314); also in his essay Superstition (Περὶ δεισιδαιμονίας [Moralia, LCL, 2:452–95]); he also includes foreign practices such as Judaism in the category “superstition.” By “superstition,” Plutarch means something like “religion as a compulsive obsession born of fear and as compulsive ritual” (Klauck, Context, 409; see further 407–12). 3267. Judaism was also portrayed as superstitio; e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.7; cf. Pers. Sat. 5.179–84. 3268. See Burkert, Religion, 272–74. 3269. See, e.g., Let. Aris. 42, 255, 261. See comment on Acts 10:2. Jews were more typically viewed as hating pagan religion ( Jos. Ant. 20.77). 3270. Grant, Gods, 19 (citing esp. Koets, Deisidaimonia); Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 326 (citing Polyb. 6.56). 3271. With Chrys. Hom. Acts 38; Conzelmann, Acts, 140 (noting also that ὡς makes the comparative into a superlative); Johnson, Acts, 314; Dunn, Acts, 234; Porter, Paul in Acts, 143–44; Gaventa, Acts, 250; Pervo, Acts, 433. 3272. Cf. also Porter, Paul in Acts, 143–45. Even Epicureans would respect deities’ transcendence, but they would not accept a deity’s immanence. 3273. Most commentators cite Soph. Oed. Col. 260; Paus. 1.17.1; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.130 (Conzelmann, Acts, 140; Johnson, Acts, 314; Witherington, Acts, 520; Fitzmyer, Acts, 606–7; Porter, Paul in Acts, 144). See also Paus. 1.24.2–3 (1.24.2 referring to the Areopagus itself); the gods’ love for Athens in Libanius Encomium 5.2; further comment at Acts 17:16.

2628

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 332

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Yet the term is ambiguous enough3274 to serve negatively for Luke’s audience (especially in light of the preceding scene introduction in Acts 17:16 and Paul’s denunciation of idolatry that follows, 17:25, 29–30) while serving positively for Paul’s audience in the narrative world, like other relevant exordia in Acts (24:2–3, 10; 26:2–3).3275 For Luke’s audience, as opposed to Paul’s, δεισιδαιμονία retains its more negative connotations, including excessive preoccupation with religion3276 (fitting 17:16). Ambiguity was sometimes a deliberate rhetorical strategy.3277 If the Areopagus meets in the Stoa Basileios, signs of Greek religion and mythology surround Paul (just as they would if he stood anywhere else in Athens’s public space). At least by Pausanias’s day, the portico’s tiling portrayed Theseus and Phaëthon (Paus. 1.3.1); a statue of Zeus stood nearby, along with pictures of the twelve Olympian deities and (again) Theseus (1.3.2–3). Not far away stood the temple of the paternal Apollo and the sanctuary of the Mother of gods (1.3.4). Paul could easily have gestured toward any or all of such structures when mentioning Athenians’ (misplaced) piety. But Paul will appeal to a sign of Athens’s religious commitments more relevant for his own message (Acts 17:23). (2) Observations about Athens (17:23)

Not surprisingly in view of his recent arrival in Athens, Paul continues to develop the complimentary approach of his exordium in his narratio (17:23), perhaps in view of anticipated hostility on the part of his audience.3278 It was customary for one coming to a city to express goodwill in an epideictic speech, commenting on the beautiful sites one had seen there, including temples (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 382.15–16).3279 A new orator in a city would typically provide an encomium on the city’s character before subtly commending himself to his audience and inviting its suggestion of topics for declamation.3280 It was said that when Alexander the orator first came to Athens, his brief opening speech was an encomium on Athens and an apology for not having visited previously (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.572). Praising public buildings, including temples, was conventional in urban encomia in general,3281 and praising a city’s zealous piety was an especially valuable compliment (Men. Rhet. 1.3, 362.30–32). Likewise, when Dio Chrysostom offers advice to a city that is not his own, he carefully prepares his audience. I am not a citizen and you did not invite me, he concedes (Or. 31.1); but I think you will agree with what I am going to say, once you hear me out (31.2); you would accept a foreigner’s money, and a foreigner’s useful advice 3274. Thus some scholars can take the cognate negatively also in Acts 25:19 (Witherington, Acts, 520) whereas others take it positively (cf. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 165; BDAG, noting Luke’s positive view of Roman tolerance). We probably should regard σεβάσματα in Acts 17:23 negatively in light of Jewish usage (Wis 14:20; 15:17; Jos. Ant. 18.344; cf. esp. 2 Thess 2:4; so Witherington; Bruce, Acts1, 335), but Luke held no reservations about employing positively the cognate σέβομαι (Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7, 13; idolatrous only in 19:27). Stonehouse, Areopagus, 17, notes its ambiguity here. 3275. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 140 (as part of the captatio benevolentiae, it is meant positively, “though the reader knows what was said in vs. 16”); Klauck, Magic, 81–82; Rowe, “Grammar,” 40. On the meaning of captatio benevolentiae, see briefly, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 89. 3276. The dominant nuance (though the earliest meaning was predominantly positive); see Versnel, “Deisidaimonia.” 3277. See examples in Anderson, Glossary, 81–82 (esp. Demet. Style 291; for producing humor, see Cic. de Or. 2.250–54; Quint. Inst. 6.3.47–51 [though Quintilian does not appear to favor it, cf. also 6.3.62, 87]). 3278. For instructions how to secure or maintain the goodwill of variously disposed audiences in a deliberative speech, see Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–1438a.2, esp. (for hostile audiences) 1436.38–1438a.2; in a forensic speech, 36, 1441b.36–1442b.27, esp. 1442a.22–1442b.27. 3279. The tone had to remain light in such an introductory speech; arrival speeches, in general, emphasized joy (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 385.7–8). 3280. Winter, Left Corinth, 36. 3281. Quint. Inst. 3.7.27; cf. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 352.10–353.3.

2629

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 333

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

may prove even more beneficial (31.3). When Favorinus spoke in Corinth, his three most extensive digressions were all “appeals to local tradition.”3282 By appealing to a local tradition, Paul seeks to overcome prejudice against the intrusiveness of foreign advice givers. As noted earlier, given the charge that Paul is a “preacher” (καταγγελεύς) of foreign divinities (Acts 17:18), Paul must now establish that what he preaches (καταγγέλλω) to them (17:23) is nothing other than the true Creator who, far from being “foreign,” is not far from any of them (17:27). Paul claims to have “examined closely” or “carefully considered” (see ἀναθεωρέω in BDAG) their objects of devotion; the reader knows that this means a considered evaluation of these objects with a negative conclusion (see comment on Acts 17:16).3283 (3) Altars of Unknown Deities (17:23)

A speaker might take as a point of departure an obvious local monument, including an altar inscription.3284 In stable cities, statues and the like typically endured for centuries.3285 Numerous ancient sources refer to altars of unknown gods in Athens, always in the plural.3286 That Paul should adapt the plural language of such inscriptions to tell Athenians about one unknown deity in particular3287 is essential in view of his monotheism and might be appreciated by the philosophically minded, to whom a pure, highest God without need of temples or sacrifices might appeal. Already in antiquity Jerome suggests that Paul adapted the polytheistic title “to unknown gods.”3288 This would fit the tendency of Hellenistic Judaism to substitute “god” for “gods” and “God” for “Zeus” when quoting pagan texts.3289 Paul may have seen the altars on the road from the harbor, Piraeus, into Athens (Paus. 1.1.4). Although literary sources attest such altars particularly in Athens, the idea would be intelligible to other Gentiles. An altar dedicated “to unknown gods” 3282. White, “Oration,” 95 (suggesting that Favorinus probably pointed to the corresponding statues in the forum at these points). 3283. Le Cornu, Acts, 961, points out that Jewish travelers could not help but see objects of pagan devotion along the roads. Halakah prohibited closely examining them (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:4), but Le Cornu notes the rabbinic allowance to accommodate local culture (Der. Er. Rab. 5:5; 7:7) and, far more relevant here, missionary accommodation (t. Ber. 2:24). Paul examined them for reaching the culture (like other Jewish apologists), not out of personal interest (as Luke makes clear in Acts 17:16), and reading inscriptions while passing by did not require detailed meditation. 3284. Talbert, Acts, 153, observes that Heraclitus Ep. 4 so employs an ambiguous altar inscription to begin to explain proper worship; van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 884, cites Heracl. Ep. 4 and Diog. Ep. 36. 3285. An exception was specifically noteworthy (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.35.2). On altars in antiquity, see, e.g., Höcker and Prayon, “Altar”; Athenians devoted these to deified virtues as well (Mercy, in Paus. 1.17.1). 3286. Commentators cite Paus. 1.1.4; Diog. Laert. 1.110; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.3.5; Tert. Nat. 2.9 (Deissmann, Paul, 287–91; Lake, “Unknown God,” 240–41; McDonald, “Athens,” 9; Bruce, Acts1, 335–36; idem, Apostle, 239; Conzelmann, Acts, 140–41; Johnson, Acts, 315; Gill, “Achaia,” 446; van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 882–84; cf. Dyer, Athens, 193, for Ps.-Lucian Patriot 9). Although some of these may be separate altars each to an unknown deity (Paus. 1.1.4 could be so read), Paus. 5.14.8 and later writers clearly refer to multiple unknown gods (Witherington, Acts, 521–22, adding Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.3). 3287. So Norden, Agnostos theos, 121. Some, however, emphasize the possibility that some of the altars may have specified a single deity (e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 304); it might be wisest to acknowledge the possibility but regard the plural as more likely (as in Klauck, Magic, 82). Lang, “Self,” 167, notes an anonymous god in Strabo 3.14.16; 17.2.3 (the latter postulates a nameless god in Meroë). 3288. Jerome Commentary on the Epistle to Titus 1.12 (often cited, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 51; Conzelmann, Acts, 141; Grant, Paul, 7–8; Polhill, Acts, 371; Pervo, Acts, 433; van der Horst, “Unknown God [2],” 883). The singular appears in Lucian Patriot, but this is likely a Christian work (Lake, “Unknown God,” 240–41; see Lucian Patriot 9 [LCL, 8:433]). Hemer, Acts in History, 117, suggests “generalizing plurals” or that Paul may have fixed on a particular altar and its unknown deity. 3289. Klauck, Magic, 82; Talbert, Acts, 153 (citing the change of Hesiod W.D. 289–92 in Philo Sobr. 150); van der Horst, “Unknown God (2),” 884 (citing Philo Sobr. 150; Aristobulus in Euseb. P.E. 13.12.7).

2630

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 334

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

appears near Demeter’s temple in Pergamum, and a similar altar, from about 100 b.c.e., “to a god or goddess” appears in Rome on the Palatine.3290 Romans regarded “unknown gods” as especially awesome.3291 Paul’s link with the true God was hardly unprecedented; because his name was hidden, Greco-Roman magicians regarded Israel’s God as particularly powerful3292 (see comment on Acts 19:13). One perhaps legendary account of the origin of at least some of these altars would have suited Paul’s purposes well had any guides explained it to him. During one plague in Athens in the sixth century b.c.e.,3293 offerings to propitiate all known deities proved ineffective. When the Cretan Epimenides was called to stay the plague, he ordered that black and white sheep be allowed to wander the Areopagus; where each sheep lay down, sacrifice was offered to the deity associated with that site. Thus Diogenes Laertius explained the numerous nameless altars in Attica.3294 The tradition of divination by following animals was known elsewhere,3295 and the account’s idea of propitiating offended deities, known or unknown, was a widespread practice.3296 In myth, Athenians had consented even to human sacrifice to propitiate humans or gods;3297 in historical times, Athenians appealed to all the gods in time of plague.3298 3290. Finegan, Light from Past, 276–77; cf. also Pfeiffer, World, 35; Witherington, Acts, 522. 3291. Harrauer, “Agnostos Theos.” Kisau, “Acts,” 1331, compares the “shadowy” supreme deity of African traditional religions with this passage’s unknown god. 3292. Pagans sometimes viewed Israel’s God as “nameless” ( Jos. Ant. 12.261; see Le Cornu, Acts, 960). 3293. Perhaps like the more famous Athenian plague of 430–426 b.c.e. (Thucyd. 2.47–58; 3.87; perhaps Dio Chrys. Or. 64.16; Sallares, “Plague”; but Touwaide, “Disease,” 550, is certain that it was typhoid fever), the exact character of the disease cannot be identified; on epidemics in antiquity, see Nutton, “Epidemic Diseases.” 3294. Diog. Laert. 1.110; cf. an allusion to Epimenides purifying Athens in Menander Koneiazomenai frg. 2. This account is also emphasized by some other commentators, e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 47–50; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 12–13; Bruce, Commentary, 356n39; see also Dyer, Athens, 192 (though noting somewhat differently Chrys. Hom. Acts 38). Historically, Epimenides may have lived later (Griffiths, “Epimenides,” citing Plato Laws 1.642D). 3295. Cf. Apollod. Bib. 3.12.3 and Lycophron Alex. 29, for the founding of Troy; Eurip. Archelaus test. iiia.5 (from Hyginus Fab. 219), for the founding of Aegeae; 1 Sam 6:7, 9. 3296. During pestilence, gods had to be pacified (Hom. Il. 1.10; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.38; Suet. Tit. 8.3–4; Vit. Aes. 142; cf. Rosenberger, “Rites,” 275; after a fire, Tac. Ann. 15.44; earlier, CTH 407, in Gurney, Aspects, 48; ANET 396; for Romans, after prodigies, Distelrath, “Prodigium,” 932), and people inquired of seers to discover what had gone wrong and how to rectify the situation (Hom. Il. 1.62–64; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.97; Vit. Aes. 142; Quint. Decl. 323 intro.; 326 intro.; 329 intro.; 384 intro.; Libanius Confirmation 2.16; cf. 2 Sam 21:1; Apollonius volunteers the information in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.4, 10; 8.5; in modern times, Ekechi, “Factor,” 294). Cf. also Tac. Hist. 5.3 (where Egypt expelled the Hebrews as “hateful to the gods” and the cause of their plague; cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.256–57). Plagues could follow war (Thucyd. 2.47.3; 2.52.1) or lack of food (Polyb. 1.18.10–1.19.1; cf. Livy 3.32.2; for potential famine after plagues, cf. Livy 4.25.4, 6), and people might move to escape plagues (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 6.1.6–7). 3297. Apollod. Bib. 3.15.8; cf. similar circumstances in 2 Sam 21:3–9; the Carthaginian myth in Albright, Yahweh, 234–35. Cf. Greek propitiatory human sacrifices in more historical times (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.14 and Cohoon in the Loeb note; Hengel, Atonement, 27; Lightfoot, Notes, 201; cf. Plut. Themist. 13.2–3; more certainly from early sources, expulsion in Becker, “Scapegoat Rituals,” 48; Burkert, Religion, 82–84; cf. Rosól, “Etymology”); among Romans (Livy 22.57.6; sources according to Suet. Aug. 15; though cf. limitations in Schultz, “Murder,” arguing for usually nonsacrificial ritual murder); the popular story of Iphigeneia (e.g., Aeschylus Agamemnon 205–26; softened in subsequent versions, e.g., Eurip. Iph. Aul.; Cypria bk. 8; Ovid Tristia 4.4.81–82; Libanius Narration 5); hypothetical cases in Quint. Decl. 326 intro.; 384 intro.; Hermog. Inv. 3.15.169; an old Tyrian practice alleged in Quint. Curt. 4.3.23; also in some other cultures in time of drought (Mbiti, Religions, 235, on earlier Akamba culture); other references to human sacrifice, e.g., Hom. Il. 23.175–76; Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 360; Apollod. Bib. 2.5.11; Lycophron Alex. 229; Cic. Resp. 3.9.15; Virg. Aen. 10.517–20; Ovid Metam. 13.447–48; Sen. Y. Troj. 360–70; Sil. It. 4.791; Appian C.W. 1.14.117; Arrian Alex. 1.5.7; Tac. Ann. 14.30 (concerning Druids); Lucian Sacr. 13 (probably recalling Iphigeneia); Plut. Par. St. 35, Mor. 314CD; Tert. Apol. 9.2; Judg 11:34–36 (probably); 2 Kgs 3:27; Glueck, Rivers, 61; Albright, Yahweh, 152; Ritner, Mechanics, 162–63 (classical Egypt); Stager and Wolff, “Sacrifice”; Stager, “Eroticism at Ashkelon”; Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 185; in later cultures, Laguna, “Childhood,” 15, 19; Mbiti, Religions, 241; Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 13; Jenkins, New Faces, 101–2. 3298. Thucyd. 2.47.4 (they finally gave up when it proved ineffective).

2631

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 335

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Meanwhile, those who recognized the true God as the Lord over all plagues3299 would hardly balk at thinking him the deity ultimately behind the ancient Athenian plague.3300 Even without knowledge of the Athenian tradition, readers who knew the story would catch the point. Ancients differed over which deity to placate in the event of an earthquake (Aul. Gel. 2.28). Portents drove Romans to consult the oracular Sibylline books to determine which deity to placate (Cic. Verr. 2.4.49.108), and on another occasion, they deified Fever and built an altar to placate it (Epict. Diatr. 1.19.6; 1.22.16).3301 When in doubt concerning a deity’s preferred name or title, the petitioner could add, “By whatever name you prefer.”3302 In the era of Hellenistic-Roman syncretism, deities could claim to subsume in themselves the names of many objects of worship from various nations (Apul. Metam. 11.4–5; see discussion on Acts 8:10). To establish a new cult in Athens (cf. Acts 17:18) one would need to purchase property and then build a temple where sacrifices could be offered. Establishing a new cult in Athens thus required approval from the magistrates.3303 Some scholars suggest plausibly that Paul argues that he (like Cynics or others) can bypass this normal requirement of obtaining property for sacred activity because his God does not dwell in human temples or require human offerings (17:24–25).3304 His deity thus appears closer to the gods of philosophers than to those of popular piety, an ideal that would appeal to the Stoics (17:18) and at least be intelligible to the educated elite who constituted the court (17:19). (4) Jewish Approaches to Pagan Deities

Readers would not wince at Paul’s application of the “unknown god” to the true God; because Israel’s God had a secret name and lacked an image, many Greeks would regard him as the true “unknown god.”3305 Paul found a workable “bridge” to his message that did not entail the theological compromises some other attempted bridges would have.3306 Paul says nothing of the city’s patron deity, Athena (he does 3299. Some ancients viewed plagues as the wrath of deities (Diod. Sic. 14.69.4–14.71.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2), a perspective certainly common among Jews (4Q418 127 3; Sib. Or. 3.603; Test. Jud. 23:3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:14/15). Some others viewed plagues’ cause as random chance (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2); some denied that gods would send plagues (Max. Tyre 22.7), or complained about plagues that could not be stopped by sacrifices (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.42.1; 10.53.4–6). Heracl. Hom. Prob. 6.5 allegorizes the Homeric attribution of a plague to Apollo (Hom. Il. 1.43–53); instead, the sun causes such plagues (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 6.6; 8.4–5). 3300. Klauck, Magic, 83, even suggests a biblical allusion as well as an Athenian one: Isa 45:15 calls God “a hidden God,” who will cause foreigners (Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sabeans) to recognize him (45:14; cf. Exod 33:20–23). This allusion is not clear in Luke’s text, but it may have commended itself to some biblically informed members of his audience. 3301. Cf. Val. Max. 2.5.6; also the Roman senate in time of plague (Livy 40.19.4–5). 3302. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 129; Virg. Aen. 2.351; 4.576; Catull. Carm. 34.21–22 (in Aune, “Religion,” 923); Men. Rhet. 2.17, 446.8–9; cf. Aeschylus Ag. 160–61. The danger of neglecting a deity, even unintentionally, could be great (e.g., Hdt. 6.105 in Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 39; also Pindar Hymns frg. 37; Ap. Rhod. 3.64–65; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.15; 3.14.1). 3303. Schnabel, Acts, 727, citing Lambert, “Regulations,” 153. 3304. Schnabel, Missionary, 102–3, and Witherington, Acts, 519, following esp. Winter, “Introducing Gods,” 84–87. For Cynic denunciation of cult objects, see Downing, Cynics, 213. 3305. Van der Horst, “Unknown God,” 187; cf. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 127. Van der Horst also suggests an altar to the true God by God-fearers (“New Altar?”; both summarized in Witherington, Acts, 522). This seems more plausible than the reapplication of an old hero tomb (cf. Wycherley, “Athens”). Bede Comm. Acts 17.23 (L. Martin, 142) homiletically avers that “God was known in Judaea, but not accepted there, and he was unknown in Achaia, though there he was greatly desired.” Yet even in Athens, only a few embraced Paul’s message (Acts 17:32–34). 3306. Cf. the hermai (cf. Wycherley, “Athens”) and other idols commented on in Acts 17:16. Rhetorically, it was best to provide multiple testimonies, even from sources that might conflict on other points (e.g., Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 61, §19D). Külling, Geheimnis, focuses on the revelation of secret things in Acts 17:16–34.

2632

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 336

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

not deliberately provoke pagans, as suggested in 19:26–27), and, when quoting a poet’s statement about the highest deity, omits his name (Zeus).3307 Not all Jewish apologists were so restrained; Philo tactically appeals to the God “whom all Greeks and barbarians unanimously acknowledge, the supreme Father of gods and men” (Spec. Laws 2.165 [LCL, 7:409]; see comment on Acts 17:28). One pre-Christian Alexandrian Jewish work claims that other nations worship the same God as Israel, except under the names Zeus and Jove (Let. Aris. 16).3308 Popular syncretism in the magical papyri went further, though effected probably by pagans incorporating Jewish elements (e.g., PGM 5.460, identifying “Iao” and “Adonai” with “Zeus”).3309 Some Gentiles also believed that Jews worshiped Sabazios (allegedly assimilated with Dionysus at least in 139 b.c.e.),3310 though the reliability of the evidence is disputed.3311 Although never dominant, the approach called euhemerism is noteworthy.3312 Euhemerus (who served Cassander from 311 to 298 b.c.e.) was known particularly for his naturalistic explanation of the origin of the gods as the veneration of deceased humans.3313 Some followed Euhemerus’s thought and developed it in a rationalist direction; others opposed it.3314 Some employed it selectively, as needed, in a way that also suited ancient philosophers allegorizing myths;3315 thus, for example, Dio Chrysostom demythologizes the story of Heracles3316 or turns Prometheus into a sophist.3317 Diodorus Siculus popularized the approach in his history, and the Latin poet Ennius also followed this view.3318 Some Diaspora Jews found this approach useful,3319 most notably in the Sibylline Oracles (esp. Sib. Or. 3.551–54).3320 The Letter of Aristeas also regards deities as deified people (Let. Aris. 136). Similarly, Wisdom of Solomon hypothesizes that the making of images originated with the longing for dead loved ones (Wis 14:15–16). Despite the Jewish use of and pagan slander against Euhemerus’s approach, he was probably 3307. See Grant, Gods, 22, 26. 3308. This passage is widely discussed; e.g., in Isaacs, Spirit, 27; Simon, “Jupiter-Yahvé.” On Greek deity language for Israel’s God, see Wolfson, Philo, 1:28–39. 3309. For further discussion of Greek and Roman writers assimilating Israel’s God to their own pantheons, see also Fernández Marcos, “Religión judía.” 3310. See Koester, Introduction, 1:195; cf. Siegert, “Gottesfürchtige,” 144–45 (as noted in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 50). 3311. The textual evidence in Val. Max. 1.3.2 is notably suspect (Lane, “Sabazius and Jews”), and Valerius may misrepresent Jewish belief ( Johnson, “Sabaoth/Sabazios”). Perhaps this association involved a misconstrual of “Sabaoth” (cf. some sixty times in the lxx, mostly in Isaiah; CIJ 2:62–65, §819; 2:90, §849; 2:91, §850; 2:109, §§875–76; Sib. Or. 1.304, 316; 2.239; 12.131; Apoc. Zeph 6:7; Test. Sol. 1:7; 18:15; 22:14; Apoc. Ab. 17:13; PGM 3.220f., 655; 4.390, 3054; 5.479; 7.311f., 1012; 12.264; 13.146; 18a.1–4; 22b.20; 35.20, 28–29; 36.198, 349; 83.15–18; Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4), translating the common Hebrew phrase in Scripture (cf., in Hebrew, CIJ 2:327, §1398). 3312. See also Rose and Hornblower, “Euhemerus”; Klauck, Context, 261; Fusillo, “Euhemerus.” 3313. See Euhemerus Sacr. Hist. 6 (ca. 300 b.c.e.; e.g., in Grant, Religions, 74–76). Manetho (Aeg. frg. 1.1 [from the Armenian version of Euseb. Chron. 1. p. 93]) treated Egyptian gods as literal rulers of Egypt before human rulers. 3314. Fusillo, “Euhemerus,” esp. 161. Some ancients believed that early thinkers had fashioned the gods and their festivals after mortal analogies (Athen. Deipn. 8.363D). 3315. See, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 31; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 98; excursus on Stoicism at Acts 17:18. 3316. Dio Chrys. Or. 62–63. 3317. Dio Chrys. Or. 33 (again while allegorizing Heracles’s stories). Plato also allegorized frequently (e.g., Laws 1.636CD; 2.672BC; cf. also 7.822AC; 10.899E–900; 12.941B). 3318. Grant, Gods, 61. See, e.g., Diod. Sic. 1.25.7; 1.44.1. 3319. Klauck, Context, 281; cf. Let. Aris. 136. 3320. Probably second century b.c.e., addressing Greeks; cf. “dead” gods in Sib. Or. 3.588. See also 3.121–55; the death of Titans in 3.156–58.

2633

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 337

6/18/14 10:23 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

simply seeking to explain cults’ origin, not to reduce their practices.3321 Indeed, some scholars think that euhemerism supplied an additional factor in the acceptance of ruler worship: if other gods were mortals deified, why not deify some more?3322 Others contend that the spread of such cults rendered euhemerism more appealing.3323 Even the very pattern in Paul’s speech here appears compatible with earlier Jewish models. David Balch compares various Jewish sources (including the Prayer of Manasseh and the first two of the Eighteen Benedictions) and notes a chronological pattern, although it is perhaps not very surprising: God’s creation of people; times and boundaries; and salvation (suggesting that Acts 17:30–31 fits the conventional pattern instead of diverging from it).3324 (5) Ignorance of This God (17:23)

Some scholars doubt that the historical Paul would have looked for elements of truth already existing in paganism, given his denunciations of idolatry and polytheism (Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:5–6; 1 Thess 1:9). But he employs Greek arguments and theological vocabulary (often mediated first through Diaspora Judaism) so frequently (sometimes even in the same contexts where he denounces idolatry, e.g., Rom 1:20; 1 Cor 8:6 [though the latter also reflects the Shema]) that this objection is difficult to sustain. Despite all the common ground, however, Paul’s words remain somewhat ambiguous (see comment on “religious” in Acts 17:22): he speaks of the Athenians’ “not knowing” this God. Because their altar admits that the god is unknown, Paul can pose as a benefactor;3325 but speaking of Athenians’ ignorance was not usually how speakers currying favor would begin.3326 That most of the speech is framed by the two declarations of ignorance (17:23, 30) reinforces the point. Adherents of the Skeptic school would claim agnosticism,3327 and Socrates’s famous starting point, admitting his lack of knowledge,3328 might appeal to some.3329 But Greeks valued knowledge highly.3330 Greek tradition strongly emphasized knowledge of oneself, which probably originally meant to recognize one’s limitations as a human and 3321. See Garstad, “Belus.” 3322. Gardner, Leadership, xxiv. 3323. Grant, Gods, 61. 3324. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 72 (following here Nauck, “Komposition der Areopagrede,” 17–18, 24–26, 29, 30–31, 34–35; esp. 30–31 on Acts 17:30–31). Nauck also finds some possible antecedents in Pss 33; 74:12–17; 89; 148 (“Komposition der Areopagrede,” 29), but the model remains more Hellenistic-Stoic than Nauck allows (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 72–73). Dunn, Acts, 230–31, recognizes Stoic elements but emphasizes Jewish monotheism presented universally. 3325. That they need to know of a deity they do not know could function as an assumed premise (cf. enthymemes in, e.g., Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119, 122, 131; Anderson, Glossary, 44–46). 3326. Cf. Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 141, comparing Paul’s confrontation of Corinthian “wisdom” in 1 Cor 1:18–31; Vouga, “Paradoxie,” 189–90, also compares the “foolishness” of preaching with 1 Cor 1:17. For ignorance as the preconversion state of Gentiles in Acts, see Stenschke, Gentiles. 3327. E.g., Sext. Emp. Pyr. 3.218–38 (concerning the existence and nature of deities). On Skepticism, see Striker, “Sceptics” (with bibliography); Hankinson, Sceptics; more briefly, Murray, Philosophy, 23–24. The Skeptic phase of Platonic thought had, however, waned in vigor by this period (Striker, “Sceptics,” 1363). Epictetus protested that one could not know that nothing was unknowable (Diatr. 2.20.4–5). For agnostics regarding deities’ existence, see Diog. Laert. 9.4.24; 9.8.51. 3328. E.g., Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 78, §25; Lucian Hermot. 48; mocked in Athen. Deipn. 5.218F. 3329. Some still followed his method of confessing ignorance (Lucian Hermot. 53; cf. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.480–81). 3330. For Stoics, knowledge meant certainty as opposed to mere opinion (Diog. Laert. 7.1.47; cf. Herillus in 7.3.165; Long, Philosophy, 122; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 64–65); some others followed this approach (Dio Chrys. Or. 68). Some defined wisdom as the ability to “know” what was good (Anacharsis Ep. 2.9–11). Stoics defined piety or worship as knowing how to serve the gods (Diog. Laert. 7.1.119; cf. also knowledge of virtue in Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 62.8–9) and could emphasize knowing good from evil (Marc. Aur. 2.1, 13). Some thinkers,

2634

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 338

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

thus submit to the will of the gods and one’s assigned place in life.3331 It became one of the most frequently cited maxims of Greek antiquity,3332 many writers regarding it as one of life’s most basic truths.3333 Ancient interpreters applied it in a variety of ways,3334 but some writers applied it in a manner consistent with its original sense.3335 The general idea appears also in Stoic thinkers.3336 In particular, “knowledge” of deity was a major goal for many Greek thinkers,3337 and ignorance (ἄγνοια) of deity was usually not a compliment.3338 For Stoics, knowledge of how to serve the gods was central to true religion3339 whereas “ignorance” (ἄγνοιαν) was impiety and a vice.3340 Only knowing what God is like will deliver one from superstition (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48). Unwise people have ignorance about themselves and hence are not truly sane.3341 The ideal wise person was never ignorant (ἀγνοεῖν) about any matter.3342 Ignorance was dangerous, because one would not know what to avoid (Dio Chrys. Or. 14.2); pretense of knowledge was, however, worse (Heraclitus Ep. 6). Some philosophers did challenge hearers’ “ignorance,” as when Apollonius allegedly denounces the selling of deity statues as impious and unlearned (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20) and the sacrificing of animals as unlearned about divine matters (5.26). Paul probably uses his hearers’ ignorance here to reduce rather than increase their culpability (cf. Philost. Hrk. 8.18; comment on Acts 3:17). For the informed reader, however, their ignorance is not complimentary;3343 instead, it recalls the ignorance however, argued that knowledge could be deployed for vice as well as virtue (Arist. E.E. 8.1.1–3, 1246a). For a fuller discussion of Plato’s view of knowledge, cf. Gould, Ethics, 3–30. 3331. Nilsson, Piety, 47–48; Grant, Religions, xxii–xxiii; Allen, Philosophy, 19; Marshall, Enmity, 192–93, 201; also Plut. Demosth. 3.2. Diog. Laert. 1.40 attributes the proverb to Thales. 3332. E.g., Plato Alcib. 1.129A; Charm. 164E–165A; The Lovers 138A; Xen. Mem. 3.9.6; 4.2.24; Diod. Sic. 9.10.2; Epict. frg. 1; Plut. Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; Dinner 21, Mor. 164B; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; 21, Mor. 394C; Hippol. Her. 1.15. Allusions are also frequent, e.g., Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.11; 1.18.17; Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 35. 3333. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. Letter to Apollonius 28, Mor. 116CD; E Delph. 2, Mor. 385D; Or. Delphi 29, Mor. 408E; R. Col. 20, Mor. 1118C. 3334. For survey, see Reiser, “Erkenne.” For uses different from the original sense, see, e.g., in magic, Betz, “Maxim in Papyri”; for divinization, Cic. Tusc. Disp. 1.22.52; Plut. Pomp. 27.3; Porph. Marc. 32.485–95; Betz, “Hermetic Interpretation.” Philosophers sometimes also linked divinization with knowledge of God (Winslow, “Religion,” 246). 3335. E.g., Arist. N.E. 4.3.36, 1125A; Plut. Flatt. 1, Mor. 49B; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; cf. a similar sense in Thales, according to Diog. Laert. 1.36; proper knowledge of the diseases of one’s soul, in Diogenes Ep. 49; knowledge of oneself in the larger context of nature, in Cic. Fin. 5.16.44; other applications in Plato Charm., passim; Alcib. 1.129A; The Lovers 138A; Juv. Sat. 11.23–28. 3336. See Epict. Diatr. 2.24.19; Marc. Aur. 8.52. 3337. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48; Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Mus. Ruf. 53, p. 144.24–25; Plut. Isis 2, Mor. 352A; Heraclitus Ep. 4; Porph. Marc. 11.194–95; 13.229; 17.282; 20.331; 21.347–48; 22.355, 359; 24.379–81; Philo Conf. 145; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1; Pyth. Sent. 16. See esp. Keener, John, 235–43, esp. 237–38, 240. 3338. Porph. Marc. 13.229; 22.355. 3339. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 16–17.13; 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.14–15. All the virtues involve knowledge (2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.13–22, esp. 13–14, 18, 20–22). Nevertheless, knowledge of God was rare (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 31.10); for its difficulty in Platonism, see Nock, “Gnosticism,” 267; for divine ineffability (by natural means) in Philo, see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38; Mondin, “Esistenza.” 3340. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.13–14 (the term “ignorance” is in line 14). For “ignorance” (ἄγνοια) as a category of vice, see 2.7.5b, pp. 12–13.7–8; for ignorance as involved in vice, 2.7.5b1, pp. 12–13.22–25; opposing ignorance, see also Epict. Diatr. 1.26.7; 2.14.19–20; beyond Stoics, Pyth. Sent. 28. For opinion and ignorance, cf. Meinwald, “Ignorance.” 3341. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b13, pp. 26–27.30–31; 2.7.5b13, pp. 28–29.1–2. 3342. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.3–5 (esp. 5), 16–18. One should not express a mere opinion if lacking certain knowledge (2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.13–16). On opinion and ignorance, see the discussion in Meinwald, “Ignorance.” 3343. Ancient speakers (like modern scholars) might report views they considered erroneous, lest they be thought “ignorant” of them (Heracl. Hom. Prob. 53.5).

2635

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 339

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

of the true God typically attributed to idolaters.3344 In Paul’s Jewish tradition, which affirmed covenant knowledge of God on the basis of the one God’s self-revelation,3345 ignorance of God was very negative. Toward the end of the message, Paul will revisit the topic of ignorance more directly: God may have overlooked such “ignorance” in the past but will do so no longer (Acts 17:30), and so, although ignorance may reduce their guilt, it does not excuse it. Paul saves this blow for nearly the end of the speech, where such an offensive point belongs rhetorically.3346 iii. The Nature of the Deity (17:24–29)

Paul’s argument focuses first on the nature of the deity (17:24–26), then moves to epistemology of the divine (17:27–29) in line with his thesis (17:23).3347 He establishes God’s transcendence (17:24–25), laying the groundwork for his attack on idolatry, and God’s immanence (17:27–28), showing that God has already revealed himself in humanity, undercutting the supposed need for idols. Ancient Jewish writers often used Hellenistic language to argue for the rationality of serving the one true God.3348 Although many of Paul’s judges in the Areopagus would have rhetorical training, Paul’s subject remains philosophic, as in his discussions in 17:18. Orators would usually focus on a political thesis whereas theoretical theses about the world belonged to philosophers.3349 An epideictic oration could praise a deity or a deity statue, but Paul’s oration will ultimately prove to be deliberative, calling for change (17:30), just as philosophers often did.3350 (1) The Creator Needs No Temples (17:24)

As soon as Paul leaves the narratio (17:23), his hearers will recognize that his “unknown God” is the supreme author of existence, whom Stoics and most Greek intellectuals identified with Zeus. To claim that they were “ignorant” (17:23) of something like Zeus would not have endeared Paul to them, but he is not willing to concede the adequacy of their knowledge. The C r e ator

Although these motifs were not all foreign to Gentiles, it is surely no coincidence that Paul’s narration of divine acts begins where the biblical story begins, with the creation of all (Gen 1:1–2:4), and soon turns to life and breath (Acts 17:25; cf. Gen 3344. Isa 45:20; Wis 14:18, 22; Jos. Asen. 13:11–13; in Paul, cf. Rom 1:21–22; 1 Thess 4:5; cf. Külling, Geheimnis, 38. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 74–75, notes that improper worship leads to immorality in many texts (Rom 1:23–27; Strabo 16.2.35, 37, 39–40; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.29.36–37) but in Acts 14:15–17 and here to idolatry. 3345. See fuller discussion in Keener, John, 239–43. For discussion regarding Qumran, cf., e.g., 1QS X, 12; XI, 3; 4Q174 f1 3ii4; Allegro, Scrolls, 132–33; Price, “Light from Qumran,” 26; Flusser, Judaism, 57–59; Lohse, Colossians, 25–26. Philo of Alexandria offers a Diaspora Jewish example of articulating knowledge of God (see, e.g., Conf. 145; Alleg. Interp. 3.103) but often follows Plato regarding divine ineffability (see Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164, esp. 110–38; Mondin, “Esistenza”). 3346. For Paul’s sometimes reserving the harshest tone for late in a letter, see Gal 5–6 and esp. 2 Cor 10–13 if, as an increasing minority of scholars is arguing, 2 Corinthians is a unity. (For arguments for unity, see, e.g., Young and Ford, Meaning, 27–59; Danker, “Debt”; deSilva, “Reality”; idem, Credentials, 36–43; Hester, “Unity”; Amador, “Revisiting”; Matera, II Corinthians, 24–32; Allo, Épître aux Corinthiens, l–lvi; Keener, Corinthians, 146–51; Belleville, 2 Corinthians, 23–33, esp. 30–33; Witherington, Corinthians, 328–39; Barnett, Corinthians, 16–23; Garland, 2 Corinthians; McCant, 2 Corinthians, 20–23; Scott, Corinthians, 4–7.) 3347. God is the primary subject of the speech, as even the repetition of θεός in different cases emphasizes (Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 58). 3348. Cf., e.g., Wis 13:1–9; Wolfson, Philo, 2:74–83. 3349. Hermog. Progymn. 11, “On Thesis,” 25. Theoretical theses were those that could not be tested empirically but were matters of the mind alone (later also Aphth. Progymn. 13, “On Thesis,” 49S, 41R). 3350. For philosophic emphasis on change, see Nock, Conversion.

2636

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 340

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

2:7); creation from one person (Acts 17:26; Gen 1:26–27; 2:7); the settlement of peoples (Gen 10:1–32); and so forth. “Lord of heaven and earth” is technically anto­ nomasia or epitheton,3351 but it is familiar enough from the lxx3352 and a Q tradition known to Luke (Luke 10:21; Matt 11:25). The phrase would be perfectly intelligible to Paul’s audience; despite traditional deification of heaven and earth,3353 pagan poets also could affirm that the supreme God ruled land, sea, and sky (Hor. Odes 1.12.13–18; 3.45–48).3354 Even polytheistic Greeks had no problem describing the supreme deity as simply “God.”3355 Luke’s ideally informed audience, however, would likely recognize the traditional Jewish character of the phrase.3356 That God “made the world3357 and everything in it” was also intelligible to Greeks, while echoing biblical language. Both Greeks and Jews naturally often employed ποιέω with regard to creation.3358 Many viewed the supreme deity as creator of the material world, even if he himself transcended it.3359 As noted above, many also believed, as did the epistolary Paul (Rom 1:20), that much about God could be inferred from his creation.3360 Thus, after arguing for the necessity of a cause,3361 Epictetus argues from the structure of objects that they reflect a designer and not mere chance;3362 anyone who observes the facts of nature yet denies the existence of a creator, he opines, is stupid.3363 The existence of human intellect, most complex of all, particularly reveals the designer.3364 Other intellectuals also argued that humans bore the divine stamp 3351. On these figures, see Rhet. Her. 4.31.42; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579–80; Anderson, Glossary, 23, 52–53. 3352. Gen 24:3; Ezra 5:11; Jdt 9:12; cf. “God of heaven” (a phrase that grew more dominant in the Persian period) in Gen 24:7; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2; 5:12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23; Neh 1:4, 5; 2:4, 20; Ps 136:26; Dan 2:18, 19, 37, 44; 5:23; Jonah 1:9. Cf. “God of all” in Jub. 30:19; 31:13, 32. The phrasing persisted; centuries later, cf. Qur’an 38.67; 44.7; 45.36. 3353. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 467–70 (where these siblings mate to produce other deities). 3354. Though naturally applied to the highest God (Sen. Y. Dial. 7.8.4, God as “ruler of the universe”), it applies differently as well (for Helios in PGM 4.641). Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75, notes that Greeks could call God “ruler of the universe” (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27) but that Epicureans specifically denied this (12.37). 3355. E.g., Char. Chaer. 3.3.16; Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351DE; Table 8.2.4, Mor. 720A; cf. Plato Alcib. 1.124C; Strabo 16.2.35; earlier, cf. Gen 41:39. 3356. Jeremias, Theology, 10, 187–88; Incant. Text 36.1; also “God of heaven and earth” (4 Bar. 5:32; Test. Sol. 1:6). 3357. “World” (κόσμον) here refers to all creation (“the universe,” Mundhenk, “Note”; cf. Marc. Aur. 4.2); hence this Creator is “Lord of heaven and earth” later in the verse. 3358. Wilson, Gentile Mission, 198, cites Gen 1:1; Isa 42:5; 2 Macc 7:28; Plato Tim. 28E, 76C; Epict. Diatr. 4.7.6. Cf. also, e.g., Gen 1:16, 25–27; 2:2–4, 18; Wis 2:23. Wilson also notes (198) that although κόσμος is not the typical ot term, Josephus and Philo used it, and Luke’s biblicizing “heaven and earth” indicates this sense. 3359. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 3; Philost. Hrk. 25.8; cf. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 379, §126D. For God as Creator, Porter, Paul in Acts, 118–19n56, cites also Corp. herm. 4.1; Philo Creation 2; Aristob. frg. 5. 3360. Apart from Epicureans, most recognized divine design in nature (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.29, 34, 36–37; cf., e.g., Plut. Isis 76, Mor. 382A; Let. Aris. 132); creation did not result from chance or human hands (a Pythagorean in Diod. Sic. 12.20.2). The supreme deity was present in, and known by, his works (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 2.167). Design in nature also showed something about the divine nature, such as that it was spherical (Cic. Nat. d. 2.17.45–46), that it was revealed by nature and not human religion (Heraclitus Ep. 4, 9), and that the gods were benevolent (cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50) and cared for people (Xen. Mem. 4.3.12–13). 3361. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.3–6. 3362. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.7. 3363. Epict. Diatr. 1.16.8. 3364. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.10; cf. Rom 1:19. Many believed that knowledge of deity was especially evident in the design of humans (Cic. Nat. d. 2.54.133–2.58.146; Leg. 1.22.58–59; Sen. Y. Ben. 6.23.6–7; cf. Cic. Fin. 5.12.35–36; Let. Aris. 156–57) and especially their minds (Cic. Nat. d. 2.59.147–2.61.153; Porph. Marc. 26.410–11) and was innate in them (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–28; Iambl. Myst. 1.3). Some also adduced, in favor of deities’ existence, the universal pervasiveness of belief in them (Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30; cf. Max. Tyre 11.5).

2637

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 341

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

or that human reason reflected the divine.3365 Hellenistic Jewish apologetic had borrowed these ideas long before Paul and Luke did so,3366 making Paul’s missionary task much easier.3367 But Luke understands the idea in its biblical sense (Acts 4:24) while using it as a point of connection and especially of anti-idol apologetic (14:15). Naturally, some Greek ideas of creation are excluded.3368 Some earlier Greek thinkers held to a sort of monism, although its early character is debated.3369 By this time a number of thinkers accepted a sort of pantheism,3370 which was affirmed in varying degrees by many Stoics3371 and especially emphasized by the earlier Stoic thinkers.3372 (It was also sometimes mocked by outsiders.)3373 By contrast, Judaism’s affirmation of creation excluded any sort of pantheism.3374 Greeks typically believed that the universe was eternal and essentially changeless, making a past creation less intelligible for them than would be a simple affirmation of a divine, logical arrangement in the universe.3375 Further, for a biblically informed audience, reference to the true God’s creative activity implied rejection of idols (Deut 32:16–18; Isa 40:12–26; Jer 10:11–15).3376 3365. See Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27, 28, 34, 37, 75, 84 (in Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75). 3366. E.g., Philo borrows various philosophers’ arguments for God’s existence (Wolfson, Philo, 2:73–93), including Plato’s argument from creation (74) and material from Stoic sources (75–83); cf. also Mondin, “Esistenza.” 3367. Paul would have, undoubtedly, learned some of this apologetic as a Hellenist student (see comment on Acts 22:3), and the prior existence of the apologetic may have also reduced accusations of excessive accommodation to Gentiles on this count. 3368. Obviously, this would include later gnostic opposition to the material world (Iren. Her. 1.1–3; esp. 1.26.1; Hippol. Her. 6.28–29), reflecting later Platonic ideas (cf. Iren. Her. 1.17) despite Neoplatonist disapproval (Plot. Enn. 2.9.8; cf. Keener, John, 375–76). Jesus’s bodily resurrection, promising a restored world (Acts 17:31), challenges similar prejudices (cf. Tiede, “World”). 3369. For the debate, see, e.g., Stokes, One and Many; Wardy, “Eleatic Pluralism.” Parmenides held to the oneness of being (Bodnár, “Eleatic School,” 892). Others doubt that Parmenides was a monist, at least in the fullest sense (cf. Barnes, “Parmenides”; Jones, “Parmenides”), or that he seeks monism on a level higher than the problematic material kind (Finkelberg, “Parmenides”); Mourelatos, “Alternatives,” suggests that his monism stems from rejecting the concept of contraries. For one survey of philosophers advocating monism vs. those who affirmed elements, see Furley, Formation; for a survey of philosophic monism from Parmenides through Plotinus, see Rist, “Monism”; for Aristotle’s opposition to monism, Spangler, “Criticism.” 3370. Cf., e.g., Pindar frg. 140d (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.14.129); Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Virg. Georg. 4.221–22, 225; Aeschylus frg. 34 (in Clem. Alex. Misc. 5.14, p. 718; H. W. Smith and H. Lloyd-Jones in Aeschylus, LCL, 2:403, add Philod. Piety 22); perhaps in some form, Pliny E. N.H. 2.1.1; 2.4.13; Iambl. V.P. 28.151; Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5). 3371. See Cic. Nat. d. 2.7.19–20; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; Ep. Lucil. 95.52; Marc. Aur. 4.40; Diog. Laert. 7.1.134; 7.1.148; cf. also Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24 (which could be omnipresence). For Stoic pantheism, see also Baltzly, “Stoic Pantheism”; Klauck, Context, 353–54. Cf. Lightfoot’s catchy if slightly overstated summary: “The Epicureans made the world independent of God. The Stoics made it identical with God” (Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]); Lightfoot believed that Paul found common ground with Stoics here without accepting pantheism. 3372. For an evaluation of Zeno’s pantheism, see, e.g., Jacquette, “Divinity” (suggesting that the critique in Cic. Nat. d. 3.20–24 rests on a misunderstanding, though Zeno’s case was flawed); for a discussion of the monism attributed to the early Stoic Chrysippus, see Gould, Philosophy of Chrysippus. Stoics developed ways to hold together the deity’s immanence in the world with monism (so Todd, “Monism”). Stoics often viewed themselves as heirs of Heraclitus; Heraclitus frg. 50 probably tends toward pantheism (Allen, Philosophy, 41). 3373. E.g., an Epicurean in Cic. Nat. d. 1.10.24; 1.13.34; a commoner in Lucian Hermot. 81. 3374. The attribution to Jews of a sort of pantheistic approach (Strabo 16.2.35–37; see Ludlam, “’Lwhy”) was certainly misplaced; even texts that speak of God as “all” in some sense also speak of him as Creator (4Q266 11 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; see Kister, “Fragment”). The mutual interdependence of all things (e.g., Marc. Aur. 6.38; 7.9) appeared less objectionable (Philo Cher. 109–10). Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 155, does find pantheism in Aristobulus 10.5 (but this is omnipresence); 10.15 (more plausible but not necessary); 12.4, 12 (but this is providence); 12.6–7 (the Aratus quotation), but it seems unclear to me that even Aristobulus intends the language this way. 3375. See Judge, First Christians, 720. For the universe’s eternity, see, e.g., Aristotle De Philosophia; Pliny E. N.H. 2.1.1; Hippolytus Her. 1.9 (on Parmenides); for the debate, see also Diod. Sic. 1.6.6; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 3.22.1; further comment at Acts 3:21. 3376. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 75.

2638

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 342

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Whether God created through the agency of a mediator (as in Col 1:16; John 1:3) is not, however, specified here; the passage mentions neither Stoic Logos3377 nor Platonic pattern or demiurge.3378 Luke’s audience would understand the claim here as a summary, and so it does not seem legitimate to argue from silence that it opposes particular philosophic ideas simply because it does not mention them.3379 God D oe s N ot N e e d Te mp le s

Paul reasons from God’s transcendent character to the inutility of physical temples for God.3380 This ideal, contrasting starkly with Paul’s surroundings (Acts 17:16)3381 and perhaps with the Areopagus’s role as defender of Athenian honor, was shared by some thinkers,3382 notably including some earlier Stoics. Zeno, founder of the Stoic school, ruled out the use of temples (as well as lawcourts, gymnasia, and the state);3383 nothing offered by human builders, he thought, was worthy of the gods.3384 Succeeding generations of Stoics were, however, more domesticated by society’s values; Plutarch charges them with inconsistency (even hypocrisy) for applauding Zeno’s ideals against the Epicureans while nevertheless themselves sacrificing in temples.3385 Still, enough thinkers upheld the ideal to maintain some appreciation for its intellectual merit. God cannot be locked up in temples, shrouded in darkness, a Cynic writer protested; only the ignorant think that God is made from hands or assume that he has one sanctuary when all the universe, full of animals and stars, constitutes his sanctuary (Heraclitus Ep. 4). Lucian mocks the supposition that gods will be homeless without temples (Sacr. 11). An Epicurean would challenge the utility of altars (Lucian Z. Rants 44). Epicureans in fact saw no need for temples or sacrifices.3386 A later Platonist claimed that the temple of deity is the wise mind (Porph. Marc. 11.192–93); thus only the wise man has prepared a shrine in his mind (11.196–98).3387 Such ideas reflected a larger theme, in some philosophic circles, of the transcendence of the divine.3388 Thus the God of Middle Platonism (like the God of some 3377. For the Logos in creation, see also Philo Creation 20, 26, 31; Migr. 6; cf. Athenag. Plea 4; Keener, John, 341–47, 375–77, esp. 376. 3378. Cf. Plato Tim. 29A–30; Philo Creation 16–19, 25, 31; Conf. 171; Plut. Table 8.2.4, Mor. 720AB; Plot. Enn. 3.2. 3379. Some think the passage rejects the idea of a demiurge (Bruce, Commentary, 356; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608). 3380. Some apply the term ναός especially to the temple proper within the temple precincts (Robinson, Ephesians, 71). 3381. Speakers often gestured toward objects within view (Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62, esp. 57), and Paul may well have gestured toward handmade temples in the area (on which see comments above). 3382. Conzelmann, Acts, 141, cites Lucian Sacr. 11; the Stoic Seneca in Lact. Div. Inst. 6.25; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 76, cites Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 90.28–29; 95.48. Without opposing temples, a poet wondered what house could enclose a deity (Eurip. frg. 968 in Bruce, Commentary, 357; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608); other thinkers spoke of the universe full of God’s presence (Diogenes in Diog. Laert. 6.2.38; see comment on Acts 17:27–28). Cf. Persians (probably Zoroastrians) in Hdt. 1.131. 3383. Diog. Laert. 7.32–34; Plut. Mor. 1034B (cited in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75; Conzelmann, Acts, 141; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 461; Fitzmyer, Acts, 608). 3384. Cited in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.11.76 (in Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 316–17) and applying both to temples (cf. Acts 17:24) and to divine images (cf. 17:29). Cf. Sen. Y. frg. 123 (in Lact. Div. Inst. 6.25; Selwyn, Peter, 193): God dwells not in stone temples but in hearts. 3385. Plut. Stoic Cont. 6, Mor. 1034BC. Some cults, of course, required no temples (notably Silvanus; Klauck, Context, 29). 3386. Schnabel, Missionary, 173 (citing Philodemus Pros eusebeias frg. 38); cf. also Schnabel, Acts, 733. 3387. The first passage employs νεών, Attic for ναόν; the second, ἱερόν. Likewise, the internal intellect should be a temple for God (Porph. Marc. 19.318–19). Some Jewish authors also thought of a spiritual temple (e.g., 11Q5 XXVI, 9). 3388. Cf., e.g., Meunier, “Dieu chrétien.” The Greek categories of transcendence and immanence are both represented here (Acts 17:24–25a for the former and 17:27–28 for the latter), themes that helped shape a tension existing in theology to this day (see Grenz and Olson, Theology, 11–13).

2639

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 343

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

early medieval theology partly dependent on it)3389 was ineffable, if still compatible with deity images: God the creator was greater than all nature, so that tongue could not describe him or eyes behold him. Unable to grasp his essence, one could use only images, whether the art of Phidias or Egyptian animals, to visualize him (Max. Tyre 2.10).3390 After the time of Pompey, educated Romans knew that the Jewish temple lacked images (Tac. Hist. 5.9); some philosophical pagans could appreciate Moses’s imageless monotheism even if they felt the Jewish cult to be superstitious (cf. Strabo 16.35–37). Though not eager to praise Judaism, Tacitus presents favorably the Germans’ alleged lack of shrines or images, by which they honored deities invisible to the eye (Germ. 9). Hellenistic Judaism also emphasized God’s transcendence,3391 and Jewish sources reapplied Greek emphasis on it for polemic against pagan temples while exempting their own ( Jos. Ant. 8.227–29; Sib. Or. 4.8–11).3392 Luke’s source for the idea is ultimately Jewish (see Isa 66:1–2 in Acts 7:48–49), but until Acts 17:30 the speech selects motifs intelligible and potentially praiseworthy in a Greek intellectual context. For all the theme’s potential respectability, however, Paul goes against the grain of Athenian culture. He is respectful toward the Athenians’ practice (17:22–23) and employs culturally intelligible and (at this point) even respectable language, but as in contemporary missiology, ideal contextualization entails communicating in terms another culture understands while one endeavors not to distort one’s message in the process. If Paul stood in the Stoa Poikile, the temple of Hephaistos was to his right and the temples of the Acropolis (including the Parthenon and the Erechtheion) in front of him; most of the buildings dated either to the distant era of Pericles or to the more recent era of Augustus.3393 Whether Paul stood there or elsewhere, he stood in a city full of temples and deity images (see comment on Acts 17:16), and his words directly challenged Athenian culture. As noted above, his appeal to a deity so transcendent that he needed no temples (though he cared for people) made Paul more like a philosophic lecturer than like a priest introducing a new cult. This approach allowed Christianity to spread more rapidly in the Roman Empire without the sort of resources some cults required. Ironically, its achievement of toleration and even status by the fourth century encouraged its assimilation of the traditional paraphernalia of other Greco-Roman cults, such as temples and priesthoods.3394 Although we may view such a change as necessary contextualization, it did reduce the simplicity and independence of the movement. Whatever the strategic missionary value of the approach exemplified in this passage, it also reflects the convictions of the epistolary Paul, who valued a spiritual temple more than a physical one (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19; cf. Eph 2:19–22), an idea shared with some contemporaries (1QS VIII, 5–8; 1 Pet 2:5; see comment on Acts 2:46).3395 3389. Later Christian philosophers found Paul’s reasoning helpful in approaching a transcendent deity through the via negativa (see Pelikan, Acts, 193–96). 3390. Cf. Dodd, “Prologue,” 16, on the philosophers’ view of divine transcendence; on God’s ineffability (possibly originating in philosophy in this period), see Wolfson, Philo, 2:110–26, esp. 111–13. For various Greek views on God’s invisibility, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.4.9; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.19; Plut. Isis 9, Mor. 354D; Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Char. Chaer. 1.14.1; Max. Tyre 11.9–10; Keener, John, 423. 3391. The lxx of the Pentateuch apparently amplified this; see Rösel, “Theologie.” 3392. Conzelmann, Acts, 141. Some doubt that the Essenes used the temple (Nolland, “Misleading Statement”); others aver the opposite (Davies, “Temple in Damascus Document”). 3393. Gill, “Achaia,” 445. 3394. Witherington, Acts, 398, asking “whether in the end Christianity was more the bearer or the recipient of socialization in the Empire.” 3395. Cf. also spiritual sacrifices (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5) and priests (Rom 15:16; 1 Pet 2:5, 9).

2640

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 344

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul’s words about temples “made with hands” recalls Acts 7:48 and hence Isaiah’s teaching that God does not need human temples (Isa 66:1 in Acts 7:49);3396 it also alludes back to (Acts 7:41) and foreshadows (19:26) the condemnation of idols made with hands (cf. 17:29).3397 The idea of a heavenly temple or house not made with hands entered into early Christian vocabulary, perhaps influenced by the Jesus tradition (Mark 14:58; 2 Cor 5:1; Heb 9:11, 24).3398 Unencumbered with loyalty to the Jerusalem temple,3399 especially after 70 c.e., Luke’s circle of Pauline churches was free to polemicize against temples in general without being accused of double standards. (2) God Needs Nothing (17:25)

Paul continues to relate to his audience, mostly but not exclusively the more popular Stoics; as one commentator notes, Epicureans “would have endorsed the first half of this verse, the Stoics the second half.”3400 Even Stoics might have accepted the first half in principle, though they continued to allow popular religion. God’s S e lf - Suf f icie nc y

That God lacks nothing was a familiar concept among Greek-speaking Jewish intellectuals;3401 God was completely self-sufficient.3402 (To need nothing was a valued virtue.)3403 This reflects a long-standing tradition in Hellenistic thought;3404 God’s self-sufficiency was part of his perfection,3405 and (in a satirist) gods who need offerings must be poor.3406 Most thinkers did not, however, draw from this premise the conclusion that deity or deities refused worship, a conclusion that Paul does not invite, yet they did recognize that the deity or deities did not depend on humanity’s worship. That God needed nothing did not necessarily make God impassible or beyond accepting worship. For Greek-speaking Jews, that God should dwell in Israel’s temple or receive worship was 3396. Cf. even at the temple’s dedication in 1 Kgs 8:27; 2 Chr 6:18; the ot passages did not then oppose temples per se. 3397. See fuller discussion of this motif at Acts 7:41, 48. Kilgallen, Speech, 93, emphasizes the connection with Stephen’s speech. For the negative use of “made with hands” in the lxx, see also Külling, Geheimnis, 67–68. 3398. Cf. Theoph. 2.2: idols and temples made by hands cannot be divine. 3399. Contrast Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.193, who argues that there should be just one temple because there is one God. But most other deities had temples at multiple sites. 3400. C. Williams, Acts, 203; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 965. Epicureans would not agree with divine activity in the world, since deities were exclusively transcendent (Stagg, Acts, 185–86). Stoics, by contrast, affirmed immanence (earlier affirming even pantheism). 3401. E.g., 3 Macc 2:9; Philo Unchangeable 56. On its use, see esp. Marcus, “Names and Attributes,” 55 (cf. 47–48). Others cite Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.3); Test. Naph. 1:6; Le Cornu, Acts, 965, points to the idea in Tanḥ. (B) Sh. 12; Gen. Rab. 44:1. 3402. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.190. Cf. “self-begotten” (Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12; Apoc. Ab. 17:9; Christian sources in Sib. Or. 8.428; Sent. Sext. 26; for particular deities, PGM 1.342–43; 13.62; Book of Dead Sp. 17a, part S-2; cf. Currid, Egypt, 36, 99–100). For “unbegotten,” see Sib. Or. frg. 7; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167; PGM 13.843; Iambl. Myst. 7.2. For the deity as self-sufficient and not contingent, see, e.g., Arist. Heav. 1.9, 279a.11–b.3; Pyth. Sent. 25; Marc. Aur. 7.16; Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381B; Max. Tyre 38.6; in Jewish sources, Let. Aris. 211; 3 Macc 2:9; Jos. Ant. 8.111; Ag. Ap. 2.190; Philo Creation 100. 3403. The virtue could apply to the divine Logos (which needs no voice, Plut. Isis 75, Mor. 381B); to reason (Marc. Aur. 7.16); or, in their own view, to self-sufficient Stoics (Plut. St. Poets 4, Mor. 1058C; cf. Mus. Ruf. frg. 34, p. 135; Jews in 1 Macc 12:9). Being free from want (ἀνενδεές) was a Stoic ideal (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.32; cf. Philo Agr. 54; Abr. 30). 3404. Commentators cite Eurip. Herc. fur. 1345–46; Plato Tim. 33D; Euthyphro 12E–15E; Zeno in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5.76.1; Sen. Y. Ep. 95.47; Plut. Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 4 (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 142); see also Porph. Marc. 11.198–99. See esp. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 43–44: θεοπρεπές characterized Greek and Greco-Jewish philosophy (Philo Sacr. 94, 101); many used antitheses or negative adjectives formed with α- or other expressions (citing more than twenty sources; on the use of abstraction and the via negativa, see also Dodd, “Prologue,” 16). 3405. Max. Tyre 38.6. 3406. Lucian Charon 12.24; Z. Rants 18 (Conzelmann, Acts, 142).

2641

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 345

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

an act of kindness, because God was ἀπροσδεής, needing nothing.3407 Though God was ἀπροσδεής, he was gentle and kind.3408 Greeks sometimes likewise pointed out that though the gods do not need anything, one should still honor them;3409 other thinkers opined that since God needs nothing, this includes sacrifices.3410 Plutarch considers Stoics inconsistent for sacrificing at temples and altars though in principle they should reject them.3411 Others concluded that the pious should continue to venerate the deity in the customary manner, not as if he needs (προσδεομένου) it, but because he merits it.3412 If someone foolishly thinks the deity “needs” it, however, he thinks himself superior to the deity.3413 Di vin e I m pa ssibilit y or P rovide nce?

Some ancients pressed such concepts further, claiming that the highest deity was so transcendent that he was impassible, unmoved and unaffected by the world.3414 For some, God was pure mind or soul;3415 most Platonists adopted Aristotle’s idea of God “as a mind thinking itself,” though in a subsequent era they reverted to the early Platonic notion of a first principle higher than mind.3416 Epicurus (cf. excursus on Epicureanism at Acts 17:18) thought that any deities that might exist were passionless and hence did not care about the world (Cic. Pis. 25.59), a view that Paul’s appeal to providence in the rest of the verse challenges. Not all who argued for the supreme deity’s transcendence, often Middle or later Platonists,3417 drew from this the exclusion of God’s involvement in the world.3418 Many thinkers defended the value of prayer, opposing the idea of the deity’s impassivity to invocations.3419 Although earlier Stoics spoke of a less personal cosmic personification of providence, Musonius Rufus, one of Paul’s most influential Stoic contemporaries, 3407. 2 Macc 14:35; Jos. Ant. 8.111. 3408. Let. Aris. 211. 3409. Xen. Mem. 1.4.10, using θεραπείας προσδεῖσθαι. 3410. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.48. Epicureans such as Lucretius (Nat. 2.650) likewise emphasized God’s need of nothing (D. Williams, Acts, 305); Nunnally, Acts, 309, contrasts this ancient tradition with some modern popular teaching. 3411. Plut. Stoic Cont. 6, Mor. 1034C. Stoics held that only the wise were good priests, since only they understood what the gods wanted (Diog. Laert. 7.1.119). 3412. Porph. Marc. 18.295–98, esp. 296. 3413. Porph. Marc. 18.300–301; Pythag. Sent. 25. 3414. Arist. Heav. 1.9, 279a.11–b.3; Philo Creation 100 (on Philo here, see Dillon, “Transcendence in Philo”); cf. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.167. Many opposed Homer’s idea of “pliant” gods (Il. 9.497; see Max. Tyre 5.3; Plato Rep. 2.364Bff.; Laws 10.905D; Hierocles in Stob. Ecl. 1.3.53; 1.34.13–1.35.2; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 2.36; Trapp, Maximus, 44). For the mainly Platonist Maximus of Tyre, God was simply the supreme being in a chain of existence (Max. Tyre 11.8; not simply a gradation of hierarchy), a gradation from God to creation that Paul and Luke would have rejected. 3415. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14 (if, Pliny concedes, God exists); Porph. Marc. 11.191–92; cf. Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351D; Apul. De deo Socr. 123. 3416. Dillon, “Philosophy,” 795. 3417. For the heavenly deities’ separation from the world, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 123, 127–29, 136; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K72.24–26; Plot. Enn. 2.1; cf. Plut. Isis 78, Mor. 382F. 3418. Note, e.g., Max. Tyre 11.7–12; 21.7–8; Apul. De deo Socr. 123, 132; Philost. Hrk. 25.8. Cf. those who argued for the purity of deity’s nature and hence the exclusion of evil and evil emotions from deities’ personalities (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.49–50; Max. Tyre 5.1; 9.2; 41.3; Iambl. V.P. 32.318; Porph. Marc. 9.158–60; 17.288–91; 18.14; Apul. De deo Socr. 146; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K99.18–19; cf. Jas 1:17); for Platonists, the divine must also be changeless (Max. Tyre 8.8; Philo Unchangeable 21–22; Apul. De deo Socr. 146; Proclus Poet. 6.1, K109.12–14). Philo denied accidental qualities in God (Wolfson, Philo, 2:101–10; Isaacs, Spirit, 30; cf. Philo Unchangeable 56; Alleg. Interp. 2.36; for his deity as τὸ ὄν, see Names 27; Alleg. Interp. 2.86). But the heavenly deities could mediate their will through daimones (Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37). 3419. Iambl. Myst. 1.12, 15; 5.26 (from the Neoplatonic tradition); Apul. De deo Socr. 133.

2642

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 346

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

affirmed a personal and caring God.3420 Epictetus, a Stoic in the late first century, insisted that the first principle of philosophers is the existence of God and his provision for the cosmos.3421 Luke and Paul clearly believed in prayer and divine providence but, in the Jewish tradition, rejected the other extreme of anthropomorphic (or other) images of God.3422 Because of God’s spiritual character, God did not depend on human service or worship. Even ancient Israel wrongly assumed at times that God depended on it for offerings, like the gods of other nations, but the prophetic tradition decisively rejects such a view (Ps 50:8–13; cf. Isa 1:11–15; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24).3423 Early Jewish sources also comment on the notion of spiritual or moral sacrifices (which was not usually incompatible with physical sacrifices).3424 Paul’s claim that God is not “served by human hands” echoes the temples “built by hands” in Acts 17:24. Although Jewish people did use this Greek term for “serving” God (e.g., Jdt 11:17, θεραπεύουσα),3425 the point is that God does not genuinely depend on such offerings.3426 Socrates reportedly questioned the propriety of human service to deities;3427 an early rhetorician claimed that justice pleased the gods more than did sacrifice;3428 many doubted whether sacrifices truly pleased the gods;3429 and some rejected all sacrifices involving animal blood.3430 Paul’s contemporary Seneca the Younger complained that the gods were not impressed with offerings, even of one’s own blood, in attempting to prevent hail (Nat. Q. 4.6.2–3; 4.7.1). For Seneca, this denial of God’s need for service is bound up with his Stoic idea of divine providence. God neither seeks nor needs human servants, because he always seeks to serve humanity; he does not need our superstitions or offerings; he already has everything and gives it freely (Ep. Lucil. 95.48). The gods are benevolent because this is their nature (95.48–49); hence they can neither give nor receive evil or harm (95.49–50). Although most ancient thinkers accepted cult and 3420. See Lutz, “Musonius,” 27n111 (citing Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.14–15); cf. Epict. Diatr. 2.1.25; Malherbe, Exhortation, 15. Socrates also spoke of the gods’ benevolence toward humanity (Xen. Mem. 4.3.12), which revealed their character and invited praise (4.3.13). From providentialists to atheists and deists, a range of views existed among philosophers (Quint. Decl. 268.11). 3421. Epict. Diatr. 2.14.11. 3422. Cf. Xenophanes’s opposition to culturally diverse anthropomorphisms (Xenophanes B 12, 14, 15, 16; Grant, Gods, 76–77). 3423. Chrys. Hom. Acts 38 (Martin, Acts, 219) cites Ps 50:13 to affirm that God never depended on human service or on sacrifices. 3424. E.g., 1QS IX, 4–5; X, 6; CD XI, 21 (without rejecting literal sacrifices, XI, 17–18); Ps 154:10–11 = 11QPsa 154; Sir 35[32]:1–4; Wis 3:6 (martyrs); Let. Aris. 234 (cf. their literal retention at Let. Aris. 172); cf. 4Q403 1 I, 39–40; Sipre Deut. 32.5.2; 306.20.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 4 A; 8, §22 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:3; 24:5; b. Ber. 15a; Sanh. 43b; Gen. Rab. 34:9 (potential martyrs); Pesiq. Rab. 16:7; Theophrastus in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11; Flusser, Judaism, 39–44; see esp. Sanders, Judaism, 253; among Christians, e.g., Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5; 1 Clem. 18.17; 35.12; 52.3, 4; Barn. 2.4–7, 10; Sent. Sext. 47; in Islam, see, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 330. But Sib. Or. 4.29–30 does reject animal sacrifices. 3425. It is often used for worship; e.g., Dio Cass. frg. 1.6.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.52; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 16–17.13; 2.7.5b12, pp. 26–27.14. Cf. also discussion of the term in Külling, Geheimnis, 77–79. 3426. As Dibelius emphasizes, this is an ot concept in Hellenistic language (Studies, 42). 3427. Plato Euthyphro 12E–15E (Bruce, Commentary, 357; Witherington, Acts, 525). 3428. Isoc. Ad Nic. 20. 3429. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 13.35; Lucian Dem. 11; Pythag. Sent. 15, 20; Porph. Marc. 16.279–81; 17.282–84; 19.313–14, 316–17; Iambl. V.P. 33.229. When the Egyptian Apion charges Jews with offering animal sacrifices, Josephus responds that other peoples also practice these (Ag. Ap. 2.137–38) and that Egyptians refrain only because they consider the animals themselves gods (2.139). 3430. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 31–32; 4.11; 5.25; 8.7; Ep. Apoll. 27; Iambl. V.P. 11.54; 18.85 (allowing the sacrifice and eating only of animals without a rational soul); 24.108; 28.150; Diog. Laert. 8.1.22; cf. Heliod. Eth. 10.9. Cf. Theophrastus On Piety (in Porph. Abst. 2.32, in Ferguson, Backgrounds, 271).

2643

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 347

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

even found ways to accommodate myths,3431 Paul’s approach need not have sounded uninformed or ethnic-specific in a philosophic context. Acts also emphasizes God’s providence, including in regard to creation (Acts 4:24; 14:15); like the emphasis on future judgment (17:31; cf. 10:42; 24:25), this claim challenged views widely attributed to the Epicureans (see 17:18).3432 Luke was likely not the only monotheistic writer to position his views favorably vis-à-vis those of Epicureans.3433 In contrast to Paul’s climactic resurrection claim (17:31), the claim that God gives life to all was not offensive to Greek or Roman thought.3434 Such a claim might challenge the myth that Athenians (or their first two kings) sprang literally “from Attic soil,”3435 but it is not likely that Paul, Luke, or Luke’s audience would have this local tradition in mind. First of all, it was only one among a wide number of ancient traditions that such a claim could challenge;3436 second, the claim was widely articulated by Greeks without being assumed threatening to local tradition; and finally, divine creation is not necessarily incompatible with agency even in biblical tradition (cf. Gen 2:7; 3:19). The giving of breath is biblical (Gen 2:7),3437 but it would also be intelligible among first-time Greek hearers. One first-century orator spoke of the first people being sustained by the moist air of the pneuma, the way babies suck food (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.30); it was God who provided life (12.74, 77).3438 The proposed play here on “Zeus” and ζωήν, “life,”3439 however, is dubious. In view of even some Diaspora Jewish apologetic, Paul had plenty of opportunity to entitle the highest deity “Zeus” in this passage had he wished, but he, like some other Diaspora Jewish redactors of Greek quotations, seems to have avoided the name. The threefold gift in 17:25 probably anticipates the threefold expression of dependence in the quotation in 17:28, which begins with the same opening element (“live”). 3431. Rives, Religion, 39, despite the exceptions of “a few philosophical rigorists.” 3432. Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 123–25. For the end of the cosmos in Epicurean thought, however, see Adams, Stars, 109–14. 3433. Josephus may link Sadducees with Epicureans, as he explicitly links Pharisees with Stoics (Life 12; cf. War 2.162–63; Ant. 15.371; Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 130–32), connections offered by Luke in Acts 23–24 (Neyrey, “Epicureans and Theodicy,” 126–27, 129–30). 3434. See, e.g., Macrob. Comm. 2.3.11 (van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226). 3435. Fitzmyer, Acts, 608; the contrast is somewhat more plausible in Acts 17:26, though the same caveats apply. For the myth, see Parker, “Attic Cults”; Niang, “Seeing,” 163 (citing Isoc. Panath. 12.124; De Pace 8.49; Plato Menex. 237–39a; Aristotle Rhet. 1.5.5 = 1360b31–2); Isoc. Paneg. 24; Dio Chrys. Or. 64.12; Lucian Lover of Lies 3 (mocking it); cf. Hermog. Progymn. 7, “On Encomion,” 18 (not specifying the nation). 3436. Cf. Kearns, “Autochthons”; cf. Erichthonius in Eurip. frg. 925; possibly earthborn Titans in Eurip. frg. 939; Argives in Libanius Encomium 1.2. Pagans had stories of people formed from stones (e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305) or dragon’s teeth (Androtion Atthis frg. 60c [in Scholion to Lycophron Alexandra 494–95 p. 179 b 24 Scheer]; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.23; 3.4.1; Ap. Rhod. 3.1355–57; Ovid Her. 6.33; Metam. 3.101–30; 7.121–30; Val. Flacc. 7.76; Sen. Y. Med. 169, 470; from dragon’s blood, Aeschylus Seven 412–13), as well as many people turned into stones by gods (Hom. Il. 24.611; Great Eoiae 16; Ovid Metam. 2.696, 705–7, 830–32; 4.276–78, 551–60; 10.241–42), by magic (Lucian Lucius 4), or even by fear (Ovid Metam. 9.224–25 [in contrast to Sophocles Women of Trachis]; 10.67–68), especially by seeing the Gorgon (Pindar Pyth. 10.47–48; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.2; Ovid Metam. 4.180–209, 230–35, 248–49, 655–60; Lucian Portr. 1, 14; Hall 19; Athen. Deipn. 8.345b; probably also Pindar Dith. 4, frg. 70d, line 41, from P.Oxy. 2445). Other creatures also were changed into stone (Epigoni frg. 3 [in Photius Lexicon; Suda, s.v. Τευμησία]; Ovid Metam. 11.59–60, 404; 12.22–23; 14.72–74; Lucian Dial. S.-G. 323–24 [14, Triton and Nereids 3]). Cf. brief comment in Keener, “Human Stones.” 3437. See also Isa 42:5; Wis 15:11; Philo Creation 135, 139; Jos. Asen. 12:1/2; 4 Ezra 3:5–7; cf. Isa 2:22; in animals, Gen 6:17; 7:15. The same language applies to resurrection in 2 Macc 7:23; Rev 11:11. 3438. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 76, who relates it (77) especially to the Stoic “‘breathing in’ of the Logos” (comparing especially Acts 17:28). One should do philosophy more than one breathes (Crates Ep. 6). 3439. C. Williams, Acts, 203, arguing that Greeks played on the two words.

2644

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 348

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(3) God’s Sovereignty over Humanity (17:26)

In Acts 17:26, the speech develops further the notion of God’s providence, moving chronologically from the creation of the world to the creation of humanity (which, from the standpoint of Greeks and Jews alike, remained primeval). Rhetorically, the verse opens with five of seven words beginning with a vowel (four of them epsilon); the notable exception, beginning with pi, prepares for three words beginning with that sound (and several other recurrences of it, for a total of eight uses of the sound in the beginning and middle of the verse) as the verse continues. C r e ate d f ro m On e

Some scholars suggest that ἑνός (one)3440 is neuter, fitting Stoic tradition;3441 but it could also be masculine. The “one” could refer to God himself, a view objectionable neither to Greeks nor to Jews (17:28),3442 but it makes little grammatical sense, since it is God who not only “made” the world (17:24) but also “made” all humanity from the one (17:26). Excluded at least would be the Greek idea that gods and people both sprang from one mother, earth (Pindar Nem. 6.1–2).3443 (Greeks could trace humanity’s origin in myth to Deucalion and Pyrrha, though they reproduced mainly by their mother’s “bones”—that is, rocks of earth.)3444 Paul can offer a connection with the Stoic idea of humanity’s origin even if his view of its destiny differs (Acts 17:31).3445 A majority of commentators find here an allusion to Adam.3446 Paul’s hearers in the narrative world would not catch an allusion to the creation of Adam, but Luke’s own audience probably would; early Christians (and especially Paul’s circle) frequently discussed their Bible’s comments on Adam and Eve (Rom 5:12–21, esp. 5:14; 1 Cor 11:8–9; 15:22, 45–47; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13–14; Jude 14).3447 In support of such a biblical allusion, we should recall Luke’s inclusion of the patriarchs in the scheme of his metanarrative (e.g., Acts 3:25; 7:2–9; Luke 1:55, 73; 3:8, 34; 13:16, 28; 16:23–30; 19:9; 20:37; Acts 7:32); how his reversal of Babel (scattering peoples descended from Adam) supports the Gentile mission (Acts 2:5–11); and how he, unlike Matthew, traces Jesus’s genealogy back to Adam, the first “son of God” (Luke 3:38).3448 Further, that God created people to “dwell” all over the earth probably recalls God’s plan for people to “fill the earth” (Gen 1:28; 9:1; cf. 1:22; Exod 1:7).3449 3440. Many later manuscripts (with a wide geographic distribution and little reason for scribes to insert, except the Western tradition’s expansive tendency) read “from one blood” (for creation from blood, see Heidel, Genesis, 66–69; Schedl, History, 1:264–65; Miller, “Image,” 303–4; but probably this means a common bloodline); but “from one” seems the better reading (Barrett, Acts, 842; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 456). 3441. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77. Stoics affirmed that Zeus created the cosmos from one seed (Dio Chrys. Or. 36.56; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 56–57). 3442. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 12.30 for God as ancestor and 12.42 for Zeus as parent. See comment on Acts 17:28. 3443. For earth as the “mother,” see Aeschylus Suppl. 890; Lib. 44; Seven 16; Pindar Nem. 6.1–2; Ol. 7.38; Lucret. Nat. 2.581–99; Ovid Metam. 1.393; Fasti 2.713–19; Val. Max. 7.3.2; Pliny E. N.H. 2.63.154; Suet. Jul. 7.2; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15. Cf. comment on Acts 14:15. 3444. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305. 3445. See Witherington, Acts, 526. Philo connected the biblical teaching of the first man much more explicitly to Greek philosophy (see esp. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 37). 3446. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 142; Grant, Gods, 51; Johnson, Acts, 315; Barrett, Acts, 842; Chance, Acts, 310. Cf. ἑνός twelve times in Rom 5:12–21, though it is missing in the parallel discussion of Adam in 1 Cor 15:22, 45. 3447. Cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. The first couple (Tob 8:6) and God’s creation of people (2 Macc 7:28) also invited frequent comment elsewhere in early Judaism. 3448. On this last point, see Tannehill, Acts, 212; cf. also Chance, Acts, 311; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 128. Neyrey, Passion, develops the new Adam (who resists temptation) of Luke 3 in Luke’s passion; but given the dominance of patriarchs and prophets in Acts’ speeches, we perhaps should not press an Adam Christology too far. 3449. See Witherington, Acts, 526.

2645

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 349

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Later Jewish sources on Adam elaborate at length;3450 it is possible that some of the traditions were circulating in Jerusalem in Paul’s day. Many sources portrayed Adam hagiographically, as mostly godly.3451 Nevertheless, Adam’s sin brought death on himself3452 and introduced this experience to humanity.3453 (Rabbis also understood some sort of corporate personality in Adam.)3454 Some rabbis said that Adam was created, sinned, and was expelled all on the same day.3455 Adam once held great authority,3456 but his fall negated his previous authority over the world.3457 Before the fall, God showed him the future.3458 Many later rabbis attributed to Adam enormous size before the fall; he filled the earth.3459 Some rabbis believed that God collected dust for Adam’s creation from all parts of the world.3460 When Adam fell, he lost his massive volume.3461 Both the rabbis3462 and the Qumran scrolls3463 suggest Adam’s pristine “glory.” Adam’s sin caused 3450. One prominent stream of haggadah made Adam a hermaphrodite before being divided into both genders (e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §94 B; Gen. Rab. 8:1; 14:7; Lev. Rab. 14:1; cf. Daube, “Gospel and Rabbis,” 343, 346; idem, New Testament and Judaism, 72), although this was only one tradition (cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; 8, §23 B). For Philo, the first man was perfect (Creation 136). 3451. E.g., Test. Ab. 11:9–11 A; 8:12 B; L.A.E. passim; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:3; b. ʿErub. 18b; Gen. Rab. 9:5; cf. Scroggs, Adam, 21–22. Although Adam introduced sin, he sinned only once whereas others sin far more (Num. Rab. 19:18). In L.A.B., he is a priest and patriarch (Hayward, “Figure of Adam”). Some rabbis did debate whether he would inherit the future world (Gen. Rab. 21:7), and doubted his repentance (Pesiq. Rab. 7:2). 3452. See, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:5; b. Šabb. 55b; Num. Rab. 13:12; Eccl. Rab. 3:15, §1. He would have remained immortal had he not sinned (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4). 3453. Cf., e.g., Wis 2:23–24 (though blaming the devil); L.A.E. 44:3–4; Sipre Deut. 323.5.1; 339.1.2; Gen. Rab. 16:6; Exod. Rab. 30:3; Num. Rab. 10:2; 23:13; Pesiq. Rab. 48:2; Tg. Ruth 4:22 (cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:474–76; later rabbis may have minimized the fall account, perhaps reacting against Christians [Hayman, “Fall”]). Works such as 2 Baruch could present Adam as introducing death to all (2 Bar. 54:15a; cf. 17:2–3; 23:4; 48:42–43; 56:5–6) yet each human as becoming his or her own “adam,” choosing death for self (2 Bar. 54:15b, 19; cf. 18:2; 48:45); cf. 4 Ezra 3:7, 20–21; 4:30; 7:11, 118–19 (48–49); Knibb, Esdras, 131. Cf. also Sipra in Smith, Parallels, 168–69. For the postbiblical sources in greater detail, see esp. Scroggs, Adam, 18–20; Levison, “Adam and Eve”; for various ancient views, see Baudry, “Péché dans pseudépigraphes”; idem, “Péché chez Philon”; Levison, “Adam.” 3454. E.g., m. Sanh. 4:5; Pesiq. Rab. 14:8; for Adam as a type of Israel, see, e.g., 4 Ezra 3:25; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:1. Both the righteous and the wicked would issue from Adam (Gen. Rab. 8:4), since all humanity would (Tob 8:6; Sir 33[36]:10; 40:1; Wis 10:1; 4 Ezra 6:53–56; L.A.B. 37:3). 3455. So ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; 1, §8; 42, §116 B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1. 3456. Gen 1:26, 28; Sir 49:16; 4 Ezra 6:53–54; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3; b. Ber. 31a; Soṭah 46b; cf. Ps 8:6–8. For Adam’s authority over the animals, see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 63:13; comment on Acts 28:5. 3457. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; Song Rab. 3:7, §5. 3458. E.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 31 A; 42, §116 B; b. Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 21:9; 24:2; Pesiq. Rab. 23:1; for other revelations, 2 En. 31:2; L.A.E. 25:3–27:3. The primeval light also allowed him to view the entire world (y. Ber. 8:6, §5); God showed him all his mighty works (L.A.B. 26:6). 3459. See Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8, §22; 42, §116 B; b. Ḥag. 12a; Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; 5:3; Gen. Rab. 2:3; 8:1; 12:6; 21:3; 24:2; 58:8; Lev. Rab. 14:1; 18:2; Num. Rab. 13:12; Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3; cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:228; Scroggs, Adam, 49–52; for his great height in later Islamic tradition, see, e.g., Moucarry, Prophet, 86. His “cosmic” stature may stem from the late third century or later (Barc, “Taille”) but arises from rabbinic, and not gnostic, influences (Niditch, “Adam”); for his primeval beauty, see Sib. Or. 1.24. Cf. Metatron (3 En. 9:2); Abraham (Pesiq. Rab. 7:2); to a lesser extent, Moses (ʾAbot R. Nat. 9 A); the Nephilim (Gen. Rab. 26:7); and, especially in Amoraic tradition, Og (Kosman, “Story”). For tales of giants, see, e.g., Hom. Od. 11.305–20, 576–77; Philost. Hrk. 8.14; 45.5; some more-realistic cases of gigantism were also documented (e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.16.73–76). For one survey of Adam and Eve in midrashic literature, see Blidstein, Garden. 3460. B. Sanh. 38a, bar.; in Aug. Enarrations on the Psalms 96.15, he scattered to all the world after his fall. On “Adam” for Gentiles, see comment on Acts 15:17; cf. 4Q167 7 1; 4 Ezra 6:56. 3461. E.g., b. Ḥag. 12a; Sanh. 38b; Gen. Rab. 12:6; Num. Rab. 13:12. Some opined that he was cut down to 100 cubits (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; 5:3; Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3); in Gen. Rab. 58:8, he remained tall even after death. This massive height would be restored in the coming world (Sipra Behuq. pq. 3.263.1.9). 3462. See, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 1 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:4; 26:3; b. B. Bat. 58a; y. Šabb. 2:6, §2; Lev. Rab. 20:2; Eccl. Rab. 8:1, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 14:10; Scroggs, Adam, 48–49; in the Targumim, McNamara, Targum, 120–21; cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 84a. 3463. 1QS IV, 23; CD III, 20; 1QHa IV, 27; 4Q504 8 4; 4Q511 52 + 54–55 + 57–59 2; cf. Pryke, “Eschatology,” 50. Qumran was less interested in the story of Adam’s fall (Baudry, “Péché de Qoumrân”; cf.

2646

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 350

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

him to lose his splendor3464 and caused God’s Shekinah to lift from the earth.3465 The Qumran scrolls may suggest that the elect receive this glory,3466 and other sources may suggest that Adam’s glory would be restored.3467 In some later Jewish tradition, the Messiah would restore what Adam lost.3468 The eschatological time would reverse the curse and restore Eden’s blessings;3469 the righteous would have Adam’s heritage.3470 Some scholars find background here for Paul’s teaching of the second Adam.3471 Although most commentators find here an allusion to Adam, some have argued for an allusion to Noah.3472 This helps explain the mention of “peoples” and the possible allusions to Gen 10 and 11 in the rest of Acts 17:26.3473 Jewish tradition often associated Gentiles’ ancestry with Noah (see comment on Acts 15:20), as well as with Adam. Nevertheless, commentators have had good reason for emphasizing an allusion to Adam here. An Adam allusion seems consistent with the contrast in 17:29 between being God’s offspring and human-made images and so may have more support from the context.3474 Whichever approach one takes, however, this passage underlines the common origin of humanity, since in Jewish thought all humanity descended from Noah as it did from Adam. The common origin of humanity, like the reversal of Babel in Acts 2:5–11, fits the theme of the Gentile mission in Acts (1:8) and its grounding in salvation history (7:2–53).3475 Rabbis claimed that God created only one person initially so that peoples could not compete as to the superiority of their respective ancestors (m. Sanh. 4:5).3476 CD X, 8; 4Q167 7–8 1; 4Q266 8 III, 7), though it mentions “Adam”; many uses are collective (cf. Thorion, “‘dm”; e.g., 1QS XI, 9, 14–15). 3464. E.g., 3 Bar. 4:16 (Greek, not Slavonic); Gen. Rab. 12:6; Num. Rab. 13:12; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 2:25. But cf. the “garments of light” after the fall (Tg. Onq. on Gen 3:21; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:21; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:21). 3465. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:1; Song Rab. 5:1, §1. He is estranged from God’s glory in Apoc. Mos. 21:6; Num. Rab. 13:2. 3466. See 1QS IV, 22–23; 1QHa IV, 27; CD III, 20. 3467. Apoc. Mos. 39:2. 3468. Num. Rab. 13:12. 3469. Sipra Behuq. pq. 1.261.1.6. 3470. 4Q171 1–2 III, 1–2. 3471. Some find in rabbinic Judaism the closest parallels to Paul’s two-Adam imagery (certainly better than gnostic; Scroggs, Adam; Hultgren, “Origin”; cf. Richardson, Theology, 245–46; for Life of Adam and Eve, cf. Bianchi, “Rédemption”; for Apocalypse of Moses, Sharpe, “Adam”), although the rabbis did not articulate a second Adam the way Paul does (“first” Adam in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 3:22 may simply point to the rest of humanity that would follow, as in 4 Ezra 3:21, 26). An inversion of the sort of exegesis found in Philo (cf. Alleg. Interp. 2.4) may, however, be likelier (cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 78; Keener, Corinthians, 132). Genesis itself parallels Adam, Noah, and Abram, looking for a reversal of the curse (Gen 5:29; cf. also Wright, People of God, 262–63; later, cf. the apocalyptic tradition of viewing the Endzeit in terms of the Urzeit, e.g., Dahl, “Creation,” 429; Arrington, Aeon Theology, 157; note also pentateuchal connections in Postell, Adam as Israel); early interpreters may have recognized these connections (cf. 4 Ezra 3:10–11; 2 En. 70:10; Gen. Rab. 14:6; Eccl. Rab. 3:11, §2). 3472. Prof. John Walton shared with me this possibility in personal correspondence, Dec. 20–21, 2012. 3473. This includes allusions to these passages via Deut 32:8, which might allude to them. The verbal allusions are not obvious; “nations on earth” could allude to Gen 10:32, reinforcing a Noah allusion, but Luke’s wording (“nations on the face of the earth”) is closer to Deut 7:6; 14:2; “nation” and “person” appear together in Amos 9:12 (recently employed in Acts 15:17); and “one man” alludes, if anything, to Jacob (Gen 42:11). Luke’s language may echo diverse biblical language without a specific contextual allusion. 3474. Jesus as a particular “man” in 17:31 also makes a better contrast with Adam than with Noah, although an allusion either way is not certain. 3475. This image has been rightly employed by popular interpreters for ethnic reconciliation (e.g., a nineteenth-century American slave, James Curry, in Blassingame, Slave Testimony, 130–31; a Pentecostal preacher in early twentieth-century South Africa, Lindsay, Lake, 43; see more extensively Williams, “Acts,” 236–38), in contrast to the abuses made of the later part of the verse. 3476. See also t. Sanh. 8:4–5; b. Sanh. 38a. Rabbi Meir and his successors claimed that Adam was created from dust gathered from many regions (b. Sanh. 38ab). See further Montefiore, “Spirit of Judaism,” 39–40; Moore, Judaism, 446.

2647

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 351

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Similarly, when a Stoic declared that Nature created all people from the same source and for the same purpose, he might emphasize humans’ relationship with one another (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.52).3477 Because, he claimed, all people spring from the same original source—namely, the gods (44.1)—no group should be thought superior to others (44.1–2).3478 Humanity’s “universal brotherhood” demanded just treatment of others (Cic. Off. 3.6.28 [LCL, 21:295]).3479 The claim of humanity’s common origin from “one” person would also refute local Athenian beliefs that the Athenians sprang exclusively from Attic soil,3480 though (as noted above) it is questionable how readily the idea would have occurred to Paul or even to Luke and his audience.3481 Hu m a n H i story a nd B ounda r ie s

The phrase “inhabit the earth,” applied to humans, could be supposed to reinforce for Jews the distinction between humans and angels,3482 yet this distinction would be meaningless to Greeks (unless perhaps to rule out “gods”;3483 but Greeks had terrestrial as well as Olympian deities3484) and would be redundant even for Jews (since the text already states that they are humans). The point is instead that God demonstrated his benevolence and power by filling all the inhabited earth with people (cf. Gen 1:28); if God caused them to inhabit such vast regions, how could anyone expect God to “inhabit” mere human houses (Acts 17:24)? If the infinitive (ζητεῖν) that opens 17:27 parallels κατοικεῖν in 17:26, the intervening compound clause likely expands on the character of this dwelling (κατοικεῖν), a likelihood apparently confirmed by the cognate κατοικίας at the end of the clause (17:26). God does not “dwell” in human temples (17:24, with κατοικεῖ in the emphatic final position) but, by contrast, has established the places for humanity to dwell. Probably the first part of the clause addresses the times allotted for various peoples and empires, and the second, the lands they would rule during those periods. Although both of these items are disputed, this is the likeliest interpretation of these points in view of their context. Two major lines of interpretation exist: that Luke refers to historical epochs and national boundaries or that he develops a philosophy of nature. The latter might be relevant if offered in 17:24, but it appears much less likely in a section focused on God’s providence toward humanity (17:25–27). This is not to suggest that the latter should be excluded altogether; both Greeks and Jews wove together both sorts of elements, and both ultimately were held to demonstrate God’s power and providence.3485 3477. Seneca undoubtedly thought in terms of Reason (ratio, analogous to the Greek λόγος), or cause, which shapes matter in the formation of the universe; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 65; on the creative role of the Logos, see Philo Creation 20, 26, 31; Migr. 6; Keener, John, 341–47, 376–78. The pervasive Logos was shared among all humanity (Porter, Paul in Acts, 121). 3478. Cf. similarly Dio Chrys. Or. 7.138; for Stoic views on equality because of common stock, see also O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 297. Paul could thus deny Greek superiority, although such a direct challenge might not suit his immediate evangelistic objective. 3479. For the unity of humanity in ancient thought, see Judge, First Christians, 588–94. 3480. E.g., Bruce, Commentary, 357–58; see comment on the Athenian belief at Acts 17:25. 3481. The idea of people springing from soil or rocks was common enough in Greek thought (see Apollod. Bib. 1.7.2; Ovid Metam. 1.393–94, 400–415; Statius Theb. 8.305; comment on Acts 17:25). 3482. E.g., Test. Ab. 3:5 A. The phrase is familiar in apocalyptic literature, e.g., Rev 3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 14; 17:2, 8; 1 En. 40:6–7; 54:6; 65:12; 80:7; 4 Ezra 5:6; 7:72; 13:30; 2 Bar. 25:3; 27:15; 48:32; cf. also Wis 9:10. 3483. Cf. Cic. Leg. 2.8.19; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.9–10; 18A, p. 112.24–25; Max. Tyre 9.6. 3484. Cf., e.g., Pan, a deity of woodlands (Longus 2.26–31; 4.39; Paus. 1.32.7; 8.38.5); caves (Paus. 10.32.6) and wooded areas (5.10.1) could also be sacred to other deities. 3485. Conzelmann, Acts, 142–44 (citing 1QHa IX, 16–17; 1QM X, 12–16; see esp. 1QM X, 14–15); Fitzmyer, Acts, 609.

2648

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 352

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

God demonstrates his majesty by “separating” both time and space (Gen 1:4, 7), but he also “separated” peoples (Gen 10:5, 32; Deut 32:8).3486 God arranged the cosmos (Ps 74:16–17; Wis 7:17–19) but also the nations.3487 Psalm 74:17 declares God’s sovereignty over both seasons and boundaries. The focus is more likely primarily on the nations than on nature here. Yet Luke is already preparing for Paul’s peroratio here by his use of ὁρίσας (and a similar sounding noun, which facilitates a wordplay here): God determines both times and nations and therefore has the sovereign right to determine Jesus as judge of humanity (Acts 17:31, the only other use of ὁρίζω in this context and one of only six uses in Luke-Acts; cf. Rom 1:4; Heb 4:7). Regarding the “times” (καιρούς), some scholars apply these to the seasons of creation. Certainly, Jewish people spoke of such seasons (Gen 1:14, employing the same term; 8:22), and Luke himself seems well aware of observable boundaries in nature (Luke 12:54–55). The strongest support for this interpretation is Luke’s employment of the same term in another passage expounding God’s creation to Gentiles (Acts 14:17), which suggests that we should allow at least for the inclusion of this nuance.3488 But Luke more often speaks of “seasons” in God’s dealings with humanity, culminating in the end time (1:7; 3:20; cf. 14:16; 17:31) and including his plan for the nations and their crossing national boundaries (Luke 21:24). Thus the idea may involve the appointed periods of various nations emphasized in Daniel (Dan 2:37–45; 8:19–26; 11:2–45).3489 Given the apocalyptic notion of predestined eras,3490 likely shared by Luke (Acts 1:7), this language probably applies to the appointed durations of nations, such as the rise and fall of Assyria, Babylon, the Hellenistic empire, and ultimately Rome.3491 Josephus uses the accuracy of such prophecies to argue for God’s sovereignty (Ant. 10.280); their accuracy regarding empires reveals God’s authority over history. 3492 Some scholars interpret also “the boundaries where they [the nations] live” as a reference to all habitable regions of the earth (those fit for cultivation), as opposed 3486. Compare, e.g., ὁρίσας for “separate” in Acts 17:26 with ἀφωρίσθησαν in Gen 10:5; ὁρίζω often entails peoples’ boundaries in the lxx (Num 34:6; Josh 13:7, 27; 15:12; 18:20; 23:4; Ezek 47:20); so also ἀφωρίζω (Deut 4:41; Josh 14:4; 16:9; 21:13–18, 21–32; Ezek 45:1, 4; 48:9, 20; cf. Exod 19:12, 23), though it applies to creation’s boundaries in Prov 8:27. 3487. Luke’s rare term ὁροθεσία does not appear in the lxx (though it probably refers to national boundaries; see Euseb. Demonstratio evangelica 4.9, in Witherington, Acts, 527), but the closest cognate, ὅριον, does. It does apply to nature’s boundaries in the oft-cited Ps 74:17 (cf. Haenchen, Acts, 524n6), but to those of peoples in the vast majority of cases, e.g., Gen 10:19; 23:17; 47:21; Exod 23:31; Num 20:16–23; 21:13–24; 22:36; 32:33, 44; 34:2–12; 35:26–27; Deut 2:4, 18; 3:14, 16–17; 11:24; 19:3, 8, 14; 27:17; Josh 1:4; 12:2, 5; 13:2–30; 15:1–21; 16:1–8; 17:1–10; 18:5–20; 19:10–49; 21:20, 40, 42; 1 Chr 6:54, 66; 7:29; 13:5; 2 Chr 9:26; 11:13, 23; Ezek 47:13–17; 48:1–28; esp. Deut 32:8; in the Apocrypha, e.g., Jdt 1:5, 10, 12; 2:10, 25; 4:4; 14:4; 15:4, 5; 16:4; 1 Macc 2:46; 3:32, 36, 42; 5:9, 60; 6:25; 7:24; 9:23, 72; 10:31, 43, 89; 11:34, 59; 14:2, 6, 33, 34; 15:29, 30. The cognate verb usually applies to political boundaries as well. 3488. Passages sometimes describe together God’s activities of delineating boundaries of the seasons, the cosmos, and nations (Gen. Rab. 10:5; Num. Rab. 18:7). 3489. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 216; Salmeier, Restoring, 173. Later rabbis claimed that God carefully predestined the lengths of kings’ reigns (Ruth Rab. 3:2). 3490. On the two ages, cf., e.g., 4Q215a 1 II; 4 Ezra 7:50; 8:1; L.A.E. 51:2; t. Taʿan. 3:14; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; Sipre Deut. 29.2.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A; 22, §46 B; b. Yoma 87a; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §16; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 6:2; 9:1; Gen. Rab. 1:10; 59:6; 90:6; Exod. Rab. 30:19; 47:3; Lev. Rab. 3:1; Deut. Rab. 2:31; Song Rab. 2:2, §6; Pesiq. Rab. 16:6; 25:2; cf. also Ferch, “Aeons,” 135–51. 3491. Cf., e.g., the notion of the four kingdoms (Dan 2:38–43; 8:20–25; 4Q554 III, 14–21; 2 Bar. 39:5–7; 4 Ezra 12:11; Sib. Or. 8.6–11; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; the excursus on God’s kingdom at Acts 1:3 [Keener, Acts, 1:671–74]). Modern Western observers might think of the transitory character of the British Empire, the (especially short-lived) Third Reich, the Soviet empire, and perhaps now the temporary political and economic strength of the United States. In different ways, Greeks and Romans also divided history into periods (Walter, “Periods,” 791–92). Sen. E. Historical Frg. 1 divided Rome’s history into ages (corresponding with human maturation). 3492. See further Höffken, “Weltreiche.”

2649

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 353

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to the uninhabitable zones.3493 Both Scripture and other sources could speak of a deity having established boundaries between land and sea.3494 Some thus think that Acts refers to God setting the boundaries for the sea, perhaps still envisioned by some ancients as a chaos monster.3495 Polytheists spoke of the earth portioned out to various deities (Pindar Ol. 7.55–56) and commonly of the deities’ division of the world, sea, and underworld.3496 Both Jews and Gentiles, then, believed that God ordered the cosmos.3497 Genesis follows the creation of humanity with a dispersion of peoples to various locations (Gen 10:5, 10–12, 18–20, 30–32; 11:9, 31), however, and pre-Christian Jewish tradition also emphasizes God’s ordaining political boundaries among peoples.3498 In some Jewish texts, this action apparently relates to the judgment at Babel (1QM X, 14), a theme with which Luke has, as we have noted, shown himself familiar.3499 When Noah’s sons began dividing the earth wrongly (Jub. 8:8–9), Noah divided it God’s way—that is, by lot (8:10–11)—and made his sons promise not to transgress these boundaries (9:14).3500 In another version (probably also pre-Christian), the three sons of Noah (given names from Greek mythology) divided the earth peacefully (Sib. Or. 3.114–16), but strife over these divisions arose after Noah’s death (3.117–20). Most important, Daniel (Dan 2:21) affirms that God both removes and establishes kings and is sovereign over the times and epochs (i.e., the periods allotted to various kingdoms). One Greco-Roman myth attributed the creation of boundary lines to the inferior bronze race, before which all things were held in common.3501 The Stoic writer Seneca the Younger also regarded human boundaries as artificial and foolish in view of the universe’s vastness (Nat. Q. 1.pref. 9–10).3502 But Gentiles were well aware of various nations and city-states with patron deities3503 (e.g., Roma for Rome),3504 and the Romans had a god, Terminus, who marked boundaries (for instance, of people’s fields; e.g., Ovid Fasti 2.639–84). Some scholars counter the political interpretation by arguing that the political boundaries are not evidence of God’s existence,3505 but this argument bears two significant flaws: first, most Jews familiar with Jewish apocalyptic, with Daniel, or 3493. So Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 31; Bruce, Commentary, 358n46. 3494. See Ps 104:9; Jer 5:22; 4 Ezra 4:19; esp. Prov 8:29; cf. Job 26:10; one perspective in Harrelson, Cult, 12. See also Apollo as the sun god in Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.18–19, using ὅρους. God connected land and sea in 2 En. 48:6. 3495. See Eltester, “Gott und Natur,” 209–20 (cited by Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 55). 3496. E.g., Lucian Dance 37. 3497. Stoics according to Dio Chrys. Or. 36 (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 56–57). 3498. E.g., Sir 36:11; 4Q266 11 9–10. Also in Sipre Deut. 311.1.2; implied in Sir 17:17. 3499. For an allusion to the table of nations here, see Scott, “Horizons,” 541–43. 3500. On the evil of violating ancestral boundaries, see Deut 19:14; 27:17; CD V, 20–21; cf. 1 Kgs 21:3. Compare the division in Jubilees, above, with the Greek division of the cosmos among chief deities. 3501. Ovid Metam. 1.135–36. On the peace of the golden age and its degeneration, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 36.1–2 and comment on Acts 2:17. Because God gave the earth in common to all (Sib. Or. 3.247, probably pre-Christian), some expected boundaries to be abolished in the end time (2.31; Christian material in 2.319; 8.209–10). 3502. That Seneca nevertheless owned property may suggest that his ideals had limits; boundaries serve a practical function in regulating human relations. Musonius Rufus speaks of God’s dividing humanity into genders (14, p. 92.9–10). 3503. For patron deities of nations, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 7.27.2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2; cf. Iambl. Myst. 5.24. For Rome’s guardian spirit, see Plut. Fort. Rom. 11, Mor. 324B. 3504. For Roma, see, e.g., Aune, Revelation, 920–22; Bauckham, Climax, 344. 3505. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 33. Yet one might object the same for natural boundaries, since Epicureans, who diverged from the usual conception of deities (see excursus at Acts 17:18), recognized boundaries of a sort for humans within nature (see Asmis, “Order,” on Lucretius).

2650

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 354

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

even with oracles against the nations in the preexilic prophets would have disagreed; and second, the speech’s argument at this point (and probably throughout) is about God’s character, not about God’s existence. (Paul’s audience in the narrative world consists largely of polytheists [cf. 17:16, 22–23], not atheists.) Those earlier, popular theological interpreters, especially in South Africa and North America, who exploited this text to justify ethnic separatism not only missed its point but succumbed to its negative verdict. All humanity shares a common origin, and the boundaries of peoples and empires are each assigned by God’s sovereignty for certain eras. Far from being prescriptive, these boundaries merely depict the geographic separations established—whether in judgment since Babel or otherwise showing humanity’s limitations—for various seasons, all to be overturned in divinely appointed times. In the same biblical perspective, the more ethnocentric, arrogant empires (e.g., Assyria) had always fallen the hardest. (4) Groping for God (17:27)

God is not “far”; therefore it is no “foreign divinity” (Acts 17:18) that Paul proclaims.3506 But to what degree does his nearness make him accessible? At this point Paul is describing “the times of ignorance,” before God offered a supreme revelation inviting all to repentance (17:30); God is near even through his image in humanity (17:28–29), but the Athenians’ very worship of other images reveals that they have not recognized him (17:29). The infinitive ζητεῖν, which can be translated “to seek”—that is, “that they should seek”—may depend on the clause about humans’ boundaries being established, but it more likely depends on the verb “made”: God made humanity to dwell in the earth (17:26) and to seek him (17:27).3507 Whereas Platonism traditionally stressed God’s transcendence so highly as to require mediation,3508 others argued for God’s immanence, with Stoics even emphasizing that God pervades all creation.3509 Some philosophic traditions emphasized that people could seek after God (as best as was possible)3510 precisely because he is not far from us.3511 Stoics believed that God’s order in nature (one interpretation of 17:26) revealed God’s character and allowed us to “seek” him intellectually;3512 this might suggest an optimistic outcome for the 3506. Luke probably refers to the Gentiles in both of the other instances where he employs μακράν in Acts (Acts 2:39; 22:21). Gentiles might be “far” from Israel, but God was not necessarily “far” from them. 3507. Thus these would constitute two “parallel purpose infinitives” with an intervening digression about the nature of where they would dwell (Witherington, Acts, 526; contrast Bruce, Acts1, 337). 3508. See Trapp, Maximus, xxvii–xxviii (citing Max. Tyre 10.9; 11.7–12; 21.7). 3509. Cf. Isaacs, Spirit, 29, arguing that Philo’s view of immanence was compatible with both Scripture and Stoicism. For the pervasive character of “spirit,” cf., e.g., Max. Tyre 4.8; Long, Philosophy, 171; cf. Schweizer, Spirit, 29; Klauck, Context, 354. Humans could have communion with the divine by virtue of shared reason (Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5; cf. Diog. Laert. 7.138). Whereas Stoic immanence sometimes shaded into pantheism, the rabbis (who also emphasized God’s omnipresence; see Keener, Matthew, 455–56) emphasized a more selective approach to immanence (Urbach, Sages, 1:51). 3510. Philo Spec. Laws 1.36; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.60–61 (Conzelmann, Acts, 144; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77; Klauck, Magic, 86). 3511. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 41.1–2; Pss 139:7–12; 145:18; Isa 55:6 (Conzelmann, Acts, 144; Klauck, Magic, 87; Pervo, Acts, 438); Jos. Ant. 8.108 (Gaventa, Acts, 251); elsewhere, e.g., Deut 4:7; Pss 73:28; 75:1; Jer 23:23; Zeph 3:2; esp. Wis 6:19. A Stoic could use exactly this sort of sentiment to combat idolatry (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 77–78; Strabo 16.2.35). God’s not being far “from each one” might parallel God’s making from “one” in Adam in 17:26, given the few Lukan uses (five) of this form of the adjective and the eleven uses in Rom 5:12–19; if so, it would underline the connection with God through initial creation. 3512. See Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 57 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–30; Strabo 2.3.2), contrasting this with seeking God by obedience in the ot. Tilborg, “Acts 17:27,” suggests that the image of touching here fits Hellenistic ideas (and connects it with epiphanies elsewhere in Acts). For many thinkers, God was untouchable (Max. Tyre 11.9; Porph. Marc. 8.147–50); for Stoics, God was not in human shape (Diog. Laert. 7.1.147),

2651

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 355

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

seeking (as in Justin 2 Apol. 13; contrast Rom 1:18–21; 3:11); but see further discussion below. Some ancient thinkers argued that nature placed a longing for truth in the human soul.3513 Many argued that knowledge about the deity was innate in humans;3514 an ability to recognize the divine stamp in nature distinguished rational beings from what was not rational.3515 Deities’ works likewise indicate their benevolence.3516 Divine providence was especially evident in humanity,3517 the pinnacle of nature’s works.3518 As Seneca the Younger observes, “We infer that the gods exist . . . [in part because] there is implanted in everyone an idea concerning deity, and there is no people so far beyond the reach of laws and customs that it does not believe at least in gods of some sort.”3519 The belief that all peoples shared a concept of deity, no matter how “uncivilized” or “barbarous” such peoples might be, was a widespread ancient argument for the deity’s existence.3520 But Paul’s “groping after” is hardly a positive image, used in both classical texts and the lxx for a blind person or another stumbling forward in darkness.3521 The Hebrew equivalent behind the lxx term in Isa 59:10 also appears in CD I, 9, where God’s people grope like blind men seeking for the way; in that instance, God restored them through the Teacher of Righteousness because they sought him with their whole heart (CD I, 10–11). Not all occasions of groping or seeking turned out so positively, however; the nations, seeking (ζητοῦντες) after God, wishing to find (θέλοντες εὑρεῖν) him (Wis 13:6–7), failed to find (εὗρον) him (13:9); though their responsibility is diminished (13:6), they are without excuse (13:8; Rom 1:20).3522 In this instance, Epicureans3523 and other thinkers, describing at least the masses,3524 recognized that fumbling about in darkness was not necessarily promising. Further, “if perhaps they might . . . find him” is hardly an encouraging way of putting the quest. Although it may not rule out success explicitly, it is pessimistic on the whole; Porter notes that “the protasis of a fourth-class conditional” statement, “with the optative,” is “the most condition-laden Greek mood form.”3525 God is not far, but and his nature was pure intellect (Epict. Diatr. 2.8.2). But of course, in any case, Luke does not intend the designation physically. 3513. E.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.19.44; cf. Porph. Marc. 26.410. Knowledge about the gods also led to yearning to share their immortality (Cic. Tusc. 5.25.70). 3514. E.g., Cic. Inv. 2.22.65; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27–28; Iambl. Myst. 1.3; Porph. Marc. 26.410–11; cf. Rom 1:19; 2:14–15; Porph. Marc. 11.191–93; Jackson-McCabe, “Implanted Preconceptions.” For other innate knowledge (more commonly among Platonists), see, e.g., Plato Phaedo 75CD, 76A; Cic. Tusc. 1.19.44; Top. 7.31; Inv. 2.22.65–66; 2.53.161; Leg. 1.10.28; Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.12–14, 17–20; Max. Tyre 10.6–7; 21.7; Porph. Marc. 10.185–86. 3515. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27, 32. Rational beings had communion with God (Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5), who authored their rationality (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 379, §126D); only humans, as rational beings, could serve as interpreters of God’s works (Epict. Diatr. 1.6.18–19). 3516. Xen. Mem. 4.3.12–13; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.50. 3517. For the human body and nature, see Cic. Nat. d. 2.54.133–2.58.146; for the human mind, see 2.59.147–2.61.153; cf. 2.61.154–2.67.168. 3518. Sen. Y. Ben. 6.23.6–7. 3519. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 117.6 (LCL, 3:341). 3520. E.g., Cic. Tusc. 1.13.30; Max. Tyre 11.5. 3521. Witherington, Acts, 528 (citing Aristoph. Ec. 315; Peace 691; Plato Phaedo 99B; Deut 28:29; Judg 16:26; Job 5:13–14; 12:25; Isa 59:10). 3522. For natural theology in Wis 13, see Dafni, “Natürliche Theologie.” Poniży, “Recognition,” argues that Wis 13 develops the Gentile philosophic ideal of finding God by analogy. 3523. Cf. perhaps Lucret. Nat. 2.54, who seems to portray life as a struggle in the darkness (in tenebris) of ignorance. 3524. Max. Tyre 29.5. 3525. Porter, Paul in Acts, 148, also 122, following Porter, Idioms, 263–64. Without ruling out any access to God, Luke views full access as coming only in Christ (cf. Dumais, “Salut”); for the pessimistic view here, see also Hansen, “Preaching,” 316.

2652

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 356

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

this proximity is because of his kindness, not because of human perceptivity. God’s kindness in making himself near includes his sustaining of human life (Acts 17:28).3526 Paul is still describing the “times of ignorance,” the period before God invited repentance (17:30) by raising Jesus (17:31) and sending Paul to preach to them. Now, as Paul will shortly explain, God demands repentance (17:30). (5) God’s Offspring (17:28)

God is not far from people, Paul says (17:27); indeed, he is immanent in them because they are his children (17:28), created in his image (unlike mere statues, 17:29).3527 To bolster his case about humans being God’s children, Paul offers a common quotation from a Greek poem, since educated speakers were expected to offer classical quotations among their proofs.3528 The Au thor i t y of Poet s

Greeks’ primary education included practice writing and memorizing quotations from poets, which, as part of the shared intellectual culture, grew proverbial.3529 The early, literary component of secondary education (which preceded study of rhetoric) focused on reading poets, especially Homer, and later the tragic poets of classical Athens.3530 Those who disputed the poets’ myths often had to do so explicitly; they were too central to the cultural fabric to be simply ignored.3531 Because Homer was the poet par excellence, it is useful to survey the authority attributed to him. Homer’s appeal extended far beyond anthologies for school use; the chief works attributed to him (i.e., the Iliad and the Odyssey) became the literary canon furnishing the standard for cultural literacy in the Greco-Roman world.3532 Secondary education included reading from various poets but especially Homer.3533 Professors of grammar and rhetoric even looked to Homer for models for any genres they sought to teach.3534 Thus Cicero thought that reading orators and poets would improve one’s 3526. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.28 has God near, but because of the Stoic idea of innate ideas of God in people by nature (Witherington, Acts, 529); see comment below. 3527. I believe that Luke and his audience could presuppose Genesis’s connection between creation in God’s image and being his children (children reflecting their parents’ image; cf. Gen 5:2–3). They might also recognize the contrast with other deity images (e.g., Wisdom uses the language both for people in God’s image, 2:23, and for idols, e.g., 13:16; 14:15; 15:15). 3528. Even historians, such as Luke, were expected to evoke earlier sources by mimesis or direct citation, though these included earlier historical sources (see esp. Pitts, “Citation,” published too late for interaction in my introduction). Luke’s audience might envision Paul starting with the conventional gesture for quotations: an outstretched right hand, with “a slightly drooped index finger, with the two outer fingers curved” (Shiell, Reading Acts, 56). 3529. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115. See more generally Marrou, Education; Bonner, Education. On the use of proverbs, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 91; on the citation of popular opinion where useful, as in Acts 17:28, see Anderson, Glossary, 67. 3530. Watson, “Education,” 309 (noting [310] the addition of Virgil among first-century c.e. Romans); cf. also Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115. 3531. The poets and other myths in Lucian Amber 3–6; Homer himself in Dio Chrys. Or. 11.19–23. 3532. See the range of discussion on Homer in Sandnes, Challenge, 40–58. Palestinian Jews from Maccabean through Roman times already recognized Homer as canonical (in a literary way) for Greeks (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:74–75), though not in the same way Jewish people observed Torah (see rightly Cohen, Maccabees, 202; Gutmann, “Paintings,” 68; cf. Stanley, Language of Scripture, 339). (For the different classical use of “canon,” see Easterling, “Canon.”) Some ancients, however, may have read Homer “devotionally” (Arcesilaus in Diog. Laert. 4.31). Some could accept Homer’s inspiration (Philost. Hrk. 25.4, 8) yet critique his errors (24.1–2; 25.10–17). 3533. Hock, “Paul and Education,” 203. Paul’s citation of a core author from the late primary curriculum in 1 Cor 15:33 probably suggests that he had such training (208). 3534. Stowers, Letter Writing, 55; Sluiter, “Homer”; cf. Pliny Ep. 9.26.6–7. Alexander also allegedly thought the Iliad the best summary of military skill (Plut. Alex. 8.2), though its individualistic heroes could not have compared with the Macedonian phalanx.

2653

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 357

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“choice of diction,” provided one used current rather than ancient vocabulary (De or. 3.10.39). More than seven hundred papyri and ostraca of Homer or quotations from Homer have been published, followed by roughly a hundred fragments each of Demosthenes, Euripides, and Hesiod.3535 Bards traveled about reciting all of Homer from memory whereas others preferred more “academic” Homeric criticism.3536 Greeks also cited other poets and writers, venerable by age, as authorities on various issues.3537 Appeal to cultural authorities hallowed by long usage was standard epistemology; thus, simply by appealing to Hippocrates, a writer defends Plato against a physician’s charge that he misunderstood the stomach (Aul. Gel. 17.11); a writer also feels compelled to defend Virgil even against charges of bad grammar (e.g., 5.8). Homer was long quoted as an authority,3538 often for maxims the way Jewish people quoted the Bible.3539 Many quoted him as a “witness” supporting their positions;3540 thus “as witness” one might offer Homer, “the most ancient and greatest of all poets.”3541 (In his discussion of witnesses in rhetoric, Aristotle claims that ancient witnesses such as poets and sages are more dependable than recent witnesses3542 because they are less subject to corruption.)3543 One might act “on Homer’s authority”—that is, on the basis of a line from Homer.3544 He was “the poet” par excellence3545—often called a particularly “divine” poet3546—or even “the great prophet of truth.”3547 Even those who affirmed his inspiration might nevertheless critique him,3548 but he was always a primary foundation of the literary canon, a starting point that had 3535. Lewis, Life, 59. 3536. Xen. Symp. 3.5–6; cf. Lucian True Story 2.20 (in a parody). For modern Homeric criticism, see, e.g., Willcock, “Homer,” and bibliography there. 3537. E.g., Xen. Mem. 1.2.20 (Theognis); Aeschines Tim. 28 (laws of Solon); Demosth. Fals. leg. 247 (citing already the recent Soph. Antig. 175–90), 255 (Solon); Plut. Phoc. 1.3 (Sophocles); Libanius Anecdote 3.36 (Hesiod); Maxim 3.10; Invect. 6.3; for Stoics close to Paul’s era, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 70.29–31 (unnamed); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.2 (in this case refuting Virg. Aen. 5.344); for perhaps even novels alluding to classical tragedies, see Trzaskoma, “Chariton and Tragedy.” 3538. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 142–52; Pindar Pyth. 4.278–79 (citing Hom. Il. 15.207); Plut. Isis 1, Mor. 351D; 26, Mor. 360F–361A; Pliny Ep. 1.7 (quoting Hom. Il. 1.528; 16.250); Dio Chrys. Or. 2.3–6 (Alexander’s view); 4.22; Libanius Encomium 1.1; 2.1; 3; cf. further Konstan, introduction, in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, xv– xvi. One could also cite Homer (e.g., Aeschines Tim. 128) along with Hesiod (e.g., Tim. 129; Diod. Sic. 4.7.2). Homer was, however, Hesiod’s superior (Lucian True Story 2.22); Hesiod ranked second to him (Vell. Paterc. 1.7.1). Dio Chrys. Or. 12.23 likes Hesiod (cf. also 77/78.2), but in 18.8, Homer is the best. Even Cynics like Diogenes could cite Homer (Usher, “Doggerel”); for citation of Homeric verses in magic, see Collins, “Verses.” 3539. E.g., Pliny Ep. 5.19.2; Chariton Chaer. 2.3.7; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.542. Gentiles quoted Homer much as Paul quoted Scripture (see Stanley, “Paul and Homer”). 3540. E.g., Plut. Or. Delphi 22, Mor. 405A; Thes. 34.1; for Plato calling Homer as “witness,” see, e.g., Proclus Poet. 6.2, K154.19–20. Greeks regularly cited poets as witnesses (Nicolai, “Place of History,” 18–19); likewise, an excellent orator must master philosophy, law, and history to provide the best witnesses from the past (Cic. Brut. 93.322). Respected historians too could offer “testimony” (Cic. Fam. 5.12.7). 3541. Diod. Sic. 16.23.5 (LCL, 7:303). 3542. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.13, 1375b (noting, as an example here, the Athenians’ appeal to Homer as μάρτυρι). One might cite, e.g., Demosthenes as one of one’s “witnesses” (testes, Tac. Dial. 32); or the local historian Androtion (Androtion Atthis frg. 54a, in Aelian Varia Historia 8.6); or appeal to Plato as an advocate (Apul. Apol. 65). 3543. Arist. Rhet. 1.15.17, 1375b. 3544. Fronto Ep. graec. 2.3 (LCL, 1:149; here citing Hom. Il. 9.312). 3545. In the first century c.e., see, e.g., Philo Abr. 10; Vell. Paterc. 1.5.1–2; Epict. Diatr. 3.11.4 (citing Hom. Od. 14.56–58). Many made him the oldest of poets (e.g., Androtion Atthis frg. 54b, from scholion [BD] to Aelius Arist. Defense of the Four [165.4]). Others cited him as originator of tragedy (Hermog. Method 33.450, perhaps alluding to Plato Rep. 10.598D). 3546. Contest of Homer and Hesiod 313.1 (with Hesiod); 316; 325; Heracl. Hom. Prob. 3.1; Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.13; 2.16, 434.11; Apul. Metam. 9.13. 3547. Lucian Affairs 23. 3548. E.g., Lucian True Story 2.32 (having already established Homer’s greatness within the narrative world, whether or not this is Lucian’s opinion); cf. Libanius Refutation 1.1–3, 12; perhaps others in Confirmation

2654

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 358

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to be addressed. Philosophers also cited Homer when this was to their argument’s advantage.3549 But while philosophers could cite poets to appeal to the masses, they sought to do so critically;3550 they were well able to disagree with even Homer when necessary.3551 Plato accepted the value of the poets provided they submitted to the state’s wiser control and censorship of their views (Laws 12.941BC),3552 but his attack on Homer generated philosophic defenses of the latter.3553 Later writers, enamored with both Plato and Homer, found ways to embrace and harmonize both,3554 typically by allegorizing Homer (or at least mining him for ethical principles).3555 The Neoplatonist Proclus insisted that the poets (including Homer) should not have depicted heroes and deities like mortals.3556 But while Homer’s myths do not instill virtue in young hearers,3557 Proclus observes, mature hearers can grasp the tales’ “mystical” meaning.3558 For example, Hephaistos’s fall from heaven simply communicates the divine’s movement from high to low; Ouranos’s castration teaches degeneration from the original order; and so forth.3559 Theomachy portrays the original united creation, on the one hand, as opposed to fragmentation and ultimately the formation of fallen matter, on the other.3560 Both Ares and Hephaistos desiring Aphrodite in some manner signifies the presence of beauty in each of their spheres.3561 2.2. Later Platonists (Proclus Poet. 5, K43.9–10) remembered that Plato addressed “failings of the poets,” yet the Muses could not fail (Laws 669C). Proclus notes Homer’s full inspiration at some points (Poet. 6.1, K192.9–12, esp. 9), as opposed to where he writes merely from systematic knowledge (K192.12–15; cf. K186.21–25; K188.12–14), communicates symbolically, or imitates the “illusionist” poets in communicating on a popular level (K192.15–21, 26–28; thus speaking of events such as the sun “rising,” K192.23–24). Homer is “inspired” (Poet. 6.1, K102.1–2, 7–8; K120.23; K157.25–26; K159.1; K178.27–28; cf. poets in 6.1, K89.29), but when taken literally could be mistaken (6.2, K176.14–15). Not all poetry shared in full inspiration (6.2, K179.3; K182.16–20). 3549. E.g., Plato Charm. 161A; Theaet. 152E (along with other poets); Pyrrho the Skeptic (ca. 360–270 b.c.e.) in Diog. Laert. 9.11.67 (who was very fond of Homer); Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.22–24 (to illustrate a point); Crates Ep. 10 (do not ignore “what the wise Homer says” on the subject; Cyn. Ep. 61). Dio Chrys. Or. 55 argues that Socrates learned his values from Homer. 3550. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 116 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 7.97–102). Lucian Conversation with Hesiod passim criticizes the poets’ (specifically Hesiod’s) failure to reveal the future. 3551. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.24.18. Seneca the Younger claims that Homer and Hesiod changed things (Ben. 1.3.6–7). For a survey of various philosophers’ views concerning Homer, see Dio Chrys. Or. 53. Dio himself portrays Homer as impious (11.19) and a liar (11.23) but elsewhere makes him the poet par excellence (18.8). 3552. See Rexine, Religion in Plato and Cicero, 53–63. 3553. Konstan, introduction, in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, xix–xxi. 3554. E.g., Max. Tyre 17.3; 26 passim; they flow from the same source (26.3), and Homer simply offered philosophy in the genre then most popular among Greeks, in verse (26.4). Maximus seeks to praise Homer while honoring Plato’s rejection of poetry in the ideal state (Or. 17 passim; cf. Plato Rep. 2.377Aff., esp. 3.398A; Trapp, Maximus, 149). 3555. E.g., Max. Tyre 26.5–9. 3556. Proclus Poet. K44.7–16; K96.11. Instead, divinities were completely pure (K65.19–23; K72.24–26; K96.9–10; K99.18–19). If poets invent stories about deities, they should accurately convey deities’ true nature (K65.29–30). It is therefore inappropriate to portray their “thievery . . ., rapes, wanderings, adulteries, wars, plotting” (K45.18–21; quotation from K45.20–21, trans. p. 9) or “crimes against fathers and tying them up and castrating them” (K72.20–26; quotation lines 21–22, trans. p. 65). 3557. Ibid., K80.5–6; K82.2–7; K83.8. 3558. Ibid., 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). Another way that Proclus addresses divine misbehavior in myths is to explain that the worst acts were committed by lesser beings merely named after the higher deities who were their leaders (Poet. K147.7–10, 21–25; cf. Apul. De deo Socr. 145–46, on daimones). 3559. Proclus Poet. K82.10–17. 3560. Ibid., K90.8–14. 3561. Ibid., K141.16–21. Similarly, the pursuit of and wars for Helen merely teach the value of invisible beauty (K153.25–29). Even Zeus’s intercourse with Hera becomes symbolic (K132.16); this generative dyad

2655

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 359

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Some other philosophers rejected Homer more harshly,3562 but most found the poets useful. Criticisms naturally provoked a backlash; a second-century c.e. critic of Homer was allegedly bound by the Furies and choked in Tartarus for this wickedness.3563 Proclus claims to defend the true meaning of the myths against impious people who ignorantly criticize the gods’ immorality.3564 His criticism may have applied to Epicureans;3565 some scholars think it was directed at least in part against Christian critics.3566 Even some very hellenized Jewish writers cited Homer,3567 though some Palestinian rabbis proved less friendly,3568 and some of the very hellenized Sibylline Oracles3569 condemned him as a purveyor of falsehood (Sib. Or. 3.419–32, esp. 419, 430).3570 On the whole, Jewish people in the Diaspora were happy to appropriate Greek philosophy, poetry, and oracles where these could be used to support their Jewish teaching.3571 Second-century Christian apologists likewise freely exploited Greek poets.3572 To fail to appeal to this literary canon was to risk dismissal from Greek intellectuals who would suppose the apologist simply ignorant of it. Later church fathers who approved of Greek learning generally justified it from the same three nt examples, none of which cites Homer (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor 15:33; Titus 1:12), which probably represent the sum total of explicit classical quotations in the nt.3573 (For a point of comparison, it may be remembered that the nt writers quote the ot hundreds of times, with additional quotations from early Jewish texts.)3574 It was also deemed rhetorically effective to cite the testimony of the audience’s preferred canon rather than one’s own.3575 Because everyone studied the same texts in Greek elementary education, it is possible that most of Paul’s hearers in the narrative world (and at least some of Luke’s) indicates an origin of the universe (K134.10–15). Hera putting Zeus to sleep was also naturally allegorized (Homeric Problems 39.2–17; cf. Proclus Poet. K135.19–22). 3562. Some philosophers also consigned Homer and Hesiod to torment in the afterlife for how they had portrayed the gods (Diog. Laert. 8.1.21); Heraclitus despised Hesiod (along with Pythagoras; 9.1.1; cf. also Lucian Conversation with Hesiod). In Lucian Indictment 1, Zeus claims that humanity is misled by Homer, “a fraud.” 3563. Gr. Anth. 7.377 (a fitting reversal for the posthumous condemnation of Homer and Hesiod in Diog. Laert. 8.1.21!). 3564. Proclus Poet. K74.15–16; K74.25–31. 3565. As in ibid., K119.2–3. 3566. Robert Lamberton, in Proclus the Successor, 69n90. 3567. Apparently in Ps.-Phoc. 195–97 (though Hom. Od. 6.182–84 had become almost proverbial; van der Horst in OTP 2:581 n. s); Sent. Syr. Men. 78–93 (if genuinely Jewish). Cohen, Maccabees, 194, observes that Philo the Poet and Ezekiel the Tragedian “owed more to Homer and Euripides” than to biblical models. For Ezekiel’s use of Greek hypotexts, see, e.g., Brant, “Mimesis”; for his comfort with imagery even of the enthroned Zeus, see Heath, “Homer.” Philo quotes Homer explicitly at least sixteen times (Stanley, Language of Scripture, 326; see, e.g., Abr. 10; Conf. 4; Contempl. 17; Embassy 80; Good Person 31). 3568. See y. Sanh. 10:1, §8. Some rabbis may have known Homer, and they at least knew traditions stemming from Homer (Lieberman, Hellenism, 112–14; Le Cornu, Acts, 968). 3569. Even a few Greek thinkers criticized Homer’s falsehoods (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 24.1–2; 25.10–17; this though the source allows for his inspiration; cf., e.g., 25.4, 8). 3570. OTP 1:371 n. d3 finds an allusion to this passage or idea in Lact. Div. Inst. 1.6.9; cf. Diod. Sic. 4.66. 3571. Rost, Judaism, 115 (esp. on Sibylline Oracles). See the discussion of the use of philosophers (and esp. accusations that they plagiarized Moses) above. 3572. Justin 1 Apol. 39 (citing Eurip. Hipp. 608); Theoph. 2.37 (citing Aeschylus, Euripides, Pindar, and others); Athenag. Plea 5 (Euripides, Sophocles); 6 (citing Greek philosophers); Tatian Or. Gks. 8 (Hom. Il. 1.599; Od. 8.326). 3573. Renehan, “Quotations,” 44–45. 3574. In addition to lxx quotations (including, in some versions, some of what we call the Apocrypha), see most notably 1 En. 1:9 in Jude 14. 3575. Thus, e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.15.1 notes that he will not cite fellow orators but, rather, philosophers to support his case for oratory.

2656

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 360

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

would have recognized Paul’s citations, although perhaps neither he nor some of his hearers would know from which poets they came (see discussion below).3576 Scholars point out that neither Luke nor Paul need have known Aratus either directly or through an anthology; the Diaspora Jewish apologist Aristobulus apparently exploited the same quotation long before their era (see discussion below).3577 (This observation does not rule out the possibility that Paul recognized that Aratus was the author of the quotation, in view of the accumulation of possible supporting evidence; see discussion below.) W ho Au t hor e d “I n H im We L ive”?

A more difficult question concerns who is quoted by Paul. Conflating quotes was common practice, probably sometimes inadvertently but sometimes deliberately. 3578 Does Paul quote from more than one author here? “Some” (τινες) could suggest this, but this interpretation is hardly necessary; this was proper Greek idiom even if one were citing only a single poet.3579 The most common suggestion is that Paul’s first line (“in him we live and move and have our being”) probably derives from the sixth-century b.c.e. Cretan poet Epimenides;3580 the second line is often compared to a similar line in Cleanthes but usually attributed to Aratus,3581 who said much the same thing but in a version closer to the wording here (and more widely quoted, including by a Jewish apologist). The quotation’s attribution to Epimenides is possible but uncertain.3582 It would certainly fit the setting; although much of Luke’s ideal audience might not catch a connection, it would have made sense for the historical Paul to offer such a quote if he also mentioned the altars to the unknown gods. It was to Epimenides that one tradition assigned the role of the Athenians’ advisor regarding the altars (Diog. Laert. 1.110).3583 It has also long been argued that the quote in Titus 1:12, also from the Pauline circle, reflects the same poem of Epimenides: the Cretans built a tomb for Zeus, “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies! But thou art not dead; thou art risen . . . for in thee we live and move and have our being.”3584 The problem is that the earliest extant source for the connection stems from the extended quote of this section of Epimenides in the Syriac father Isho‘dad of Merv about 850 c.e., though he is probably dependent on the earlier Theodore of Mopsuestia.3585 Against this connection to a single poem is the fact that the quotation lacks the simplest indication of Greek meter necessary for a poem; after 400 c.e. 3576. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 115. The practice of anthologizing without necessary knowledge of the earliest works also carried into Palestinian Jewish practice (e.g., 4Q265; see Abegg, “Introduction to 4Q265”). 3577. Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 224; Grant, Gods, 51, citing Aristob. frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.12.6–7) (persuasive unless Eusebius’s sources tried to match it to the Acts quote). 3578. E.g., Max. Tyre 41.3 (Hom. Il. 14.80 with 12.327). 3579. Cadbury, Acts in History, 49; esp. Renehan, “Quotations,” 41, citing, e.g., Lycurgus of Athens Contra Leocratem 132; Arist. Pol. 7.16, 1335b.32–34 (possibly citing Solon frg. 19 Diehl); Arist. [Magna moralia] 2.15, 1212b.27ff. (Eurip. Orest. 667); Simplicius In Aristotelis Physicorum libros folio 73b (Agathon frg. 6 Nauck). 3580. On Epimenides, see Parker, “Epimenides.” Later tradition claimed that Pythagoras studied with him (Apul. Flor. 15.20). Reports of his visit to Athens appear early ( J. Hilton’s notes on Apul. Florida, 157n74, cite Plato Leg. 1.642D; Arist. Ath. Pol. 1). 3581. Aratus Phaen. 5. On Aratus, see briefly Toomer, “Aratus”; Fantuzzi, “Aratus.” 3582. So also Cadbury, Acts in History, 49. Defending Epimenides, see, e.g., Lake, “Poets,” 250; supposing an unknown author, Packer, Acts, 148. 3583. Hemer, Acts in History, 118. 3584. Reasoning from human life to divine life; Bruce, Acts1, 338; idem, Message, 54. Epimenides is called a “prophet” in Titus 1:12, also fitting other traditions about him (Plato Laws 1.642D; Plut. Solon 12), and there is little reason to doubt the attribution to Epimenides in Titus 1:12 (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.14.59.1–2). 3585. Bruce, Acts1, 338.

2657

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 361

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Greek pronunciation of vowels had shifted too much for later writers to recognize the difference.3586 The language is more philosophic than poetic;3587 it is also, however, suited to the context’s polemic against idols (Acts 17:29), whether philosophic or not.3588 Still, it is unlikely that Isho‘dad fabricated the line; he paraphrased in Syriac, and Greek versions of the line are modern translations back into Greek, which are notoriously fallible. The content could postdate Epimenides (a prephilosophic poet) yet have been attributed to him (as now-anonymous older fragments or works were often misattributed) in Hellenistic and Roman antiquity.3589 The threefold structure here represents a tricolon, a conventional pattern found in but not limited to philosophers;3590 the structure might (though need not) reflect Lukan editing.3591 Some of Epimenides’s reported wording sounds suspiciously Christian, but this may again reflect Isho‘dad’s Syriac paraphrase; it appears less likely that a Christian simply composed the lines, since they are expressly applied by Minos to Zeus. An earlier hymn to Zeus speaks of the Cretans as liars and also of tombs and immortal, eternal Zeus in such close connection as to probably echo the lines of Epimenides today extant only from a later source.3592 Further, because Isho‘dad’s line from Aratus is accurate, it is reasonable to suppose that his line from Epimenides likely is as well.3593 It may be of interest that Epimenides was said to have purified Athens, among other cities (Paus. 1.14.4). The connection with Epimenides is not certain. If Isho‘dad’s (or his source’s) Syriac paraphrase somewhat christianizes Epimenides’s quote with language suggesting resurrection, it might also innocently conform the quotation to Paul’s words in Acts. It is also possible that Luke’s “in him we live . . .” simply develops the context in Aratus (the “second” quotation here): before declaring that we are his offspring (Phaen. 5), Aratus announces that the streets, marketplace, and sea are full of Zeus (Phaen. 2–4). The language is not close to Acts 17:28, but one could argue that the sense is close enough and that Paul or Luke simply developed it into a tricolon. But while the context in Aratus may have suggested the idea, Luke or Paul probably looked elsewhere for the wording. The reported link between Epimenides and the altars of unknown gods probably significantly strengthens the connection’s likelihood. On the whole, then, it seems likelier than not that 3586. Renehan, “Quotations,” 38. 3587. Ibid., 39, contends that such philosophic language cannot reflect sixth-century b.c.e. poetry, which could not yet use the language of philosophy. For philosophic elements, see Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78: the creator made souls “moving” and “living” (Plato Tim. 37C); Zeus authors life and existence (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.43). 3588. Citing the flow of thought from Acts 17:28–29, Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78, notes conventional polemic against idols, which do not reflect God and hence do not “move” or “live” (Dio Chrys. Or. 12.70; Deut 4:28; Jub. 20:7–8; Ep Jer 8, 24, 26; Bel 5; Wis 13:10–19; 15:16–17; Rev 9:20). 3589. Assuming that the extant paraphrase has not added the philosophic element (perhaps to conform it to Acts 17:28), the lines could easily have been assigned to Epimenides long before the era of Isho‘dad, even conceivably by the first century. Epimenides legends were already circulating before the first century (e.g., his long sleep in Varro L.L. 7.1.3; Paus. 1.14.4; later, Max. Tyre 10.1; 38.3; for other pre–Rip van Winkle traditions of long sleepers, see, e.g., 4 Bar. 5; y. Taʿan. 3:9, §4). 3590. Fitzmyer, Acts, 610 (citing for philosophers Plato Soph. 248E–249A; Arist. Soul 414a.12–13). For a nonphilosophic tricolon, see Suet. Aug. 98.2: it was through Augustus that the voyagers “lived, through him that they sailed, through him that they enjoyed their liberty” (LCL, 1:277; also in Grant, Gods, 60); cf. also Rom 11:36. 3591. Doubting that Luke would happen across such a flexible Stoic quotation, Renehan thinks that he formed it himself (“Acts 17.28”). Though Luke quotes Aratus more precisely in the next line, that quotation is quite brief. Others have also questioned whether this line in Acts 17:28 is intended as a direct quotation (e.g., Johnson, Acts, 316). 3592. Callim. Hymns 1 (to Zeus), lines 7–8 (in Chrys. Homilies on the Epistle to Titus, on 1:12, but not worded closely enough to suspect Chrysostom of tampering); Bruce, Acts1, 338. 3593. With Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 49. This argument is not foolproof; Isho‘dad could accurately quote a source extant in his day that was not itself accurate.

2658

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 362

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Epimenides is the direct or indirect source of Paul’s quotation here, though complete certainty eludes us. Whatever its original source, the quotation probably takes on a new meaning in its new context. The language is philosophic, similar to Stoic thought.3594 The idea that God pervades everything3595 was particularly appealing to Stoics,3596 who especially emphasized that God lived in people3597 and who could speak of being in God.3598 Such language naturally supported pantheism among many Stoics (especially the earlier Stoics), as noted above.3599 Whereas a pantheistic Stoic could speak easily of living and moving “in” God (see comment on Acts 17:27–28), traditional Jews, Luke, and Paul may have applied the phrase more in the sense of “living . . . by God.”3600 Jewish people thought not of pantheism but of God’s omnipresence.3601 Even Jewish texts that speak of God as “all,” when read in context, view God as creator,3602 as Paul plainly does here (17:24); Paul also clearly differentiates God from creation, despite allowing a unique link with humans (17:29).3603 W ho Au t hor e d “ W e A r e His Offsp r ing”?

With the other line scholars often compare Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus 4: ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν.3604 Known from an anthology and from Stoic quotations, it must be one of the most commonly quoted Stoic lines in antiquity and was well known in the first century.3605 (Because Cleanthes was Zeno’s successor as head of the Stoic school, firstcentury Stoics continued to cite him frequently.)3606 Although Stoic poets presented Zeus as the Stoic Mind or Logos, non-Stoics could adapt the language without some of its original ramifications.3607 Thus, for example, the epistolary Paul probably even identified Christ with the Logos, following a wisdom trajectory already established in Hellenistic Judaism (1 Cor 8:6).3608 3594. See Renehan, “Quotations,” 39 (citing esp. Arius Did. Epit. 26; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.38; he rejects the nonphilosophic verbal parallels in Soph. Oed. tyr. 314; Eurip. Alc. 278); cf. Schnabel, Missionary, 172. 3595. E.g., Virg. Georg. 4.221–22; Diog. Laert. 7.2.38. 3596. E.g., Aratus Phaen. 2–4; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.23–24. 3597. Epict. Diatr. 1.6.25; 2.8.14; see esp. 2.8.10–11 (“You are a fragment of God; you have within you a part of Him. Why, then, are you ignorant of your own kinship?” [LCL, 1:261]). Some writers also viewed Zeus as source of life; e.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 23.6 (Konstan in Russell and Konstan, Heraclitus, 45n3, cites also Plato Crat. 396B; SVF 528 = Arius Didymus in Euseb. P.E. 15.15). Rejecting pantheism, Bede Comm. Acts 17.28A (Martin, Acts, 220–21) interprets humanity’s being “in him” as creation by him. Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 30 (from Witherington), suggests that Paul recognized here “an element of truth” in the error of pantheism. 3598. Epict. Diatr. 1.15.5. 3599. See Diog. Laert. 7.1.134; 7.1.148; Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.pref. 13; Dial. 7.8.4; see comment above. Cf. the discussion of Plut. E Delph. 17–21, Mor. 392A–394C, in Meeks, Moral World, 43. Aristobulus probably echoes Stoic pantheism (Aristob. frg. 4 [Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5]), just as he quotes the line from Aratus (see discussion below). 3600. Witherington, Acts, 529 (also doubting that the Aratus quote reflects Aratus’s views on human and divine kinship). Some suggested that one ought to “live” philosophy (Crates Ep. 6). 3601. E.g., Sib. Or. 3.701; m. ʾAb. 2:9, 13; 3:14; Sipra Emor pq. 9.227.1.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; among Greeks, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.38. 3602. As noted above, 4Q266 18 V, 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44. 3603. Stonehouse, Areopagus, 2, rightly complains about some earlier scholars who contrasted this speech with Paul on the basis of the speech’s alleged pantheism here. 3604. Most regard Aratus as the direct source, but cf. Farrar, Life and Work, 696–98. 3605. SVF 1.527, 537, from Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12 (Grant, Gods, 78; Renehan, “Quotations,” 40); among first-century Stoics, Seneca Ep. Lucil. 107.11; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.131; 2.23.42 (a shorter version but including the same line); 4.4.34. In contrast to the previous line in Acts 17:28, this one is indisputably poetry (Renehan, “Quotations,” 40). 3606. Besides references above, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Ben. 5.14.1; 6.11.1; Epict. Diatr. 1.17.11; 3.23.32. 3607. Bruce, Acts1, 338; idem, History, 45. 3608. Cf. Platonic background in Horsley, “Formula”; an adapted Stoic formulation in, e.g., HamertonKelly, Pre-existence, 130; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 145; Thiselton, Corinthians, 635; however adapted, the

2659

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 363

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

But close as the quotation is to Cleanthes, scholars generally hold that it is more likely specifically from Aratus,3609 whose third-century b.c.e. astronomical poem Phaenomena, which contains the line (the first half of v. 5), remains extant.3610 The similarity with Cleanthes is hardly surprising; both Cleanthes and Aratus “studied Stoicism in Athens” in the same period, possibly under Zeno; they may thus depend on “a common source,” or one may have borrowed from the other.3611 The exact wording here, however, is from Aratus rather than from Cleanthes. Aratus’s context also better suits the words’ context in Acts 17:28; whereas Cleanthes employs the line to emphasize that people should praise God, Aratus emphasizes that Zeus pervades all creation and is the ancestor of humanity and that both earth and seasons demonstrate his existence.3612 Like Cleanthes, Aratus was widely quoted, though perhaps more often outside specifically Stoic circles.3613 Both the (possibly) Epimenides quotation and the line from Aratus in 17:28 reflect the thought “of a widely diffused Stoicism,” and Aratus’s astronomical poem was quite popular; it is thus possible, as remarked above, that Luke had access to the material from popular anthologies.3614 More important in this case is that this speech was neither the first nor the last source to cite this section of Aratus’s Phaenomena for monotheistic apologetic purposes. The earlier Hellenistic Jewish apologist Aristobulus quoted all of verses 1–9 of its introduction (Aristob. frg. 4.6–7), which he applied to the biblical account of creation.3615 Theophilus of Antioch quoted the same material, and Clement of Alexandria used several verses; like Aristobulus, they emphasize both God’s power and providence.3616 Luke may follow Aristobulus in substituting “God” for “Zeus” here (without which he may have considered the quotation unacceptable);3617 though it is possible that both made the change independently (a change they may have felt necessary in order to use it),3618 it seems more likely that Luke uses a text already “sanctified” by its appropriation in Jewish apologetic. He may follow a related tradition but probably does not originate the citation. The “classical” literature Luke (and other nt writers) cite is otherwise almost entirely restricted to the Jewish “classical” canon rather than the Greek one. content may reflect the Shema. For Johannine usage, see Keener, John, 300–301, 341–63. Cf. also Col 1:15–20, paralleling Logos language even more clearly. 3609. E.g., Hunter, Gospel according to Paul, 11; Fitzmyer, Acts, 611; Pervo, Acts, 439. 3610. Luke merely changes the epic and Ionic dialect form εἰμέν to ἐσμέν, more appropriate for his audience (Renehan, “Quotations,” 40). Luke’s quotation is in metrical form, “a half hexameter with three accents” (Klauck, Magic, 88). 3611. Renehan, “Quotations,” 40. The idea is widely attested (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 30.26; as early as Plato Tim. 37C; Conzelmann, Acts, 144–45; Talbert, Acts, 156). 3612. Dibelius, Acts, 51. 3613. E.g., Alciph. Fish. 3 (Glaucus to Galateia), 1.3, ¶2. 3614. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 43. For anthologies, see esp. Cameron, “Anthology” (cf. also Harrison, “Ecloga”). J. Hilton, “Introduction” (to Florida), 124, cites as early examples Aul. Gel. pr. 2–3 and notes observations in Pliny Y. Ep. 3.5.10; Aul. Gel. 17.21.1; Lucian Pisc. 6; and Philost. Vit. soph. 565; the use of anthologies for quotations continued in Western medieval education, where original sources were harder to come by (Evans, Wycliffe, 132). Because poetry was studied at the primary level, Luke could have been exposed to Aratus without advanced rhetorical training; only Homer was more widely read than Aratus’s Phaenomena (Padilla, “Παιδεία,” 427). 3615. Conzelmann, Acts, 145; Grant, Paul, 8. 3616. See esp. van de Bunt–van den Hoek, “Aratus’ Phainomena.” 3617. Edwards, “Quoting Aratus.” Aristob. 12.7 makes the change to “clarify” Aratus (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 152); Barclay argues, though, that Aristobulus retains the Stoic conception in 12.6–7 (155). 3618. Though Hellenistic Jews occasionally adopted even the name “Zeus,” as noted above. It is possible but improbable that Eusebius, our source for Aristobulus’s quotation (usually cited as P.E. 13.12.6–8, esp. 13.12.6; OTP 2:840–41 has P.E. 13.13.6–7, but this may be a typographical error for 13.12.6–7 [cf. Aristob. frgs. 3, 5 in OTP 2:839, 841]), conforms it to the tamer version in Acts 17; Aristobulus does not shy from Zeus’s name (frg. 4.5) but specifically claims that he replaced “Zeus” with “God” in Aratus to provide the true sense (frg. 4.7).

2660

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 364

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul’s Fa m ili a r i t y w i t h Su ch S ource s?

Whether Paul (or Luke) learned the quotation from the Phaenomena, from an anthology, or, more likely, from Hellenistic Jewish apologetic, would either of them have known that it stemmed from Aratus? If they knew Aristobulus well enough to appropriate his quote of Aratus, they probably also knew the attribution to Aratus, which Aristobulus freely supplies (frg. 4.6). It is likely that the well-educated historical Paul, at least, would have known this, and it is possible that Aratus’s authorship even supplied a reason for remembering or at least narrowing the range of possible choices to this quotation in particular: Aratus was from Soli in Cilicia, Paul’s province (a tradition that might not have occurred to Luke). Although his training and literacy were obviously primarily in Scripture, the epistolary Paul certainly was capable of citing Greek literature on occasion (1 Cor 15:33),3619 perhaps especially when necessary to silence objections from those who thought him poorly educated,3620 to which the speech in Athens might present an analogous situation. If Paul learned anything at all from the pervasive influence of philosophy in Cilicia (see comment on Acts 9:11),3621 he should have recognized one of the more popular quotes from one of Cilicia’s own philosophical poets. This correspondence, like the probable use of tradition about Epimenides that can be linked with the unknown-god tradition, tends to favor the historical likelihood that, even in the quotations, Luke depends on a complete source, possibly Paul himself, who may have reported the substance of some of his teaching in Athens. Neither correspondence can be proved, and there are significant problems in both cases, such as the somewhat probable dependence on Aristobulus or on handbooks. But such dependence would still not explain the principle of selection, given the vast number of anthologized quotations available,3622 and taken together, Pauline tradition in Epimenides and Aratus quotations appears very plausible.3623 The Sup r e m e De i t y a s Fat her

Claiming that God or Zeus was father or begetter of humanity was a common Greek idea.3624 Zeus or Jupiter appears as “the Father” in both Greek3625 and Latin3626 texts, 3619. Most commentators on 1 Corinthians recognize the proverb’s attestation in Menander Thais frg. 187 (Bruce, Corinthians, 150; Winter, Left Corinth, 98–99; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 289); Dio Chrys. Or. 18.6–7 recommends Menander highly for rhetorical use. Others note that Menander himself may have borrowed it from Euripides (Renehan, “Quotations,” 29–31; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 42–43). The Pauline citations of pagan sources in Clement of Alexandria are probably not authentic (see Landau, “Unknown Apostle”). 3620. That letter is also full of rhetorical devices—more than normally approved in a letter—probably to counter complaints of Paul’s inadequate rhetorical skill (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–4; 2 Cor 10:10; Keener, Corinthians, 29). 3621. He grew up in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) but probably spent a number of years in Tarsus after his call to the Gentiles (see comment on Acts 9:30). 3622. A late first-century c.e. writer believed that many great poets had written even since the time of Cicero (Plut. Cic. 2.4). 3623. See also Hemer, Acts in History, 118. 3624. I provide briefer surveys of the “father” title for God or deities in Keener, Matthew, 217–18; idem, John, 401–2, 877–79. The image might bear a different nuance in different cultures; many African cultures view God as a “father” both as creator and as someone available to help his children (Mbiti, Religions, 63). 3625. E.g., I. Eph. 101–4; Hom. Il. 2.371; 8.69, 245, 397; 10.154; 11.66, 80, 201, 544; 14.352; 15.637; 16.250, 253; 17.46, 645 (quoted in Longin. Subl. 9.10); 22.60, 209; 24.461; Od. 4.340; 5.7; 7.311; 12.63; 13.51; 14.440; 15.341; 16.260; 17.132; 18.235; 24.376, 518; Hesiod W.D. 169; Aeschylus Prom. 40, 53, 947, 984; Suppl. 139; Eurip. Med. 1352; frg. 1082; Danae frg. 1132.27; Aristoph. Wasps 652 (“our father”); Hipponax frg. 62; Pindar Nem. 5.33; Ol. 1.57a; 2.28; 7.87–88; 14.12; Pyth. 3.98; 4.23; Aratus Phaen. 15; Pliny Ep. 1.7.1 (quoting Hom. Il. 16.250); Dio Chrys. Or. 12.75; Max. Tyre 11.12; Orph. H. 15.7; 19.1; as γεννήτωρ, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 206 (in a literal genetic way for the Danaidae; such mythological examples of descent from Zeus could be multiplied, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 39.3). 3626. E.g., Virg. Aen. 1.691; Georg. 1.121, 283, 328, 353; 2.325; Val. Flacc. 1.498; 3.249; Catull. Carm. 64.21; Sil. It. 3.137, 163; often as “omnipotent father,” Virg. Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398;

2661

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 365

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

is addressed as “Father” in invocations,3627 and is “Father of all,”3628 father of the gods,3629 father of humanity,3630 and often “father of humans and gods.”3631 He could also be portrayed as father of kings3632 or of the virtuous.3633 Human feelings toward mortal parents can give people a way to approach their ultimate parent, the Zeus of their ancestors;3634 human fathers were reflections of the universal father.3635 Whereas Zeus’s kingship was linked with strength, his fatherhood could be linked with gentleness and kindness.3636 Because their pantheon was polytheistic, Greeks and Romans also assigned the respectful title “father” to other deities, such as Time,3637 Janus,3638 Neptune,3639 Pluto,3640 Oceanus,3641 Uranus,3642 Saturn,3643 Apollo,3644 Mars,3645 Bacchus,3646 Heracles,3647 and, 10.100; 12.178; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304, 401; 3.336; 9.271; as genitor, Virg. Aen. 12.843; Val. Flacc. 1.531; Sil. It. 4.417; 17.475; Statius Silv. 5.3.207; Theb. 5.146; Fronto Fer. als. 3.8. 3627. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.276, 320, 350, 365; 7.179, 202, 446; 8.236; 12.164; 13.631; 15.372; 17.19, 645; 19.270; 21.273; 24.308; Od. 12.371; 20.98, 112, 201; 21.200; 24.351; Soph. Oed. tyr. 202; Aristoph. Acharn. 223–25; Menander Dyskolos 192; Pindar Nem. 8.35; 9.53; 10.29; Isthm. 6.42; Ap. Rhod. 4.1673; Aratus Phaen. 15–16, esp. 15; Sil. It. 10.432; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.36; see further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 217–18. So addressed by other gods; e.g., Hom. Il. 8.31; 22.178; Od. 8.306; 12.377 (even when they are his siblings, because it remains his title—e.g., Il. 5.757, 762; 19.121; Od. 13.128). 3628. E.g., Hom. Il. 8.31 (“father of us all,” by a deity); Dion. Hal. Epid. 2.262; Hor. Odes 1.12.13–18; Plut. S. Kings, Alexander 15, Mor. 180D; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.27 (supplying “father” from the context); cf. 36.35; Macrob. Sat. 4.5.4 (using Virg. Aen. 6.123; van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226); syncretistically, PGM 22b.1–5. Among the philosophically inclined, see Plato Tim. 28C; Plut. Plat. Q. 2.1, Mor. 1000E–1001C, esp. 1000E); Table 8.1.3, Mor. 718A; Max. Tyre 2.10; 11.5, 9; Proclus Poet. 6.2, K164.16–17 (cf. 6.1, K107.16–17; 134.23–24). 3629. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.503, 534, 578–79; Eurip. Pirithous frg. 4.7; Phaedrus 1.2.13; Virg. Aen. 9.495; Ovid Metam. 2.848; 9.245; Val. Flacc. 4.1; Catull. Carm. 64.298, 387; Ovid Fasti 3.285; Sil. It. 5.70; 17.342; Libanius Speech in Character 11.3. Thinkers could also call God “father of himself ” (Iambl. Myst. 8.2), i.e., “self-begotten” (cf. PGM 1.342–43; 13.62; Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12). He is also “god of fathers” (Epict. Diatr. 3.11.5). 3630. Hor. Odes 1.12.49; Plut. Alex. 27.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.74; Max. Tyre 41.2. Among Stoics, see Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12). The trees could also call Zeus their “father,” as their creator (Babr. 142.3). 3631. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.544; 4.68; 5.426; 8.49, 132; 11.182; 15.12, 47; 16.458; 20.56; 22.103, 167; Od. 1.28; 12.445; Hesiod W.D. 59; Theog. 457, 468, 542; Sh. Her. 27; Eurip. Chrysippus frg. 839.1–2; Ovid Metam. 14.807; Diod. Sic. 1.12.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.75; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30; even Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; cf. Phaedrus 3.17.10; for “father of gods and king of humans,” Virg. Aen. 1.65; 2.648; 10.2. Philosophers, perhaps especially Platonists, gave a philosophic interpretation of Homer’s phrase (Cornutus Summ. 9 [Lang, 9, line 1], in Grant, Gods, 78; Max. Tyre 35.1; Iambl. V.P. 8.38; Proclus Poet. 6.2, K164.29). The conjunction of fatherhoods appears pre-Homeric, paralleled at Ugarit (Gordon, Civilizations, 233). 3632. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.27. 3633. Dio Chrys. Or. 4.19–21. 3634. Dio Chrys. Or. 12.42. Zeus was patron deity of fathers (Epict. Diatr. 3.11.5; see also Oldfather in LCL, 2:80n1). For Zeus “of the ancestors” (cf. the biblical “God of our ancestors”), see, e.g., Soph. Ajax 387; Aristoph. Clouds 1468, 1469. 3635. E.g., Plut. frg. 46 (from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 327–34, in Plutarch: Moralia, LCL, 15:132–35 [Sandbach]); Jos. Ant. 4.262. On parents as the divine image, see, e.g., Hierocles Parents 4.25.53 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 91); Philo Spec. Laws 2.2; for the aged, SPap 3:476–77, §116; for parents as representatives of deity, see Aeschines Tim. 28; Val. Max. 5.6.pref.; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.42; SPap 1:320–21, lines 27–28; cf. Philo Decal. 51, 106–7, 120; Spec. Laws 2.224–25; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.206; b. B. Meṣiʿa 32a, bar.; Qidd. 30b, bar.; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2. 3636. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.40; 12.77. 3637. Pindar Ol. 2.17 (“father of all”). 3638. Mart. Epig. 10.28 (father of years and of the world). 3639. Val. Flacc. 1.651, 659. 3640. Val. Flacc. 1.828 (of subterranean regions); Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.4. 3641. Sil. It. 5.395. Also “Father Tiber” in Statius Silv. 1.6.100. 3642. Orph. H. 4.1 (in mythology, the father of Cronus, the Roman Saturn). 3643. Sil. It. 11.458 (in mythology, he merited the title before Jupiter, whose father he was). 3644. Iambl. V.P. 8.35. Cf. also, syncretistically, Father “Adonai” in PGM 1.305, identified with Apollo in 1.298. “Paternal Apollo” had a temple in Athens (Paus. 1.3.4; cf. also Athenian Agora, 48), but this means “Apollo of our ancestors.” 3645. Val. Max. 1.8.6; Fronto Bell. parth. 1. 3646. Val. Flacc. 2.256. Antony allegedly wished to be a new “Father Liber” (Vell. Paterc. 2.82.4). 3647. Orph. H. 12.6 (but the Orphic Hymns are notoriously syncretistic).

2662

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 366

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

in some sense, the emperor.3648 (The emperor was often “father of his country,” an honorary title.)3649 Stoic thinkers also spoke of God as a father3650—that is, “father of all,”3651 father of human beings,3652 and father of humans and deities3653—by virtue of creation. Platonists could view the highest, timeless deity as “father” of all other deities.3654 As in this passage of Acts, Greeks sometimes claimed that the gods loved humanity on account of kinship with them.3655 They could also argue that kinship to deity should free people from superstition (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.26). Jewish people called God “Father” (also an occasional ot title for God),3656 though not all with equal sympathy for the Greek usage. Philo speaks of the “supreme father of deities and people” acknowledged by both Greeks and barbarians (Spec. Laws 2.165); Josephus, however, condemns the Greeks’ “father” who rules heaven as a tyrant, rejecting Zeus’s identification with the true God (Ag. Ap. 2.241). Greek-speaking Jews were united, in any case, in regarding God as Father of all,3657 from Philo3658 to the Sibylline Oracles;3659 Jewish magical texts could also invoke God as “father of all creation.”3660 God was “begetter of gods and humans.”3661 Greek-speaking church fathers agreed.3662 A variety of other Jewish sources also called God “Father.”3663 The liturgical title that came to dominate in later rabbinic Judaism was “Father in heaven.”3664 Corporate Jewish and Christian prayers to God as Father are nearly identical.3665 Because Jewish culture generally perceived fathers as wise, benevolent, but authoritative protectors, “father” offered a useful image for God.3666 3648. Augustus is father of mortals, as Jupiter is of immortals (Ovid Fasti 2.130–32). See further Res gestae divi Augusti (in deSilva, Honor, 195; Judge, Pattern, 32–33); in detail, see Peppard, Son of God, 60–67. 3649. E.g., Res gest. 35.1 (Sherk, Empire, 50, §26); ILS 5863 (Sherk, Empire, 155, §112); Pliny Ep. 8.6.10; Hdn. 2.2.9; 2.6.2; Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 77 (p. 40; Claudius), 99 (Trajan), 104 (Hadrian), 111 (Commodus); CIG 3176 A.4 (M. Aurelius; in Boeckh, Inscriptions, 2:725). For the abbreviation, see Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 77, 104, 111, 113. This title fit well with his claimed patronage of the empire (Lampe, “Patrons,” 493–94). 3650. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.14; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.40. 3651. Stoics in Diog. Laert. 7.1.147; Marc. Aur. 10.1 (“begetter” of all). 3652. E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12); Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.10; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4–5, 6, 7; 1.13.3–4; 3.22.82. Cf. Mus. Ruf. 18a, p. 112.23–25 (in van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309). Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5 refers specifically to a good man (cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.19.9). 3653. Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.30; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.1; 1.19.12; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.22. 3654. Apul. De deo Socr. 123–24. 3655. Dio Chrys. Or. 30.26; cf. 12.27, 29, 39, 43, 47, 61, 75, 77 (Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78). 3656. See Jeremias, Prayers, 12; Chen, Father, 73–111. 3657. E.g., Apoc. Mos. 35:2 (God so addressed by angels). 3658. Philo Creation 135; Conf. 170; Mos. 2.238; Decal. 32, 51, 105, 107; Spec. Laws 1.14, 22, 32, 41, 96; 2.6, 165; 3.178, 189; Virt. 64, 77, 218; Rewards 24; Contempl. 90; Eternity 13; Embassy 115, 293; cf. perhaps QG 2.60. For the Logos as father of humanity, cf. Conf. 41. 3659. God as “begetter” in Sib. Or. 3.296, 604, 726; 5.284, 328, 360, 406, 498, 500. 3660. PGM 22b.1–26 (Pr. Jac. 22.4–5). 3661. Sib. Or. 3.278; cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.165. 3662. E.g., Theoph. 1.4; Athenag. Plea 13; 27. 3663. See Wis 2:16; 3 Macc 5:7; 6:8; 7:6. For one extensive survey, see Chen, Father, 113–43. 3664. E.g., m. Soṭah 9:15; t. Ber. 3:14; B. Qam. 7:6; Ḥag. 2:1; Peʾah 4:21; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; 30b; 32b; 35b; 57a; Šabb. 116a; 131b; Pesaḥ. 85b; 112a; Roš Haš. 29a; Yoma 76a; Sukkah 45b; Meg. 13a; 14a; Soṭah 10a; 12a; 38b; B. Bat. 10a; Sanh. 94a; 101b; 102a; 102b; ʿAbod. Zar. 16b; Zebaḥ. 22b; y. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; Song Rab. 7:11, §1; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 33.24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod 1:19 (see Maher, Targum, 163n38). The phraseology must predate later rabbinic sources (cf. Mark 11:25; Luke 11:13) but in the nt appears especially in Matthew, the source closest to rabbinic usage (Matt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14 [= Mark 11:25], 26, 32; 7:11 [= Luke 11:13], 21; 10:32–33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 23:9). 3665. Goshen-Gottstein, “God the Father” (excepting Jesus’s special sonship). 3666. Boer, Fatherhood, 25.

2663

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 367

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

For most Jewish sources, God is especially Israel’s Father;3667 for most Christian sources, God is Christians’ Father. Luke usually employs the term in this traditional Jewish and Christian manner,3668 but here he does portray Paul, like many Diaspora Jews, as able to relate to Greek hearers with the conventional Greek usage of God as father of humanity. After all, Adam is also “son of God” (Luke 3:38), as one might infer even from the sense of “image and likeness” in Gen 1:26–27 taken together with 5:1–3. The Use of Su ch Qu otat ions

That the speech may give these quotations a sense foreign to their earliest usage may not have troubled Luke. Quotations were often given out of context;3669 certainly they were reapplied for new purposes, as Jewish and Christian tradition regularly reappropriates Scripture for new settings. Cicero uses Homeric characters to demonstrate principles of law;3670 Seneca notes that writers often recycle Virgil’s language in very different circumstances to depict something simply similar to what Virgil described.3671 One could reapply a line from an earlier poet to a different contemporary person.3672 Rhetoricians, indeed, debated the appropriate quotation of poets.3673 Educated people displayed their erudition by citing poets or other literate people and expected others to notice their borrowing (Seneca Suas. 3.7); hearers would prove less respectful toward one lacking such marks of education. In the early first century b.c.e., Varro already quotes Roman writers’ allusions to Homeric characters such as Agamemnon (L.L. 5.3.19). Homer was quoted in conversation (Apul. Metam. 2.13), and a wealthy freedperson’s inadequate knowledge of Greek legend invited aristocrats’ satire (Petron. Sat. 59).3674 Showing knowledge of the quotation was usually a sufficient mark of education without requiring a hermeneutical digression to justify one’s reapplication of language. But while philosophers could cite poets because this appealed to the masses, they were not to do so uncritically.3675 Not everything in the poets was useful. Most important here, these quotations in Acts are eminently useful for the flow of the speech’s argument. Not only do they demonstrate that God is not “far” (Acts 17:27) and hence is not a “foreign god” (17:18) or a “new” teaching (17:19, 21); they also emphasize that it is people who “live” and “move” by God and are his children. This reflects conventional polemic against idols, which do not “live” or “move” (e.g., Isa 46:7), and the ot notion that people rather than idols reflect God’s image (Gen 1:26–27) and hence are (or were designed to be) his children (5:1–3).3676 3667. Jub. 1:25, 28; Tob 13:4; Wis 11:10; Jos. Asen. 12:14 mss; Test. Job 33:3 mss, 9; cf. Test. Ab. 16:3; 20:12, 13 A; Pr. Jos. 1. For the righteous as a child of God, see Wis 2:13, 16. 3668. See the survey in Chen, Father, 145–229 (for application to Israel and to believers in Jesus). 3669. E.g., Homeric quotations in Alciph. Paras. 20 (Thambophagus to Cypellistes), 3.56, ¶2 (where it is criticized); PGM 4.2145–50 (where it is unquestioned). Of course, ancients also knew how to evoke or infer larger contexts when this appeal was useful (e.g., m. ʾAb. 3:2; b. Sanh. 38b; fuller comment on Acts 8:32–33). 3670. E.g., Cic. Inv. 1.8.11 (Ulysses and Ajax); 1.13.18 (Orestes and Clytemnestra). 3671. Sen. E. Suas. 3.5–7; 4.4–5. Joint testimony from otherwise contradictory sources was especially useful (Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 61, §19D). 3672. E.g., Brutus in Appian Bell. civ. 4.17.130 (using Eurip. Med. 332). 3673. Plut. Table 9.1, Mor. 736D–737C; see esp. 737C, regarding εὐκαίρως and ἀκαίρως quotations. 3674. Like Paul though less so, Epictetus may have been hard pressed on this point, but he knew at least Homer and, in addition, some Plato and Xenophon and some conventional quotations, perhaps from Chrysippus (Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xi); but his slaveborn background undoubtedly limited his early opportunities. 3675. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 116 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 7.97–102). 3676. See Johnson, Acts, 316; Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 78 (citing in the polemic against idols, e.g., Wis 13:6–19; 15:16–17). On God’s image in the ot, see, e.g., Merrill, “Image.” See comment on the “living God” above and esp. at Acts 14:15.

2664

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 368

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(6) Idols Are Unlike God (17:29)

The flow of argument from Acts 17:28 is that if people are God’s offspring (and hence his workmanship), God cannot be people’s workmanship (and hence images are inappropriate).3677 Probably3678 this passage also implies that people are God’s image (see Gen 1:27–28; 5:1–3, noted above).3679 This idea sometimes appears in some form in pagan texts3680 and, given its biblical support, appears, not surprisingly, often in early Jewish sources.3681 This would fit Paul’s implicit allusion to Adam in Acts 17:26; although Gentiles would not recognize it, Paul’s theological foundation is biblical (as in the biblical echo in 14:15 and, in Paul’s own writings, the biblical assumptions in philosophic language in Rom 1:20, 26). C r i tique s of De i t y I m ag e s

If anyone could have read part of Paul’s argument in Acts 17:28 as akin to pantheism,3682 Paul’s opposition to the divinity of created things in 17:29 should have corrected this misunderstanding—though early Stoics (who tended toward some pantheistic notions) were also dissatisfied with idols, because the deity could not be localized or represented in images. Various Hellenistic intellectuals had long criticized traditional Greek religion (see comment on Acts 14:15–17; 17:18). Various poets and philosophers also spoke of deities’ divine forms as superior to human depictions, though usually not ruling out the use of artificial images.3683 Thus a poet praises deified Clemency (Statius Theb. 12.482): “No image is there, to no metal is the divine form entrusted, in hearts and minds does the goddess delight to dwell” (12.493–94 [LCL, 2:481]). Advanced peoples, Maximus of Tyre opines, need no images of gods (Max. Tyre 2.1), for such 3677. This was a common Jewish argument with a pedigree back to Isa 46:5–7 and other texts; see also discussion on Acts 17:24. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 530. It is a fortiori foolish to worship something of lesser intelligence than ourselves. (It is also of lesser worth than ourselves; most philosophers also recognized the limited worth of gold and silver; see comment on Acts 2:44–45.) 3678. The term χάραγμα suits idols (Rev 13:16–17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; cf. a cognate verb in 3 Macc 2:29; contrast χαρακτήρ, for Christ [Heb 1:3], for humanity [1 Clem. 33.4], or for Christ’s image in Christians [Ign. Magn. 5.2]; God’s image in many of the fifty-three uses in Philo). But it applies to any stamped image (see BDAG; LSJ; more fully, Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 683, citing, e.g., P.Oxy. 1.144.6). 3679. So also Conzelmann, Acts, 145; Johnson, Acts, 316. Against inferring deities’ image from mortals’ derivation from them, see Rowe, World, 38, though Paul’s coordinating conjunction may suggest that Acts 17:29 is a consequence, rather than correction, of ideas implicit in 17:28. 3680. E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (in Stob. Ecl. 1.1.2); Sen. Y. Dial. 1.1.5; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.8; Plut. frg. 46 (from scholia on Hesiod W.D. 327–34, in Plutarch: Moralia, LCL, ed. Sandbach, 15:132–35); Max. Tyre 2.3; Iambl. Myst. 7.4; Porph. Marc. 16.267; cf. Pindar Nem. 6.4–5; Cic. Leg. 1.22.58–59; Marc. Aur. 10.8.2; Russell, “Virtue”; Dillon, Middle Platonists, 192. Diogenes so called good people in Diog. Laert. 6.2.51; for specific persons, e.g., Iambl. V.P. 19.91; for the mind, Porph. Marc. 13.233–34 (cf. also 26.413–14, 419–20). 3681. E.g., 4Q504–506 8 4; Jub. 6:8; Sib. Or. 3.8; Sir 17:3; Wis 2:23; 4 Ezra 8:44; L.A.E. 13:3; 14:1–2; 15:2; 37:3; 39:2; Apoc. Mos. 10:3; 12:1; 33:5; 35:2; Test. Naph. 2:5; 2 En. 30:10; 44:1; 65:2; Philo Creation 69, 139; Mos. 2.65; Spec. Laws 3.83; m. ʾAb. 3:14/15; t. Yebam. 8:7; Mek. Bah. 8.72ff.; 11.111ff.; b. B. Bat. 58a; Gen. Rab. 14:3; 34:14; Exod. Rab. 30:16; Lev. Rab. 34:3; Deut. Rab. 4:4; Midr. Pss. 17:8; cf. Moore, Judaism, 446–49; for Israel in God’s image, ʾAbot R. Nat. 44, §124; for the human spirit or mind, Ps.-Phoc. 106; Philo Spec. Laws 1.171; 3.207. For subsequent humans made in the image of Adam (yet distinct), see m. Sanh. 4:5; b. Sanh. 38a, bar. In haggadah, angels initially could not distinguish Adam from God (Gen. Rab. 8:10; Eccl. Rab. 6:10, §1). 3682. Although 1 Cor 15:28 and some other passages (Eph 1:23; 4:6) may sound pantheistic out of their context, they reflect broader early Jewish language that, though dialoguing with Stoics, was not pantheistic (4Q266 11 9–10; Sir 43:27; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.44; see Kister, “Fragment”). 3683. For gods’ not being identified with statues, see Heracl. frg. 5; Plut. Isis, Mor. 379cd; Lucian Z. Rants 7; for the living represented only by what is living, Dio Chrys. Or. 12.83 (Conzelmann, Acts, 145; cf. Macrob. Comm. 1.2.16 in van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226); cf. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.14. Others could proudly describe deity statues as “gods that we ourselves” made (Alciph. Court. 1 [frg. 3; Phrynê to Praxiteles]).

2665

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 369

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

images are only symbols of deity as far below them as earth to the heavens (2.2);3684 images are acceptable, but only as props for learning to envision God beyond them (2.10).3685 True experience of the gods is superior to mere acquaintance with their statues (Philost. Hrk. 7.3; 9.7). Even in the first century, some thinkers were debating the propriety of images to represent the gods.3686 Although Stoics by Paul’s era had achieved greater rapprochement with popular religion, they would be well aware that early Stoics had opposed images of deity;3687 even if they disagreed with Paul’s view, they would hardly dare ridicule it. (The ridicule in Acts 17:32 is probably not primarily from the Stoics but from Epicureans and perhaps others, though the Stoics, too, would have found 17:31 offensive or unintelligible.)3688 Opposition to images was never dominant among Gentiles, but it was intelligible and was a position with an intellectually respectable pedigree. A St rong e r R e j e ct ion of Id ol s

Such ideas, however, were generally merely “soft” monotheism; images could be retained as symbols.3689 Paul rejects them far more decisively in 17:30, declaring God’s displeasure and inviting repentance. Paul’s thought is therefore distinctly Jewish,3690 albeit presented in language more amenable to Greek philosophy.3691 (His mention of “the deity”—the substantive τὸ θεῖον—is language perfectly at home among philosophically educated Greeks3692 and Greek-speaking Jews seeking to relate to them.)3693 Gentiles knew that Jews rejected idols,3694 although, apart from those most familiar with Judaism (especially its doctrine of resurrection, 17:31), it is not clear that everyone listening to the Areopagus’s deliberations would recognize that Paul and his message were Jewish at this point. (In view of the information of 17:17, perhaps 3684. Persians were thus foolish to worship fire while neglecting all the other elements (Max. Tyre 2.4). Yet Herodotus taught that Persians had long rejected the use of images, worshiping natural forces directly (Hdt. 1.131). 3685. Later Neoplatonists interpreted consecrated images as merely “reflected forms” of deity (Ritner, Mechanics, 246–47). Others treated idols as deities’ bodies (“The Theology of Memphis” 60 [ANET 5]) or dwellings (Rothaus, Corinth, 138); for statues’ activities, see, e.g., Caesar C.W. 3.105; Val. Max. 1.8.2–4; Plut. Cam. 6.1–4; Philost. Hrk. 19.4 (though others considered this fraudulent, e.g., Lucian Alex. 12, 14, 26; Felton, “Statues”; cf. simulated movements in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 147). On ritualized animation of statues in late antiquity, influenced by Neoplatonic theurgy, see Johnston, “Statues”; but Halusza, “Statues,” questions the existence of formal rituals for this purpose. 3686. Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 73, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 12.49–63 (perhaps relevant, in the context of attacking Epicureans, 12.36–38). Later Iamblichus (Myst. 3.28) has to address the question: the gods are incorporeal; so how can humanly made images represent them? More harshly, see Iamblichus Letter 18.1–3 (Stob. Anth. 3.11.35). 3687. See Balch, “Areopagus Speech,” 67–72. 3688. Epicureans lacked use for idols, but they also denied contact with deities; see discussion in the excursus at Acts 17:18. Paul rejects idols more consistently and behaviorally; see Jipp, “Speech,” 585. 3689. E.g., Celsus defends the worship of images against Christian critiques (Cook, Interpretation, 91–94). 3690. Grant, Paul, 66–67; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 145. 3691. Jews and Christians readily exploited pagan works that presented even a soft monotheism or aniconic sentiments, to invite a purer, more consistent approach (see, e.g., Ps.-Euripides in Clem. Alex. Protr. 6.68.3 [Attridge, “Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets,” OTP 2:828]). Greeks could recognize as hubris representing something great on a lesser scale (e.g., Athens in the hypothetical declamation in Hermog. Inv. 1.2.102). 3692. E.g., Plut. Apoll. 14, Mor. 108E. 3693. E.g., Jos. Ant. 10.180. (On Josephus’s general sense for τὸ θεῖον, cf. Shutt, “Concept”). Strabo 16.2.35 so describes Israel’s aniconic deity. The adjective appears elsewhere in the nt only in 2 Pet 1:3–4 but is used by Philo for the Logos (Flight 13) and by Ps.-Aristeas for the law (Let. Arist. 4); of some 40 uses in the lxx, the vast majority are in the Maccabean literature (2 Macc 3:29; 4:17; 9:11; 3 Macc 2:5; 7:11), mostly in 4 Maccabees (1:16, 17; 4:13, 21; 5:16, 18; 6:21; 7:7, 9; 8:22; 9:9, 15, 32; 10:21; 11:27; 13:16, 19; 17:11, 16, 18, 22; 18:3, 22), most of these relevant uses. 3694. Conzelmann, Acts, 145, cites Strabo 16.2.35; Hecataeus of Abdera (FGH 264 frg. 6); Tac. Hist. 5.4.

2666

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 370

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

some of his Stoic and Epicurean interlocutors in 17:18, who brought him to the Areopagus, would know. Luke does not give us enough detail for us to infer whether such information would have been known to Gentile Athenians in the narrative world.) Despite the attractiveness of an imageless monotheism to many thinkers (an attraction that undoubtedly contributed to the swelling ranks of uncircumcised adherents to some Diaspora synagogues), most highly educated pagans held too much status in the larger society to identify themselves with Judaism, an “ethnic,” national religion from an apparently intransigent people in Syria. The Judean revolt certainly highlighted negative associations with Judaism, diminishing the attractiveness of the portrait that Diaspora Jewish apologists had labored to present. Paul’s A p pr o pr i at e Wor ding

Paul’s mention of costly idols is appropriate; Phidias made from gold and ivory the Athena statue in Athens’s Parthenon,3695 and Athenians may have exported gold deity statues.3696 Other statues of gold3697 and silver3698 and other substances3699 are well attested, though most have naturally not survived. Israelite polemic viewed the most expensive idols as made of silver and gold, as here (cf. also 19:24);3700 even in general, these substances do not usually carry a positive connotation in Luke-Acts (Acts 3:6; 8:20; 20:33). Paul employs τὸ θεῖον here to describe the nature of deity; this could be neutral language for the sake of the argument, but since Paul has elsewhere been speaking of “God,” it probably refers to the divine character (cf. Rom 1:20; 2 Pet 1:3–4).3701 Even so, the setting is appropriate; this is the only instance of τὸ θεῖον in the nt or lxx. Placing this clause at the end of the sentence, rather than where we would more naturally anticipate it, is a sign of this speech’s sophisticated rhetorical level.3702 iv. Repent before the Risen Judge (17:30–31)

Rhetoricians warned that when one’s judges were likely to disapprove of one’s argument, one should save the controversial argument for later in the speech, meanwhile building as much goodwill as possible. Paul has established common ground insofar as possible but now must expose the most controversial part of his message. Although repentance was a characteristic Jewish and Lukan notion, its closest equivalent notion in Athens might be conversion to philosophic thinking. Paul, however, grounds this repentance in light of the coming day of judgment, another Jewish notion. God once tolerated idolaters’ ignorance (Acts 17:23), but now God will judge the world justly through a man he accredited by raising him from 3695. Pliny E. N.H. 34.19.54. On Phidias the sculptor, see, e.g., Neudecker, “Phidias,” and sources cited there. 3696. So Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20, where Apollonius reproves the captain for selling gods. 3697. For gold statues, see Pliny E. N.H. 33.24.82–83. 3698. For silver statues, Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.151 (even though many thought these first used for Augustus statues, they are earlier). Cf. 33.46.131, where Egyptians paint their silver with portraits of Anubis. See comment on Acts 19:24. 3699. For bronze statues, see Pliny E. N.H. 34.9.15. 3700. Deut 7:25; 29:17; Pss 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; Ezek 16:17; Hos 8:4; Rev 9:20; cf. perhaps Dan 11:8; 1 Pet 1:18. 3701. The adjective often appears in early Jewish sources (e.g., Exod 31:3; 35:31; Wis 18:9; Sir 6:35; 2 Macc 3:29; 4:17; 3 Macc 7:11; Let. Aris. 4 [cf. 31]), esp. (as noted above) 4 Maccabees (1:16, 17; 4:13, 21; 5:16, 18; 6:21; 7:7, 9; 8:22; 9:9, 15, 32; 10:21; 11:27; 13:16, 19; 17:11, 16, 18, 22; 18:3, 22); more than two hundred times in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 10.180; on his general sense for τὸ θεῖον, cf. Shutt, “Concept”); more than five hundred times in Philo (e.g., the “divine word,” Flight 13). Some also praised Jewish people for rejecting Egyptian images, preferring τὸ θεῖον (Strabo 16.2.35). 3702. Rowe, “Style,” 136, sees it as an example of hyperbaton (citing Jerome Ep. 14.10 as another example); for the meaning of “hyperbaton,” see also Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.32.44; Quint. Inst. 8.6.62–67); for another example, Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580.

2667

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 371

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

death. Paul saves Jesus’s resurrection for the closing words of his speech, aware that nothing in his message will prove as abhorrent to his critics as this. (1) Repenting from Ignorance about God (17:30)

Ignorance about God was less culpable than deliberate distortions about him, but given God’s self-revelation of his character in humanity (17:27–28), idolatry remained culpable (17:29), and now, given the climactic and more complete revelation of his purpose in the historic act of raising Jesus, it became unexcusable (17:31). It was customary in speeches where hearers might be closed to one’s message to delay the offensive features at the beginning, building rapport first.3703 One early Hellenistic handbook’s advice is apropos in this case: a speech will not be unbelievable (ἀπίστως) if we provide arguments to support one’s claim (Rhet. Alex. 30, 1438b.2–4). But if (as in Paul’s teaching of the resurrection for the Areopagus) something seems too improbable, one should either omit it altogether (unconscionable for Luke and Paul) or establish first what is easily argued and reserve the controversial point for the end (1438b.4–9); by this means one can counter ἀπιστίας (1438b.9–10). Most of the speech identifies elements of the monotheistic biblical worldview, which also could gain a respectful hearing among educated pagans; only in the conclusion (Acts 17:30–31) does the speech become specifically Christian.3704 In contrast with artistic representations in 17:29, which are not God’s image, God’s true revelation appears in the gospel in 17:30–31 (cf. Rom 1:17–18, 23). This argument coheres with the nt use of figurative wisdom language for Jesus as God’s image (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; cf. Rom 8:29)3705 and the use of the philosophers’ Logos as a conceptual bridge, as in Philo and later Christian apologists.3706 In Jewish tradition, Wisdom was God’s image (Wis 7:26);3707 in Philo, the Logos fills this role.3708 In Philo, the Logos, as God’s image, imprints his likeness on not only people but all creation. 3709 Like Paul here, some philosophers used μετάνοια for transformation.3710 Most used the term more weakly but nevertheless accepted the general concept of conversion and transformation. Philosophers employed a particular variety of rhetoric, the “protreptic” discourse, when seeking to convert people to philosophy.3711 Although 3703. Insinuatio, with Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 36 (citing Rhet. Her. 1.9–11); Witherington, Acts, 518; Parsons, Acts, 248 (citing Quint. Inst. 4.1.42–50). Witherington points out that forensic speeches (though I believe this one more deliberative) build “toward the decision of the judges” (3.11.5–6) but that Paul’s forensic speeches build toward the resurrection (Acts, 530). 3704. As generally noted, e.g., Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 27; Dupont, Salvation, 31. 3705. On God’s image in Paul, see, e.g., Clines, “Image.” 3706. Like Justin (1 Apol. 5; cf. Holte, “Logos,” 165; Bauer, Orthodoxy, 206; Barnard, “Study,” 160; idem, “Logos Theology,” 140; Chadwick, “Defence,” 295), Clement of Alexandria (cf. Barnard, “Logos Theology,” 137), and even Tertullian (Apol. 21.10); cf. Ign. Magn. 8; Diogn. 7; Tatian Or. Gks. 5; more generally, see Rainbow, “Christology,” 666. Cf. also John’s Logos, though it is less “philosophic” (Keener, John, 341–63). 3707. Cf. Col 1:15; Heb 1:3; John 1:18; 14:7–9. 3708. Philo Conf. 97, 147; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Drunkenness 133; Eternity 15; Flight 101; Heir 230; Plant. 18; Spec. Laws 1.80–81, 171; 3.83. Cf. Plut. Isis 29, Mor. 362D; 43, 368C; 54, 373B; 377A. 3709. Philo Creation 16 (but esp. people, 69); Dreams 2.45; cf. Plant. 18, 20, 22. As in some Middle Platonic thought, Philo’s Logos is a determinate pattern which is God’s image (Creation 17–19, 25, 31); thus God made the world as a copy of his divine image, the Logos being his archetypal seal imprinted on them (Creation 16, 26, 36). In later rabbis, God the builder used Torah as his architect, consulting Torah with its plans and diagrams (Gen. Rab. 1:1). Cf. angels in God’s image in Gen. Rab. 8:11; 14:3; Exod. Rab. 30:16. 3710. Rousseau, “Conversion,” 387. 3711. Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 204–5; Furley, “Protrepticus.” Some scholars argue that Paul’s letter to the Romans reflects this rhetorical mode (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 385–86, 431; Stowers, Letter Writing, 113–14; more likely, in Paul’s prior preaching, Aune, Environment, 219; in a broader sense, Stowers, Letter Writing, 128; idem, Diatribe, 182); I am skeptical regarding Romans but grant that the historical Paul sometimes employed this mode (1 Thess 1:9), as in Acts.

2668

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 372

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

initiation into religious cults was rarely associated with moral transformation, philosophic conversion demanded it, and ethics formed a major component of philosophic instruction.3712 (A disciple who turned out badly, like Alcibiades, thus became a matter of reproach to his teacher.)3713 Sometimes notable profligates turned to the reasoned life of philosophy.3714 For Stoics, the transition to virtue could be immediate, with much transformation occurring rapidly (though progress was also emphasized); Epicureans and Platonists emphasized more gradual progress through the enlightenment of their teaching.3715 Christian conversion differed by adding the religious element of a divine being’s involvement, but the formal concept of conversion was intelligible to philosophers.3716 What would strike philosophers as offensive was the same feature that would offend Jewish hearers called to repentance (see comment on Acts 2:38); they believed that they already were on the right way.3717 The message of “repentance” is familiar in Acts, proclaimed to Jew (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 19:4; cf. 8:22; Luke 1:16–17; 3:3, 8; 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30) and Gentile (Acts 11:18; 13:24; 14:15; cf. Luke 24:47) alike and equally offensive to both (Acts 20:21; 26:17–18, 20). Jews turned from their own sins; among sins from which most Gentiles had to turn is idolatry, as in typical Jewish expectations (fitting the context here, in 17:29; and Paul’s preaching, 1 Thess 1:9). See further comment on Acts 2:38; 14:15. That previous ignorance had somewhat excused a situation no longer excusable might appear more intelligible to someone who granted the truth of Paul’s claim. Philosophy often identified wrongdoing with ignorance, though it could remain culpable (e.g., Max. Tyre 25.5), but throughout antiquity ignorance was often offered as grounds for diminishing culpability (see comment on Acts 3:17, to a Jewish audience). Jews identified idolatry with ignorance (e.g., Jos. Asen. 13:11; see comment on Acts 3:17). Jewish wisdom advised overlooking others’ ignorance (Sir 28:7) and acknowledged that God overlooked sins on account of repentance (Wis 11:23). God might also patiently allow humanity to continue in sin rarely impeded, but with the promise of eventual judgment.3718 (Some Gentiles would condemn as indulgent or suspiciously impotent a supposed deity who failed to avenge his honor.)3719 Referring to past times as “times of ignorance” for the Gentiles in contrast with the present situation now that Jesus has come provides another indication of Luke’s salvation-historical structure.3720 (Paul has already addressed God establishing epochs; see comment on Acts 17:26.) God has raised the standard from past ignorance (cf. 3712. E.g., Diog. Laert. 4.16; 6.2.56; Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; Wilken, “Collegia,” 272; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 45–46, 144; Stowers, Letter Writing, 37, 112–13; Lutz, “Musonius,” 27–28; esp. Nock, Conversion, 164–86. Some schools allowed for instant transformation whereas others emphasized the process (Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91–92). For philosophic transformation, see, e.g., Lucian Downward Journey, 24. 3713. Cf. Xen. Apol. 19; Mem. 1.2.12–18, 26; Aeschines Tim. 171–73; Plut. Alc. 7.3; t. ʿEd. 3:4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 27 A; 34, §76 B; Mark 2:18, 24. 3714. E.g., Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; cf. also those who abandoned wealth (Diog. Laert. 6.5.87; Diogenes Ep. 38). 3715. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 91. 3716. Ibid., 92. 3717. Stoics believed that the ideal wise person would not need to “change” thinking (μετανοεῖν), since such changing of thought (μετάνοιαν) shows that they did not think wisely to begin with (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 96–97.5–8; naturally, Luke’s view of μετάνοια is stronger than this; see comment on Acts 2:38). Stoics would, however, differentiate themselves from the ideal wise person. 3718. Gen 6:3, 7; 4 Ezra 3:8–10; 2 Pet 3:9; cf. Aug. Ep. 153; Wm of Thierry 2.4, Levy, Krey, and Ryan, 85. 3719. So Lucian Tim. 1–4. Green, “Acts,” 757, notes that Greeks would expect divine punishment for wrong worship, so Paul must explain why it has not happened. 3720. This is a significant feature of Luke’s perspective (see further Conzelmann, “Areopagus,” 229; Soards, Speeches, 190–92), though hardly limited to him; cf. 1 Pet 1:14; Eph 4:18; for a later analogy, see Muhammad’s designation of pre-Islamic times as “Times of Ignorance” (Moffatt, General Epistles, 104–5).

2669

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 373

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

also Acts 14:16).3721 The epistolary Paul attached culpability to Gentiles’ ignorance (Rom 1:18–30; cf. 1 Cor 1:21; Eph 4:18–19),3722 but in a context that provided a basis for condemning also Jewish sins (Rom 2:1–3, 9–29); in the argument of Romans, rhetorical principles demand emphasizing that the issue is not past but present. In Romans, Paul also writes that God passed over earlier sins (3:25), though in context this probably at least includes Jewish sins forgiven in anticipation of the cross. The ideas are different, though, again, they would not be incompatible in the same author when rhetorical situations are taken into account; the compatibility is much greater if we allow, as we must, that Luke provides at best a summary, one that he has edited to fit the emphasis of his work. Here, as in Romans, the present situation is not excusable ignorance but repentance in light of the presently revealed gospel (Rom 1:17–18).3723 This speech to Athenians reflects the same tension one finds elsewhere in Luke’s apologetic approach to salvation history: the message is both old and new (cf. similarly 1 John 2:7–8). Elsewhere it is old because grounded in the history and prophecies of Israel, yet new because the climactic event has occurred; here it is old because it refers to the benevolent Creator, who is not far from humanity (Acts 17:24–28), yet is new (cf. 17:19, 21) because this new stage in salvation history calls Gentiles also to account.3724 (2) The Coming Judge (17:31)

Whereas a normal forensic speech appeals to the judges to rule in one’s favor, here Paul announces that his hearers are the ones who will face the true judgment3725 (cf. the same tactic in 7:51–53, and comment there). Although I count this speech as more deliberative than forensic, the Areopagus’s role of evaluating new teachings here renders the stakes to some extent analogous. Luke approves of communicating the gospel in culturally intelligible terms and emphasizing common ground; he does not favor dishonestly watering down the message so far to gain acceptance that it can no longer convert—even when failure to gain acceptance means losing some access to the public forum. But the speech also offers a model beyond its immediate literary setting. That the message applies not only to Athenians but to “all people everywhere” (17:30) fits Luke’s ethnic universalism (Luke 24:27; Acts 1:8) as well as Paul’s (e.g., Rom 1:14, 16; 10:11–13).3726 Luke would not expect his audience to memorize and reuse the speech in other settings, but he probably employs it as a model in the sense of provoking them to think creatively how to engage their intellectual milieu.3727 Would the historical Paul have risked offending his audience with such an abrupt 3721. The Roman Empire regularly experienced new political situations that altered previous decrees (see comment on Acts 18:2) and sometimes even the validity of military travel documents (Tac. Hist. 2.54), and so the conception of a new judicial situation would appear intelligible, not arbitrary. 3722. Goppelt, Times, 85. 3723. Haacker, Theology, 144, shows the compatibility of the two sources (noting that repentance and judgment in Acts 17:30–31 imply guilt and that Rom 1:21–22 speaks of ignorance; he also compares Rom 3:25–26). 3724. Luke employs καινός in Acts only in 17:19, 21, but in so doing, he may recall the new garments, wine, and covenant in the Gospel (Luke 5:36, 38; 22:20; the only uses in the Gospel); adding the often-synonymous νέος does not change the picture (the only relevant occurrences here are Luke 5:37, 38–39; 5:38 employs the adjective normally used with wine in the papyri). 3725. Hansen, “Preaching,” 315–17; Witherington, Acts, 530. 3726. On its relation to Luke’s theme, see Dupont, Salvation, 32 (recalling also the implicit universalism in Acts 17:26). Rhetorically, “all everywhere” underlines emphasis, and it is used by another Diaspora Jew for repentance (Philo Virt. 174–75; for argument that this Philonic passage includes Gentile conversion, see Bekken, Word, 85–90; cf. Spec. Laws 2.167; Virt. 64; Good Person 15; Etern. 68). 3727. Klauck, Magic, 120, thinks that Luke may use it more to encourage the members of his audience about their faith’s intellectual viability than to intend this speech as a model for evangelism. But presumably, it also provides one model for how they can contextualize intellectually as needed.

2670

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 374

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

turn to concepts foreign to them?3728 It is hard to think otherwise; it seems inherent in the very message he preached in his next stop after Athens (1 Cor 1:17–25; 2:4–5);3729 likewise, Paul had recently taught Jewish Christian eschatology to the believers in Thessalonica, including the coming judgment of those who venerated idols (1 Thess 1:9–10). The message of divine judgment was widely intelligible (even in the story of Epimenides and the nameless altars, narrated above). Traditional Greeks expected judgment in the afterlife in addition to occasional conflicts with angry deities in life; those who denied deities who could enforce moral demands were also thought to feel less morally accountable.3730 This differed, however, from mainstream Jewish eschatology (especially in Judea and to the east), which, in addition to judgment in the afterlife, emphasized that God had (as Acts 17:31 notes) “fixed a day”3731 for future judgment. Among Jews still more than among Gentiles, failure to accept the doctrine of judgment was widely associated with lack of moral accountability. This is also the standard early Christian understanding (Col 3:4–6; 1 Thess 3:13; Titus 2:12–14; 2 Pet 3:3–4, 11–14; 1 John 3:3; cf. 1 Cor 15:29–34; 1 Thess 5:23). That the deity was displeased with the Athenian hearers’ situation, the assumption of Paul calling for repentance, might offend some. The concept of a deity’s wrath was intelligible in Greek mythology3732 but less so among philosophic notions of an abstract, emotionless deity.3733 The idea of future judgment was sometimes accepted as morally useful, and its denial as dangerous to public morals.3734 Celsus criticized the use of fear in rhetoric as manipulating emotions (pathos) rather than appealing to rational proofs (logos) or the speaker’s character (ēthos).3735 Yet Celsus himself did not reject the idea of future punishments, since the teaching was morally useful; he merely rejected the Christian conception of such judgment3736 (which the speech summary does not detail here). Although Plato and Aristotle viewed the cosmos as eternal,3737 Epicureans3738 and Stoics3739 did envision the cosmos as coming to an end (though for Stoics it would be repeated cyclically).3740 3728. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 12–13, 18–19; Bray, Corinthians, 12, 17) condemns those who succumb to the temptation of avoiding preaching matters not believed by the “world,” including the resurrection. 3729. With Dunn, Acts, 237. 3730. E.g., Xen. Mem. 1.1.19; Wis 2:1–24; Gen. Rab. 67:4; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 4:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:8; especially applicable, among Greek intellectuals, to Epicureans (Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D; Aul. Gel. 9.5.8). For Paul, an argument from creation can have moral implications (e.g., Rom 1:25). 3731. Not surprising for the one who ordains the “seasons” (Acts 17:26). 3732. E.g., Val. Max. 1.1.16–21; 1.1.ext. 1–9; Philost. Hrk. 16.5; 53.17; among philosophers, cf. Epict. Diatr. 2.8.14; for the true God, Jdt 9:9; Bar 2:13, 20; CD VIII, 3; Jub. 15:34; Sib. Or. 1.179, 321; 3.759. Even philosophers who attributed many disasters to natural causes allowed that deities could send judgments when necessary (Hierocles Gods 1.3.53–54 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 87]). 3733. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 2.19.26; Porph. Marc. 18.302–4; on propitiating such wrath, cf., e.g., Polyb. 3.112.9; Diod. Sic. 14.77.4–5; 27.4.3; Plut. Thes. 18.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.38; Sir 45:16; 1 Macc 3:8; 4 Macc 17:21–22; Wis 18:20–21; Sib. Or. 3.625–28, 632; Rosenberger, “Rites,” 275. For the deity’s lacking emotion, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 9.2; Apul. De deo Socr. 146–47; for deities’ anger being simply allowing foolish mortals to go their way, see Iambl. Myst. 1.13 (cf. Rom 1:18, 24). 3734. E.g., Plut. Pleas. L. 23, Mor. 1103D; Wis 2:1–24; Gen. Rab. 67:4; 1 Cor 15:32–33; 2 Pet 3:3–4. 3735. Cook, Interpretation, 97. Appeals to pathos, however, were common in rhetoric (see comment on Acts 20:19), especially recommended in (though not limited to) one’s peroratio toward the speech’s end (Sumney, “Πάθος,” 147). 3736. Cook, Interpretation, 97–98. 3737. See Adams, Stars, 107–9. 3738. Ibid., 109–14; for a comparison with Jewish views, see 127. 3739. Ibid., 114–24; for a comparison with Jewish views, see 128–29. 3740. Ibid., 118–20.

2671

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 375

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul’s message, however, is a traditional Jewish one. That God would “judge the world in righteousness” reflects biblical language (Pss 9:8; 96:13; 98:9).3741 The specific language of a “day of judgment” is Jewish,3742 and early Judaism found already in its Bible the concept of a day set aside for God to judge the world.3743 The term used for “establish” or “set” or “fix” here (ἵστημι) can mean “to specify contractually” (see BDAG); in this case, it applies to a judge setting the date for the trial. Jewish teachers debated whether the day was fixed or depended on human response (see comment on Acts 1:7); this text supposes a fixed day (as in Acts 1:7; cf. Mark 13:32). Early Christians expected Jesus to be judge at his coming (e.g., 2 Thess 1:7; Matt 25:31–33; 1 John 2:28; Jude 14–15; cf. 1 Cor 4:5); although many ancient traditions do assign a subordinate judgment role to human agents (e.g., Enoch, Minos, and Rhadamanthus),3744 Jewish tradition especially recognized God as final judge.3745 (For God “judging the world,” see, e.g., Pss 9:8; 67:4; 96:10, 13; 98:9; Isa 51:5; Joel 3:12.) The epistolary Paul regards God as the world’s judge (Rom 3:6), but also Christ (2 Cor 5:10; cf. 2 Thess 1:7; 2 Tim 4:1, 8) and the saints (1 Cor 6:2); nor was the idea of God ruling through his agent or agents new (cf. Isa 9:7; Dan 7:13–14, 26–27).3746 We should probably not infer too much about Luke’s Christology here as if to contradict other Lukan passages;3747 early Christians accommodated christological variety much better than did some of their post-Nicene counterparts.3748 The God who “appointed” peoples’ boundaries (17:26) had the right to “appoint” humanity’s judge (the same term, here). Luke rarely emphasizes the future day of judgment in Acts3749 (though it appears there and especially in the Gospel, where it was too dominant in the Jesus tradition to ignore).3750 But the emphasis on the world’s judgment is abundant in Paul, whose form of preaching Luke here claims to report.3751 Stoics at least may 3741. With, e.g., Bruce, Acts1, 340; cf. Ps 72:2; Isa 16:5; Rev 19:11; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 120. As Dunn, Acts, 237, notes, “righteousness” was an ot covenant term (Pss 31:1; 35:24; 45:8; Isa 26:2; 45:21), as opposed to the Greek understanding of simply required “duties towards the gods.” 3742. See Jdt 16:17; 1 En. 10:6, 12; 84:4; 94:9; 96:8; 97:3; 98:8; 99:15; Jub. 16:9 (that this reference is eschatological is disputable); 24:30; 36:10; 1QpHab XII, 14; XIII, 2–3; 1QM I, 11; VII, 5; 4 Ezra 7:38; 2 En. 50:4, 5A; 51:3; Test. Levi 1:1; cf. Test. Mos. 1:18; Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; 2 Pet 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17. 3743. E.g., Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 4:5; cf. Rom 2:5; 2 Pet 3:10, 12; Rev 16:14. 3744. Hom. Od. 11.568–71; Virg. Aen. 6.431–33, 566–69; 1 En. 69:27; 3 En. 16:1; Test. Ab. 12:16–13:4 A; 10:8–11:8 B; see further comment on Acts 10:42. Posthumous judgment is assigned to the deity Plouton in Orph. H. 18.16; in Egyptian ideology, see Book of Dead spell 125d (p. 101); spell 180, S-5, 9 (p. 191). 3745. E.g., Sib. Or. 4.183–84; 1 En. 9:4; 60:2; 62:2; 47:3 with 46:2; Test. Ab. 20:3 A (“judge of all”). 3746. Stagg, Acts, 187, here interprets “man” as Daniel’s “son of man,” though Paul’s Athenian hearers in the narrative world would not understand this. Cf. the chosen emperor (Harrison, “Paul,” 167–70). 3747. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 38–39, notes that Rom 1:3–4 also calls Jesus a man but Paul, who includes the passage, hardly has only an adoptionist Christology. In the context of this speech, the use of “man” (masculine) rather than the generic “person” might support the possible Adam allusions in Acts 17:26 and 29. 3748. Chrys. Hom. Jn. 3 appeals to Jesus’s own messianic secret to argue that it was sufficient for Paul’s hearers at this juncture to acknowledge the resurrection. 3749. Dunn, Acts, xxii. Some carry this notion too far, explaining away even the present text (Robinson, Studies, 143n13; idem, Coming, 28; see critique in Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 176). The use of μέλλω here may suggest also imminence (Mattill, Last Things, 43–45), as often (though not always) in Acts (e.g., Acts 3:3; 5:35; 16:27; 20:3). 3750. Acts 3:19–21; 10:42; Luke 3:9, 16–17; 6:23–25; 10:12–15; 11:31–32; 12:42–48; 13:25–30; 17:22–37; 18:8; 21:27–28. For Luke’s eschatology, see comment on Acts 1:6. 3751. E.g., Rom 1:18; 2:2–3, 5, 8, 16; 3:6; 9:22; 14:10; 1 Cor 4:5; 11:29; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9; 2 Thess 1:5; see Porter, Paul in Acts, 123; Travis, “Judgment.” Judgment concludes the Acts speech (for rhetorical reasons) and begins the argument of Rom 1:18–32, but both emphasize God’s holding the world accountable for his revelation in nature (Porter, Paul in Acts, 146).

2672

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 376

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

not have been completely put off by this idea.3752 They were in fact among the rare Greek intellectuals who anticipated a future day of destruction, though for them it was a conflagration repeated cyclically as new worlds were periodically formed and destroyed.3753 (3) Preaching the Resurrection (17:31)

Stoics, like other Greeks, had no category for resurrection, which they probably would have viewed as some ludicrous, magical revivification of long-decomposed corpses.3754 Some intellectuals insisted that even a supreme deity could not raise the dead.3755 Many thinkers accepted the idea that a body was merely a tomb, holding the soul back from its immortal, heavenly home (expressed as σῶμα σῆμα, “the body a tomb”).3756 Scholars often find that lines from the Athenian poet Aeschylus, uttered at a mythical hearing of the Areopagus, are appropriate to summarize how difficult the resurrection concept was to a Greek worldview: “Once a person has died . . . there is no return to life [ἀνάστασις].”3757 Scholars sometimes note that this very line appears originally in a dramatic defense before the Areopagus.3758 A later critic of Christians complained that resurrection contradicts the way that history has always happened and that a body, once dissolved into other bodies, could not be reconstituted (Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 4.24).3759 One resurrection remained, however, at the center of the gospel (Acts 24:21), and resurrection was intimately connected with early Christian eschatology and conceptions of future judgment.3760 It is possible for a Jewish work far more hellenized than Paul’s Areopagus speech nevertheless to be identifiably Jewish ­precisely 3752. Several commentators suggest a Stoic connection here (e.g., Witherington, Acts, 526; Porter, Paul in Acts, 123). 3753. See Diog. Laert. 7.156; van der Horst, “Cosmic Conflagration”; Adams, Stars, 114–24; much fuller comment at Acts 3:21. 3754. Already mocked in 17:18. For discussion of resurrection concepts, see Keener, John, 1169–77; most fully Wright, Resurrection, passim (for the absurdity to Greeks, see 32–38); Anderson, Raised, 48–91 (for Jewish sources), 92–114 (for Greek sources, including their disinclination to accept resurrections in real history). Vouga, “Paradoxie,” 189–90, usefully compares the “foolishness” of preaching with 1 Cor 1:17 (although the point in 1 Cor 1 is the cross whereas, in Acts 17:30–31, characteristic for Luke, it is the resurrection). Rowe, World, 39, rightly notes that no ancient philosophic school could have accepted Paul’s premise without scuttling its own cosmology. 3755. Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.27. 3756. E.g., Plato Cratyl. 400BC; Philo Dreams 1.139; cf. Epict. frg. 26 (in Marc. Aur. 4.41); Patterson, Immortality, 20–21. Cf. also the image of a prison (Gnom. Vat. 464 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 110]; Sen. Y. Dial. 12.11.7; Epict. Diatr. 1.1; 1.9.11–12; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.26; Philo Dreams 1.139; Diogn. 6; Essenes according to Jos. War 2.154). 3757. Aeschylus Eum. 647–48, cited by many (Bruce, Acts1, 340; idem, Commentary, 363–64; Harris, “Dead,” 295; Hemer, Acts in History, 118; Witherington, Acts, 532; Fitzmyer, Acts, 612; Talbert, Acts, 157). Some (see Peterson, Acts, 503, citing also Hom. Il. 24.551; Aeschylus Ag. 1360–61; Soph. El. 137–39) cite additional sources. 3758. Kauppi, Gods, 86. For more extensive possible intertextual connections (though only the Areopagus connection seems compelling to me by itself), see Kauppi, Gods, 83–93, noting the term ἀνάστασις in Aeschylus Eum. 647 (pp. 85–86) and the Furies becoming “new gods” in the Athenian pantheon (comparable to Paul’s foreign deities in Acts 17:18; pp. 89–90). He demonstrates that classical plays were still performed and so Aeschylus could remain known in this period (91). 3759. For a discussion of pagan objections, see Cook, Interpretation, 55–61. On resurrection appearances, see comment on Acts 1:3; for discussion of Jesus’s resurrection and ancient views about resurrection, see Keener, John, 1167–78. 3760. Cf. Bultmann, Theology, 1:77, for the close connection between resurrection and divine judgment in nt preaching (though Bultmann excessively downplays the significance of future eschatology). Paul may have focused on Jesus’s resurrection rather than that of believers when he preached among Gentiles (cf. Martin, Body, 120–21; 1 Thess 4:13–14), though he must have said something of the latter (when explaining in more detail to believers) to make the former intelligible.

2673

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 377

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

because it includes the resurrection.3761 Although Paul’s narrative audience may expect the speech to focus on the “unknown god” (17:23), Luke has already signaled his own interest in the resurrection in a summary of Paul’s initial preaching in Athens (17:18), which prompted the occasion for the present speech (17:19). The reader of Luke’s other apostolic speeches (like the reader of Paul’s letters, for that matter) will not be surprised to find the resurrection as the narrated climax of this speech.3762 Paul boldly and controversially announces that the true and caring God has offered humanity proof of the judgment claim by raising Jesus from the dead. Although Luke generally employs the term πίστις for faith, a cognate could also apply to marks of good faith—that is, pledges.3763 The point here is “proof,” although in Luke’s theology this proof is also the foundation for faith.3764 Stoics could employ the term for a trust that rests on certain knowledge.3765 Likewise, in a rhetorical context (e.g., a speech seeking to persuade), πίστις means a rhetorical proof,3766 a sense probably not foreign to Paul (1 Cor 2:4).3767 Paul cites the ultimate “proof ” that God has offered.3768 Paul has previously offered some proofs (such as citations in Acts 17:28) but now appeals to an ultimate, narrative one. This was not the appropriate place for a proof in the speech; but it was appropriate to reserve a more controversial point for later (as noted above), and one might also save an irrefutable, clinching argument for the end.3769 Scholars have debated whether this is the appropriate conclusion for the speech. Certainly it was not a normal conclusion, and this verdict probably should apply even for mere speech summaries, of the sort we have in Acts. That Luke has completed all that he wished to say is clear, since this is where he ends the speech; further, the later speeches of Acts often climax in the resurrection (26:23; esp. 24:21).3770 But would Luke’s audience think that Paul finished all that he intended to say or rather that Paul was interrupted, per a common narrative technique in Acts (cf. 2:37; 10:44; 22:22; 26:24)?3771 The anatomy of the speech does not match typical models,3772 suggesting that, within the narrative world, Paul intended to say more, but this is typical of many of Luke’s speech summaries, some of which never go past the narratio (e.g., 22:1–21). Luke has provided a sufficient sample, and in terms of historical plausibility, Paul was 3761. See van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” 569, on Ps.-Phocylides. 3762. Cf. Lang, “Self,” 167: not the altar inscription, but Jesus’s resurrection, is the focus of this speech. 3763. E.g., Xen. Anab. 1.6.7; 2.2.10; 2.3.26; 5.4.11 (πιστά); see further BDAG; cf. also Lightfoot, Acts, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). 3764. The traditional modern dichotomy between subjective “faith” and objective “reason” that invited Kierkegaard’s “leap into the dark” should not be read into ancient texts or language. 3765. Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 94–95.20–21. 3766. Scholars cite, e.g., Arist. Rhet. 3.13, 1414b8 (Robinson, Ephesians, 171); N.E. 1173a; Jos. Ant. 15.69 (Witherington, Acts, 532n257); the exact phrase in Vett. Val. 277.29–30 (Bruce, Acts1, 340); note “confirmation” in Hierocles Elements of Ethics 2.2. In the imperial period, however, usage was shifting to a different term (Kennedy’s introduction [p. 61] to Hermog. Inv. 3). 3767. On this sense there, in view of the conjunction with another rhetorical term, ἀπόδειξις, and discussion of rhetoric in the context, see also Winter, Philo and Paul, 160. 3768. Paul’s contemporary Musonius Rufus felt that even novices needed not many proofs but just the right ones (1, p. 32.3, 5, using ἀποδείξεων). Paul’s letters also present Jesus’s resurrection as a demonstration of his identity (Rom 1:4; Baum, “Paulinismen,” 425–26). 3769. See Cic. Quinct. 25.78–80; Isaeus Hagnias 50. 3770. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57. Speeches often build toward an emotional climax; see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 3.13.162–63; 4.4.189, 191. 3771. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 57, notes the interruption technique but also notes the literary completeness of the speech. Interruption was a common literary technique both in novels and in historiography (Aune, Environment, 127; see now esp. and extensively, Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption). 3772. Cf. Porter, Paul in Acts, 124, arguing against Dibelius that the speech is not complete.

2674

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 378

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

far more likely to have been interrupted after his speech took a tack contradicting respectable philosophy (cf. also 7:51–54). d. Response to Paul’s Speech (17:32–34) As in most locations where Paul preaches, his hearers divide in their response to his speech. Here some prove hostile, others open minded, while a small number (much smaller than in most synagogues where Paul has preached) accept his message. i. Mixed Reactions (17:32–33)

Given the implausibility of bodily resurrection on Greek premises (cf. 26:8), the audience response is hardly surprising. Paul’s apologetic might convince those open to being convinced (especially those sympathetic with his presuppositions) and might lay the groundwork for further discussion, but no single speech would easily transform a lifetime of contrary presuppositions or culture-wide plausibility structures. That Paul has even a few converts from the Areopagus and its circle of hearers (17:34) appears remarkable. Even critics now understand resurrection (vs. 17:18). Laughter and friendly banter were conventional at Greek banquets, with teasing one another taken in good humor, and teachers could sometimes employ this technique (see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 4.2.5). But ridicule also demonstrated wit in hostile rhetoric (e.g., Plut. Cic. 5.4), and the term used here represents scornful sneering (2 Macc 7:27; 4 Macc 5:22; Wis 11:14).3773 Crowds often expressed their views, applauding one they thought more plausible (e.g., Lucian Z. Rants 41). Athenian crowds interrupted and laughed at the young Demosthenes (Plut. Demosth. 6.3; 7.1).3774 From the standpoint of Luke’s purpose, however, the virtuous often faced scorn (Luke 6:22–23);3775 he expects disciples to be ready for worse (9:23–24; 14:26; 21:16). Judaism also recognized that the wicked would scorn and mock the truth and hence face judgment,3776 and expected that the righteous might sometimes face ridicule.3777 Moreover, the portrait of Athenian judges mocking the apostle would not commend them to even any unconverted Gentiles sympathetic to Luke’s portrait of Paul; even Athenians could scorn those who became too arrogant.3778 Writers could divide persons into groups, describing their differences;3779 here Luke emphasizes the contrasting responses (see Luke 8:12–15; comment on Acts 14:4). Scholars divide over what to make of the second group, which offers to hear Paul again. Some think that the entire Areopagus politely rejects Paul’s message.3780 This is possible; when Felix promises to hear Paul more fully later, he is putting him off, albeit not dismissively (Acts 24:25). Yet the οἱ μέν . . . οἱ δέ construction suggests that the second group responds significantly differently from the first.3781 3773. For sneering remarks (with nostrils drawn together) as a rhetorical device, see Anderson, Glossary, 78; for mockery, 126. 3774. Johnson, Acts, 317, compares ridicule of speeches in Lucian Peregr. 7–8, 34. 3775. See Conzelmann, Acts, 146–47 (on responses to “divine men”); 4 Macc 5:22. 3776. E.g., 4 Ezra 7:76, 79, 81; b. Roš Haš. 17a; Eccl. Rab. 8:8, §1; 2 Pet 3:3, 7. 3777. E.g., 1QHa X, 10–12; 4Q162 I–II; 4 Macc 1:5; 5:27–28; Test. Jos. 2:3; Deut Rab. 5:15; Lam. Rab. proem 17; cf. Jos. Ant. 5.144. 3778. Cf. the well-known statues of tyrannicides in the Agora (Athenian Agora, 58). 3779. See, e.g., the rhetorical device ἀλλοίωσις (meaning a) in Anderson, Glossary, 16–17; also rhetorical comparison. 3780. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 526 (not Paul “but the audience has failed” [thinking that one group, probably the Epicureans, mock while others politely request a deferment]); cf. Blaiklock, Acts, 142. Gray, “Athenian Curiosity,” compares the characterization of hearers in Acts 17:32 as “busybodies,” matching 17:21–22. 3781. See Witherington, Acts, 532; Fitzmyer, Acts, 612.

2675

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 379

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

This is not conversion, but it represents at least a passive interest that is tolerant rather than hostile or demeaning.3782 Moreover, desiring to hear Paul further did not close off the possibility of conversion: later, others who desired to hear Paul’s views, even if because of hostile publicity about the faith (28:22), did come to listen (28:23), and some were persuaded (28:24). Such a division in the crowd fits a Lukan literary pattern (cf. the partly hostile, partly interested but unconverted crowd in 23:7–9).3783 Especially if it was the Stoics who wanted to hear more of Paul’s teaching in 17:18– 19, Luke may expect his audience to gather that they constitute the most receptive (and Epicureans, the least receptive) members of Paul’s audience. Certainly Paul’s speech connected more with Stoic beliefs and offended against more Epicurean ones.3784 Thus the Epicureans could “sneer” while the Stoics remained interested (17:32). A later writer with some Epicurean sympathies could mock Christians for their foolish belief in immortality, a belief that makes them willing to die and go to prison.3785 We should keep in mind that the Stoics and the Epicureans of 17:18 merely introduced Paul to the Areopagus and did not themselves constitute it. But those wanting to hear Paul again are likely those who have an intellectual curiosity (wanting to hear something “new,” 17:21), not the gathered court, as if Paul’s case must be reviewed. Probably the more positive reading here is closer to Luke’s intention. This court’s time would be precious, and if Paul’s hearing was evaluating him for being permitted to teach, he had at least passed the test of offering something novel (17:21). Some members probably wished to hear him explain his points more fully, though in the marketplace rather than on the schedule of the Areopagus.3786 This response would assume that Paul was permitted to keep preaching in Athens, despite the scorn of other members; he would not be offered a place to teach, but neither would he be restricted from freelancing in the marketplace.3787 This, at least, would be the favorable outcome Luke might project by implication here: not saving faith, granted, but certainly a less incendiary reception than Paul had encountered in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea. Achaia and its environs proved less hostile than had Macedonia. ii. Paul’s Success (17:33–34)

Those who came to listen to Paul further and believed did so after Paul had left the midst of the Areopagus (17:33);3788 but they had heard his teaching there, and he remained to talk. He had not been run out of town (see discussion on Acts 17:32). Like the converts in 17:4 (although the term is different; cf. 5:13; 9:26), those who believed “joined” Paul, becoming adherents of the movement.3789 (Luke employs one 3782. The comparison with Socrates might include provoking interest for hearing more in the future (Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates”). 3783. Cf. Acts 2:12–13, employing a cognate of the same term as here ( Johnson, Acts, 317). John employs the same technique ( John 7:40–43; 9:16; 10:19). 3784. Hansen, “Preaching,” 311–13; Croy, “Philosophies and Preaching”; Le Cornu, Acts, 973; Blaiklock, Acts, 142; Green, “Acts,” 757. Cf. already Cadbury, Acts in History, 45–46 (where also the completion of a debate could be postponed; cf. Lucian Z. Rants 45, 51). 3785. Lucian Peregr. 13. 3786. Certainly, agreement to disagree on some points yet promising to meet again for further discussion is viewed as amicable in Tac. Dial. 42. 3787. Anyone who might know his Jewishness would expect him to be acceptable to the synagogue; but members of the Areopagus would not expect to hear him there, and so the marketplace must be in view. 3788. It is doubtful that Acts 17:33 intends irony (though cf. Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo”). It need not even indicate Paul’s giving up on Athens (though he does necessarily move on to a more fruitful location in 18:1); his session ended, he could hardly do otherwise than leave. 3789. Some scholars view them as plausible inventions (cf. Gill, “Dionysios”); but while we cannot prove their existence at this remove, if Luke was simply inventing, why would he name two of them, in contrast to his not naming converts in many other places (e.g., the unnamed men and women in Acts 17:4)? The names

2676

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 380

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of his favored terms here, as in 8:29; Luke 10:11; 15:15; and with significance similar to here, Acts 5:13; 9:26; probably 10:28; see comment on 5:13).3790 Contrary to what some scholars have inferred, there is no reason to view Paul’s mission in Athens as a failure.3791 Indeed, far from intending to present this occasion as a failure, Luke provides it as a model for apologetic.3792 Those who argue the contrary have often inferred Paul’s disappointment from 1 Cor 2:1, but that text in no way specifies that Paul’s message depended on a failure in Athens;3793 further, even if one did infer Paul’s disappointment historically, it would not tell us that the disappointing aspect of Paul’s ministry in Athens was what Luke’s account would emphasize. Praising Apollonius’s success in Ethiopia, Philostratus reports that one of the great sages there left their group and became an adherent of Apollonius instead (see Vit. Apoll. 6.14–17, 22). Sages and people of status had more to turn their backs on and more influence to wield once they did so; a small number of converts in Athens might be significant. Some scholars think that although Paul preached in Athens (1 Thess 3:1) and perhaps gathered a few converts, he started no church there.3794 Some point out that in Paul’s letters, Achaia’s “first convert” appears to be from Corinth (1 Cor 16:15),3795 but Paul speaks explicitly only of the first household conversion there,3796 allowing for some scattered conversions earlier.3797 We have no extant letters to a church in Athens, but it would seem odd for Luke to preserve names if there were in fact no individual converts at least;3798 he lacks traditions of many other cities or space for converts’ names there (e.g., Acts 13:48–49; 14:1, 20, 23; 19:9–10; 20:17). Whether these converts formed a church we cannot say for certain (though clearly one e­ ventually are not symbolic, nor does Luke elaborate about them. We would not typically expect such inventiveness in most other historical monographs. 3790. Athenian culture understood loyalty to Rome, in what Romans called “Attic faith” (Vell. Paterc. 2.23.4), so genuine converts would have cultural understanding of loyal faith (cf. Luke’s “believed” in 17:34). On disciples as “adherents,” see the argument in Wilkins, Discipleship. Some view Luke’s Pauline converts here as plausible inventions (cf. Gill, “Dionysios”); but while we cannot prove their existence at this remove, if Luke were simply inventing, why would he name two of them, in contrast to the lack of naming of converts in many other places (e.g., the unnamed men and women in 17:4)? The names are not symbolic, nor does Luke elaborate on them. We would not expect this in most other historical monographs. 3791. Concurring with, e.g., Packer, Acts, 148–49; Losie, “Speech on Areopagus,” 232–33; Winter, “Athenians”; Gempf, “Before Paul Arrived,” 140 (noting the difference in situation in Corinth); Parsons, Acts, 249; against, e.g., Ramsay; Case, Origins, 127; Dupont, Salvation, 30; Neil, Thessalonians, 62; Franklin, Interpreter, 85–86. Ramsay, Traveler, 194–95 (idem, Traveller and Citizen, 252) cited 1 Cor 2 to indicate Paul’s disappointment, but Ramsay himself later concluded (Teaching, 111) that his earlier book had not allowed “sufficiently for adaptation to different classes of hearers,” that Luke would not likely have included this account “had he not considered it typical” in addressing such an audience, and that Paul probably continued to employ the method in the less common settings when he addressed audiences similar to the Areopagus. 3792. With Winter, “Athenians”; cf. Hamm, Acts, 84; Stonehouse, Areopagus, 32–33; Richardson, “Debate,” 159, 163. It is true, however, that Paul’s connections with Judaism were closer and his numerical successes greater in synagogues (cf. the careful study in Schnabel, “Paul in Athens”). 3793. As Stonehouse, Areopagus, 36, notes, Paul offers no indication that he previously preached differently. Skillful speakers also often pretended to demean their skills (e.g., Apul. Flor. 20.6; False Preface 4.108; Keener, Corinthians, 34), though some higher-status Corinthian believers were dissatisfied (2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). 3794. Dunn, Acts, 238; Witherington, Acts, 533. 3795. Dunn, Acts, 238; Pervo, Acts, 442. 3796. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 87; Witherington, Acts, 533; Schnabel, Acts, 743. Paul seems to have forgotten others (1 Cor 1:14–16) and perhaps has reason to count only converts known in Corinth (if indeed Stephanas was originally from Corinth). 3797. Paul’s “firstfruits of Achaia” may refer to those in the specific area around Corinth, to whom he is writing (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 767; Schnabel, Acts, 743). 3798. From the names, Koester, Introduction, 2:109, infers the founding of a church there (though he regards the speech as Luke’s composition).

2677

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 381

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

formed there),3799 but it did not become a center of the Pauline mission as some other cities did. More important, from the standpoint of Roman administration, is that Athens was one of a handful of “free cities” excluded from the province of Achaia until the time of Constantine I.3800 Athenian converts would not then need to be counted technically among Paul’s first converts in the province of Achaia, certainly not in a letter to Corinthians. We therefore lack grounds to doubt Luke’s report of converts there.3801 Luke likes to report converts of status when possible (8:27, 38; 13:12; 17:12; 18:8; cf. 26:28), for the same reason that he dedicates his work to Theophilus (1:1): the empire’s powerbrokers, who could decide how the movement should be treated, trusted the decisions of other persons of status.3802 As a member of the town’s highest aristocratic court, Dionysius “the Areopagite”3803 was undoubtedly a municipal decurion,3804 one of the highest-status converts so far mentioned (excepting Sergius Paulus, 13:12).3805 Later writers falsely ascribed some non-Chalcedonian, Neoplatonic Christian treatises to him, dating to the early sixth century c.e.3806 iii. The Conversion of Damaris (17:34)

Luke follows his usual practice of mentioning women converts explicitly along with men where he has this information available (16:15; 17:4, 12).3807 The name “Damaris” is not symbolic; it is uncommon, though attested,3808 and may be a variant form of the more common “Damalis” (Δάμαλις, “Heifer”).3809 What was Damaris’s role? It is improbable that she was a member of the Areopagus; otherwise, Luke would have repeated the title attached to Dionysius.3810 Some scholars doubt that members of the public could have been near the Areopagus’s deliberations 3799. Later another Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in 170 c.e., encourages the Athenian church and preserves an earlier tradition that Dionysius the Areopagite was the Athenian church’s first bishop (Euseb. H.E. 3.4.10–11; 4.23.3; Grant, Paul, 57; D. Williams, Acts, 309; Le Cornu, Acts, 974; cf. Bede Comm. Acts 17.34); but this is the sort of tradition that could also have developed from Acts 17:34. A church was named for him in Athens (Finegan, Apostles, 138); Aristides was a Christian apologist in Athens as early as 125 c.e. (140), and Athenagoras followed there later in the second century (142). 3800. Spawforth, “Achaia”; Olshausen, “Achaia,” 80; on Athens as a free city, see also Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24. Sparta was another (Cartledge, Hodkinson, and Spawforth, “Sparta,” 1432; Olshausen, “Achaia,” 80). (Athens also lay outside the Peloponnesus [Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.15], but Roman Achaia was broader than this.) One might informally include Athens in the Roman province of Achaia (cf. Pliny Ep. 8.24.2–4), but we cannot insist on it here. 3801. See Keener, “Athens”; briefly, idem, “Corinthian Believers,” 49. 3802. This is evident, e.g., in privileges accorded to higher-status persons in court (later explicit in the laws, Callistr. Dig. 47.21.2; Paulus Sent. 5.23.14.19; Shelton, Romans, 9–11; Krause, “Honestiores,” 473). A minority culture also appreciates validation from voices in the dominant culture. 3803. A title for one of the judges in the Areopagus; see, e.g., Lucian Anach. 19; sources in BDAG. Such Areopagites were apparently well-to-do and of high status (e.g., Lucian Dial. C. 7 [Musarium and Her Mother ¶2], 296–97). 3804. Jeffers, World, 187; Barrett, Acts, 855; Johnson, Acts, 318 (citing Arist. Pol. 1273b–1274a). On decurions, see comment on Acts 13:50. 3805. Bonz, Past as Legacy, 167, thinks that Dionysius symbolizes a convert character type rather than an individual; but this assessment rests on her assignment of genre to epic, not on any specific historical evidence. Indeed, even epics often drew characters from tradition (though perhaps more so in Homer or Silius Italicus than Virgil). 3806. See Lintott, “Dionysius.” For one approach to these works, see Stang, “Dionysius.” 3807. He apparently uses even ἄνδρες inclusively in Acts 17:34 (Bock, Acts, 572; for this more general usage, see also BDAG). 3808. Hemer, Acts in History, 232. 3809. Witherington, Acts, 532–33. Contrast “gazelle” in Acts 9:36; but had Luke invented the name to correspond, the “Damalis” form would have made more sense. Cf. δάμαρ, “wife” (cf. esp. epic Greek). 3810. Women were also rarely rhetoricians and even more rarely (if ever) judges in the Greek world. Had she exceptionally belonged to this court, Luke surely would have capitalized on this mark of status.

2678

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 382

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

even in the Stoa Basileios,3811 but this view of the situation is unlikely from what we know of the Areopagus (not to mention most outside ancient courts; see comment on Acts 18:16–17). The Areopagus court lay in a fairly public area of the Agora, and some people of status with leisure may have listened in, except in closed sessions.3812 Damaris is likely a person of status, whether as part of the delegation of philosophers from the marketplace (17:18–19) or (some suggest) even as a courtesan respected by some male colleagues. Classical Athens is known for its seclusion of wives,3813 whether or not this seclusion was as severe as some documents report. Centuries had passed, however, and women’s social gains in some other places (notably Rome) in the empire3814 cannot have left Athenian women completely untouched. Nevertheless, with Athens valuing its local customs and the persistence of traditional attitudes even in many other locations, we might not expect as many local wives to have been in such a public area.3815 Some suggest that Damaris may have been a foreign woman or one of the hetaerae (the educated courtesans, the most respected women in classical Athens), 3816 or perhaps a God-fearer who had followed from the synagogue.3817 Earlier women could be present in public legal assemblies in Rome,3818 but Greek custom restricted them from accompanying husbands to banquets, considered appropriate only for courtesans.3819 Athens was not isolated, and so in this period, when Greek women played a more public role than before, there is no reason to believe that Damaris’s elite academic or public interests linked her with courtesans.3820 Roman citizen wives 3811. Haenchen, Acts, 518, citing Ps.-Demosthenes 25.23. 3812. Hemer, “Paul at Athens,” 349. 3813. See, e.g., Xen. Oec. 7.17–22, 30; Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; Plut. Bride 32, Mor. 142D; Gould, “Position in Athens,” 47, 50; Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 297; Grant, Social History, 5; Keener, “Head Coverings,” 443; see the nuanced position in Llewellyn-Jones, Tortoise, 190–98. Some sources may exaggerate, but seclusion was stricter at Athens (and in Persia) than in most other locations for which we have evidence (though it was probably more widespread, e.g., Hom. Od. 18.184; in early Rome, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.21.2; 8.39.1; Hellenistic marriage contracts in Verner, Household, 38). Among other strict classical Athenian customs, e.g., changes of will under a woman’s influence were considered invalid (Isaeus Philoct. 29–30). Separation of male and female spheres still characterizes Mediterranean culture, though it is not inflexible and must be nuanced (see Pizzuto-Pomaco, “Shame,” 29–38, 41, 45; for Hellenistic antiquity, 72–74; for early Jewish cultures, 112–17; for ancient Roman culture, 173–80). 3814. See, e.g., Keener, “Marriage,” 688–89, and sources there. 3815. See Keener, Acts, 1:620–24, 629, 634, 637; idem, “Head Coverings,” 443. 3816. Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 252; followed too readily by Keener, Background Commentary, 374 (without committing to this background for Damaris). On the courtesans, see Henry, “Hetairai”; for examples, see Alciph. Court. frg. 5 (set in classical Athens); Lucret. Nat. 4.1268–77; for the dangers, see, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 12, p. 86.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.90; 70.1; frg. 7 (Stob. Flor. 4, 23.60 [Hense, 588]; 74.60 [Meineke]); Plut. Educ. 2, Mor. 1AB; Lucian Tox. 13; Diog. Laert. 6.2.61, 66 (though some philosophers demurred, 2.69, 74). An Attic courtesan (ἑταίρα) sometimes became famous (e.g., Lucian Fly 11; cf. Athen. Deipn. 13.596b); they could charge well (Lucian Dial. C. 14 [Dorio and Myrtale 1], 319; 7 [Musarium and Her Mother ¶1], 295–96) and have high-class lovers (Cock 19). Courtesans might also reject lovers whom they found repulsive (e.g., Alciph. Court. 17 [Leontium to Lamia], 2.2; Lucian Dial. C. 13 [Leontichus, Chenidas, and Hymnis], 315–19) or remiss in their payments (Lucian Dial. C. 12 [ Joessa, Pythias, and Lysias ¶1], 310–11; Alciph. Court. 9 [Petalê to Simalion], 1.36; 15 [Philumena to Crito], 1.40; Aelian Farmers 9 [Chremes to Parmenon]; Philost. Letters 23 [45]), or they might sleep with the ugly, who pay more (Lucian Dial. C. 6 [Crobyle and Corinna ¶4], 295). Yet the profession was dishonorable (Alciph. Court. 2 [Glycera to Bacchis], 1.29, ¶3), and it was honorable to avoid them (Aul. Gel. 15.12.2, 3); it was not honorable to be born from them (Sen. E. Controv. 2.4.5; Lucian Z. Rants 52; Diog. Laert. 6.2.62), and the lovers’ wives might also take offense (Plut. Alc. 8.3–4). 3817. Bruce, Commentary, 364. 3818. E.g., Cic. Scaur. 5.8 (where he points one out to denounce her). 3819. Isaeus Pyrr. 13–14; Cic. Cael. 20.49; Plut. Alex. 38.1. This situation was changing in Rome by this period, but apparently not much in Greek culture (deSilva, Honor, 184, following Osiek and Balch, Families, 69). 3820. Winter, Wives, 37.

2679

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 383

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

did attend banquets where men were present.3821 But her appearance in public does seem noteworthy. Others suggest that she may have been a philosopher and hence part of the group that accompanied Paul to the Areopagus from the marketplace (17:18–19).3822 We know of women philosophers, accepted by some philosophic schools despite opposition from dominant Athenian tradition.3823 Epicureans, for example, allowed women disciples3824—but although some Epicureans are present (17:18), they do not seem to be the primary objects of Paul’s attempted persuasion. Pythagoreans also had women disciples,3825 as did some other ancient philosophers.3826 These were always a minority, but so is Luke’s curious mention of Damaris. Stoics in principle welcomed women students, but they might have avoided providing them technical philosophic knowledge (Mus. Ruf. 4),3827 since women had few opportunities to use it (4, p. 48.21–23).3828 This option seems much more likely than the courtesan proposal. Nevertheless, if she was a philosopher, one would expect Luke to mention this point as he mentions Dionysius’s mark of status.3829 Still, at least philosophic or other educated interest remains a plausible explanation for her presence; she could well have been trained in a philosophic school, or be a current disciple, without having her own school or bearing the title “philosopher.”3830 In any case, she is very likely a member of the elite. The “others” mentioned in Acts 17:34 could be the households of Dionysius and Damaris,3831 but on the whole it seems more likely that Luke simply lacked specific reports of the other names (cf. 1 Cor 16:15) or at least other names of either women or people of high status; or perhaps he had provided enough samples of names for the majority of his audience, who were not likely to know these people anyway. Luke does not mention baptisms here, but as in other cities, local topography would allow for various possible sites for converts’ baptisms. There were a number of springs in Attica (Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24); the Ilissus River and the Eridanus, its tributary, also flowed through Attica (Paus. 1.19.5).3832 Even in the Agora, there were the southeast fountain house3833 and the southwest fountain house3834 (though some might dispute whether he would have found these sites appropriate). 3821. Murray, “Convivium.” 3822. See Reimer, Women, 247 (for probable opposition to such a philosopher, Reimer cites Livy 34.2.8–12). 3823. See Harper, “Women in Philosophy”; Harich-Schwarzbauer, “Philosophers.” For three earlier women philosophers, see, e.g., Lucian Eunuch 7. Some ancients mistrusted women in philosophy, suspecting that male philosophers were using them sexually (Lucian Runaways 18). 3824. See Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074; Smith, Symposium, 58. 3825. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 36.267. Pythagoras’s wife, Theano, was known for her wisdom (Diog. Laert. 8.1.43). 3826. E.g., Lucian Eunuch 7; Diog. Laert. 2.86; 4.1. Although Hipparchia was a woman Cynic, she is the only exception that we know for that sect (Diog. Laert. 6.7.96–98). 3827. Especially where relevant for virtue (Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 42.31–37; p. 48.1–26). 3828. In practice, we know of no women disciples of Musonius (Meeks, Moral World, 46), but our state of knowledge is incomplete. Musonius’s doubt that women could use technical knowledge might represent a concession to more chauvinistic criticism or an observation about opportunities available in the culture. See fuller discussion on women in philosophy in Keener, Acts, 1:630–32, 635. 3829. Unless, of course, she had been an Epicurean, a connection that would not have helped Luke’s case. But if she was an Epicurean, conversion through the message attributed to Paul in this chapter would seem a special act of grace! 3830. For an example of a nonphilosopher woman with an aptitude for philosophy, see, e.g., Porph. Marc. 3.37. 3831. Witherington, Acts, 532n262, following Winter, “Introducing Gods.” 3832. The Eridanus flows through Athens, and the Ilissus, to the city’s south (Finegan, Apostles, 126). 3833. Athenian Agora, 74–75. 3834. Ibid., 80.

2680

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 384

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

6. Ministry in Corinth (18:1–17) In contrast to the persecutions and local leaders’ opposition in Macedonia, Paul is welcome in Achaia and able to settle here (Acts 18:11).3835 Corinth is the first new city to welcome him at any length since his departure from Antioch; we should not be surprised, however, if, after his past traumas, he needs assurance that it is safe to settle here. The heart of Paul’s stay in Corinth is Jesus’s promise of protection (18:9–10), which the second part of the account (18:12–17) fulfills. Conflicts with elements within the synagogue remain (18:4–8), but this time the Roman proconsul (representing Rome in a way the Macedonian officials whom Paul encountered did not) refuses to act against him. The governor’s statement becomes a crucial piece of Luke’s overall apologetic: this is an internal religious debate within Judaism, over which Roman courts properly exercise no jurisdiction (18:12–17). a. Historical Accuracy? Luke may have stitched together various reports into a literary unity, although perhaps less cohesively than usual; but Luke undoubtedly had sources.3836 A minority of scholars are extremely skeptical of Luke’s account of Paul’s stay in Corinth, arguing, for example, that Luke wished to make Paul founder of the Corinthian and the Ephesian churches to establish his version of Christianity against the false teachers of 20:29.3837 Such an interpretation is highly unlikely. It is not impossible that Prisca and Aquila started the nucleus of a church before Paul’s arrival (Luke, at least, appears to allow them only a brief time before his arrival), but Luke has no reason to treat them as hostile competition; they appear in Paul’s letters as theological allies (Rom 16:3–5; 1 Cor 16:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:19), as does, for the most part, Apollos (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; esp. 16:12). Paul writes as if he expects the Corinthians to concur that he founded their church (3:6; 4:15) and had a part in the conversion of their first household (1:16; 16:15; perhaps he was also active in the first conversion from Asia, Rom 16:5).3838 More commonly, scholars concede that Luke’s picture corresponds mostly to Paul’s letters but, where necessary, diverges to fit the pattern of what Luke expects Paul would have done.3839 On this view, many of Luke’s individual accounts here contain accurate information, but he inferred from what he knew (or thought he knew) of Paul’s practice elsewhere that Paul must have begun in the synagogue. Even this approach, however, probably underestimates the accuracy and extent of the information available to Luke. Granted, Luke emphasizes elements that fit his interests revealed elsewhere in his work.3840 Moreover, Luke lacked considerable information; this is not a “we” narrative, and he does not claim to have been present. The eighteen months in Corinth receive less attention (in terms of number of 3835. This reduction in external threats allowed Paul to settle, but it also reduced the necessary social cohesion of the group and allowed more persons of status to join. It allowed the conditions, in other words, for the status conflicts found in the Corinthian correspondence (Walters, “Civic Identity,” 416–17; rightly following Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth”). 3836. See Padilla, Speeches, 146, conceding the possible stitching (for which he cites Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Krodel, Acts, 341), but emphasizing the united product (with reference to Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:247–48; Haenchen, Acts, 538–41). 3837. Doughty, “Fictional History in Acts 18.” 3838. For one fuller reconstruction of Paul’s relationship with the Corinthians, based especially on the extant Corinthian correspondence, see Keener, “Corinthian Believers.” 3839. Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Lührmann, “Beginnings,” 241. 3840. E.g., on reconfiguring Roman and Jewish identity here, cf. Penner and Vander Stichele, “Point de Vue,” 202–3.

2681

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 385

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

words) than the probably brief stay in Philippi and are in the same range of words as the undoubtedly quite brief (but, for Luke’s purposes, symbolically strategic) stay in Athens, probably because the Corinth stay is not part of Luke’s “we” narrative. But if Luke accompanied Paul and other companions of Paul on later journeys (Acts 20:6–21:18; 27:1–28:16), he surely had access to such reports as his summary contains. Indeed, Paul kept in touch with other churches, which would have been interested in his activities. The mere availability of such information would not guarantee that he edited it all correctly, but too much concrete detail in the story involves the synagogue for Luke’s mention of the synagogue to be entirely mere guesswork on his part (18:2, 4, 6–8, 12–17). It is unlikely that Luke used Paul’s letters here; if he had, he would have probably mentioned Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15), Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2), and others. The church included many high-status members (esp. Rom 16:23) whom Luke neglects to mention (though he, admittedly, according to our premises, should have known of them).3841 Silas, whom Luke mentions briefly (Acts 18:5) and who had been traveling with Paul already in Luke’s account (17:15), does not figure in 1 Corinthians (though his role must have been significant in Corinth; see 2 Cor 1:19). Most surprising of all, Luke does not report miracles in Corinth, though Paul assumes that the Corinthians witnessed them (2 Cor 12:12), and Luke undoubtedly could have inferred that they occurred and would have found their occurrence useful for his pattern, as in other locations.3842 The agreements between Luke and Paul, then, are due to common sources of information, likely oral, rather than to a posthumous dependence only on Paul’s letters.3843 As some commentators point out, the agreements are substantial, including the following details:3844 • Aquila and Priscilla were a married ministry team (Rom 16:3; Acts 18:2, 26). • They made their home available for the Lord’s work (Acts 18:3; Rom 16:5) and were known to the Corinthian believers (1 Cor 16:19). • They had connections with Rome (Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3) and Ephesus (Acts 18:18–19; 1 Cor 16:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:19). • Paul supported himself by means of a trade while in Corinth (Acts 18:3; 1 Cor 4:12; 9:6). • Both report the conversion and baptism of Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14). • Both mention the participation of Timothy (Acts 18:5; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10–11; 2 Cor 1:19). • Both note the participation of Silas (Acts 18:5; 2 Cor 1:19). • Paul began the Corinthian mission before Silas and Timothy arrived (Acts 18:1–4; 1 Thess 3:1, 6). • He ministered briefly in Athens en route (Acts 17:15–34; 1 Thess 3:1). 3841. Anonymity to protect from persecution is unlikely; massive Corinth, as opposed to Macedonia’s cities, seems to have ignored the new cult far more than it persecuted it. 3842. See, e.g., Dollar, “Theology of Healing,” 12. Luke may know more than he reports, but if Paul’s letters are part of his knowledge base, they represent only one part among many. 3843. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 325 (who suggests Luke’s possible dependence on Aquila and Priscilla here); Witherington, Acts, 537. 3844. Esp. Witherington, Acts, 537. I have added several to his list (including some from Goulder, Competing Mission, 223) as well as omitted his weaker connection of fear in both (Acts 18:9; 1 Cor 2:3; a connection also in Dunn, Acts, 243–44; cf. Keener, “Corinthian Believers,” 47).

2682

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 386

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

• Possibly the same Sosthenes is mentioned, especially if he was later converted (or is a Greek name for Crispus; Acts 18:17; 1 Cor 1:1). • The Corinthian congregation probably included a Jewish element (Acts 18:4–8; 1 Cor 1:22–24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; 2 Cor 11:22). • Later, Apollos followed (Acts 18:24–28; 1 Cor 1:12; 4:15) and belonged to the same circle (Acts 18:26–27; 1 Cor 16:12). • Paul afterward visited Ephesus at length (Acts 18:19; 19:8–10; 1 Cor 15:32; 16:8; cf. 2 Cor 1:8). Other elements cohere with extrinsic details, such as the timing of Gallio’s governorship and anti-Jewish sentiments. The centrality of the synagogue in Luke’s narrative, not mentioned in Paul’s extant correspondence with Corinth, should not count against the narrative’s accuracy. Paul’s converts at Corinth must have included Gentiles, given their backgrounds, which included idolatry and homosexual behavior (1 Cor 5:11; 6:9–10),3845 which Jewish people considered typically Gentile vices.3846 Paul regards the background of the majority as that of Gentiles (1 Cor 12:2). Yet the sophisticated Greek character of 1 Corinthians need not rule out a Jewish element in the congregation; local Jews, and especially high-ranking members of their number, may have adapted well to the Greek and Roman aspects of their setting. Frequent references to Jews and sophisticated allusions to the ot in 1 Corinthians (admittedly, less dominant than in Romans and Galatians) suggest the initial substratum of Jews and God-fearers who could help provide background knowledge to explain Paul’s letters in his absence. The biblical literacy presupposed is difficult to explain without a Jewish and/or God-fearing core, no matter how many Gentiles may have joined the Corinthian house churches.3847 Even if the initial congregation had its own biblical scrolls—for instance, at Titius Justus’s home—even literate members would not have their own “Bibles” to read, and even Paul’s eighteen months with them (Acts 18:11)3848 might not have been enough to equip everyone with a survey knowledge of the Bible.3849 Admittedly, the Corinthian congregation would have other teachers after Paul’s departure (18:27), and Paul might not mind exposing his critics’ exegetical deficiencies by overwhelming them exegetically. But on the whole, it seems more likely that the congregation includes some Jewish elements, and it seems more natural, knowing Paul and knowing Corinth, that he would have started with his own people first (see discussion at Acts 13:5). Corinth did have a synagogue (although the evidence outside Acts is later). 3845. Cf. Grant, Paul, 10. 3846. For idolatry and Gentiles, see, e.g., 1QpHab IV, 9–14; Wis 13:1–3; Sib. Or. 3.29–32; Test. Naph. 3:3; Rom 1:21–25; for homosexual intercourse, see, e.g., Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600, 764; 4.34 (possibly); 5.166, 387, 430; Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.7; Rom 1:26–27; cf. m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; the reported lack of this offense among Israelites in y. Qidd. 4:11, §6. 3847. One might contrast 1 and 2 Thessalonians, which lack explicit Scripture quotations. Extensive Jewish apocalyptic imagery there (and texts such as 1 Thess 4:5) make Jewish elements probable there as well, but these elements may reflect especially his teaching among them (1 Thess 1:9–10; 2 Thess 2:5; cf. 1 Thess 2:11–12; 4:1–2) and do not appeal to Scripture formulas. That the Corinthian correspondence (especially 2 Corinthians) is more restrained in apocalyptic imagery may fit a more fully hellenized Judaism (Philo, for example, lacks such imagery), the language of which Paul increasingly learned how to adapt. 3848. Explaining Paul’s special “loving affection” for them (so Ambrosiaster Comm. proem [Vogels, 3–4; Bray, Corinthians, 1]). 3849. As a professor (and former student), I can say confidently that, at least in the modern United States, even a four-year Bible college or three-year seminary with hours of classes and assigned readings each week does not, on its own, guarantee biblical literacy unless students have background or continue to study Scripture.

2683

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 387

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

b. Settling in Corinth (18:1–3) Luke’s description of Paul’s settling in Corinth raises a number of topics where a fuller understanding of antiquity can provide a fuller appreciation for Luke’s picture. Most of Luke’s audience would take for granted much about Corinth that is unfamiliar to many modern readers, including its political and economic prominence; possibly its moral reputation; its connections with Rome and romanization (although it retained Greek elements as well); possibly its Jewish community; certainly its geographic connection to Paul’s southward route from Athens; and its paganism (which, though akin to other ancient paganism, had its own distinctive characteristics, as did that of each city). Claudius’s expulsion of Jews from Rome is also best understood in the context of other expulsions and of the nature of such expulsions. Because the ancient sources do not agree, scholars have differed over how many were expelled; it appears that not all Jews left, but probably a much larger number than just the disturbance’s ringleaders. The expulsion has been connected with both 41 c.e. and 49 c.e.; I will argue that 49 c.e. is a likelier date. Suetonius connects the expulsion with disputes over one “Chrestus,” which, most scholars argue, were debates in the Roman Jewish community about Jesus. See comment on Acts 18:2. The comment on Acts 18:3 will examine Aquila and Priscilla (including questions of their origin and gender roles), their economic status and housing (the general economic status of artisans; shops; insulae; and Corinth’s markets in general), and the factors that connected Paul with this couple. i. Corinth

In Corinth,3850 Paul adapted his method of ministry. Luke has previously portrayed Paul as mainly itinerant,3851 but this may have been in part because other cities and towns kept running him out of town (or, in Athens, laughed him out).3852 Finally, in Corinth, he finds a place where he can stay at some length (even despite opposition, 18:9–13), so that Paul remains for a while even after opposition comes to a head (18:18).3853 Paul remained for a long period in this one location despite being outside the synagogue. He followed the same pattern later in Ephesus.3854 Probably he remained here partly because his position was secure enough, in contrast to previous locations. But it was also true that some firm, strategic long-term bases of ministry needed to be established. From these centers Paul could send out more indigenous local workers to reach the surrounding region (cf. Acts 19:10; Col 1:7; 2:1; 4:12; for Corinth, cf. perhaps Rom 16:1–2). (1) Corinth’s Political Prominence

As the capital of Achaia (Tac. Hist. 2.1),3855 Corinth provided a strategic center for his mission. A generation later, an orator told of an earlier philosopher who settled 3850. For more detail on Corinth, see, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, passim; idem, “Corinth”; Engels, Roman Corinth; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 45–67; Schnabel, Mission, 1181–86; Perkins, Corinthians, 5–15; briefly Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 411–12; Ciampa and Rosner, Letter, 2–3; for one survey, see McGraw, “Corinth”; for one survey of archaeological data, see Dunken, “Connection”; for a critique of neglect (and misuse) of archaeological data, see Oster, “Misuse.” Three kilometers from the Gulf of Corinth, Corinth lay on two terraces (60 and 90 m. above sea level), below the Acrocorinth (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 11). 3851. For the function of this motif, see comment on Acts 14:8–10 (but also Paul’s own theological perspective in 1 Cor 4:11). At least in Thessalonica, Paul probably stayed longer than Luke emphasizes. 3852. Paul also leaves Ephesus after opposition comes to a head there (Acts 19:41–20:1). Luke basically presents Paul simply staying ahead of the opposition, with fierce opposition following every step of his ministry. 3853. Others have also noted the progress in Acts from itinerant to settled ministry (e.g., Legrand, “Apostle to Pastor”). 3854. Towner, “Practice,” 417–36. 3855. See further documentation in Furnish, II Corinthians, 9. Most fully on Corinth, see Paus. 2 (the subject of which is Corinth). On Achaia, see briefly Spawforth, “Achaia”; Olshausen, “Achaia”; Pattengale,

2684

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 388

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

in Corinth precisely because such a populated, strategically located, and morally needy city was the ideal location for his philosophic activity (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5, on Diogenes the Cynic).3856 Corinth had a famous history, including in the early fine art of painting.3857 Corinth had led the Aegean confederacy in the Hellenistic period; after Rome fought that confederacy, Lucius Mummius destroyed the Greek city in 146 b.c.e.3858 Julius Caesar restored it, however, as a Roman colony (Laus Iulia Corinthus) a century later in 44 b.c.e.3859 In 27 b.c.e. Augustus made it the capital of Achaia, and by now it had become a multicultural metropolis.3860 The city was large and its public works magnificent. Its decumanus (its primary east-west thoroughfare) was about 3.8 meters in width, expanded by a 1.76-meterwide sidewalk along its north side.3861 With a walled circumference of six miles, the city’s free population has been estimated as low as twenty thousand3862 and as high as more than three hundred thousand, with perhaps an additional 460,000 slaves.3863 Its wall enclosed an area two and a half times the size of Athens, from which Paul had just come.3864 The fifty-five rows of seats in the theater, probably renovated less than a decade before Paul’s arrival, could seat about fourteen thousand;3865 if one estimates this to be roughly a tenth of the city’s residents (with an admittedly great margin for error),3866 one could offer a median estimate of perhaps 140,000. Many estimate roughly eighty to one hundred thousand,3867 though perhaps it reached such a peak “Achaia”; Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.12–13. Nero granted all Achaia free status (N.H. 4.5.22). For Corinth as strategic, see Patella, “Headquarters.” 3856. On Diogenes in Corinth, see also, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 4.12; 9.4; he divided his years between Athens and Corinth (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.1) until finally moving to Corinth (Or. 8.4–5). For other philosophers in Corinth, see Lucian Dial. D. 329, 332 (1/1, Diogenes 1–2); Book-Coll. 19; patristic commentators believed that pagan philosophies affected the church there (Ambrosiaster Comm. proem [Vogels, 3–4; Bray, Corinthians, 1]; Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 163–64 [PG 82:226–27; Bray, Corinthians, 3]; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. proem [NPNF 1.12.1–2; Bray, Corinthians, 2]). 3857. Pliny E. N.H. 35.5.15–16. 3858. Various writers celebrate it (Virg. Aen. 6.836–37; Vell. Paterc. 1.13.1–2). Sib. Or. 3.487–88 may speak of this destruction (though 5.214–16 predicts a future destruction), and the memory of the event remained fresh even past Paul’s time (Suet. Galba 3.4, assuming knowledge of it). Grant, Paul, 18, notes Mummius’s claim (ILS 20; Cic. Fam. 4.5.4; Resp. 2.7) but also notes evidence of habitation that calls into question the destruction’s extent. (See fuller discussion below.) 3859. Cf. Strabo 8.4.8; 8.6.23 (regarding it as deserted from 146 to 44 b.c.e.); and other sources. Although the general did repair some nearby temples (Polyb. 39.6.1), Rome mostly ignored and destroyed Corinth’s ancient artistic masterpieces (39.2.1–2; cf. 39.3.3). The ruins of old Corinth lay north of the Acrocorinth; on this height, see Strabo 8.6.21. 3860. Bruce, Acts1, 342; Reicke, Era, 232; Fitzmyer, Acts, 624. This observation would limit the value of Ps.-Aristotle’s generalization (Physiognomics 808a, 30–33, noted in Malina and Pilch, Acts, 8) that Corinthians had small faces. 3861. McRay, Archaeology, 335. 3862. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 8, note the estimate in Walbank, “Foundation,” 107, of twenty thousand to fifty thousand for Roman Corinth. 3863. Following Wiseman, many think that new Corinth held more people than old Corinth, with estimates of 12,000–145,000 (Horsley, Documents, 3:60, §20). McRay, “Corinth,” 228, cites estimates ranging from 150,000 to 300,000; Witherington, Corinthians, 18, offers the lower estimate of seventy thousand to eighty thousand for Paul’s time, close to Winter’s eighty thousand (Left Corinth, 294); see comment below. 3864. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 157. 3865. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 36 (citing also, on the theater, Paus. 2.4.5); McRay, Archaeology, 331. 3866. For one-tenth as a common estimate for theater size in proportion to population, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 342, 344. 3867. Engels, Roman Corinth, 79–84 (esp. 84), estimates 80,000 for the city proper and 20,000 more for the outlying area (estimating a population density comparable to that of Pompeii); cf. also Winter, Left Corinth, 220; Welborn, “Correspondence,” 207. We might guess that the poorer areas of Corinth would have had a higher population density than Pompeii, but the excavations have not thus far confirmed this suspicion.

2685

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 389

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

only later. In any case, the capital of Achaia was probably significantly larger than the many cities of just twenty thousand people. Some scholars have suggested that Corinth could have ranked as the empire’s third city, after Rome and Alexandria;3868 although this estimate is surely exaggerated in terms of population,3869 Corinth was a populous city by ancient standards. (2) Corinth’s Economic Prominence

Corinth was also prosperous, as nt scholars regularly note.3870 Contrary to stereotypes developed from some other cities, Corinth did not thrive by exploiting the resources of its countryside, which could not have sustained it, in any case; it flourished instead by trade.3871 Strabo notes that it was always wealthy because of trade (Strabo 8.6.20) and crafts (8.6.23), though its territory was not fertile (8.6.23). Corinth was central to the strategic trade, communication, and travel between Rome and the East because it controlled the Isthmus of Corinth (8.6.20).3872 Corinth’s maritime associations were legion—as a naval power once rivaling Athens, as a city dedicated to Poseidon, and as a subject of numerous stories about sailors.3873 The Corinthians were the first in Greece to engage in “modern” ships and shipping.3874 Its harbors, each a few miles away, were highly strategic: Cenchreae (to the southeast; see comment on Acts 18:18) faced the Saronic Gulf and the Aegean Sea whereas Lechaeum (to the north) faced the Gulf of Corinth and the Adriatic. Success among immigrant communities in Corinth would provide inroads for the gospel in much of the empire.3875 Attempts to build a canal linking the two sides of the isthmus had failed.3876 Demetrius had reportedly planned to build one, but his engineers had warned that the sea was higher in Corinth’s Gulf than at Cenchreae, so that the entire strait and islands would be submerged (Strabo 1.3.11). Caesar attempted to dig a canal (Suet. Julius 44.3), as did Nero, whose attempt failed miserably (Nero 19.2).3877 (A canal was finally successfully completed only in 1893.) Lacking a canal, the isthmus trade used the six-kilometer-long Diolkos, a stone path with carved grooves for transporting smaller 3868. Fee, Corinthians, 2n5. One summary of centers of the empire lists Athens, Corinth, and Rome (Epict. Diatr. 3.22.84). 3869. See Jos. War 3.29; comment on Acts 11:19–20. 3870. E.g., Theissen, Setting, 100–101 (noting especially the first half of the first century); Blomberg, Poverty, 184–85; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 11; Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xi–xii; Bruce, Corinthians, 18. 3871. Engels, Roman Corinth, passim, esp. 27–33, 131–42. On its mercantile prosperity (in old Corinth), see further Casson, Mariners, 71–75; Tarn, Civilisation, 100. For trade, see, e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 6–12; Koester, Introduction, 1:86; for manufacturing, see Witherington, Corinthians, 9–11. Its original colonists had engaged in commerce in Rome, and some had looted the tombs of earlier Greek residents to gain more wealth (Engels, Roman Corinth, 90, citing Strabo 8.6.23). 3872. Its strategic location on the isthmus was well known (e.g., Cic. Agr. 2.32.87; Sen. Y. Med. 35–36). The isthmus was famous (Apul. Metam. 1.1), and this was the best-known isthmus in Greek and Roman texts (Lienau and Olshausen, “Isthmus”); this location involved Corinth in trade from the first (Thucyd. 1.13.5). 3873. With Blaiklock, Cities, 57. On Poseidon, see Bremmer, “Poseidon,” and discussion of Corinth’s religion, below. For stories concerning sailors there, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.2–3; Fronto (Naber, 237; LCL, 1:57); for ships there, e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.10. 3874. Thucyd. 1.13.2. 3875. For Corinth’s connections with the rest of the empire, see, e.g., from a later period, Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 303 (pp. 118–19), 370 (p. 143). 3876. Catalogued in Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10. 3877. Suet. Nero 19.2; Lucian Nero 1 and passim; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.24; Sib. Or. 5.32, 217–18; 8.155 (possibly 11.180, but this may refer to Xerxes’s canal). For failed canal attempts, see also Tac. Ann. 15.42 (also Nero); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.551–52; Engels, Roman Corinth, 59–60; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 52–53; Grant, Paul, 16–18; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 137; for other, more successful, canals, see Badian and Potter, “Canals”; Tac. Ann. 11.20 (cf. 12.56–57).

2686

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 390

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

ships or cargoes.3878 Two very small harbors (in contrast to the major Lechaeum and Cenchreae harbors) stood at either end of the Diolkos.3879 As a hub of trade, Corinth was also prosperous, and eventually there would be wealthy Christians able to provide support for the work abroad (though Paul seems to have refused to allow them to be his own patrons). Old Corinth (before 146 b.c.e.) achieved mercantile wealth through its location on the isthmus,3880 and the same advantage benefited new Corinth as well. Corinth was regarded as Greece’s wealthiest city;3881 it was proverbial for,3882 and boasted in, its wealth.3883 Although manufacturing was a prominent part of Corinth’s economy,3884 it was apparently also heavily service oriented, including toward merchants and tourists.3885 Nero, the consummate Roman philhellene, also boosted the economy further by making Achaia immune from tribute.3886 Against some theories, cities in general were not in decline in this period;3887 we have much evidence for massive construction in Corinth in particular.3888 Corinth was famous for its production of bronze, but the extant archaeological evidence supporting this fame is quite scant.3889 Archaeologists have located some apparently first-century bronze works3890 but not the renowned “Corinthian bronze.” Ancients valued Corinthian bronze more than silver and (perhaps speaking hyperbolically) nearly more than gold.3891 Supposedly, accidental melting of metals at old Corinth’s burning produced the first examples;3892 of the authentic variety, one kind was nearly white (silver dominating the alloy), another yellowish (with gold dominating), and still another with silver and gold compounded equally.3893 But some scholars suggest that Corinthian bronze may have been a fraud, the alloy containing tin rather than gold;3894 it also may not have all come from Corinth.3895 3878. Salmon, “Diolkos”; Lohmann, “Diolkos”; Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13; Engels, Roman Corinth, 58–59; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 2; McRay, Archaeology, 313–15; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 55–56; Thiselton, Corinthians, 1; Ciampa and Rosner, Letter, 2. 3879. Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 13. 3880. E.g., Pindar Ol. 13.4. Cf. Strabo 8.6.19, quoting Hom. Il. 2.569ff. 3881. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.36. 3882. E.g., Gr. Anth. 6.40 (cf. a wealthy man in 7.619); a Corinthian suburb in Mart. Epig. 5.35.3. Cf. a rich man from Corinth as early as Hom. Il. 13.663–64. 3883. Chrys. 1 Hom. Cor. proem (NPNF 1.12.1–2) (Bray, Corinthians, 2). 3884. See Engels, Roman Corinth, 33–39. 3885. Corinth had to devote more public space to servicing those passing through town than did most other cities (ibid., 61–62). For the service sector of Corinth’s economy, see 43–65; for “services provided to merchants, travelers, and tourists,” see 50–52. Others suggest, however, that Engels’s emphasis on service rather than consumer culture in Corinth remains “controversial” (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 5); at this remove, determining precise proportions devoted to particular sectors of the economy is difficult at best. For its competitiveness in business, see Horsley, Corinthians, 31 (citing Apul. Metam. 10.19.25); wealth apparently surpassed aristocratic birth as a status marker there (Horsley, Corinthians, 26; Witherington, Corinthians, 24). 3886. See Jones, Chrysostom, 27. 3887. Harland, Associations, 89–112. 3888. See, e.g., Horsley, Corinthians, 27. 3889. See Mattusch, “Corinthian Bronze.” 3890. McRay, Archaeology, 326. 3891. Pliny E. N.H. 34.1.1. 3892. Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.6; Plut. Or. Delphi 2, Mor. 395BC. Before this, Delian bronze was the most famous (Pliny E. N.H. 34.4.9), then Aeginetan (34.5.10). 3893. Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.8. The mixture of gold and silver made them particularly attractive (37.12.49). 3894. Engels, Roman Corinth, 36–37. Certainly, not all supposed Corinthian bronzes were authentic (Pliny E. N.H. 34.3.7); it was widely known that “Corinthian” lampstands were not genuinely made from the compound (34.6.12). 3895. Jacobson and Weitzman, “Bronze.” This aspect need not have troubled ancients, just as today we do not expect all Swiss cheese to come from Switzerland, French fries from France, German shepherds from Germany, etc. On Corinthian bronze, see further comment at Acts 3:2, on the Beautiful Gate.

2687

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 391

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Not everyone profited equally from the city’s growing wealth. Because tenement apartments and wealthy mansions were often close together in ancient cities, disparities were conspicuous to everyone.3896 This was especially true in Corinth, which had a significant underclass3897 and many people living between the extremes.3898 Moreover, the wealthy in Corinth could be portrayed as offering little sympathy even for parasites (those who depended on wealthy patrons’ generosity).3899 In most Roman cities, rich and poor usually lived side by side in the same neighborhoods.3900 Although this was often true in Corinth, as noted, it was not the case in every part of the city; Corinth’s wealthiest neighborhood was near the Craneum, as everyone in the city would be aware.3901 Although wealthier homes could host more people, house churches were probably scattered throughout Corinth, since people would walk more easily to closer locations.3902 Apparently, the church in Corinth boasted a number of prosperous members (perhaps more than in most of Paul’s churches),3903 who probably proved highly influential in the congregation though the majority of its members were less well off (1 Cor 1:26).3904 (3) Corinth’s Moral Reputation

Corinth was ideal for Paul’s mission because it was strategic, not because it affirmed the same values that Paul and his people did. Its gladiatorial shows later provoked the emulation of Athens.3905 Cities were sometimes associated with evils and social ills,3906 and Corinth’s maritime location was thought to have invited a range of foreign depravities.3907 With the international trade and the anonymity of a fast-moving urban center, the city also became notorious for its immorality.3908 Prostitution was a major industry in Greek (old) Corinth,3909 and “Corinthian lady” (Κορινθία) was a sexually suggestive remark.3910 Old Corinth was so widely known for cult prostitution that a proverb arose that not all men dared go to Corinth (since many ship captains squandered their money there).3911 Old Corinth drew many visitors not only for its harbors but also for its courtesans.3912 Strabo claims that sailor captains squandered their wealth 3896. Jeffers, World, 60, on Rome. 3897. See esp. Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶1; cf., e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 183. Meggitt, Poverty, might overstate the case, but he helpfully provides the relevant data. The original colonists were poor (Grant, Paul, 15), nearly a century earlier. 3898. Jongkind, “Another Class.” 3899. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 119–20 (citing Alciph. Paras. 3.60, also noted above). 3900. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 141, 183; Carcopino, Life, 27–28; cf. Stambaugh, City, 90. 3901. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 119–20; Blue, “House Church,” 153–54. The Craneum existed in old Corinth as well (Xen. Hell. 4.4.4), where it was a leisurely suburb (Plut. Alex. 14.2). Apparently, philosophers also spoke at the Craneum; see Lucian Dial. D. 329 (1/1, Diogenes 1). 3902. Cicero moved his residence to the Palatine to allow readier access for more people (Plut. Cic. 8.3–4). 3903. Theissen, Setting, 69–96. 3904. Ibid., 99; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. The social level may have risen by the time of 1 Clement, or the author may simply focus on the elite (cf. Chow, “World”). 3905. Dio Chrys. Or. 31.121; cf. Jones, Chrysostom, 32. 3906. E.g., Plato Laws 3.677B; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.10–11; Lucian Nigr. 16; Philo Good Person 76. See discussion of urban versus rural life in the commentary introduction (Keener, Acts, 1:589–96, esp. 595–96). 3907. Cic. Resp. 2.7–8 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 48; Grant, Paul, 14). 3908. Some ancient writers connect the two (Grant, Paul, 14–15, citing Cic. Resp. 2.7–8; Polyb. 38.19–22; 39.2). For the old city’s immoral reputation, see, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 56–57; Grant, Paul, 20. Some of these reports may have circulated as propaganda from Corinth’s rival, Athens (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12). 3909. Pindar Encomia frg. 122. 3910. Aristoph. Lys. 91. This is often noted (e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 2). Classical Greek employed the verb Κορινθιάζω for sexual immorality (Bruce, Commentary, 367n4). 3911. See Strabo 8.6.20; 12.3.36; in Aul. Gel. 1.8.4, it is applied specifically to the wealthy courtesan Lais. Commentators often cite this saying (e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 533). 3912. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5.

2688

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 392

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

on prostitutes in old Corinth and that Aphrodite’s temple provided more than a thousand of them (Strabo 8.6.20).3913 (Whatever the extent of the truth behind his account, it was the prostitutes themselves and their earnings, not the sexual acts, that were considered sacred to the goddess.)3914 Although such anecdotes often refer to old Corinth,3915 most of the factors that led to this reputation remained in place in new Corinth. Later writings still associate Corinth with sexual pleasure3916 and lewdness,3917 and along with Poseidon, Aphrodite remained one of the two major Greek deities worshiped there.3918 Some scholars suggest that Corinth was probably no worse, but also no better, than other major port cities of this period.3919 By Jewish standards, however, that was quite immoral. Although immorality would not have invited Paul to Corinth, neither was it a reason for him to avoid it.3920 Indeed, a Cynic targeted Corinth in part because of its moral need (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5). (4) Corinth and Rome

Perhaps most important, Corinth was a Roman colony full of Roman culture yet with enough Greek-speakers and Jewish elements to provide Paul with a cultural transition if Paul already had the heart of the empire as a goal for ministry. He was a Roman citizen, but one from the East whose knowledge of Latin was probably limited, and so time in Corinth could help prepare him for ministry in Rome.3921 (By the time he plans to visit Spain [Rom 15:24, 28], he will also be aware that he will need Latin rather than Greek to communicate with even a significant minority of people there, even in the coastal cities.)3922 Contacts with Rome were plentiful; a large ship 3913. Often noted (e.g., Engels, Roman Corinth, 98; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 222; Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xii–xiii), although many question its accuracy (e.g., Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12; Fee, Corinthians, 3, following Conzelmann, “Mädchen”); it may have originated as Athenian propaganda. Some wrongly associate it with new Corinth (Bruce, Corinthians, 18–19). The sense in Hor. Ep. 1.17.36, however, involves cutthroat business competition (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 57). 3914. Pembroke, “Prostitution.” Excavations do not allow such large numbers servicing the actual site of the Aphrodite temple (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 55–56). Saffrey, “Aphrodite à Corinthe,” is skeptical even that they were dedicated to Aphrodite. 3915. Some commentators thus understandably doubt their applicability to new Corinth (Stendahl, Paul, 57; Fee, Corinthians, 3), though some suggest that we also lack evidence of improvement (Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 2). 3916. Lucian Affairs 51 (for heterosexual love). 3917. Mart. Epig. 10.70.11–12 (with the preceding context). 3918. Engels, Roman Corinth, 93–95, 97; for her continuing prominence, see, e.g., Paus. 2.4.6; 2.5.1; Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶3. The apparent punning association with Aphrodite in Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34 could simply refer to luck. By themselves, associations with Aphrodite would not have maligned the city’s morality (Engels, Roman Corinth, 99), yet outsiders, at least, did connect Corinth’s prostitutes with Aphrodite (Athen. Deipn. 13.573CD), who was naturally their patron deity. Greek intellectuals often allegorized Aphrodite’s unsavory roles (e.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 28.4–5). 3919. Barrett, 2 Corinthians, 2; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 56; Koester, Introduction, 2:109. 3920. Cf. Rom 5:20 if Paul might have extended the principle; 1 Tim 1:15–16. 3921. Some Latin was in use even in Palestine (Porter, “Latin Language”), but basic reading comprehension of a language is far below the fluency required to orate or debate in it. Roman citizens in the provinces might learn Latin for prestige, but it was not required (see Adams, “Romanitas”). Josephus’s Greek may have acquired increasing Latin influence over time (Ward, “Latinisms”) if this appearance is not due to his editors. Some (circumstantial) evidence suggests that Paul had acquired some Latin, but this allows, rather than requires, that assumption (see Porter, “Speak Latin”). 3922. Cf. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186; Jewett, Romans, 76–77, 79. Ramsay long ago suggested (Pictures, 276) that Paul was “confident that he could address the audiences of the cities there in Latin”; if not, he must have planned to acquire some proficiency or some bilingual translators in Rome (if Latin-speakers would listen to translation). The Jewish presence was, apparently, negligible (Bowers, “Communities”); appeal to local languages (cf. Jewett, Romans, 79) would probably not be feasible at the mission’s beginning. On Spain and its official Roman administration in this period (though most people were unaffected by it), see Pliny E. N.H. 3.1.6–3.3.30; 4.22.117–18. The account in Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.47 could be based on Paul.

2689

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 393

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

with favorable winds could reach Corinth from Rome in as little as five days.3923 Paul also could be of strategic evangelistic value there: the number of Jewish Christian Roman citizens in this period was likely small, especially in the East (it may have been growing in Rome), and so Paul would have respectable access to the citizenry of Corinth (and prospective converts who could multiply that mission) in a way that few of his contemporaries would. Granted, his Roman citizenship would afford far less status in a heavily romanized colony than in Judea (Acts 22:25–28), but he was unwelcome in Judea anyway (9:29; cf. Rom 15:31). He had more advantage than the majority of his Jewish Christian comrades who lacked this privilege. (Many who had it may have been émigrés from Rome, though I shall argue that Jewish Roman citizens were probably not expelled.) Cicero viewed Corinth as a potential rival to Rome (Agr. 2.87) and “the light of all Greece” (Leg. man. 5).3924 As would be expected of a Roman colony, the imperial cult was well established here.3925 A few years after Paul’s initial stay (ca. 54 c.e.), Corinth became center of a provincial imperial cult (in addition to the local imperial cults there and in other Achaian cities).3926 Much of the construction in Corinth’s city center from the early empire until Paul’s day emphasized worship of the emperor.3927 (5) How Roman Was Corinth?

Debates about how Roman Corinth was sometimes focus on only one aspect of its romanization.3928 Rome used Latin and Roman culture in cities founded in the West (cf. CIL 2.4319), but generally in the East, cities followed Greek tradition.3929 Corinth, however, seems to have been one of the major exceptions. From the perspectives most amenable to archaeological analysis, the city was fully Roman.3930 Certainly the civic architecture of new Corinth, built by Romans, was Roman, and most of its public inscriptions were in Latin.3931 (Only three out of the 104 inscriptions before Hadrian’s era in the standard collection are in Greek, but afterward Greek begins to predominate.3932 This is a significant contrast to, for example, Roman Asia, where Latin was used for provincial administration but Greek texts outnumber Latin ten or more to one.)3933 The city followed Roman 3923. For the estimate, see, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 639; cf. also Riesner, Early Period, 316 (“about one week”). 3924. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 47–48. 3925. Winter, “Imperial Cult: Corinthian Church.” 3926. Winter, Left Corinth, 269, 274. Its emphasis on the emperor’s birthday might make starker the polemical elements of Luke 2:10–14 for any of Luke’s audience in Corinth. 3927. Horsley, Corinthians, 27. 3928. Although scholars may debate degrees of cultural influence, Corinthian culture was clearly mixed. In postcolonial terms, romanization was “hybridization” (see Stanley, “Hybrid,” 112). 3929. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 186, 189. 3930. Winter, Left Corinth, 11, citing Charles Williams II, former director of Corinth’s excavations (though Winter recognizes [16n61, citing Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 3] that much may have been rebuilt after the earthquake of 77 c.e.). From 44 b.c.e., its design was Roman (Walbank, “Foundation”). Even before much of the archaeological work was available, Friedländer, Life, 1:342, admitted that Roman Corinth was at least half Roman. 3931. Gill, “Roman Colony in Achaea.” For thorough imitation of Rome’s architecture, see Winter, Left Corinth, 8–11, and sources he cites (esp. Engels, Roman Corinth, esp. 59; Williams, “Refounding”); for coins and inscriptions in Latin, see Winter, Left Corinth, 11–15 (though conceding that ostraca have been found in Greek); Ridgeway, “Sculpture.” 3932. Kent, Inscriptions, 19. 3933. E.g., in MAMA, where Latin texts appear in Asia, e.g., in MAMA 4.70, 236; elsewhere in Asia Minor, MAMA 5.197, 202; in eastern Phrygia, MAMA 7.8, 9, 14a, 14b, 134, 193, 305, 319, 320 (where Phrygian and especially Greek texts far outnumber them). The contrast with Egypt is even clearer (Lewis, Life, 61).

2690

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 394

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

grid patterns, 70 percent of the top magistrates had Latin rather than Greek names, and coins were in Latin.3934 Even much of the pottery was imported from Italy or produced in the Italian style.3935 Coins also show a clear fusion with Greek culture in the second century; this pattern clearly contrasts with the Roman colonial influence of the first.3936 Many scholars emphasize that Rome’s destruction of old Corinth and Corinth’s long desolation before being rebuilt obliterated most of the local “cultural memory.”3937 Even in the second century c.e., Pausanias insists that Corinth’s inhabitants are Roman colonists, not descendants of old Corinth (Paus. 2.1.2). Evidence for Hellenistic culture in new Corinth mainly dates to the second century c.e., after Rome promoted a Greek revival there.3938 One may display the contrast between the first and the second century in early collections of Greek and Roman inscriptions from Corinth by noting the mention of emperors in each category, though Latin inscriptions dominate for most emperors in both periods:3939 Emperor Augustus

Greek Inscriptions* 19.2; 14.2

Tiberius Claudius Nero Trajan Hadrian Commodus

19.5–6 — — 75.3–4 — 16.2–6

Latin Inscriptions† pp. 3, 7, 15, 17, 33–35, 39, 40, 46, 47, 49, 61, 64–65, 68, 71, 74, 78–79, 83, 89, 91, 103, 122 — more than 20 pp. nearly 20 pp. possibly 8 pp. ca. 8 pp. —

*Here are cited the inscription and then the line number in Meritt, Inscriptions. †The page numbers for Augustus in West, Inscriptions, are cited as samples, but for the other emperors, merely the number of pages are listed because the examples tend to be so abundant.

Particularly in the very era when Paul was in Corinth, Latin clearly predominated in the inscriptions, including during the reign of Nero, a notorious Hellenophile. Although I have counted only inscriptions that name emperors, specialists have categorized the fuller epigraphic data similarly.3940 It is no coincidence that a large number in the Pauline circle there had Latin names, whether or not they were Roman citizens: Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor 16:19), Titius Justus (Acts 18:7), Crispus (18:8; 1 Cor 1:14), Gaius (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14), Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17), Quartus (Rom 16:23), and Tertius (16:22).3941 The respectable culture in Corinth at this time was Roman, even 3934. Grant, Paul, 19. For Roman land planning in Corinth (especially just after Paul’s time), see Romano, “City Planning,” esp. 299. 3935. Witherington, Corinthians, 50–51 (following Hayes, “Roman Pottery”). 3936. Walbank, “Aspects of Coinage,” 348. 3937. Robinson, “Fountains,” 139. This observation would be true, however, only of elites, not of the Greeks in the surrounding countryside; as abundant allusions to the Greek past in Greek literature demonstrate, Greeks had long cultural memories. Refounding cities with new charters and settlers had long given them a new character (e.g., Yamauchi, Persia, 101–2). 3938. Winter, Left Corinth, 15–19; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 3. 3939. All the Greek references in this table derive from Meritt, Inscriptions; the Latin ones are in West, Inscriptions. 3940. Kent, Inscriptions, 18–19: no Greek inscriptions from the reigns of Caligula or Claudius and one from Nero; twenty-seven Latin inscriptions from Caligula and Claudius and eleven from Nero. 3941. Some cognomens in Latin inscriptions remain Greek names (such as Theophilus, Alexiades, and Eurycles), but more are in Latin (cf. West, Inscriptions, index, 151–53).

2691

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 395

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

if many Achaians and other Greek-speaking immigrants provided another less epigraphically conspicuous culture at the same time.3942 (6) Greek Elements in Roman Corinth

Many scholars argue, however, for continuing Greek influence in Roman Corinth as well.3943 Indeed, even the strongest advocates for Corinth’s being a Roman city recognize that its inhabitants included Greeks and others; although Latin was the language of the elite, more residents would understand Greek.3944 Though the official language was Latin, provisions were made for Greek-speakers even in public business: many inscriptions included Greek as well as Latin, and some note that the extant synagogue inscription is Greek (though its date is probably later).3945 The wealthy city drew many Greek residents from surrounding Achaia,3946 and the Jewish immigrant community (Acts 18:4) probably spoke Greek, as did the majority of Jews in Rome.3947 Although the official language was Latin, first-century c.e. pottery graffiti demonstrate that many residents continued to use Greek in everyday life.3948 This includes not only many ostraca but also nearly all the lead curse tablets uncovered in the Demeter temple.3949 We should not overemphasize the language of inscriptions in deciding the language of residents; many poorer residents would not be literate readers of any language. Whereas Rome had subjugated other peoples, it respected Greek culture, and romanization occurred in dialogue with Greek traditions.3950 The Romans did, after all, retain the same site and reuse some structures not destroyed;3951 thus they reused the theater, the South Stoa, “the archaic temple,” and the Glauce and Peirene fountains; they also reestablished at least five older sanctuaries (though in a more Roman form); most clearly, the reinstitution of the Isthmian Games (perhaps by 40 b.c.e.) recalled the Greek past.3952 They also retained the city’s name, which newly founded cities on older sites were not obligated to do (cf. Sebaste and both Palestinian Caesareas). Moreover, despite Mummius’s claim to have destroyed old Corinth (and ancient writers’ willingness to concur), archaeological evidence is clear that (local) habitation continued on the site.3953 Cicero is likewise explicit that in his youth people were still living in the ruins (Tusc. 3.22.53).3954 3942. Thiselton, Corinthians, 3–5. Similar situations appear in some societies today where public activity is conducted in prestige (often former colonial) languages rather than indigenous ones. 3943. E.g., Willis, “Corinthusne?”; Walters, “Civic Identity,” 409; Grant, Paul, 18; McRay, “Corinth,” 230; Paige, “Matrix,” 225; Furnish, II Corinthians, 10. 3944. Winter, Left Corinth, 24–25; cf. Schnabel, Brief, 16. 3945. Grant, Paul, 19; cf. Koester, Paul and World, 38 (“much later” and irrelevant for Paul’s time). 3946. Early tensions between Roman Corinth and Greek towns of Achaia were gradually resolved (Walters, “Civic Identity,” 406–8). Still, even later some other Greeks felt that romanized Corinth had abandoned its heritage (Winter, Left Corinth, 4–5, citing Ps.-Julian On Behalf of the Argives [Let. 198] 407, 409D). 3947. As late as the second and third centuries c.e., Roman Jews were mostly Greek-speaking, with some Latin (see Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–92 [esp. 75], 256; Noy, “Writing”; Stambaugh, City, 95; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 105). Among Roman Jewish inscriptions, see CIJ 1:6–143 for those in Greek; 1:143–97 for those in Latin; and 1:228–32 for Aramaic or Hebrew. 3948. Bookidis, “Religion,” 152; Millis, “Origins,” 23–29; Concannon, “Archaeology,” 78–79. 3949. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 7. 3950. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 404–5, noting also that Greeks continued to view themselves as Greek (following Woolf, “Becoming Roman,” 128). 3951. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 403. 3952. Robinson, “Fountains,” 116; Walters, “Civic Identity,” 404. 3953. Willis, “Corinthusne?”; Grant, Paul, 18; Oster, Corinthians, 16; cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70, 95. After the revival of Greek influence, Pausanias believed that all Corinthians descended from colonists, not the residents of old Corinth (Paus. 2.1.2), but Pausanias may have been interested in (or known about) only the elite. 3954. Following here Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 3.

2692

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 396

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Many have argued that “indigenous Greek culture” helped shape various local conventions, including benefaction conventions.3955 Certainly it helped shape cultic practice; though public inscriptions focus on deities “of the Roman state or the imperial cult,” coins reveal an emphasis on traditional Greek cults.3956 Old Hellenistic rites for Melikertes continued into early Roman Corinth, though with a new sanctuary;3957 indeed, of four clear cults in the first century c.e. outside the forum, at least three also existed in old Corinth.3958 Although rites changed, Romans revived the longabandoned temple of Demeter and Kore; iconographic resemblances in the figurines suggest that local Greeks had preserved some memories of the cult (or the cult itself on a different site).3959 A fresco of Aphrodite in a cultic area portrays her as Aphrodite Hoplismene, who was worshiped in pre-Roman Greece only in Corinth.3960 Romans even aligned their forum, the center of the Roman city plan, with old Corinth’s orientation for this area although the structures differed, naturally, in the ways that Roman forums and Greek agoras normally differed.3961 Many have thus argued that old Corinth was not completely destroyed and forgotten;3962 indeed, some Greeks continued to live on the site (though after Rome established new Corinth, they became incolae, resident aliens).3963 Jewish, Phoenician, and other Greek-speaking Eastern immigrants are often not distinguishable in inscriptions (since many had Greek names), but they were likely many.3964 An influx of Greeks from the surrounding region is likely in the mid-first century c.e.;3965 Paul could well have experienced some success with these recent immigrants. In early second-century Corinth, it was a Roman who became hellenized who would be commended, because this change reflected the same trend that the city itself had followed.3966 The shift toward thorough hellenization by the second century may suggest that some Greek culture and language persisted among indigenous and immigrant Greeks despite the public emphasis on Roman culture.3967 Indeed, a shift in population may have already been under way in Paul’s day. Thus, although most scholars now recognize that Roman Corinth was more “Roman” than earlier scholarship recognized, some note that “the civic identity of Roman Corinth began to change during the Augustan period and accelerated throughout the second century as the city became increasingly integrated into the surrounding Greek world, a transition already evident by the time of Claudius.”3968 Prominent Greeks began appearing in magistracies during Claudius’s and Nero’s reigns; also, relations between Roman Corinth and Greek cities began improving by Claudius’s 3955. Harrison, Grace, 23. 3956. Engels, Roman Corinth, 95–96. 3957. See Gebhard, “Rites,” esp. 203, emphasizing that elements of continuity exceed earlier expectations. 3958. Bookidis, “Religion,” 159. Roman cults were centered in the forum, but Greek cults adopted by the Romans were retained; also some earlier Greek cultic sites were preserved as monuments, though not in use because not relevant (163). 3959. Merker, Sanctuary, 311; cf. Furnish, II Corinthians, 6. Even Roman knowledge to dedicate the temple specifically to Demeter and Kore suggests some continuity (Engels, Roman Corinth, 95). 3960. Williams, “Roman Corinth,” 243. 3961. See Romano, “Planning,” 59. For the forum in the early Roman period, see Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22–23. 3962. E.g., Bookidis, “Religion,” 141, 164. 3963. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 7; Witherington, Corinthians, 7. Even in most Roman colonies, most of the residents were not Roman citizens ( Jeffers, World, 255). 3964. Engels, Roman Corinth, 70–71. 3965. Ibid., 71–73 (though noting that the major influx came in the second century). 3966. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.26. 3967. Horsley, Corinthians, 25; cf. Litfin, Theology, 141. 3968. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 397.

2693

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 397

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

time, “as the city itself was becoming more integrated into its Greek context.”3969 Latin was the official language, but Corinth’s commercial location would require Greek for much trade.3970 Even the Roman elite would have known some Greek (as the elite in Rome itself did; see comment at Acts 18:12); while upwardly mobile residents would aspire to speak the more fashionable Latin, Greek would have been the easiest language for communication in a congregation with many immigrants. Roman as Corinth was, a purely Roman view of Corinth in this period is thus one-sided.3971 The founding settlers of new Corinth were Latin-speaking, but as increasing numbers of Greeks settled there, the city would become bilingual and increasingly Greek-speaking.3972 Official documents, however, would presumably continue to use Latin exclusively for a number of years after the dominant local vernacular shifted to Greek. Inscriptions and coins (the latter use Latin as late as 69 c.e.) appear to confirm this proposal.3973 If most of the new immigrants were Greek-speaking, their conditions of flux would make them, on average, readier for religious transition than older settlers would be. Paul’s base was, at least initially, made up primarily of Greek-speakers, though it included a Roman element (Acts 18:2, 7–8).3974 That Paul wrote his Corinthian correspondence in Greek confirms that the common language of the believers there, despite a number of members who were Roman citizens, was Greek. (Even a possible member of the social elite, Erastus, bears a Greek name [Rom 16:23].) Presumably, this balance persisted in later times, since Clement, though writing from Rome, uses Greek,3975 as does (fitting the obvious later shift to preference for Greek) Bishop Dionysius of Corinth.3976 Paul himself was probably not as comfortable writing in Latin, and it is possible, though not certain, that he could barely write it (or, rather, dictate it) at all. It may be no accident that Luke later offers Paul no speeches in Rome except to the Jewish community there, many of whose members spoke Greek.3977 (7) Corinth’s Jewish Community

Another important factor for Paul seems to be the likelihood that Corinth held Greece’s most significant Jewish population, excluding Macedonia.3978 As far away as Egypt, Jews knew that there were Jews in Corinth and other wealthy parts of the Peloponnesus (Philo Embassy 281). In the second century, Justin’s dialogue partner, Trypho, reportedly migrated from Palestine to Corinth, where he settled ( Justin Dial. 1). For further discussion of the Jewish community here, see comment on the 3969. Ibid., 408. Although the initial civic identity was Roman, it was rapidly shifting in the first century (410). 3970. Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 783. 3971. Walters, “Civic Identity,” 409 (against B. Winter). Walters argues (403–10) that a choice between Greek and Roman is not necessary. 3972. Walters, ibid., 403, argues for “a sizeable Greek population” all along. 3973. Kent, Inscriptions, 18. 3974. Some names there are also not Roman, e.g., Phoebe (Rom 16:1), Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15, 17), and Sosthenes (if he was a local believer; cf. 1 Cor 1:1; Acts 18:17). 3975. Writing to Corinth (1 Clem. 1.1). That Greek was the language of philosophy even in Rome (Christes, “School,” 81) probably would not affect Clement. 3976. Grant, Paul, 19. Of course, the Greek element dominated throughout second-century Corinth. Cf. also Mart. Pol. 22.2. 3977. Plutarch complained that despite living for a time in Rome and Italy, he had never had opportunity to become fluent in Latin, given his other work (especially philosophy students; Plut. Demosth. 2.2). 3978. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159. On the Jewish community there, see esp. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 162–66; Furnish, II Corinthians, 20–22; Gill, “Achaia,” 450.

2694

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 398

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

synagogue at Acts 18:4. We also have significant information about the church there in later centuries.3979 (8) The Stop after Athens

Last but not least of Corinth’s strategic advantages for Paul is that it was the next important stop after Athens, which was just fifty-three miles (85 km.) to the east.3980 A Corinthian might migrate easily to Athens for philosophic study (Dion. Hal. Din. 2); a fugitive from Athens might readily settle in Corinth (Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.4–5). Diogenes the Cynic moved back and forth between the two cities, the one for warmer seasons and the other for cooler (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.1–3, 6). The two cities had an ancient rivalry,3981 including during conflicts in 459 b.c.e., though they later joined forces. By Paul’s period, Athens offered little competition except in reputation and perhaps education.3982 They remained rivals in the popular mentality,3983 civic rivalry being characteristic of this era (see comment on Acts 21:39). But though Attica remained viable in production of olive oil and marble, its silver mines were barren and the area offered little for export; while Athens’s importance waned, Corinth became a center of prosperity.3984 Still, some intellectuals preferred the quiet life of Athens to the flaunted wealth of Corinth’s rich at the expense of its abject poor (Alciph. Paras. 15, 24.1).3985 By the early third century, Corinth’s manufacturers were starting factories in Athens.3986 En route from Athens, Paul would pass various well-known sites of Greek philosophy, religion, and military history. Paul would go by the Platonists’ Academy; he would then pass Daphne (with its grove sacred to Apollo), Eleusis (with its mystery sanctuary), and soon the bay beyond which was visible the island of Salamis, where Athens defeated the Persians centuries earlier. After this, Paul would reach Megara and, beyond that, the Isthmus of Corinth.3987 Coming from Athens, Paul would probably enter Corinth on the Lechaeum Road from the city’s north.3988 (9) Corinth’s Religion

In Corinth, as elsewhere, Paul would confront religious challenges and would probably be expected to learn something about the local religious traditions.3989 Although Jews lived here (Acts 18:2, 4), the city was, like virtually all cities outside Palestine, mostly 3979. For archaeological data, see esp. Sanders, “Evidence”; on the fourth and fifth centuries, see Limberis, “Ambiguities.” Within the first century, in addition to Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, we have 1 Clement. 3980. See, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.7.24 (55 mi. between Athens and the isthmus; Corinth lay on the south side of the isthmus). Luke’s μετὰ ταῦτα, “after these things” (cf. Luke 5:27; Acts 13:20; 15:16), is a common chronological transition marker both in the lxx (e.g., Gen 15:14; 23:19; 41:30; Num 8:22; 12:16; 2 Sam 3:28; 8:1; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:18; Esth 1:4; 3:1; 1 Esd 1:14; 5:1, 51; Tob 10:14; 11:1; 1 Macc 1:5; 11:54; 13:20; 14:24) and elsewhere (Let. Aris. 179; Xen. Anab. 6.4.12; Philo Mos. 2.268; Spec. Laws 1.199; Jos. Ant. 5.132, 210; 6.85, 310; 7.368; 8.307 [and often]; John 5:1; Rev 4:1; cf. 1 En. 89:30; Jub. 14:1; 2 Bar. 4:4; 7:1; 13:1; 22:1; 31:1; 39:5; 53:8; 67:5; 68:2, 7; Jos. Life 427). 3981. See esp. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 9–10, 56. 3982. McRay, “Athens,” 139, calls first-century Athens “a provincial backwater, a small university town” of roughly twenty-five thousand. Corinth hosted many rhetors (Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 226, 264, 268, 269, 307) and philosophers (nos. 124, 268). 3983. E.g., Lucian Dem. 57 (the Athenians desiring to hold a gladiatorial show to compete with Corinth); Lucian Affairs 51 says that Corinth (associated with heterosexual love) must yield to Athens (associated with philosophy and the “higher” homosexual love). 3984. Grant, Paul, 13–14; Engels, Roman Corinth, 113. 3985. Grant, Paul, 14; cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76–77. 3986. Engels, Roman Corinth, 35 (by the fifth century, Attica supplied about 75 percent of Corinth’s lamps). 3987. Finegan, Apostles, 142–44. 3988. McRay, Archaeology, 320. 3989. E.g., a speaker praising a city could include favorable myths about it; Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.257.

2695

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 399

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

pagan (1 Cor 8:5). In the more than two thousand late first- to early second-century c.e. bronze coins studied, pagan figures (many from mythology) are quite common.3990 Barely mentioned in Homer, the city’s mythical history first developed in the archaic period.3991 Because Corinth lacked clear ties to the Mycenaean era, its mythical connections remained peripheral figures such as Medea and Bellerophon.3992 Among the myths attached to old Corinth (apparently first by Euripides in Medea)3993 was the story of the sorceress Medea’s revenge on her unfaithful husband, Jason, there by killing their children and his new wife.3994 A shrine commemorating the children remained in Corinth3995 and was, indeed, the site of veneration in earlier, Greek times.3996 The hero Bellerophon and the winged horse Pegasus were also associated with Corinth.3997 The Corinthians also claimed that their eponymous ancestor, Corinthus, was a son of Zeus, though apparently no one else agreed with them.3998 Apart from local traditions, exposure to Greek mythology was unavoidable in Corinth; one would, for example, pass beneath a chariot of Helios en route to the forum.3999 Evidence from coins suggests that nonelite Corinthians particularly favored the cults of Poseidon and Aphrodite.4000 The temple of Isthmian Poseidon lay on the isthmus, where the Isthmian Games were held (Strabo 8.6.22; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9). A Roman mystery cult (that of Melikertes-Palaimon) had its sanctuary in Isthmia.4001 The cult of Demeter was long important in ancient Corinth.4002 Some local pre-Roman cults were revived by the Roman settlers on the same sites as the earlier Greek temples, including the cults of Aphrodite, Demeter, and Poseidon.4003 Apparently, the rituals were sometimes changed (the old dining rooms in the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore were discontinued; curse tablets and Asian influences were introduced).4004 Also, purely local cults vanished (at least on the official level) in 146 b.c.e., supplanted later by new Roman ones.4005 Chief among the Roman religious imports was the imperial cult. Although the provincial imperial cult was officially established here shortly after Paul’s initial stay, 3990. See Walbank, “Aspects of Coinage,” passim. 3991. West, “Introduction,” 28. 3992. Schachter, “Corinthian Cults.” Cf. Theseus’s exploits on the isthmus in Paus. 2.1.3 (in MurphyO’Connor, Corinth, 7–9); veneration of a wooden statue of Dionysus made from the pine tree where Pentheus perished (Paus. 2.2.7; Otto, Dionysus, 157). 3993. So Arist. Poet. 14.12, 1453b. 3994. E.g., Pindar Ol. 13.53; Ovid Metam. 7.391–97; Epict. Diatr. 2.17.19, 22. In addition to condemning Jason’s ingratitude, part of the story’s moral may also have been that even if consorting with a sorceress yields short-term profit, it is dangerous in the long term. Medea’s act is one of the most commonly recited in antiquity (cf., e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.9.28; Hor. Epodes 3.9–14; Virg. Ecl. 8.47–50; Cic. Tusc. 4.32.69; Plut. Poetry 3, Mor. 18A; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.16; Epict. Diatr. 4.13.14–15; Lucian Hall 31; Philost. Letters 21 [38]; Char. Chaer. 2.9.3; Gr. Anth. 7.354; Gessert, “Myth”). 3995. Paus. 2.3.6–2.4.5, esp. 2.3.6–7. 3996. See Bookidis, “Religion,” 146; cf. Kovacs, “Introduction to Medea,” 286; Broneer, “Corinth,” 84. Medea supposedly established the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth (Plut. Mal. Hdt. 39, Mor. 871B). 3997. Lucian Dance 42; Apology for “Salaried Posts in Great Houses.” Artwork depicting Bellerophon and Pegasus was therefore common in the city (Engels, Roman Corinth, 99). 3998. Paus. 2.1.1 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 4–5). 3999. Engels, Roman Corinth, 13. For Corinthian cults see also Schnabel, Brief, 19–21. 4000. Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 6, noting the association of both deities with the sea. Despite Aphrodite’s connection with sea foam, however (see comment at Acts 13:6), Corinth may have venerated her for other reasons. 4001. Koester, “Melikertes,” 355–66. The cult was originally Greek (Gebhard, “Rites,” 203); Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 6, list Melikertes alongside Bellerophon as a distinctively Corinthian cult. 4002. See Stroud, Demeter. 4003. Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 255, 257. 4004. Ibid., 257. 4005. Ibid.

2696

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 400

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

about 54 c.e., with wild beast shows, Corinthians already venerated Julius Caesar and Octavia.4006 The high priest of the imperial cult in Achaia held an important honorary title, likely a Latin translation of an equivalent Greek title employed, for example, with reference to Asiarchs in Asia.4007 Even tourists visiting Corinth from outside the empire would know of emperor veneration if they could read inscriptions there, which mentioned, for example, “deified Augustus”4008 and “Claudius Divus.”4009 The majority of religious inscriptions from the Roman period are in Latin, the language of the elite, and of these, 63 percent concern the imperial cult.4010 The dominance of Greek and Roman religion should not lead us to believe that few Corinthians were open to foreign cults such as Paul’s. Four sanctuaries for Serapis and Isis at the base of the Acrocorinth, plus a fifth to Serapis alone in the South Stoa, attest the popularity of Egyptian cults;4011 immigrant groups tended to form their own enclaves and worship their traditional ethnic deities.4012 But this worship hardly remained limited to its traditional ethnic constituents; there is reason to believe that the Serapis and Isis cult even exerted a syncretistic influence on the ancient cult of Demeter and Kore.4013 Because Corinth was refounded in the first century b.c.e., attachment to local cults was less pervasive than in Athens.4014 ii. Claudius’s Expulsion of Jews from Rome (18:2) When Luke says that Claudius commanded Jews to “depart” (χωρίζεσθαι) from Rome, his choice of wording probably echoes Paul’s recent departure (χωρισθείς;

Luke’s only other use of this verb is in 1:4, prohibiting departing Jerusalem prematurely) from Athens in 18:1; that is, he underlines the providential coincidence of the couple’s arriving in Corinth “recently” (προσφάτως) before Paul’s arrival there.4015 As elsewhere, however, Luke’s choice of wording remains historically compatible with the essential event he reports. Luke’s report of the expulsion of Jews from Rome is confirmed by Suetonius (Claud. 25.4), though questions of detail and nuancing require considerably greater discussion. Suetonius claims that Claudius expelled Jews from Rome because of a habitual disturbance among them instigated by one “Chrestus” (25.4). A number of questions remain. How many and which Jews did Claudius expel? In what year 4006. Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 94–95. 4007. See West, Inscriptions, no. 68, line 9 (pp. 50–51). 4008. Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 51, 52, 53 (p. 32). 4009. E.g., ibid., no. 81 (p. 42). 4010. Engels, Roman Corinth, 101. Poseidon has three; four are to various personifications; and most others (such as Serapis and Isis) have just one each (102). 4011. Paus. 2.4.6–7; Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 257; cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 103–6; Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 102; Koester, Introduction, 2:109. For early epigraphic attestation, see Kent, Inscriptions, no. 57 (inv. 2414) (p. 57). On the development of Serapis worship, see sources in Gordon, “Sarapis”; Lefebvre, “Diffusion”; generally, Koester, Introduction, 1:183–91. Late fourth-century c.e. panels in the Isis temple at Cenchreae contain “many Egyptian and Nilotic motifs” (Engels, Roman Corinth, 105). Asian and Egyptian elements in Corinth’s religious mix are noted as early as Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xiii; Moffatt, First Corinthians, xvii, though some think the findings unimpressive when compared with other port cities (Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12; cf. Broneer, “Corinth,” 88, who suggests that Corinth, with its many foreigners, may have been “peculiarly receptive”). See also comment at Acts 18:18. 4012. Nock, Conversion, 48. We know of Egyptians buried at Corinth (Lucian True Story 2.22) and of administrators of Egypt who moved to Corinth (Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 136 [p. 64], 138 [pp. 64–65]). 4013. Bookidis, “Sanctuaries of Corinth,” 257–58. 4014. Engels, Roman Corinth, 113. 4015. It may have also prevented Paul’s further journey westward at this time (Haacker, Theology, 17); though I believe that the edict would not expel Roman citizens, it might shrink his normal pool of synagogue hearers, and it would have made Jewish messianists like Paul feel far less welcome.

2697

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 401

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

did the expulsion occur? Who was this Chrestus, and what were the controversies surrounding him? These issues are addressed below. Claudius was an intellectual (Claud. 41–42),4016 falsely maligned by his successor, Nero, as stupid (Suet. Nero 33).4017 Ancient writers typically viewed him as weak, manipulated by his wives and freedmen, but even ancient writers could recognize him as less tyrannical than his predecessors.4018 Inscriptional evidence reveals him as, in fact, a brilliant administrator for the empire.4019 As noted below, however, one aspect of his efficiency in maintaining order could be the expulsion of foreign communities, or members thereof, unable to assimilate to—or, worse still, apparently threatening to—Rome’s heritage. (1) Other Expulsions

That Romans banished Jews at other times makes Suetonius’s claim plausible; despite detractors of the theory, it is even plausible that Claudius could have ordered the entire Jewish community to leave (though unlikely that everyone did so and even more unlikely that Jewish areas were simply left abandoned till their return to those areas). Roman leaders often banished groups en masse, though not always with equal effectiveness. In the more xenophobic second century b.c.e., a praetor expelled astrologers and Jews from Rome because of foreign customs and Jewish proselytism (Val. Max. 1.3.3).4020 The emperor Augustus banished all nonessential foreigners (i.e., all but doctors and teachers) when it became impossible to provide the grain dole for all Rome’s residents (Suet. Aug. 42.3). A few decades after Claudius’s expulsion mentioned by Luke, Vespasian expelled most philosophers from Rome, especially the ever critical Cynics.4021 Early in the first century c.e., Tiberius expelled Jews and proselytes, as well as astrologers and Egyptian religions, from Rome (Suet. Tib. 36).4022 Four thousand young Jewish men were sent to battle bandits in Sardinia and, it was presumably hoped, perish. Again part of the problem was reportedly that the Jewish people were coming to Rome in “excessive” numbers and converting Romans to Judaism (Dio Cass. 57.18.5).4023 Josephus strategically shifts the blame to the episode of a single Jewish charlatan, which was probably the sparking incident;4024 but Josephus, for apologetic reasons, also attributes the Judean-Roman war mainly to a marginal group of “bandits.” (Philo’s apologetic is more vigorous still: after emphasizing in Embassy 157 that Caesar never expelled Jewish Roman citizens from Rome, he attributes Tiberius’s 4016. He even composed twenty volumes of Etruscan history and eight of Carthaginian in Greek (Suet. Claud. 42). For discussion of Claudius, see, e.g., Benko, “Early Empire,” 53–56. 4017. In an aristocratic culture obsessed with rhetoric, however, portrayals of Claudius’s speech deficiencies would create political problems (Osgood, “Vox”). He could be viewed as intellectually weak despite his interest in the humanities (Tac. Ann. 6.46). 4018. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.27, 29, 32. 4019. Riesner, Early Period, 90–97. 4020. The consul himself smashed the doors of the Isis temple with an axe (Val. Max. 1.3.4). Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 149–50, thinks these reported events of 139 b.c.e. likely historical; cf. also Rajak, “Jews,” 798. 4021. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.8; Dio Cass. 65.13 (Winter, Philo and Paul, 43–44). 4022. See also discussion in Wiefel, “Community in Rome,” 88–89; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 75–78; for bibliography, see Feldman in Josephus, LCL, 9:422. Rochette, “Tibère,” argues that it fits Tiberius’s early reign without suggesting personal anti-Judaism. Suetonius says that astrologers who agreed to abandon their profession were pardoned but military-age Jews were “assigned to provinces of unhealthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army,” while other Jews and those like them were banished (Tib. 36 [LCL, 1:345]). 4023. Contrast Tac. Ann. 2.85, where those so deported to battle Sardinian brigands were freedmen “infected” with Jewish and Egyptian superstition. For an “exile” to Sardinia (albeit, in this case, not at all severe), see 14.62. 4024. Jos. Ant. 18.81–83. Some are highly skeptical (perhaps overly so) of Josephus’s version (Moehring, “Persecution in A.D. 19”), but allowing that Josephus depicts one genuine incident, the severity of Tiberius’s response suggests that it belonged to a larger pattern (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 299).

2698

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 402

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

opposition against Jews to Sejanus, and notes that Tiberius discovered this situation immediately after the hated praetorian prefect’s death [Embassy 159–60].) Another factor may have been the poverty of most Roman Jews, who like others depended on the city grain dole and participated in unrest during the grain shortage.4025 (2) The Nature of Expulsions

Exile was a frequent penalty for individuals4026 and could bring considerable shame.4027 Different forms of banishment existed, some harsher than others.4028 Full exile could be very severe,4029 though sometimes a lesser penalty for a person of rank than what commoners would suffer for the same offense.4030 At its worst, it included confiscation of property4031 (often convenient for the government),4032 though exile did not always include this penalty.4033 (Those who think that Hebrews was written to Rome sometimes relate Heb 10:34, which notes the confiscation of goods, to this expulsion.)4034 One who loved Rome and was banished from the city could lament intensely,4035 though philosophers sometimes argued that exile was not significant.4036 Providing food or shelter for political exiles was likely strongly discouraged.4037 To return from 4025. See Williams, “Expulsion in A.D. 19.” Many Roman Jews, like others in Rome, were poor; Roman sources portray many as beggars and peddlers (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 161). 4026. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.19.1; 2.24.2; 2.68.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.50; 6.1; 8.1; 13; 19.1–2; 46.12; Pliny Ep. 4.11.4–6; 7.19.5; 8.14.24–25; 10.56.2–4; Tac. Ann. 3.68–69; 4.19, 63; Suet. Aug. 54; 65.1, 3; Tib. 35.2; Lucian Peregr. 18; Max. Tyre 15.9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42. It provided even an image for philosophers (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 78.30–32); it was also used in earlier times (Lysias Or. 6.15, §104). In declamations, one could be banished five years for involuntary homicide (Quint. Decl. 244 intro.; 244.3; 248 intro.; 248.11–12; 296 intro.; 305 intro.; cf. 285 intro.); it could be revoked under special circumstances (254 intro.). For exile during the empire, see Rapske, “Exiles,” 316–22. 4027. E.g., Apul. Metam. 7.6. Even during the early empire, it could be depicted figuratively as death (Grebe, “Exile”). 4028. See more fully Schiemann, “Deportatio”; Aune, Revelation, 80–81; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 35; Ramsay, Letters, 83–85. Fugitives were de facto exiles (Libanius Comparison 3.15) and could end up more formally banished (Vell. Paterc. 2.24.2; Quint. Decl. 280.10). 4029. Some debated whether exile or death was worse (Mus. Ruf. frg. 43, p. 138.12–15; Philo Abr. 64). Cf. alleged loss of citizen rights during exile (Quint. Decl. 244.1); in at least the hypothetical case in Quint. Decl. 366 intro., children of traitors are also exiled. 4030. E.g., Callistr. Dig. 47.21.2 (in Sherk, Empire, 205, §160; 206, §161AB); Paulus Sent. 5.23.14, 19 (in Sherk, Empire, 206, §161AB); Apul. Metam. 10.12; cf. Suet. Aug. 65.1–2; Jos. Ant. 18.79–80. 4031. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.5.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 54.4; Plut. Cic. 33.1; Pliny Ep. 7.19.6; Tac. Hist. 2.84; Ann. 12.22; 14.48; Suet. Jul. 17; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 1.5; 23 (Hannibal), 7.7; cf. Schiemann, “Deportatio.” Confiscation was a frequent penalty under a variety of circumstances; cf. Lysias Or. 18.20, §151; 19.1, §152; 29.9, §182; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.15.6; Sall. Catil. 51.43; 52.14; Cic. Phil. 11.6.15; Rosc. Amer. 2.6; Fam. 14.4.4; Appian Bell. civ. 4.5.31; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.5; 6.5; 8 (Thrasybulus), 3.1; 10 (Dion), 7.1; Plut. Sulla 31.4; Suet. Jul. 14; 82.4; Max. Tyre 12.10; Hdn. 7.3.2; CPJ 2:251–52, §445; 2:255–57, §448; Tob 1:20; Jos. Life 370. 4032. The state could confiscate funds for any reason possible (BGU, vol. 5, passim), e.g., a person to whom a will bequeathed property is unable to attend to it (5.16.51–5.17.55). Some considered such confiscation of goods an act of greed (Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 20:14/17; on Deut 5:21). Seizure of property shamed the person (Cic. Quinct. 15.50) and was originally intended to be a rare penalty (16.51); confiscated property could then be sold (e.g., P.Oxy. 513). Having engineered Cicero’s exile, Clodius had his house destroyed (Vell. Paterc. 2.45.1–3). 4033. Ovid Tristia 4.4.46; 4.9.11–12; Tac. Ann. 3.68. Cf. Tac. Ann. 13.43 (for part but not all); Pliny Ep. 4.11.13. 4034. E.g., Lane, Hebrews, lviii. I think that it was written instead from Rome to an audience in the East; Heb 13:24 (although many interpret “those from Italy” differently; e.g., Lane, Hebrews, lviii; Montefiore, Hebrews, 254; cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, 246–47). Thus I see it at most as an analogous situation. The application to Corinth (Montefiore, Hebrews, 19), where we lack evidence of state persecution, is even less probable. 4035. E.g., Ovid Tristia 1.1.1–34; 3.2.1–30; 4.9.13–14; Claasen, “Exile.” 4036. Mus. Ruf. 9; Epict. Diatr. 1.29.7; 4.7.14; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 13.4–5; 46.12; Galen Grief 55. 4037. Sen. E. Controv. 6.2 (though this may be hypothetical).

2699

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 403

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

exile unsummoned was to commit a form of treason or sedition.4038 Romans often banished individuals to islands,4039 a restriction that could inhibit potential risks caused by their mobility and perhaps even allow surveillance.4040 We should not suppose, however, that Romans supervised a mass banishment the way they would treat individual political exiles. Here the issue was simply (at most) removal from Rome. Squatters may have “confiscated” property left behind as a matter of convenience; but this does not seem to be formal banishment, and there were no restrictions on where expelled Jews might go once they left. (3) The Expulsion’s Political Context

Expulsions were a matter of exception rather than one of policy. Political expediency initially inclined Rome toward toleration; Julius Caesar and Augustus both found Jews helpful against Pompey and Syria.4041 Augustus’s benevolence toward Jews in Rome set the course of policy for some time (until Tiberius’s expulsion).4042 The state treated their assemblies like other collegia.4043 In time, however, memory of the Jewish people’s past favors to the early Caesars faded; conflicts with the Roman administration in Judea and with Greeks in other eastern Mediterranean cities led to increasing Roman frustration with the “Judeans.”4044 There was no systematic repression or targeting of Jews, however; Rome’s concern was to maintain order, and periodic expulsions or limitations of Jewish rights simply mirrored the same behavior of Romans toward other groups in similar situations.4045 Claudius himself had defended Jewish rights in Alexandria and elsewhere, though his compromise to maintain order was not to everyone’s (particularly the Greeks’) satisfaction.4046 It appears that Agrippa I remained influential on Claudius’s favorable policies toward Jews early in his reign ( Jos. Ant. 19.279, 287), though Claudius did not trust him fully.4047 The expulsion is certainly plausible, not only against the backdrop of Tiberius’s precedent but also against that of the times. Although Claudius fostered tolerance among various religions, he also revived ancient Roman religious practices. 4048 Claudius furthered Roman religion, especially in the second half of his reign; this 4038. Robinson, Criminal Law, 76. Cf. the alleged right to kill any exile found inside the borders (Quint. Decl. 305 intro.; 305.10–12; 351 intro.; 366 intro.); some may have tried to return discreetly (244.1; 296 intro.; 296.4). 4039. E.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.100.5; Epict. Diatr. 1.25.20; 2.6.22; 3.24.100, 109, 113; 4.4.34; Plut. Exile 12, Mor. 604B; Juv. Sat. 1.73; Pliny Ep. 3.9.34; 6.22.5; 6.31.6; 8.14.12; Tac. Ann. 1.3, 53; 3.68–69; 4.13, 22, 30–31, 71; 13.43; 14.63; Hist. 1.46; Suet. Aug. 19; Calig. 14, 15; Galba 10; Lucian Tox. 17; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.16; 8.5; Vit. soph. 2.32.626–27. Some exiles were, however, allowed anywhere so long as they did not return home (Plut. Exile 12, Mor. 604B; cf. Lucian Peregr. 18). Cohen, “Julia,” argues that Augustus initiated this practice. 4040. But one could be placed under surveillance even in Campania (Tac. Ann. 14.60). 4041. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 169–70. 4042. See Richardson, “Synagogues,” 17. 4043. Ibid., 19. 4044. See Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 169–70. 4045. Rutgers, “Policy,” 93–116, esp. 116. Certainly, they were never treated as “capitulated foreigners,” who were never permitted (officially) within 100 mi. of the city (Gaius Inst. 1.27). 4046. See P.Lond. 1912 = CPJ 1.153; Jos. Ant. 19.280–85, 290; for Petronius’s enforcement of this policy, see Jos. Ant. 19.302–11. For discussion, see Riesner, Early Period, 99–101; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 138–39; further, Feldman’s bibliography in Josephus, LCL, 9:429–31. 4047. See Riesner, Early Period, 97–98, 101–2; Das, Debate, 165; some of this depiction may be Josephus’s propaganda (though appeals to Claudius would be of limited value in the Flavian period), given the minimal interest in Agrippa in the (admittedly not pro-Jewish) Roman historians. On Agrippa’s initial expansion of Jerusalem’s walls, see archaeological data in the notes in Cornfeld, Josephus, 338–40, on Jos. War 5.148–55. 4048. Riesner, Early Period, 97.

2700

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 404

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

led to increasing opposition to “oriental cults,” and more emphatically, charges of association with astrologers, Chaldeans, and magic became dangerous in this period.4049 Given other evidence for Roman mistrust of foreign cults in this period,4050 Claudius’s actions undoubtedly played well politically and fit a larger context. The Roman senate banished astrology from Italy in 52 c.e. (Tac. Ann. 12.52.3; cf. Dio Cass. 61.33.3b).4051 Likewise, Tiberius4052 and Vitellius expelled astrologers,4053 as did Domitian.4054 Although a specific incident may have provoked the expulsion of Jewish people, as Suetonius indicates, the general backdrop of xenophobia may have contributed to the climate that allowed it.4055 iii. Expelled or Restricted? Suetonius versus Dio Cassius (18:2)

Dio Cassius claims that Claudius merely forbade Jews to assemble (Dio Cass. 60.6.6b), but this claim does not necessarily call Suetonius’s earlier description into question. Although Dio is treated more fully below (on the question of the edict’s date), a few observations should be made at this point. First, Suetonius and Acts are significantly earlier than Dio (with Acts being the earliest, though the least complete source) and hence preferable in terms of proximity to the events described. Second, it is hard to explain how Suetonius and Luke both speak of an expulsion, undoubtedly independently, if none occurred.4056 Third, it is not clear—and, on the whole, unlikely—that Dio addresses the same event as Suetonius, especially given the broader pattern of restrictions on Jews and other foreign “superstitions” in Rome noted above. (For the probability that Suetonius and Dio refer to separate incidents, see the discussion below concerning the edict’s date.) Finally, if Dio and Suetonius do refer to the same event, which Dio has nuanced on the basis of other sources no longer extant, restriction on Jewish meetings would constitute a de facto expulsion for some Jews, who would hardly abandon long-standing synagogue customs on their Sabbaths. Many who were able to do so would undoubtedly prefer to “take the hint” of being unwelcome and emigrate.4057 The poverty of many Roman Jews would have made emigration difficult for many, in any case, but some might have felt they had no choice; others might simply meet as smaller groups of families until Roman interest in the matter cooled. (1) Who Was Expelled?

A persistent debate in scholarship is the extent of the expulsion. Some doubt that all Jews were expelled, because they harmonize Suetonius with Dio; others (with perhaps better reason) doubt that all the community was expelled, for logistical reasons. 4049. Ibid., 105–7 (citing Tac. Ann. 11.4; 12.1.2; 12.22, 52, 59). 4050. E.g., Petron. Sat. 16–26; Plut. Superst. 2, Mor. 166A–B; Juv. Sat. 3.62 (on Juvenal in general in this regard, cf. Reekmans, “Views,” 125); Jos. Ant. 18.64–80. The prejudices were also against Judaism; e.g., Plut. Table 4.6.1–2, Mor. 671C–672C; Superst. 8, Mor. 169C; Juv. Sat. 14.100–103; Tac. Hist. 2.4; 5.5; Suet. Aug. 93; Tib. 36; Pers. Sat. 5.179–84. The prejudices were far harsher, however, in an earlier period (e.g., Livy 25.1.11–12; 39.15.2–3; 39.18.9; Val. Max. 1.3.2–4). 4051. Lake, “Chronology,” 460 (though emphasizing that Suetonius is explicit in citing a specific incident). 4052. Suet. Tib. 36. 4053. Tac. Hist. 2.62; Suet. Vit. 14.4. 4054. Suet. Dom. 15; cf. Euseb. Chron. 93–95 in Reicke, Era, 293. Such expulsions of astrologers had early precedent, as far back as the second century b.c.e. (Val. Max. 1.3.3); on the persecution of astrologers, see further MacMullen, Enemies, 133; Friedländer, Life, 1:185; Robinson, Criminal Law, 77. Emperors, of course, had reasons to mistrust groups who could undermine their power by predicting their demise. 4055. Noted, e.g., by Soramuzza, “Policy,” 296. 4056. See here Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 305. 4057. Riesner, Early Period, 170.

2701

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 405

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

With estimates of perhaps forty to fifty thousand Jews in Rome, their departure would represent a significant exodus.4058 This logistical problem is not decisive, because the situation was no different in the time of Tiberius. Whether the entire community heeded the emperor’s edict is a separate question from what the emperor’s edict decreed. Yet certainly not all Jews in Rome were expected to leave (probably in either period), despite summary statements in Luke and Suetonius: at the least, Roman citizens, who constituted one of Rome’s Jewish communities, were not expelled.4059 Only peregrini could be legally expelled without trial; by this period, many Jews were citizens, descended from freed Roman slaves.4060 Moreover, the army’s leaders did not always enforce expulsions or enforce them thoroughly; expulsions could thus prove haphazard.4061 Suetonius’s claim is ambiguous enough to admit two different interpretations: Claudius expelled “the Jews who were making regular disturbances.” Does this claim refer to all the Jews as making disturbances and hence being expelled as a community? Or might it refer to the expulsion only of the particular Jews causing the unrest?4062 On the basis of the incidental agreement with Acts 18 (which must be dated before Suetonius yet cannot be the latter’s source), a general expulsion would seem likelier.4063 But even a general expulsion need not involve every member of the Jewish community, given Luke’s sometimes hyperbolic use of “all” outside theological affirmations (e.g., Acts 1:1, 18; 2:5, 14; 19:10; 26:4).4064 The question of the expulsion’s extent thus remains open. Some scholars suggest that Claudius issued an expulsion order like Tiberius’s and then, in view of its evident impracticability, amended the order to an embargo on meetings; by this time, some (like Prisca and Aquila) had already left. 4065 This proposal harmonizes Dio and Suetonius, but probably at the expense of both: why would Dio emphasize that Claudius did not expel them (without mentioning that he almost did), or Suetonius focus on an expulsion that was quickly rescinded rather than the restrictions more easily enforced? Many argue that only part of the Jewish community was expelled or at least only part of them left.4066 These are essentially distinct questions: the emperor could issue 4058. For this number in the early empire, see, e.g., Clarke, “Italy,” 466; Das, Paul and Jews, 56; Leon, Jews of Rome, 135–36. Others estimate thirty to forty thousand (e.g., Cullmann, Peter, 79); at least thirty thousand (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 295); but Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170, counted even his own lower estimate of thirty thousand daunting for an exodus. 4059. Philo Embassy 157 (although addressing a period before Claudius’s reign); cf. Tac. Ann. 2.85.4. Some think that Philo Embassy 157 might respond to Claudius’s expulsion by comparing Augustus’s greater favor (Watson, Gentiles, 172–73); this is possible, but while Philo was active ca. 40 c.e., we cannot be certain that he remained active politically as late as 49. 4060. Riesner, Early Period, 151, 199. 4061. Das, Paul and Jews, 56 (citing Tac. Ann. 1.22; he notes that the expulsion in 12.52 proved “impotent”); idem, Debate, 162–67, esp. here 164. The silence of Tacitus and especially Josephus are inexplicable for a fullscale expulsion (Debate, 163–64, though the Tiberian expulsion he notes included a significant military draft). 4062. Noted, e.g., by Soramuzza, “Policy,” 296; Lane, Hebrews, lxiv–lxv, favoring the partial expulsion only. Nanos, Mystery, 376–77, even suggests limiting the effects to a single house meeting or synagogue (though it seems unlikely that historians would have then mentioned it); he notes (375–76) Acts 28:22, but see comment there. Some of Nanos’s objections are reasonable, but they are also necessary to maintain his thesis that Gentile Christians remained in the synagogues and were to submit to their expectations for righteous Gentiles (289–336), which most do not find the most persuasive reading of the evidence. 4063. Leon, Jews of Rome, 24, takes this factor into consideration, though he ultimately concludes (27) that Luke’s “all” is an error. 4064. Jewett, Chronology, 37; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620; cf. Hoerber, “Decree of Claudius,” who applies it only to the leaders. Generally, the hyperbole appears intended as obvious and not potentially misleading, but it is possible that Luke might have considered this such an obvious case. 4065. Stern, “Diaspora,” 180–82, esp. 182. 4066. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170; Rutgers, “Policy,” 106; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 136.

2702

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 406

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

an edict that everyone should leave, without everyone obeying the edict (or even anyone expecting that everyone would). Certainly not all Jews would have left, though many advocates of this position suggest that only ringleaders of the disturbances were expelled, which is less certain. Perhaps the debate infected only a few synagogues, requiring their members to leave until matters had quieted down.4067 Rome’s Jewish community was divided into several synagogues, and it is unlikely that unrest would have infected all of them.4068 Still, an emperor far removed from their situation might have lumped the entire community together; on Josephus’s reading (admittedly disputed), Tiberius expelled the Jewish community particularly over the behavior of one individual. As noted, many argue that the expulsion targeted (or was at least enforced against only) ringleaders,4069 especially or exclusively Jewish Christians or their leaders, who were advocating for the “Christ” (on this sense of “Chrestus,” see discussion below).4070 If Christians were targeted as a Jewish sect, this might include any Gentiles who may have joined, since Romans reckoned converts to Jewish lifestyle as Jewish (Dio Cass. 37.17.1);4071 early Gentile Christians also recognized that they were converting to a historically Jewish faith.4072 (Their lack of circumcision probably would have protected them; certainly, uncircumcised Roman citizens would not be expelled. But questions of requirements for converts, only recently publicly debated in the Jesus movement even in Jerusalem, would probably not be settled among Jesus’s followers in Rome, nor would Roman officials have cared for the details of such discussions.) Yet Suetonius’s probable confusion regarding “Chrestus” may not have been his own (since Christians were well known in his own day);4073 in 49 c.e. most Romans probably could not distinguish Christians from other Jews and proselytes (in contrast to 64 c.e.). Thus it is possible that anyone associated with the disturbances would have been expelled.4074 Modern reluctance to accept ancient reports about large events need not play a part in our discussion here.4075 It is not modern assumptions but the fact of inscriptions attesting the Jewish community’s continuous presence in Rome that renders a total expulsion, or at least a wholesale emigration, unlikely. This does not mean that only 4067. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 204. 4068. Lane, Hebrews, lxv. 4069. Knox, Jerusalem, 255; Das, Paul and Jews, 58; Jewett, Romans, 60; “trouble makers” in Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 306. Perhaps the minority who attacked Jewish believers were expelled (Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 81). 4070. Haenchen, Acts, 538; Leon, Jews of Rome, 27; Jewett, Chronology, 37; Rutgers, “Policy,” 126; Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 206. 4071. Walters, “Impact,” 177. No one would have enforced an expulsion against God-fearers (and hence Gentile Christians); see Das, Debate, 171–81. 4072. I have elsewhere argued that this remained mostly true even half a century later (cf. Keener, John, 214–16, 223–28), though my perspective probably remains a minority position. 4073. Suetonius speaks of Nero’s suppression of Christians, a “new” superstition, in Nero 16.2 (cf. greater detail on probably the same matter in Tac. Ann. 15.44). But while Suetonius and his source for those events knew Christians as a discrete group, their identity would have been less understood to sources in Claudius’s reign. Given what we know about Judaism, however, it is plausible that the events behind the source refer to followers of one “Christ,” likely Jesus. 4074. Bacchiocchi, “Rome and Christianity,” thinks that Romans managed to distinguish nonpolitical Christianity from political Jewish messianic movements until the middle of Nero’s reign (ca. 62). 4075. Whatever other grounds may be offered for thinking Suetonius’s claim an overstatement, modern skepticism that wholesale expulsions of populations can take place should be dismissed from consideration. Modern Western reluctance to believe fellow humans capable of ethnic or religious oppression often produces revisionist interpretations, but such historical naiveté founders on the much worse atrocities of the twentieth and (so far) twenty-first centuries. A history of subsequent pogroms against Jewish people, as well as massive cross-migration or genocide during severe ethnic conflicts in Turkey and Greece (in the early twentieth century), modern Africa, the Balkans, Indonesia, and elsewhere, render massive emigration plausible in principle, whether or not we conclude that it occurred in this case.

2703

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 407

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

a few people left, however, because Jewish life continued in Rome under Tiberius’s expulsion no less than Claudius’s.4076 Still, Claudius’s expulsion was probably less sweeping or effective than Tiberius’s, for Josephus and Dio Cassius, both explicit about Tiberius’s expulsion, remain silent about that of Claudius.4077 A general ban might be decreed yet not be entirely effective. Thus the senate’s ban against astrologers proved ineffectual (Tac. Ann. 12.52).4078 A ban against Jewish residents could be more generally enforced than against astrologers, since it was known in what sections the majority of Jewish residents lived whereas astrologers would be scattered throughout the city. The point, however, remains that at least some Jews and perhaps very many could have remained, with Roman administrators loath to try to enforce the edict forcibly so long as they remained quiet. It is hard to imagine that the Jewish sections (known from archaeology) remained deserted after their absence, yet it is even more inconceivable that Jews recovered their property after returning if it had been seized by others; therefore it is unlikely that all would have left, despite the edict. (2) Probably Some More than Ringleaders

Though not all Jews would have left (certainly, Roman citizens would not have done so), probably a larger number were expelled than is often assumed.4079 If an expulsion under Tiberius, why not under Claudius? Suetonius certainly did not derive the idea from Luke, and Luke wrote too early to have obtained it from Suetonius. Nevertheless, we need not press their claims fully; we must allow for the exaggerated nature of Suetonius’s and Luke’s summaries instead of insisting that all Jewish people were forced to leave Rome. Further, even the revoking of the validity of residence permits would not automatically geographically expel all residents; many foreigners inhabited Rome without such permits. An alternative position is also plausible, one that retains the mutual confirmation between Suetonius (read as referring to the leading troublemakers) and Luke. Given his commitment to positive precedents in his apologetic history, Luke had good reason to omit the cause of the expulsion from Rome (if Christians were involved; see discussion below on “Chrestus”),4080 and if most of those expelled were Jewish Christians, he had reason to omit this as well. If only Jewish Christian leaders were expelled, as some scholars think, then Aquila and Priscilla were already involved in the movement before Paul met them.4081 In that case, they must have arrived only shortly before Paul (with an expulsion in 49 c.e.), given Paul’s role in founding the Corinthian church (1 Cor 4:15; 16:15). Since, however, Luke’s most hyperbolic uses of “all” are usually more obvious (they at least mean very many), he probably intends a larger segment of Rome’s Jewish 4076. For discussion of the evidence, see Frey in CIJ 1:lxxiii. 4077. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 80. One could respond that reporting the more recent occasion would not fit Josephus’s purposes, but Josephus is hardly Dio’s only source. Moreover, Josephus’s audience remained within living memory of 49 c.e., less than half a century earlier. 4078. See Walters, “Impact,” 177n11. 4079. Riesner, Early Period, 199–200. Das, Paul and Jews, 64, makes a case that Paul’s audience in Romans is Gentile (Rom 1:5–6, 13), hence that apparently all Jewish believers in Jesus were expelled; but the Jewish believers cannot remain gone when Paul writes (16:3, 7, 11). Haacker, Theology, 13, notes that in the context in Suetonius, entire groups were expelled; he also suggests (13–14) that Rom 1:8 might allude to the event (but here cf. 1 Thess 1:8; news of Christians even in the capital would encourage other Christians and would spread). 4080. Cf. Watson, Gentiles, 169, who suggests that Luke’s hyperbole “all the Jews” and his initial failure to specify Aquila and Priscilla as Christians may fit his apologetic suppression of the same cause noted in Suetonius. 4081. Haenchen, Acts, 538. Lightfoot sees Priscilla and Aquila as possibly “among those for whom the edict was directly intended” (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:2, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]).

2704

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 408

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

community than simply the Christian leaders; the group of Christian leaders in 49 c.e. (and all the more in 41) was probably also too few for Suetonius to have taken note of their expulsion. And so, although the expulsion may not have been complete and Luke may have reason for not specifying its cause, it probably included a significant number of people. How these were ferreted out from the others we can only guess, though certainly anyone specifically suspected of being involved in the unrest would be included.4082 Others may have chosen whether or not to risk personal compliance with, or defiance of, a general order, if such was issued; perhaps many chose to ignore an order not likely to be enforced, but significant leaders (including Jewish followers of Jesus) would be too visible to remain. iv. Date of the Expulsion (18:2)

The later proposed date of the expulsion fits well with the time of Paul’s sojourn in Corinth (see discussion on that date at Acts 18:12–17). On the basis of his appearance before Gallio (Acts 18:12–17) and Gallio’s eighteen-month stay (18:11), some date Paul’s arrival in Corinth to early 50 c.e.4083 Others date Gallio’s arrival to 51 (most frequently) or even 52 (see introductory comment on the date at Acts 18:12–17); such variations shift the chronology only slightly. All of these dates would allow for Paul to meet Priscilla and Aquila soon after their expulsion from Italy. (1) Dio Cassius and 41 c.e.

Scholars generally date the expulsion to 49 c.e.,4084 but some suggest an earlier date, in 41 c.e.4085 This is because Dio Cassius mentions a restriction of Jewish meetings in Rome in 41 c.e. (Dio Cass. 60.6.6). Whether Dio and Suetonius refer to the same event, however, remains an open question. Certainly the Jewish community experienced multiple incidents of hostility in first-century Rome (as noted above), and so it seems plausible that Claudius, succeeding at an earlier restriction, would have imposed a second and more complete one later in his reign.4086 Some confusion arises because Dio Cassius describes Claudius’s restriction of the Roman Jewish community differently from Suetonius. He explicitly reports that Claudius did not expel them from the city, because this would have been too difficult to enforce given their numbers, but merely ordered them not to hold meetings.4087 His explicit claim that Claudius did not expel them seems meant to register his disagreement with the idea that Claudius did expel them. But with what is Dio contrasting this claim? He could be contradicting Suetonius’s claim (or a potential 4082. Perhaps they were members of the most involved synagogues, or religious spokespersons involved on either side of the debate, or most Christians and their open sympathizers. 4083. Jewett, Chronology, 99, estimates January/February 50; Schnabel, Missionary, 104, estimates February or March of 50. 4084. E.g., Nock, “Developments,” 500; Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 125–26; Howard, “Beginnings in Rome”; Slingerland, “Suetonius and Cassius Dio”; Porter, “Chronology,” 206; Bruce, Acts1, 343; Hoerber, “Decree of Claudius”; Reicke, Era, 205; Hengel, Acts and History, 108; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 458; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 78–82; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 11–16; Jewett, Romans, 18–20; Das, Debate, 158–61; Kruse, Romans, 1; Bird, “Romans,” 179. For this as the majority view, see also Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 9; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 73. 4085. E.g., Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 171–81 (identifying Suetonius’s and Luke’s reports with Dio despite some differences in each, p. 177); Pervo, Acts, 446; as a possibility, Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 491. Lightfoot suggests that it fits a number of measures in 52 c.e. (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:2, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]), but while these reveal the same xenophobic spirit, other chronological data now available (but not available to Lightfoot, though he was aware that Gallio may have become governor in 51; commentary on Acts 18:12) work against this date. 4086. With others; cf., e.g., Das, Debate, 167–71; Slingerland, “Suetonius and Cassius Dio.” A second expulsion in his reign, however, seems implausible (Das, Debate, 157). 4087. Dio Cass. 60.6.7; at the same time he disbanded clubs and taverns (60.6.7).

2705

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 409

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

misreading of that claim); or he could be contrasting this lack of expulsion with a later expulsion also reported by Suetonius (that section of Dio is no longer extant); or he could be contrasting the earlier expulsion under Tiberius that he has already recorded (57.18.5a).4088 The matter must be investigated for two reasons. First, although Dio cannot be preferred to Suetonius, who is earlier (and agrees with Acts, the earliest report), his apparent certainty must be taken into account and, if possible, explained. Second, Dio’s date for this disbanding of Jewish meetings is earlier than one might guess from Suetonius (and certainly than one would gather from Orosius Hist. 7.6.15). It is the date of Suetonius’s expulsion that would address when Aquila and Priscilla came to Corinth and how early Christians were involved in Rome’s Jewish community if Suetonius’s “Chrestus” is Christ. Because Dio claims that the Jews’ numbers were too great for wholesale expulsion in 41 c.e., it is possible to argue that their numbers would also be too great in 49. This inference, however, may be misleading. First, Dio makes a contrary statement in his earlier reference to Tiberius’s expulsion: their threatening numbers, in fact, served as a factor favoring their expulsion at that time (Dio Cass. 57.18.5). The numbers in Tiberius’s time were comparable.4089 Second, policies shift, and if the first expulsion proved ineffective, it might have generated a stronger policy; if effective, it might have reduced numbers sufficiently to make a wider expulsion more manageable. Finally, it remains debated (as noted above) whether even the expulsion generally dated to 49 was intended to be complete. The reports in Suetonius and Dio Cassius, however, are significantly different and hence probably report distinct events.4090 Since Dio Cassius explicitly denies an expulsion and Suetonius explicitly affirms it, they almost certainly talk about two different measures, though both may well reflect Claudius’s broader concern for Jewish unrest in Rome.4091 It is possible that Dio even spoke of the more extreme, separate expulsion of 49 c.e. later, as Suetonius did, but this section of Dio remains only in one of the brief epitomes of Dio by later authors, leaving unknown what Dio covered for the year 49.4092 Classicists and ancient historians (in contrast to some nt scholars) thus generally do not identify the two events.4093 (2) An Expulsion in 49 c.e.

Several factors support a date of 49 c.e., later in Claudius’s reign. None is completely compelling by itself, but together their support seems to make it likely. First, Orosius in the fifth century explicitly claims this date;4094 though we would certainly prefer Dio to Orosius if the two conflicted, it is likely (as already argued) that Dio refers to a distinct event. The problem with Orosius’s testimony is that he claims to base it 4088. For the view that it contrasts with Tiberius’s expulsion, see Slingerland, “Acts 18:1–17 and Lüdemann’s Chronology,” 689 (noting that Dio there employs the same verb); tentatively, Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 303–6, esp. 305–6. 4089. So also Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 134–35 (though he ultimately concludes that the expulsion was only partial). 4090. Riesner, Early Period, 179; Nock, “Developments,” 500; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620; Dunn, Romans, xlix; Watson, Gentiles, 171; Slingerland, “Acts 18:1–17 and Luedemann’s Chronology.” 4091. See also Hemer, Acts in History, 167; Fitzmyer, Acts, 620. 4092. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 620. Likewise, we do not have 41 c.e. in Tacitus, since the first six years of Claudius’s reign are missing there (Leon, Jews of Rome, 24). 4093. So Riesner, “Pauline Chronology,” 13 (citing Levick, Claudius, 121; Botermann, Judenedikt); Witherington, Acts, 540 (citing Benko, Rome and Christians, 18; Levick, Claudius, 121). 4094. Orosius dates the expulsion to the ninth year of Claudius’s reign ( January 25, 49 c.e., to January 24, 50 c.e.; Hist. 7.6.15). The event is also mentioned in the Teaching of Addai 7b–11a (in Syriac; McRay, Archaeology, 19). Some preachers confused details (see, e.g., Chrys. Rom. 30.2–3, Burns, Romans, 383).

2706

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 410

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

on Josephus, but our extant text of Josephus provides no such information.4095 Some scholars suggest that he depends on Julius Africanus. If his attribution is wrong,4096 his content might also be wrong; but that he committed the second error need not follow from his fallibility on the first point (especially if he was working from memory). Certainly he believes that he depends on an earlier source, and so, although his testimony must be employed with caution, it is more likely to be accurate than not if it corresponds with other data. Second, Acts, the earliest source, also suggests that the expulsion was recent.4097 Suetonius hardly depends on Acts, yet Acts is earlier (and hence not dependent on Suetonius); this provides independent mutual corroboration of pre-Lukan information. Paul was clearly in Corinth when Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in 51 c.e. (or 52 or 50),4098 and roughly eighteen months before that point, he began to stay with Aquila and Priscilla, who had “freshly” or “recently” come from Italy.4099 One should not press Luke’s “recently” so far as to suggest an earlier Pauline visit, nearer 41 c.e., if one were to conclude (which I did not) that the expulsion was in 41 c.e. Some do suggest such an earlier visit. One could suggest that Luke conflates two Pauline visits, one in 41 (after the expulsion) and the other in 49, thus naming two rulers of the synagogue (Acts 18:8, 17). Some scholars have argued that Luke has in fact conflated two visits.4100 Although their arguments are not by themselves implausible,4101 Occam’s razor argues that the simplest solution is the most probable, and the two-visits hypothesis is certainly not the simplest.4102 Seeking to place Paul in Corinth so early would be the least satisfactory solution.4103 But the voyage from Rome was not long, and even if the couple did not leave immediately after 4095. Josephus’s silence is not surprising. Although he mentions Tiberius’s expulsion, his account includes an apologetic perspective; if the Claudian expulsion was less thoroughgoing, he may have had apologetic reason not to emphasize it. The same apologist omits the golden-calf incident in Exodus. 4096. Slingerland, “Orosius’ Historiarum,” contends that Orosius invented the Josephus reference, so that any time between 42 and 54 c.e. would work (not 41, because Suetonius’s expulsion should not be identified with Dio’s account). Some argue that Orosius depends on Luke (cf. Leon, Jews of Rome, 24), but would Orosius know enough about Gallio’s accession to deliberately confirm a date in Acts not otherwise knowable? 4097. Hemer, Acts in History, 168. 4098. Lightfoot notes that from 15 to 44 c.e. the title “proconsul” would not have been appropriate in Corinth (citing Tac. Ann. 1.76; Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Cass. 60.29; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:12, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). 4099. On Italy, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 3.5.38–74; Italian citizens had been Roman citizens since the first century b.c.e. (Stambaugh, City, 93; Lintott, Romans, 101). But given the likely reach of Claudius’s edict, we should assume that this couple came specifically from Rome. 4100. E.g., Donfried, Thessalonica, 72, 99–117; Lüdemann’s and Slingerland’s views, summarized in Porter, “Chronology,” 206; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 9; Kreitzer, Corinthians, 15. Some suggest that Luke’s theological agenda leads to the conflation here (Donfried, Thessalonica, 72), but given what we observe of his historiography elsewhere (especially his interest in chronology, Luke 3:1), it is difficult to see how his chronology (of travel narratives after the Syrian ministry) is theologically motivated. Donfried, Thessalonica, 76–98, thinks that 1 Thessalonians reflects an “early Paul” distinct from his later letters, but one may grant this without assuming that about an additional eight years are necessary. 4101. Cf. similar but more plausible arguments for conflation in 2 Kgs 18–19 in Bright, History, 298–309 (cf. also Gordon, Near East, 237n3), though many disagree (e.g., Yamauchi, Stones, 77–78). 4102. The earlier visit hypothesis seems to me to prefer inference to the hard textual evidence of Acts’ chronology (which, as noted above, corresponds quite well with 1 Corinthians), and perhaps a desire to fill the events of years that Luke did not treat probably because Luke was historically cautious enough not to report material not in his sources. The most natural reading of Paul’s own chronology in Gal 1:17–2:1 (note esp. 1:21) is against this “early” ministry (pace Donfried, Thessalonica, 73). 4103. The two synagogue rulers mentioned above notwithstanding, there is no reason synagogues in some locations could not have had multiple leaders (see, e.g., Acts 13:15 and comment there; Brooten, Women Leaders, 27; Le Cornu, Acts, 1011), or Crispus might not have been forced to relinquish his position after joining a group already expelled from the synagogue (Acts 18:7–8). It is not impossible that Crispus is Sosthenes, though it is unlikely (requiring carelessness on Luke’s part, since he does not clarify their identification).

2707

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 411

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Claudius’s decree,4104 eight years in Corinth could not justify the use of προσφάτως by any stretch. The mutual corroboration of Suetonius and Acts concerning the event and the specification of the date in Acts, which lacks any purpose other than historical explanation of the couple’s recent arrival, is probably the strongest argument, once it is supported by arguments 1 and 3. Third, in the second half of his reign, in 47–52 c.e., Claudius became increasingly supportive of distinctly Roman religion at the expense of foreign cults and practices.4105 In 47, Claudius restored the college of Haruspices (Tac. Ann. 11.15); in 49–53, he banished some prominent people who had consulted astrologers: Lollia Paulina (49 c.e.), Furius Scribonianus (52), and Statilius Taurus (53; Ann. 12.22.1–2; 12.52.1; 12.59.1–2).4106 Thus it is probably later in Claudius’s reign, rather than earlier, that the expulsion occurs. After matters quieted down in Rome, many Jews probably began to return.4107 Although edicts were officially valid only during the issuing magistrate’s term of office,4108 most magistrates continued their predecessors’ precedents.4109 The matter was likely different after Claudius’s death; Jewish exiles might well recall that the senate repealed the acta of Claudius’s predecessor, Gaius Caligula, on Claudius’s accession in 41.4110 Nero mocked his stepfather, Claudius, and “disregarded many of his decrees and acts as the work of a madman.”4111 (The eventual pro-Jewish influence of Poppaea Sabina on Nero would have reduced still further any likelihood of reviving Claudius’s idea.) That we find Prisca and Aquila already back in Rome by the time of Paul’s later trip to Corinth (Rom 16:3–5) is not surprising.4112 v. Suetonius’s “Chrestus”

While listing Claudius’s treatment of various peoples and their envoys in Rome, Suetonius reports, “Since the Jews continually made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”4113 The most common view among scholars is that Suetonius includes a garbled reference at his source to the Jewish “Christ” 4104. A more significant delay would be needed; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 139, plausibly suggests that they left Rome after the edict but remained in Italy for several years before coming to Corinth (hence, “from Italy”). But then why mention Claudius’s edict? “Italy” included Rome (cf. Acts 27:1, 6; probably Heb 13:24). 4105. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 205–6; idem, Hebrews, lxv; Riesner, Early Period, 201; Witherington, Acts, 541. 4106. Lake, “Chronology,” 460; Le Cornu, Acts, 985. 4107. So, e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 170. 4108. A governor’s acts could be annulled by his conviction (Pliny E. N.H. 10.56.4; cf. Pliny Ep. 4.9); Jewish hearers might assume that rulers’ deaths could end their edicts or persecution (Tob 2:1; Exod 4:19). Rabbis in b. Taʿan. 29a apparently expected edicts to expire when magistrates died or left office (Katzoff, “Edicts and Ta‘anit”); an imperial decree is also annulled by the emperor’s death in b. Šabb. 33b. New emperors brought new opportunities: Dio Chrysostom, banished by Domitian, was welcomed by his successors (Or. 45.2–3); Pliny escaped trial by Domitian’s death (Ep. 7.27.14); Petronius escaped death by Caligula’s death ( Jos. War 2.203). 4109. See Nicholas, “Edict.” 4110. Suet. Claud. 11.3; see further Barrett, “Claudius, Gaius, and Kings.” This was so even though Claudius had kept the senate from blotting out Caligula’s memory (Balsdon and Levick, “Damnatio memoriae”). The senate went much further with Domitian, eradicating his memory (Suet. Dom. 23.1). 4111. Suet. Nero 33.1 (LCL, 2:141). Galba, in turn, revoked nearly all of Nero’s grants (Galba 15.1). 4112. Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:3 (CER 5:244–46) naturally infers that they returned as soon as the decree could no longer prevent them. Most scholars today treat the expulsion and return as a part (or likely part) of the background to Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians (e.g., Das, Paul and Jews, 53–61; idem, Debate, 51; Gorman, Apostle, 340–42; Álvarez Cineira, “Pasos”; Crafton, “Vision,” 323–25; Harrington, God’s People, 57; Dunn, Romans, 1:liii; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 78–82; Chilton, Approaches, 222–24; Moo, Romans, 5; Schreiner, Romans, 12–14, 797–98; Haacker, Theology, 13; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 35–41; Grieb, Romans, 7; Watson, Gentiles, 167–74), though some demur (e.g., Nanos, Mystery, 372–87). 4113. Suet. Claud. 25.4 (LCL, 2:53). In the same context, Claudius abolished Druid rites (25.5), which Suetonius and his source probably regard as similarly superstitious.

2708

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 412

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(whether or not Suetonius recognized it), whom he mistakenly thought to be in Rome personally.4114 How likely is this view? (1) A Different Messiah?

That “Chrestus” was the personal name of an otherwise unknown messianic figure or influential Jewish leader in Rome4115 is improbable from the start. Though “Chrestus” was a common slave name, it never appears among the more than five hundred extant names of Roman Jews.4116 Moreover, that Jewish debates about this figure led to expulsions from Rome suggests not purely academic discussion about an individual but messianic views about a leader that could be counted treasonous (see comment on Acts 17:7). For Jewish people, a key leader might be a royal, and hence messianic, contender, and the correlation between “Chrestus” and “Christos,” or “Messiah,” is therefore too close for coincidence.4117 It is possible that some other purported “Christ,” or messianic figure, was present in Rome, and not the Christian Messiah.4118 (On the meaning of messiahship, see the excursus on messiahship at Acts 2:36.)4119 In support of the possibility of a different messianic or revolutionary figure here, it can be argued that Suetonius knew the proper spelling of “Christus,” knew of Christians by his time, and should not have expected the Christians’ executed leader to be in Rome.4120 But did Suetonius know the details and chronology of the early Christian movement’s history, and hence whether Christus would be in Rome?4121 More important, Suetonius may have simply copied a source without recognizing, and hence correcting, its misinterpretation. He may well have employed “a contemporary police record,” and Suetonius is known for reproducing rather than evaluating his sources.4122 Other factors raise questions about the likelihood of an alternative messianic figure in Rome. The heart of the empire was a far less attractive place for Jewish revolutionaries than was Judea. Meanwhile, the Greek Χριστός, translating a Hebrew messianic title, applies quite frequently to Jesus; it also seems probably more than coincidence that the misnomer “Chrestus” elsewhere applies to Jesus. 4114. E.g., Nock, “Developments,” 500; Bowersock, Fiction as History, 119n55; Smallwood, Jews, 211 (“the only reasonable interpretation”); Mattingly, Christianity, 30; Howard, “Beginnings in Rome”; Sanders, Figure, 49–50; Brändle and Stegemann, “Formation,” 118; Riesner, Early Period, 162–66; Das, Debate, 150–58; idem, “Audience,” 41. More tentatively, Rutgers, “Policy,” 105–6; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 178–81. Jewett, Romans, 60, notes that “most historians” apply this passage to discussions about Jesus as the Christ. 4115. Judge, First Christians, 436–37, notes that it is “apt for a populist leader, being of servile associations, and also current amongst Jews”; but on the last point see below regarding the sample of inscriptions available in Leon’s day. 4116. Leon, Jews of Rome, 25n2. Jews sometimes adopted similar-sounding Roman names (CIJ 1:lxvii; see comment on Acts 13:9), but that would not apply in this case. “Christ” reflects not a personal name but a title, translated from Hebrew; no Hebrew personal name sounds like the Greek term transliterated into Latin sources as Chrestus. 4117. It should be clear, however, that I am not arguing that the original reading in Suetonius was “Christos”; this argument has been offered, but the textual history favors “Chrestus.” 4118. E.g., Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 99–100; Nanos, Mystery, 378–79. See, most extensively, Judge, First Christians, 445–47, citing especially (447) Roman Jewish resistance to calling Jesus “Christ”; but could this title not have come from Jesus’s followers? That Tacitus does not mention Christians before Ann. 15.44 (447–48) argues from silence, since we cannot expect Tacitus to narrate every event found in Suetonius, especially if the inherited account was garbled. Non-Christian agitators existed in Alexandria (448), but were these really messianic? A stronger argument (450) is lack of Roman Jewish knowledge in Acts 28:22; see comment there. 4119. Keener, Acts, 1:964–70. 4120. Benko, “Edict.” 4121. Tacitus did know, but we cannot be sure that Suetonius did. 4122. Lane, “Social Perspectives,” 204; idem, Hebrews, lxv; cf. Janne, “Impulsore Chresto,” 537–46, cited by Lane. Chrēstos would sound like Christos because of itacism, in which vowels and diphthongs could sound like i (Fitzmyer, Romans, 31).

2709

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 413

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

That it was the messianic title of another figure besides Jesus is possible, but as noted above, the title applies to Jesus more commonly than anyone else in our extant sources, especially by Suetonius’s time. Thus it remains possible even that Suetonius inconsistently applied the claim to Jesus.4123 If he had an unknown Chrestus in mind, one would expect him to introduce him as quodam Chresto, “a certain Chrestus,” following his own customary style; by 120 c.e., Suetonius would expect his audience to think of a particularly well-known Chrestus and his movement.4124 Whether or not Suetonius recognized that his source involved debates about Jesus, the majority of scholars concur that the most plausible reconstruction of the situation he reports does involve such debates. (2) The “Chrestus” of the Chrestians

Christians’ early critics often substituted the more intelligible “Chrestus” for “Christus” and “Chrestians” for “Christians.”4125 Early Christian apologists sometimes adapted the titles positively, as they had earlier embraced the derogatory label “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16):4126 “We are derided as ‘Christians,’ but to despise what is excellent [Chrestian] is improper” ( Justin 1 Apol. 4). The Greek term χριστός made for an unusual name in Greek (meaning something like “anointed” in medicine or “plastered” in construction language); Greeks did, however, make good use of the similar-sounding χρηστός (“useful”), especially as a slave name.4127 Gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish terminology might then hear “Christos” as “Chrestus,” confusing Suetonius’s source. It is thus possible that Jewish followers of Jesus began enthusiastically announcing Christ to their fellow Jews in Rome in this period, which led to some equally vigorous responses, and that sometimes the controversy became sufficiently out of hand even to invite local police intervention.4128 One hostile source from late antiquity suggests that the “Jewish law” came to Rome during or soon after Caligula’s reign (March of 37 to January of 41); since this cannot refer to the original Jewish settlement (as early as the late second century b.c.e.), it may refer to what became the most widely known Jewish sect of the source’s period.4129 Why, one might ask, does Luke not corroborate the cause cited in Suetonius’s account if in fact Suetonius provides early evidence for vocal Christians in Rome?4130 But we should remember that Luke is an apologist, and the portrait of Christians in Suetonius’s source would hardly appear flattering to those who respected Roman 4123. As many scholars can testify, writers of long works sometimes forget details of what they wrote in different parts of the work. 4124. Leon, Jews of Rome, 25–26 (suggesting that Suetonius wrongly thought Christ there in person); Rolfe in Suetonius, LCL, 2:52 n. a. 4125. Mattingly, Christianity, 30; Leon, Jews of Rome, 25; Harris, “References,” 353–54. Cf. the confusion in PGM 4.1234, “Jesus Chrestos” (Betz, Magical Papyri, 62n168: “excellent one” rather than “anointed one”). 4126. See, e.g., Tert. Apol. 3.5; Lact. Div. Inst. 4.7; even Codex Sinaiticus (‫ )א‬at Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16 (Lane, Hebrews, lxv; Das, Paul and Jews, 54). 4127. Harris, “References,” 353; Hengel, Acts and History, 106. For the personal name, see, e.g., Mart. Epig. 9.27.1, 14. 4128. Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 36, suggests that the specific triggering event attracting Roman attention was the expulsion of Jewish followers of Jesus from the synagogues. This is more plausible than most alternatives, but why would Claudius care about this internal action? Scourgings (cf. Matt 10:17) of members who proved to be Roman citizens would catch Rome’s attention, but Roman synagogues may not have risked this (though some in the East did, 2 Cor 11:24). 4129. Hengel, Acts and History, 108, citing a report, reportedly from Porphyry’s anti-Christian work, in Aug. Ep. 102.8. 4130. Judge, First Christians, 449. It cannot be answered that Luke wishes to avoid the impression that Christians lived in Rome before Paul (Acts 28:15; cf. 2:10), whatever he may or may not have believed about Paul’s adding an “apostolic foundation” (cf. Rom 15:20, in the view summarized in Klein, “Purpose,” 48).

2710

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 414

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

order. If Christians were part of the debate that stirred some unrest (perhaps provoking intra-Jewish violence in some cases), then mentioning them would not help Luke’s portrait or would at least require the explanation that the Christians were not the provocateurs of the discord (cf. Acts 18:12–15; 19:37, 40; 24:5; Luke 23:2), an explanation that could distract from his focus on Paul. An imperial edict expelling them (along with other Jews involved in the controversy) would not contribute to his positive precedents. vi. Aquila and Priscilla

Most commentators infer from either Claudius’s expulsion order or Luke’s silence about Paul converting them that Aquila and Priscilla were already followers of Christ before they came to Corinth.4131 This is a reasonable assumption, though it is not completely certain. Luke’s silence about the couple’s faith, in contrast to Luke’s explicit statement that Paul stayed with them because of their shared occupation, seems strange if they were already believers. Perhaps Luke’s silence stems mainly from his need to abridge a great deal of material. In any case, Paul’s role in founding the Corinthian church (1 Cor 4:15) need not imply that he was the first Christian in Corinth.4132 (1) Aquila and Rome?

Although Aquila lived in Rome and migrated to a Roman colony, we cannot be sure that he was a Roman citizen. In favor of the couple’s Roman citizenship are their names.4133 Aquila’s recorded name was a reasonably respectable Roman one,4134 and he could have been a freedman of the gens Acilia4135 (though this would be more easily explained in Rome than in Pontus). “Priscilla” was a common name (e.g., Statius Silv. 5.1.3), but she could have been a freedwoman from the gens Prisca.4136 Paul employs the formal “Prisca” (as he also uses the formal “Silvanus”) whereas Luke employs the more informal forms “Priscilla” and “Silas.”4137 Against their citizenship, it is very improbable that Roman citizens would have been subject to the expulsion order, Jewish or not (Acts 18:2).4138 When Tiberius wished to expel even Roman citizens, he went further than a normal expulsion by drafting them for military service.4139 Many Greek-speaking as well as Latin-speaking 4131. Haenchen, Acts, 538; Conzelmann, Acts, 151; Marshall, Acts, 293; Johnson, Acts, 322; Dunn, Romans, 891; Das, Debate, 155–56 (noting Luke’s same redactional tendency also in Acts 18:19–21, 26). Travelers from other parts of the empire might often end up in Corinth, but they far more often ended up in Rome (2:10; cf. the believers whom Paul knows in Rome before arriving, in Rom 16:3–16, which I take to be genuinely addressed to Rome). For further discussion of the couple, see, e.g., Müller, “Priska”; Rakocy, “Akwila.” 4132. With Conzelmann, Acts, 151. 4133. As cognomens, “Aquila” and “Prisca” both suggest citizenship ( Judge, First Christians, 562). 4134. Judge, Rank, 36n20 (ranking it after “Paul,” “Niger,” and “Silvanus” but before such Pauline names as “Fortunatus” and “Clement”). Cf., e.g., Aquilius Niger in Suet. Aug. 11; Publius Accius Aquila in Pliny Ep. 10.106; Antoninus Aquila in Fronto Ad am. 1.7; M. Acilius Glabrio in Val. Max. 2.5.1 (Bailey in LCL, 1:160n1, cites also Livy 40.34.5–6; Amm. Marc. 14.6.8); see further discussions in Mountford and Winterbottom, “Aquila Romanus”; Campbell, “Aquilius Regulus”; Badian, “Aquilius Manius”; Honoré, “Aquil(l)ius Gallus.” Elvers et al., “Acilius,” list thirteen significant bearers of this name in the republic (99–100) and eleven in the empire (101). The name means “eagle.” 4135. So, e.g., Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 120. This plebeian gens can be verified from the third century b.c.e. (Elvers et al., “Acilius,” 99). 4136. Bruce, Commentary, 369 (suggesting this as a possible reason for her apparently higher status than Aquila); Witherington, Acts, 539. Murphy-O’Connor, “Prisca,” suggests that both might be freedpersons of the same household. 4137. Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207. “Prisca” means “ancient.” 4138. Concurring with Barrett, Acts, 861. That they would have left because others did so is possible, but this conclusion diminishes the likelihood that Luke would give the expulsion order as grounds for their emigration. 4139. Judge, First Christians, 444, citing Tac. Ann. 2.85.4; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.3.4–5; maybe Suet. Tib. 36.

2711

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 415

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Jews in Rome had Roman names,4140 and so, even though Aquila, at least, hailed from outside Rome (we cannot know about Priscilla),4141 we should not infer citizenship necessarily from the name. It thus does not seem clear that both Aquila and Prisca must have been freedpersons and Roman citizens; and if only one (at most) was a citizen, it seems safe to presume that they would leave together. If they were both citizens, they probably left Rome voluntarily, alongside others among whom they ministered, rather than being compelled by the decree. Further, they could have been targeted even as citizens if they were known to be leaders. Nevertheless, on the whole, their departure might count somewhat more against the assumption that both were citizens, unless countervailing factors supporting that assumption (as ringleaders they could be expelled anyway) prove more compelling. (2) The Couple’s Travel

Why had the couple settled specifically in Corinth? One factor may be the Roman connection, even if they were not Roman citizens. That they later returned to Rome when able to do so (Rom 16:3) suggests their Roman interests. The Roman element was far more dominant in Corinth than anywhere else in Greece and also appears conspicuous in the church Paul founded there.4142 But given the dominance of Greek among Roman Jews who were not Roman citizens,4143 we dare not infer that they migrated to Corinth because of its linguistically Latin elements; the couple’s Latin may also have been limited (though their exposure to it may have exceeded that of a citizen with more limited experience of Rome, such as Paul). A more important factor may be the likelihood that Corinth held Achaia’s most significant Jewish population.4144 Aquila was from Pontus, a region that Luke mentions elsewhere (Acts 2:9) but on which he does not elaborate further.4145 Even from a skeptical standpoint, there is no reason to doubt Luke’s information here, which he has no reason to report apart from believing it to be true (Pontus is neither important to his narrative nor a particularly high-status location). None of our earliest Christian sources suggest that Aquila, widely traveled as he was, himself returned to Pontus to spread the gospel. (“Of Pontus” apparently simply identifies his place of origin, like “Saul of Tarsus” or “Joseph of Arimathea” [Luke 23:50–51].) But the gospel apparently did spread there in a relatively early period (1 Pet 1:1). Pontus was also closely connected with Bithynia and probably shared in the spread of Christianity attested there in an extant early source (Pliny Ep. 10.96–97, esp. 10.96.5, 9, 10).4146 In about the same period (the early second century), a religious charlatan is said to complain that too many 4140. Meeks, Urban Christians, 59. 4141. The Julio-Claudian era saw a massive influx of immigrants into the capital as traders, teachers, etc. (Stambaugh, City, 90–91). 4142. Eight of the seventeen names known to us from that church are Latin (Theissen, Setting, 99; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76); this would not make all of them Roman citizens, but it suggests a higher proportion than usual in eastern Mediterranean churches. 4143. E.g., Leon, Jews of Rome, 75–92; Noy, “Writing”; Stambaugh, City, 95. 4144. Stern, “Diaspora,” 159. 4145. The term γένος more commonly designates one’s “people” (as in Acts 13:26; Mark 7:26; 1 Pet 2:9; Tob 1:16; Jdt 9:14; 16:17; 2 Macc 8:9; 3 Macc 6:4, 9, 13; Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 44.33) but can also represent the location of one’s place of citizenship by birth (Acts 4:36), including in this context (18:24). 4146. Presumably, Luke refers to the Roman province of Bithynia-Pontus rather than simply the region (Witherington, Acts, 538n277). Western Pontus was joined to Bithynia in the first century b.c.e.; Nero later joined part of Pontus to Galatia in 64 c.e. (Olshausen, “Pontus,” 608). Pliny the Younger dealt with Pontic affairs as well as Bithynian, e.g., Ep. 10.75.1, 92, 93, 108.1, 110.1, 112.1; see comments in, e.g., Radice, “Introduction,” 15, 18. Persians and then Macedonians divided Pontus from Cappadocia, of which it was formerly a part (Strabo 12.1.4). On Pontus, see further Olshausen, “Pontus”; Broughton and Mitchell, “Pontus.”

2712

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 416

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Christians live in Pontus, especially the city Amastris (Lucian Alex. 25).4147 Although one writer later protests that only seventeen Christians lived in central Pontus at one point in the third century,4148 this report is probably not accurate. Demetrius bishop of Corinth disagreed with the bishop there,4149 indicating continuing communication between the regions. (3) Priscilla and Women Artisans

Paul once and Luke twice (out of three times) refers to Prisca before her husband.4150 Normally the husband was named first unless the wife was of higher social status.4151 Since Luke and Paul write for Christians, she may have exercised a higher status in the Christian community or in their ministry. 4152 We cannot say for certain in which circles the higher status applied, but it was at least known and respected in the church. Priscilla shared Aquila’s occupation (otherwise Luke lacked reason to use the plural in Acts 18:3). We have evidence for women (including Jewish women) as merchants, traders,4153 and artisans4154 in the eastern empire. (These were not, of course, aristocratic women,4155 but only a tiny percentage of people in antiquity belonged to the true elite. Peasant women must have also been very active in rural agrarian labor, where many hands were necessary,4156 though texts that focus on larger estates stress men.)4157 The range of occupations open to women was narrower than that open to men, but it was nevertheless somewhat diverse, including both specifically “female” occupations, such as “hairdressers,”4158 and occupations open to both genders, such 4147. Grant, Paul, 58–59 (also noting an inscription criticizing religious charlatans there). Lucian Alex. 17 considered Pontus (or at least rural Pontus) uneducated and gullible. 4148. Basil Holy Sp. (Pruche, 511–13); but Grant, Paul, 59, who cites this, seems skeptical. 4149. Euseb. H.E. 4.23 (Grant, Paul, 59). 4150. I believe that the traditional prejudice that Paul (applied especially to some of the Pauline letters) was misogynist reflects more his abuse by subsequent interpreters than a proper understanding of Paul in his first-century setting (so, e.g., Belleville, Leaders; Keener, Paul; idem, “Subversive Conservative”; Dodd, Problem; Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee, Equality; for relevant hermeneutical explorations, see, e.g., Webb, Slaves). That Paul resented marriage is also unlikely (see 1 Cor 7:2–6, 9–16), though he apparently valued singleness more highly for those gifted for it (7:7–8, 25–35; cf. Keener, Marries, 78–81). 4151. Meeks, Urban Christians, 20, 59 (following Flory, “Family”); Flory, “Where Women Precede Men”; cf. MacMullen, “Women in Public,” 210; Bruce, Commentary, 369; Matera, Romans, 340. Sequence of names also mattered to Tannaim (Mek. Pisha 1.17–34). Men sometimes married powerful women to advance their careers (e.g., Tac. Agr. 6; cf. 1 Sam 17:25), but many warned against the dangers of marrying a wealthier wife (Aeschylus Prom. 887–93, 901–2; Callim. Epig. 1; Sen. E. Controv. 1.6.5, 7; Ps.-Phoc. 199–200; Tg. Šeni on Esth 1:16; see comment on Acts 5:1–2). 4152. Cf., e.g., Fee, Timothy, 249–50; Shillington, Introduction, 120–21; perhaps Nicholas of Lyra on Rom 16:3 (Levy, Krey, and Ryan, Romans, 293). Aune, Revelation, 203, regards her as a teacher and missionary. 4153. See Arlandson, Women, 73–82; Winter, Wives, 174–76. Some women apparently learned trades under women apprentices (Minnen, “Women”). 4154. Arlandson, Women, 82–91; Reden, “Work,” 743 (and esp. as sellers); Ascough, Lydia, 71–75. Gardner, Women, 239, is more confident of women’s retailing than of their producing crafts. We lack evidence of their participation in professional or craft guilds (in contrast to religious associations; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 201). Also other occupations (in, e.g., music, see Harmon, “Musicians”). Clearly the traditional elite Hellenistic notion of separate spheres for men and women is at best attenuated in such circumstances (cf., e.g., summary and sources in Keener, Paul, 22–24). 4155. King, “Women,” 1624, associates them especially with the lower class. 4156. Scheidel, “Women.” 4157. Greeks viewed as unusual the Ligurian practice of women working in the fields (Diod. Sic. 4.20); Israelites may have done so outside their own land especially under duress (Ruth 2:2–7), perhaps for safety reasons (Ruth 2:9), but it was safer among kin (Song 1:6). Cf. the woman receiving wages for carrying olives in P.Fay. 91 (99 c.e.). Women could also watch sheep, though again not normally mixing with large numbers of men (Longus 3.25; Gen 29:9; Exod 2:16–17; Song 1:7–8). 4158. This was not an ignoble profession (ILS 9727; 9730; 9732 in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 170), but probably because of the role of hair in seduction (Keener, Paul, 29, 53), later rabbis may have sought to degrade

2713

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 417

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

as physicians (of whom the majority of women were midwives)4159 and involvement in business.4160 In one analysis of Roman funerary inscriptions (relevant for Roman Corinth), although women were absent in construction, banking, and transportation, they constituted 47 percent of skilled service, 27 percent of domestic service, 15 percent of those involved in manufacturing, 8 percent of sales, and 3 percent of those involved in administration.4161 A woman’s being the sole wage earner, however, was not considered ideal economically.4162 Most women artisans performed their services “in small shops or in the home”; in the shops, “the traditional boundaries between men and women became more permeable, thus offering a little more freedom to women.”4163 They undoubtedly worked alongside their husbands in smaller shops, and we also have documentation for women owning workshops.4164 Some Eastern cities may have forbidden women to work in shops or be involved in business in the market,4165 but in most cities, economics probably drove behavior more than did ideal mores. Women engaged particularly in “humbler crafts, especially textile production.”4166 There is epigraphic evidence for women working leather (sutrices); they cut and sewed it, perhaps for shoes.4167 That Luke presents both Priscilla and Aquila as engaged in this trade is clear from his mention of “their” trade.4168 vii. Economic Status and Housing

New Testament evidence is not sufficient to provide a definite picture of Aquila and Priscilla’s economic status, but it is possible to offer some reasonable guesses. These guesses, in turn, will help us form an idea of the sort of housing in which Luke’s audience would have envisioned Paul joining them. (1) Successful among “Poor” Artisans

Most artisans even in wealthier regions such as Asia Minor were too poor to acquire land, though this couple was better off than many (see comment below). Women typically earned much less than men,4169 but such division would not be as relevant for a husband-and-wife team. (A husband and a wife could enter a societas, a business partnership, even if in some cases the wife contributed only money.)4170 Meeks suggests that this couple’s background is economically low to middle, their occupation low but not extremely low, and their wealth relatively high on the basis Jesus’s mother by making this her profession (Herford, Christianity, 40–41). Hairdressers apparently catered especially to people of means (Ilan, Women, 188). 4159. See the discussion of physicians, including the balance of genders, in the commentary introduction, Keener, Acts, 1:416–22, esp. 419. 4160. For the range of occupations open to women, see Lindner, “Frau”; Saller, “Women,” 193–94. 4161. Saller, “Women,” 194 (based on Sandra R. Joshel’s study from CIL 6). If either men or women were more likely to report an occupation than the other gender, the samples would not be representative, but this seems unlikely. 4162. A wife might need to work especially if a husband was incapacitated (Tob 2:10–11; cf. Sitis in Test. Job 21:2–22:2). Traditionally, a woman unable to make enough by weaving, despite frugality (Terence Andr. 73–74), might become a courtesan (Andr. 75–79). 4163. Arlandson, Women, 91. 4164. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744. 4165. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 364.2–5. 4166. Spawforth, “Artisans” (citing, e.g., IG 22.1553–78); Pekridou-Gorecki, “Textiles,” 345. 4167. Reimer, Women, 205. 4168. We need not appeal to the probably weaker textual evidence for “they worked,” as Reimer, Women, 203–4, does (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 461), to reach this conclusion, since “he worked” refers to Paul and leaves open the role of his hosts. 4169. Arlandson, Women, 91. 4170. Gardner, Women, 239.

2714

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 418

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of their ability to make independent moves several times (to Rome, then Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome)4171 and to host Paul and Christian gatherings.4172 These observations seem accurate, on the whole. Those who demur from Meeks’s interpretation here may be equally correct—yet, ironically, not so much because of differing on the data but mainly because their definitions of poverty and wealth, based on different standards for comparison, differ from those of Meeks (because they compare the couple’s economic status with that of different groups): thus most urban artisans were poor and despised by the elite but had an independence not available to the agrarian peasants who constituted most of the empire’s population.4173 John Chrysostom and other ancient commentators thought of Paul and this couple as poor,4174 but many of the patristic writers, though dedicated to poverty, came from elite backgrounds. From the standpoint of the majority of readers with access to commentaries today, most artisans were poor and their lives difficult, but from the standards of ancient populations in general (and much of the world’s population today in impoverished regions), their lives may have been somewhat easier. The stalls for leatherworking in Corinth seem to have been just over three meters wide and less than four meters long;4175 the doorway was typically the only source of light, and such stalls were cold during winter.4176 Since Prisca and her husband had sufficient resources to host a congregation in their home in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and then in Rome (Rom 16:5; see comment on Acts 12:12–13),4177 they were likely better off than most artisans—not merely poor shopworkers but somewhat better off “shop owners.”4178 (2) Shops

Small shops could employ one or two assistants, with large ones employing up to one hundred slaves.4179 But most ground-floor tenement businesses were probably small and could employ only family members.4180 Paul thus may have been particularly appreciative of the couple’s welcome to join both their home and their trade. The economic status of this couple affects how we should view Paul’s living and working arrangements with them. They may have used a shop or stall in the marketplace, but Luke’s wording might suggest (if his condensing a larger body of 4171. To this one might add the initial journey from Pontus—though this may have preceded his livelihood—and perhaps a later return to Asia, perhaps during persecution in Rome, suggested in the Pastorals (2 Tim 4:19). Libanius Maxim 3.6 speaks of the money needed for successful trips abroad. 4172. Meeks, Urban Christians, 59; cf. also Dunn, Romans, 892. Jewett, Romans, 956–57, agrees (against P. Lampe), but his additional arguments do not seem persuasive. 4173. See, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 112. 4174. Reimer, Women, 206. He viewed tentmaking as of low status; see Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:5; Bray, Romans, 371). 4175. Reimer, Women, 207–8; cf. Richards, Letter Writing, 37. Reimer’s appeal to Paul’s poverty in 1 Cor 4:11 (cf. 2 Cor 11:9; 1 Thess 2:9; p. 208) concerns his conditions as he was traveling in, and sacrificing for, apostolic ministry and need not imply that one working full-time in one place (like Aquila and Priscilla once they were reestablished) would fare so badly. 4176. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 169. 4177. On their house church ministry, see Blue, “House Church,” 172–74; Sampathkumar, “Aquila and Priscilla.” 4178. Arlandson, Women, 144. But cf. Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 134: most businesses were so small that they could employ only family members. They were neither “at a mere subsistence level” nor “among the elite” (Gaventa, Acts, 256). 4179. Hock, Social Context, 32 (counting six to twelve artisans as average, 32–33). On larger centers of production in this period but usually as simply the cooperation of many small businesses, see Alonso-Núñez, “Economy,” 1177 (some also argue on a larger level for an interdependence of markets throughout the empire; Temin, “Market Economy”). 4180. Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 134.

2715

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 419

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

material has not again obscured the details) that the shop was part of their home.4181 Some wares, such as textiles, were often produced at home, though larger industries may appear in some locations.4182 Shops were frequently in homes;4183 commonly they constituted the ground floors of apartment buildings,4184 especially in the less wealthy areas.4185 Roman shops faced streets along the ground floors of apartments, and some were even built on to the walls of homes.4186 When shops were open, the doors would be opened to display wares, the latter extending even into the street.4187 Poorer vendors erected booths in the streets, with the poorest of all simply moving to and fro accosting bypassers with their wares.4188 Corinth was known for its many peddlers (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9). Given the weekly closing of Jewish shops on the Sabbath, a higher proportion of Jewish shops’ customers may have been Jewish,4189 but presumably they could have also supplied goods to wholesalers who could sell to Gentiles daily. Workshops normally consisted of single rooms, used not only for labor but for storage and selling.4190 The family who worked there often also “slept and ate there . . . in the back or on an elevated mezzanine,”4191 a cramped loft above their workplace.4192 Of 806 shops in Ostia, 155 were attached to mezzanines; 141 had back rooms (46 had both back rooms and mezzanines); most had only a single room.4193 They averaged four workers per shop.4194 In the less well-to-do sections of Pompeii where shops abounded on the ground floor, 40 percent had an upper room of some sort, and 33 percent had one or more rooms in the back.4195 But Pompeian blocks were probably wealthier and less crowded than the average block in Rome.4196 Although Corinth was modeled after Rome in positive ways, its average population density might rest between these two examples. Excavations east of Corinth’s theater also reveal oneroom lofts above ground-floor shops.4197 If, as was suggested above, Priscilla and Aquila had more-spacious facilities than many of their occupational peers, it would have made accommodating Paul much easier. Some scholars even suggest that they would have had “mezzanine apartments” 4181. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 545n307. 4182. See Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 197. On a survey of research on ancient craft production (including textiles), see Evans, “Crafts.” 4183. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 73 (in Pompeii); cf. Balch, “Houses.” 4184. Carcopino, Life, 26–27 (on Rome); Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307 (on Rome and Ostia); Packer, “Housing,” 80–81 (in Rome), 84 (in Ostia). 4185. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 80 (on Pompeii). 4186. Jeffers, World, 61. 4187. Stambaugh, City, 189 (citing Livy 6.25.9; Martial 1.41; 7.61). 4188. Jeffers, World, 61. 4189. This is not to suggest that people bought only from vendors of their own ethnicity, but simply to suggest that some potentially regular customers could be lost through what Gentiles might find an inconvenience. Then again, even in Rome many Gentiles respected Jewish Sabbath-keeping (see Barclay, “Undermine,” 295–98; cf. Suet. Tib. 32.2; Tac. Hist. 5.4; Dio Cass. 65.7.2). 4190. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; of 806 shops in Ostia, 464 had one room (Packer, “Housing,” 85). Private specialty workshops were common during the early empire (see Cartledge, “Industry”). 4191. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; Stambaugh, City, 149 (noting that it was typical), 174 (citing an example from Herculaneum); Jeffers, World, 55; Packer, “Housing,” 81; Carcopino, Life, 27; for sleeping in shops, see, e.g., Libanius Descr. 5.6. For a variety of arrangements, see Hock, Social Context, 32, with documentation. 4192. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 110 (for housing arrangements, following Frier, Landlords, 3–20). 4193. Packer, “Housing,” 85 (who suggests an average living space of 1.7 rooms). 4194. Ibid. 4195. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 80. Pompeian housing varied from one massive home of 31,000 sq. ft. to common lofts above shops at 220 sq. ft. (Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 260). 4196. See cautions in Carcopino, Life, 23–24. 4197. McRay, Archaeology, 82–83.

2716

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 420

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

with two or three fairly large rooms.4198 It is difficult to be certain, however; at the least, there was space for a guest and, in some cities where they settled, for house church meetings (of uncertain size; Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19). (3) Insulae

Romans began constructing insulae, apartment buildings with many stories, in the second century b.c.e.; the style spread to other densely populated cities, certainly including those following the Roman model.4199 These tenements usually surrounded an inner courtyard, which provided more air and light for the buildings.4200 Fairly wealthy urbanites often lived in ground-floor apartments facing the inner courtyards of insulae; these were particularly expensive luxury apartments, in contrast to the housing generally available to shop owners whose shops faced the streets.4201 The upper stories (usually totaling two to five) were cheaper, generally with an outer room and also a small inner room for sleeping that lacked fresh air and sunlight.4202 In light of seismic activity in the area, some have recently questioned whether multistory buildings proved feasible in Corinth.4203 Even in multistory tenements, however, sometimes different families would have distinct, cramped sleeping quarters yet share the same outer room; often these were too small to host gatherings, and so apart from the long connecting halls, any meetings even in such tenements would need to be in the larger, inner homes on the ground floor.4204 (An alternative could be the long hall connecting apartments; see comment on Acts 20:8.) Freshly arrived from Rome, perhaps Aquila and Priscilla did not yet have means for a larger luxury apartment, but apparently they later had a larger apartment in Rome (Rom 16:5). Some scholars suggest that neighbors in many insulae may have had “a strong sense of community,”4205 which would help the growth of house congregations. This principle would remain true in single-floor housing in crowded urban space. Most urban dwellers depended on public fountains for water, having to carry it back and up to their apartments; though cities had public toilets near the baths, many people kept more convenient chamber pots beneath the outside stairs.4206 Where city aqueducts existed, only the wealthy could tap them.4207 Rome had “large urinal pots” on street corners; fullers recycled their contents.4208 (4) Corinth’s Markets

Though some trades were not permitted inside cities (see comment on Acts 9:43), most were near the market, or agora.4209 Corinth had numerous places to sell wares. Many shops lined Lechaeum Road, which entered the forum through an arch.4210 The 4198. Arlandson, Women, 144 (following Packer, Insulae, 7ff.). DeSilva, Honor, 193, suggests living space on the second story; but the multiroomed dwelling that he cites, described in Xen. Oec. 9.2–5, would be limited to a person of some means, like most of Xenophon’s readers. 4199. Jeffers, World, 55. For rented lodging, see, e.g., CIL 4.138 (from pre-79 c.e. Pompeii; Sherk, Empire, 243–44, §186). 4200. Jeffers, World, 55. 4201. Ibid., 55–56. 4202. Ibid., 56; cf. also Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 110 (following Frier, Landlords, 3–20). 4203. Adams, “Placing,” 26, citing Schowalter, “Seeking Shelter,” 334n20. 4204. Jeffers, World, 56, 59; on sharing facilities, see further Stambaugh, City, 175, 178. 4205. Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus,” 18. 4206. Jeffers, World, 56, 60; Toner, Culture, 128; Cleary, “Sanitation”; y. Ber. 3:5, §5. 4207. Cleary, “Sanitation.” 4208. Ibid. On the unpleasant odors, see, e.g., Bradley, “Fullonica.” Those sentenced to work in cleaning public baths or sewers had demeaning work (Pliny Ep. 10.33.2). 4209. Hock, Social Context, 32 (citing, e.g., Lysias Or. 24.19–20; Char. Chaer. 1.12.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 46.9). 4210. Inscription no. 21 in West, Inscriptions, 19, found near the Lechaeum Road shops (on March 22, 1902); Finegan, Apostles, 148.

2717

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 421

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

North Market was finished shortly before Paul arrived and would have contained many small shops. These averaged about four meters high, just under four meters long, and 2.8 to 4 meters wide.4211 The marketplace must have been very busy, servicing what some estimate to be as many as eighty thousand residents in Paul’s time.4212 Shops lined Corinth’s forum, some directly flanking the bēma.4213 Archaeological evidence for posts shows that numerous tents must have shaded the large forum’s market stalls.4214 Regarding more formal structures, excavations around Corinth’s center have so far uncovered “some 23,220 square meters of building space . . . devoted to stoas and shop structures.”4215 Corinth’s huge service market necessitated this abundance of shops in the city center.4216 We know of the macellum, or meat market, in Corinth, but against some earlier hypotheses, archaeological evidence does not show us for certain where it was located, unless it was near the post-77 c.e. site near the theater.4217 Presumably it was in some location accessible to the public.4218 See also the discussion on Corinth’s economic strength, above. By the second century, the major marketplace in Corinth included public statues of Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite, Hermes, and Zeus (Paus. 2.2.8). Athena’s sanctuary stood in the midst of the agora, and a temple to Augustus’s sister Octavia stood above the agora (2.3.1). Corinth’s sanctuary of Ephesian Artemis (2.2.6) might turn a passerby’s attention to Ephesus and its religious activities (see Acts 19:27).4219 Whether Paul worked near the marketplace or not, such images would have kept him well aware of the dominance of paganism in his city (1 Cor 8:5). The plausible suggestion that Paul’s employment may have been near more-general market districts such as Corinth’s forum, where he was dragged in Acts 18:12, must be tempered by the general practice of members of given trades to live and work in particular areas. Workers who shared the same trade tended to live near each other.4220 Artisans also usually sold their product from their workshops.4221 Most towns were full of “narrow streets lined with shops,”4222 and those near the forum were likely prime real estate. It is not certain which hypothesis is more probable, but I would tentatively 4211. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 168–69. 4212. Winter, Left Corinth, 294. Whereas Engels estimates close to this figure, Walbank estimates just twenty thousand to fifty thousand in the Roman period (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 8n49, citing Walbank, “Foundation,” 107). Others estimate still higher; see the discussion above. 4213. See the map in Fant and Reddish, Sites, fig. 17, p. 58; see also McRay, Archaeology, 40; MacKendrick, Stones, 417; information in Schnabel, Brief, 18. 4214. See Engels, Roman Corinth, 13, 60. The forum’s open space covered 14,000 sq. m. 4215. Ibid., 60. The forum itself was 165 by 65 meters (Schnabel, Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 18). 4216. Engels, Roman Corinth, 12. 4217. See Gill, “Meat-Market”; McRay, Archaeology, 326–28; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 491; pace earlier Broneer, “Corinth,” 88–89. Willis, Idol Meat, 229–30, suggests that Corinth was large enough to have more than one meat market, but we might suppose the multiple shops to be located together in the same district. Although the term macellum could apply to markets more generally (Witherington, Corinthians, 184n14), here we refer to markets in meat and fish (Plut. Rom. Q. 54, Mor. 277D; cf. Moffatt, First Corinthians, 143; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 32; Winter, Left Corinth, 294). 4218. Cf. Gerasa’s macellum, at the southwest of the city’s cardo maximus (Uscatescu and Martín-Bueno, “Macellum”). In contrast to Pompeii, it is possible that most meat markets carried both sacrificial and nonsacrificial meats (1 Cor 10:25; Koch, “Macella”). In at least some sources, they appear distinguishable (Isenberg, “Sale”; Fee, Corinthians, 481), but perhaps not always (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 491). 4219. Some portrayals of Diana in Corinth (West, Inscriptions, no. 15, line 1 [p. 13]) may reflect a statue in a Diana temple en route to Cenchreae (Paus. 2.2.3). 4220. Hock, Social Context, 32 (citing Plut. Sign Socr., Mor. 580E; cf. Lucian Cock 14; Pisc. 13; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.9). See fuller discussion below. 4221. Jeffers, World, 28. 4222. Richards, Letter Writing, 36–37 (quotation, 37).

2718

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 422

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

incline toward the likelihood that the family worked where it lived, perhaps in an area for cobblers and leatherworkers but most likely in a specifically Jewish area. viii. What Connected Paul with This Couple?

On coming to a city, Paul typically sought local or resident-alien coworkers to aid in his task.4223 That Paul would find fellow Jews of the same trade is no more surprising than his ministry starting in the synagogues (18:4), whether or not Priscilla and Aquila were Christians before their encounter. Often cities recognized large groups of foreigners living and working in their midst; such a legally recognized group of resident aliens constituted a πολίτευμα, with some degree of independence.4224 (1) Shared Faith?

Commentators generally believe that Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians before Paul met them; this may well be the case,4225 yet it is strange, if so, that Luke mentions the shared trade as the reason for Paul’s connection with them (18:3). Perhaps Luke thought that the Christian connection could be taken for granted at this point (cf. 16:15; though we could wish he had been more explicit in 17:7a). Or perhaps Luke wished, as many scholars think, to emphasize Paul as the Corinthian church’s founding apostle (though this is not Luke’s invention; Paul shares this opinion, 1 Cor 4:15) and hence does not wish to emphasize Christians who settled there before he did. It could also be that if Aquila and Priscilla were Christians or Christian sympathizers, they were not yet adept in strategic witness and perhaps not yet grounded in their understanding (cf. perhaps Apollos in Acts 18:26). Then again, if Claudius expelled especially ringleaders, Aquila and Priscilla may have been among them. The Jewish connection is more explicit and fits Luke’s portrait of Paul starting with the Jewish Diaspora in each location, including in Corinth (18:4). Travelers would always know where to look for immigrant communities from their own nation or for members of their own trade. Neighborhoods were defined precisely by ethnicity and trades.4226 (2) Trade Ties

Paul could establish a relationship with people on a very human level such as mutual employment; indeed, the structure of ancient society made this approach to connecting with others a natural one. Craftsmen of particular trades had long lived in particular sections of ancient cities, often as members of extended families or trade guilds (cf. Neh 3:8, 11;4227 Jer 37:21). Today, when businesses selling the same product work in the same area, they view themselves as in competition with each other. Some ancients viewed competition among those of the same trade as a good motivation to work hard (Hesiod W.D. 25–26) or as cause for envy and rivalry.4228 But scholars argue that members of trades usually shared the same locality to provide mutual support in an environment more of collegiality than of serious competition.4229 4223. Grassi, World, 78. Cf. Luke 10:6–7. Immigrants typically face “weaker social support networks,” creating emotional strain (Toner, Culture, 64, following Aneshensel and Phelan, Handbook), so banding together is a vital strategy for emotional support. 4224. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 41 (noting also Jones, “Claudius and Question”). 4225. See Das, “Audience,” 41. Certainly they were not the first local converts (1 Cor 16:15); but then again, would recent immigrants be reckoned in the “firstfruits of Achaia”? 4226. Meeks, Urban Christians, 29 (noting Jewish quarters in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; in Alexandria and Rome, see Philo Flacc. 55; Embassy 155). 4227. See Gordon, Civilizations, 253; Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas, Background Commentary, 475. 4228. So Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.3–4 (although perhaps referring only to potential envy); cf. Eccl 4:4. 4229. Stambaugh, City, 150; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118.

2719

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 423

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

One could find necessities such as food scattered throughout a city,4230 but artisans usually lived in their own districts (e.g., goldsmiths or tailors).4231 Transport businesses tended to cluster nearer the gates, and the most respectable (the least smelly and noisy) toward the city’s center.4232 As MacMullen observes, While most streets took their names from prominent buildings or monuments nearby, or from some person honored in the neighborhood long ago, quite a number were called Glass, Incense, or Perfume Street, because of the concentration there of trade in those commodities.4233

So also with squares, markets, and so forth, designated “Jewelers’, Wainwrights’, Vintners’, Cobblers’, Muleteers’, in urban centers of every province.”4234 One thus might identify one’s neighborhood, for example, by the expression “among the barbers.”4235 Romans knew where to go to buy whatever they were looking for, as inscriptions (including epitaphs) confirm.4236 Romans would find gold and pearl dealers in booths by the Sacra Via; dealers in silver around the Clivus Argentarius and the Velabrum (CIL 6.9184); and book dealers north of the imperial forum.4237 This practice of localizing professions probably was for buyers’ convenience, as well as to provide contact with those sharing common interests and needs for raw materials;4238 it naturally led to trade associations.4239 Professional guilds were likely the most common form of collegia, or associations, in Rome and were growing in the East (which had long had other associations) in the first century.4240 As with other associations, trade guilds’ names generally identified their purpose for existing.4241 Those who shared the same trade met as guilds mainly for social purposes, not for organizing like modern labor unions;4242 they did sometimes join resources, however, as in, for example, setting up a statue.4243 They would share some common meals, celebrate the founder’s or patron’s birthday or the feast of some relevant deity, and provide for the burial of deceased members.4244 Normally they would not meet more than once a month,4245 though apparently this rule was often ignored.4246 Jewish groups would also be seen as associations, but not of a kind overlapping with the Gentile ones. Gentile outsiders probably often saw the early church in terms 4230. Typically, even these merchants sold particular products (such as oil, vegetables, and fruits), though here and there one would encounter a general store (παντοπωλεῖον), selling “smoked fish (the most popular item), rope, mattresses,” etc. (Lewis, Life, 136, citing P.Oxy. 520, from 143 c.e.). 4231. Jeffers, World, 53. 4232. Ibid., 53–54. 4233. MacMullen, Social Relations, 69. 4234. Ibid.; cf. similarly Rohrbaugh, “Pre-industrial City,” 135. 4235. MacMullen, Social Relations, 69. 4236. Ibid., 70. 4237. Stambaugh, City, 150–51. 4238. MacMullen, Social Relations, 71; Jeffers, World, 54. 4239. MacMullen, Social Relations, 73. See his listing of inscriptions for trade guilds in Rome (129–31) and (mainly but not exclusively from inscriptions) the crafts’ special locations in Roman cities (132–35). 4240. Smith, Symposium, 96. For earlier trade guilds in the East, see Tod and Hornblower, “Clubs,” 352. 4241. Smith, Symposium, 90. 4242. Tod and Hornblower, “Clubs,” 352; Stevenson and Lintott, “Clubs,” 353. 4243. Cooper, “Crafts,” 906 (citing the fullones of Pompeii in the early empire, in CIL 10.813 = ILS 6368). 4244. MacMullen, Social Relations, 77; Meeks, Urban Christians, 32. On the banquets, see esp. Harland, Associations, 74–83 (for the religious element in the banquet, see 77). 4245. Monthly meetings were common (see Smith, Symposium, 108, 112). Meeting too often could generate Roman suspicion (Dig. 47.22.1; Sherk, Empire, 234, §177A); though we should not think of a network of government spies enforcing rules, occasional voluntary accusers could raise concerns. 4246. Harland, Associations, 168.

2720

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 424

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of “associations” (see discussion under house churches at Acts 12:12), but “synagogues” (specifically Jewish associations) provided a closer context (see discussion of synagogues in Acts 6:9). Some associations had their own meeting houses, as attested in Ostia; others (especially religious guilds) might meet in temples or (especially burial clubs) near places for interment.4247 Virtually all guilds and associations included religious a­ ctivity.4248 Each association (such as “Butchers” or “Youths”) chose a patron deity when the association was founded, often a deity naturally connected with the members’ trade (e.g., Silvanus for woodcutters or Bacchus for restaurant owners); each meeting thereafter would open by invoking that deity.4249 Guilds and associations nearly always included libations or a sacrifice before or during the common meal.4250 Some associations also offered sacrifice to the emperor or members of his family;4251 open refusal to participate, especially for people of status, could lead to tensions, but these tensions were probably not felt everywhere.4252 These pagan connections of guilds would alienate prospective Jewish members who shared the same trade, and so most Jewish people would live in their own ethnic districts, following their own dietary and other customs.4253 If Paul lived in a Jewish area, he would have had easier access to the synagogue and to other members of the Jewish community (Acts 18:4, 7);4254 such a location also would help explain how serious a rift of fellowship would be, dividing the community not only in its Sabbath worship but in its day-to-day existence (18:6, 12–13). Yet it also would help explain why Aquila and Priscilla would gladly welcome a fellow Jew of their own trade; if they all shared a common belief in Jesus, this factor would reinforce their connection all the more fully. (3) Paul’s Mission

Paul would naturally welcome hospitality, since Jesus indicated that his evangelistic followers during their missions would normally lack their own home (cf. Luke 9:57–58) and they should therefore stay where hospitality was available (9:4; 10:5–8). Entertaining a visiting scholar was also considered a great honor,4255 though normal hospitality typically meant no more than a week’s stay.4256 Dependence on a householder could run the risk of appearing to be, like some teachers, a client who increased the host’s prestige by teaching at his banquets;4257 Paul’s letters attest the 4247. Smith, Symposium, 103–4. 4248. Harland, Associations, 61–74. 4249. MacMullen, Social Relations, 82; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 125; Rives, Religion, 123–24. 4250. Harland, Associations, 77 (hence Serapis could be viewed as present during these meetings [Ael. Arist. Or. 45.27–28] or even as the host [P.Köln 57]). 4251. See Harland, Associations, 115–36; for involvement with civic imperial honors, see 137–60. 4252. See ibid., 239–64. 4253. Jewish people probably did have their own guilds in cities where a significant number of them lived (see, e.g., t. Sukkah 4:6 for Alexandria; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:24; Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 684). Since Corinth had a known Jewish community (Acts 18:4) before the couple’s arrival, it is likely that they were not its only Jewish leatherworkers (though the Jewish community was probably not as organized into specializations as would be possible in Rome or Alexandria). Rabbis were aware (unless the example is purely hypothetical) that some larger shops in predominantly Gentile cities might include Jewish workers for Gentiles or the reverse (t. Šabb. 2:7–8), but Prisca and Aquila would, undoubtedly, prefer a Jewish colleague to a Gentile. 4254. In cities with multiple synagogues, “occupational and neighborhood networks” would help influence where one attended (Harland, Associations, 34; for neighborhood connections, see 36–38; for occupational connections, see 38–44). 4255. E.g., b. Ber. 63b. 4256. Hock, Social Context, 29–30 (contrasting the Cynic convention of living in the open). Pindar praised the hospitality of old Corinth (Ol. 13.3), though this is probably partly conventional. 4257. Hock, Social Context, 29–30. It is possible that some of Paul’s earnings contributed toward his rent (see 31) or even that they were initially his gift toward the family that was hosting him.

2721

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 425

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

struggle between Paul and elite members of the Corinthian church over this definition of his role. (Given Rome’s desire to regulate voluntary associations, however, household patronage may have provided at least a useful official “cover” for Paul and for house churches.)4258 Paul’s warm reports of Prisca and Aquila in his letters, however, suggest that they were fellow workers who either shared initially or came to share his understanding of the mission. ix. Working a “Menial” Job (18:3)

Paul does what he must to proclaim the gospel, including supporting himself on the side through a profession apparently controversial among the Corinthian church’s elite. That Paul performed manual labor at least some of the time that he was in Corinth cannot be disputed (1 Cor 4:11; 9:6, 15, 18; 2 Cor 11:23, 27), and it appears that some viewed it as enslavement (1 Cor 9:18–19) or humiliation (2 Cor 11:7). Even if we lacked Paul’s testimony, we know enough about elite views toward trades (see discussion below) and Luke’s interest in retaining high-status hearers that we can be certain that Luke would not invent Paul’s being an artisan. If anything, he says as little about it as possible (elsewhere only the less explicit Acts 20:34). Luke even omits Mark’s report that Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3).4259 But Paul’s letters suggest that his labor in Corinth (along with receiving help from Philippi) became an issue of contention between him and the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:6; cf. 2 Cor 11:7–9; 12:13),4260 and so it may have been difficult for Luke to ignore it completely. Some scholars suggest that a grain shortage in the city, which occurred at about this time, may have provided Paul with additional incentive to work in Corinth.4261 The famine affected even Rome,4262 and Eusebius supplies both the year (51 c.e.) and the famine’s severity.4263 The association of Paul’s work with the famine is possible, but he also often worked where we know of no famine, at least in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:7–8) and Ephesus (Acts 19:11–12; esp. 20:34).4264 (1) The Reproach of Manual Labor

The elite despised most forms of manual labor;4265 they certainly avoided it for themselves.4266 Granted, in earlier times, manual laborers could address the Athenian assembly, though this practice does not appear to have been common.4267 But elites tended to look down on manual laborers; one papyrus complains about a mere weaver who, instead of deferring properly to persons of status, “swaggers around as 4258. In addition to their fitting the Roman category for synagogues, the more obvious and useful category initially (Acts 18:15). For Roman concern with illegal meetings, see, e.g., Dig. 47.22.1 (Sherk, Empire, 234–35, §177A). 4259. Mark may have reworded an earlier tradition known to Luke (cf. Luke 4:22 with Matt 13:55). 4260. Cf. many commentators, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 77, 228–29, 242–43; for part of the social context, see Hock, Social Context, 58–59. 4261. Winter, Left Corinth, 219, cites three grain shortages in this period (with records suggesting that 51 c.e. was among them [218]; see more fully 216–23). But does not Acts 18:2–3 seem to refer to 49 or perhaps 50 c.e. rather than later, since Paul may have stopped working already in 18:5 (or at least Luke seems content to leave that impression)? 4262. Tac. Ann. 12.43; Suet. Claud. 18 (the latter mentioning unrest after multiple droughts). 4263. West, Inscriptions, 73 (citing Eusebius, Chronicorum libri duo, ed. Alfred Schoene, 2 vols. [Berlin: Weidmann, 1875–76], 2:152–53; Hieronymus Olymp. 207.1). 4264. Hock, Social Context, 26, also cites the present tense in 1 Cor 4:12 to support Ephesus as well as Corinth (cf. 16:8). 4265. See Hock, Social Context, 35–36 (and his sources), 60; Harland, Associations, 41; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 116–17; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 150; Reden, “Unemployment,” 112 (citing Arist. Pol. 4.4, 1291b; Plato Apol. 23C; Cic. Tusc. 1.1–25 and others); Padilla, Speeches, 139; cf. Luwel, “Begrip.” 4266. Fitzgerald, Cracks, 135. 4267. Aeschines Tim. 27–28.

2722

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 426

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

if he were someone important.”4268 Although Cicero praised intellectuals who, like himself, achieved high status without depending on the birth advantages held by some,4269 he regarded the workshop as servile and unbefitting a free person.4270 At one point in Rome’s history, manual laborers could not be citizens, and together with other noncitizens, they outnumbered citizens three to one.4271 That many Jews in Roman society had such low-grade, “blue-collar” jobs increased the scorn of some in the Roman elite.4272 Those who looked down on manual labor did not look down on all forms of such labor equally.4273 They could divide skills into the lowly (e.g., goldsmithing, coppersmithing, and carpentry) and “free” (mostly arts as opposed to crafts),4274 and those who needed to praise a city could praise either the quality or quantity of the work.4275 Those with sufficient substance would choose liberal arts, rhetoric, philosophy, or politics over a trade.4276 Paul’s activity, however, is a craft. But even here, people of status were expected not to converse with commoners, including metalsmiths and other craftsmen (τεχνῖται).4277 Some less religious writers even mocked old myths about one of the Olympian gods being a smith; thus Hephaistos is a mere “artisan” (τέχνην ἔχοντα βάναυσον).4278 (Such information is also relevant to Luke’s characterization of Demetrius in Acts 19:24–25.) What of Paul’s particular trade? Some ancients considered particular forms of manual labor, such as weaving, to be effeminate.4279 Work in textiles was traditionally ideal women’s work.4280 Parthian Jews accepted weaving as a legitimate male profession, but from Josephus’s explanation, it sounds as if he expected many of his readers in the Roman Empire to be familiar with a contrary perspective ( Jos. Ant. 18.314). Yet as is argued below, Paul probably worked with leather rather than wove tents. 4268. P.Oxy. 51.3617, as cited in Toner, Culture, 140. Toner also notes (134) that the elite viewed labor as coarsening not only the body (which often became malformed from skeletal stress) but also the morals. Such views may have extended beyond elites; on 29, Toner cites a nonelite source (Aesop Fable 103) linking craft workers with deception. Ironically, traders and craft workers (which he estimates as perhaps 30 to 40 percent of the urban population) could be counted as the most respectable members of the nonelite (Toner, Culture, 2–3). 4269. E.g., Cic. Verr. 2.3.4.7–8. 4270. Cic. Off. 1.42.150–51 (cited in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 150–51; Jeffers, World, 24; discussed in detail in Alonso-Núñez, “Ethics”). Professions that paid for intelligence (such as doctors and architects) were better. 4271. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.15.2; 9.25.2. 4272. Le Cornu, Acts, 981 (citing Statius Silv. 1.6; Mart. Epig. 1.41.4; Juv. Sat. 3.14–15; 6.542–43). 4273. Thus, e.g., Tarsus perhaps kept linen workers, but not all other artisans, from citizenship (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 16–17); but λινουργός may have included any industrial workers (Applebaum, “Social Status,” 717). Farming was regarded as difficult toil (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.5) but honest labor (Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.12–14, 19–23); manual labor was harder for an aristocrat unaccustomed to it (Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.8). 4274. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.25–27. The exception for artistic skill is also noted in Grant, Christianity and Society, 80; on crafts in general, see Burford, Craftsmen; Evans, “Crafts.” Lucian regards even sculpting as “ugly” compared with education (Career 14). 4275. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.28–29. Although this might refer just to the “free” arts (painting and sculpture, line 30), it probably includes both arts and crafts. The distinction between skilled and unskilled craftspeople appears elsewhere (y. Moʾed Qaṭ. 1:8, §2). 4276. Hock, Social Context, 44. 4277. Polyb. 26.1.1–3 (cf. also 26.1.12). 4278. Lucian Dial. G. 241 (17/15, Hermes and Apollo 1) (also emphasizing his crippled state). Hera defends his useful occupation in 243 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1) (but her claim that Aphrodite loves him suggests that Lucian satirizes Hera’s willful ignorance here; see 245–46 [21/17, Apollo and Hermes ¶¶1–2]). 4279. Eurip. Meleager frg. 522 (from Stob. 4.22.188); Libanius Speech in Character 14.4. It was among the professions open to women (see, e.g., Lindner, “Frau”). 4280. Stahlmann, “Gender Roles,” 744 (citing CIL 6.11602 = ILS 8402); Reden, “Work,” 743. Cf. Prov 31:21–22 and esp. 31:24.

2723

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 427

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Leatherworking was not considered effeminate and would not shame Paul with the elite any more than would any other low-class craft. (2) Philosophic Discussions

Certainly, aspiring sages and their students (often competing in rival schools) were a familiar element of first-century Corinthian culture (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9). Philosophers often shared elite condescension toward the laborers. Xenophon’s Socrates complains about workers who become physically and mentally lazy (Oec. 4.2) and lack the time for friends and civic affairs necessary for good citizenship (4.3).4281 Plato’s Socrates did recognize the value of all crafts but saw nonintellectual interests as devoid of value for higher matters, and many later thinkers followed this lead.4282 Thinkers often repeated the claim of Zeno the Stoic, who denied that anything valuable came from artisans and builders.4283 Philodemus the Epicurean thought farm work miserable and reasoned that dependence on others’ manual labor was less distracting than, and hence superior to, one’s own.4284 Philosophers differed in their views toward sages engaging in manual labor, but many did not view it highly.4285 For many, charging fees was a better means for sages acquiring support.4286 Socrates never charged fees, but others later offered his teachings only to those who could pay (Xen. Mem. 1.2.60).4287 The Stoic philosopher Cleanthes worked to earn his living, refusing to live only off others as some philosophers did (Diog. Laert. 7.5.170). Lucian4288 complains about ignorant artisans abandoning their difficult labors to adopt the easier lives of phony philosophers.4289 He opines that manual laborers who kept laboring were at least better than the many sages who simply spewed forth nonsense for a living; all these hard workers would want to join the ranks of ignorant lecturers who made more money with less work than they!4290 4281. He did, however, appreciate any genuine work (Xen. Mem. 1.2.57); Xenophon viewed skilled cobblers, carpenters, and the like as “slavish” (4.2.22). 4282. Grant, Christianity and Society, 73, citing Plato Rep. 9.590C. 4283. Grant, Christianity and Society, 73–74, citing SVF 1.264; Plut. Stoic Cont., Mor. 1034b; Clement Strom. 5.76.1; Origen Cels. 1.5. 4284. Philod. Household 23 (Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25, citing Festugière, Religion, 56). 4285. Hock, Social Context, 52–58, surveys the four means of philosophers acquiring support (fees, attachment to a wealthy household, begging, and labor), noting (57–58) that many had problems with philosophers’ doing manual labor. Mostly only Cynics begged, and for others, working was “the least popular option” (58–59, here 59). Apparently, Paul’s opponents in Corinth lived from wealthy households, in contrast to Paul’s labor (Hock, Social Context, 65). 4286. Chrysippus insisted on collecting the fee before or during the training (Plut. Stoic Cont. 20, Mor. 1043E). Lucian Hermot. 9 mocks a Stoic abusing a student behind on his fees; in Phil. Sale 24, he mocks a Stoic philosophizing about charging fees. Protagoras charged fees (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.10.494); Aristotle accepted the charging of fees in commercial relationships between teacher and student, as opposed to one of friendship (Marshall, Enmity, 227); philosophers also often were on the household payroll of rich patrons (e.g., Diog. Laert. 2.69). Sophists were known for charging fees (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.11.591; 2.21.604), but we do read of some who used a sliding scale (1.21.519) or who waived fees for the needy (2.23.606). Charging fees was standard for most schools (Watson, “Education,” 311). Philod. Prop. col. 23.23–29, regarded receiving gifts for teaching the noblest form of income (Tsouna on 100n66 cites Diog. Laert. 10.121 for a similar opinion). 4287. On Socrates’s opposition to charging fees (vs. sophists), see Xen. Mem. 1.6.11–13; Diog. Laert. 2.27; cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 41; Marshall, Enmity, 296. As noted below, some Jewish sages also valued providing Torah without concern for remuneration (Le Cornu, Acts, 674, citing Der. Er. Zuṭ. 4:3); but people ought to pay fees (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; y. Ḥag. 1:7, §1). 4288. Himself happy to escape apprenticeship to an ignorant trade (sculpting) and pursue learning instead (Lucian Career 8–14). Others also contrasted crafts with true learning (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7, though he regards sculpting as close to educated professions, and all these professions as inferior to being a sage). 4289. Lucian Indictment 6–7, 8, 11. 4290. Lucian Runaways 17. But that the sages were uneducated members of the working class was part of their problem (Runaways 12, 14).

2724

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 428

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

There were, however, more positive attitudes toward manual labor (in addition to the likely positive views of the laborers themselves; see discussion below). Certainly some Cynics and sympathetic Stoics shared more favorable views toward working with one’s hands.4291 Fitting the Roman ethos supporting hard work,4292 Roman Stoics were especially inclined in this direction, but some Greek Stoics and others influenced by Stoicism shared the same value.4293 Musonius argues that toil is not something negative (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.28) and that the good achieved through toil lasts far longer than the toil itself (frg. 51, p. 144.7–8).4294 But most Stoics failed to embrace this ideal in practice whereas Paul presents his behavior as an ideal model (1 Cor 4:12, 16; 2 Thess 3:8–9).4295 Some other thinkers could also identify themselves with lowly persons who toiled.4296 More generally, Greek authors as early as Hesiod praise the value of hard work.4297 Romans highly valued self-discipline, austerity, and labor.4298 The philosophically minded encouraged people to endure sufferings, including toil;4299 toil was neither a good nor an evil,4300 but love of toil was a virtue.4301 On work versus laziness, see comment on Acts 17:5. On hard work and the virtue of an austere lifestyle in Roman ethos, see further comment on Acts 20:33–35. (3) A Jewish Model?

Many scholars suggest that Paul was influenced by a Jewish model of laboring sages.4302 This was probably not the only available model or the only reason for Paul’s working, but it may have been an influence. Hock (whose study of Paul’s labor has proved invaluable) offers three objections to the idea that Paul’s rabbinic training was the cause of his work; they are listed here with responses:4303 1. Hock doubts that Paul was trained under Gamaliel. Some question why Hock doubts Luke’s testimony in Acts 22:3 yet embraces it readily as to Paul’s leatherworking.4304 But even granting this skepticism (which I do not share), the value 4291. For Cynics begging, see comment on Acts 3:2. 4292. Grant, Christianity and Society, 75, cites, for Romans’ hard-work ethos, Plutarch Cato; Pliny Panegyr. 24.2 (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.21; 3.83); inscriptions in MacMullen, Social Relations, 43–44. For the range of occupations in imperial Rome, see Carcopino, Life, 173–84. 4293. Grant, Christianity and Society, 74–75, cites Cleanthes (SVF 1.611 from Mus. Ruf. frg. 1, p. 34.22–30); Musonius Rufus (frg. 3, p. 42.28–29; frg. 4, p. 46.27–28; cf. frg. 11); Dio Chrysostom (Or. 7.125); Stob. Flor. 85.21 = Hierocles pp. 62–63 von Arnim; Epict. Diatr. 3.12.6; 3.15.11; Marc. Aur. 1.5. Others add Cleanthes in Diog. Laert. 7.168; also Epict. Diatr. 3.26.23; Mus. Ruf. frg. 11 (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 151; Johnson, Acts, 32). Musonius believed that hard work comported well with the Stoic ideal of self-sufficiency (Grant, Christianity and Society, 74–75). 4294. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 24, cites similarly Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 60.9–15. Though born an equestrian, Musonius valued earning one’s living by working hard with one’s hands (Grant, Paul, 54, cites Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 80.15; p. 82.24; for his equestrian status, see Grant, Paul, 52). 4295. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 24; idem, Philosophers, 69–70. 4296. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9 (though in a passage rhetorically designed to lower audience expectations). 4297. Grant, Paul, 7. Cf. also Isoc. Demon. 9, 21. Elsewhere, see, e.g., Confuc. Anal. 112 (9.19). 4298. E.g., Plut. M. Cato 1.3; 2.2; 4.1; Cic. 36.3; Pliny Ep. 3.5.7–20. For traditional Romans, distaste for toil was a Greek vice (Polyb. 39.1.10–12). 4299. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, pp. 56, 58; frg. 51, p. 144.7–8; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 3.34, 85; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.20–21. 4300. Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.28; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5a.13; 2.7.7b, pp. 46–47.6. 4301. Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.15; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.21; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.14–16; pp. 16– 17.10–11; 2.7.11k, pp. 82–83.19–23; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1; Isoc. Demon. 40; Plut. Demosth. 1.3; Alex. 40.2; Diogenes Ep. 14. Hard work preceded all achievement (Porph. Marc. 6.105–7.127). 4302. E.g., Bruce, Documents, 54. 4303. Hock, Social Context, 22–23. For another critique of Hock here, see Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 117–19. 4304. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 118–19. Admittedly, Acts 22:3 is more controversial than 18:3; but see comment there.

2725

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 429

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

of labor seems to have been a widely held component of Jewish ethics, with which Paul would be familiar if (as all should agree; e.g., Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:5) he spent some years in Judea. Gamaliel was part of the municipal aristocracy (see comment on Acts 5:34) and so would not be the most emphatic source of this teaching, in any case. 2. Hock notes that not all who were trained under Gamaliel, even granting that Paul was, became scribes. But Paul’s own words suggest that he was advancing in his religion (Gal 1:14). Even if we rule out a connection between his persecuting activity (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:5–6) and the likelihood that he would wish to spread Torah more positively as well (some have even suggested an interest in encouraging proselytism in Gal 5:11), his own writings suggest an intellect disposed toward teaching and argumentation. Yet even granting (which I do not) that Paul did not plan to become a scribe, the important point for the case is only that he knew and respected the tradition of working sages. Clearly, by the time he reaches Corinth, Paul is a working sage whether he was one in an earlier period or not. 3. Hock argues that our earliest sources for working alongside study of Torah do not predate the mid-second century. It is true that the extant sources postdate Paul, since rabbinic tradition was preserved orally until the early third century. There is, however, likely a degree of continuity with the sources we have,4305 and the earliest strata support the view that most sages worked.4306 Given the diversity of rabbinic views, it is to be doubted that early rabbis had other means of support that later declined and caused the tradition about their period to be entirely rewritten. The rabbinic movement later achieved power and opportunity that was less likely to have characterized its earliest scribes. Still, it must be recognized that Hock is right that Paul probably would have learned the trade in a family setting, as was customary throughout the Mediterranean world, and not as part of formal rabbinic training.4307 Further, Jewish tradition was never monolithic on the subject of sages working, though it was more apt to present manual labor as honorable than do extant elite Greek sources. Extant Jewish sources reveal a high work ethic.4308 As one widely known sage declared, “Do not hate hard work, and vinedressing, which the Most High” commanded (Sir 7:15). Essenes labored during the day in their communities ( Jos. War 2.131). In the pre-Christian era, Shemaiah reportedly urged people to “love labor” (m. ʾAb. 1:10).4309 As might be expected, some Tannaim also emphasized that the study of Torah was the most important toil (R. Eleazar in b. Sanh. 99b). Jewish people more generally condemned 4305. For a more detailed defense of my position on this point, see Keener, John, 185–94; far more thoroughly and with fuller nuance, see esp. Instone-Brewer, Traditions. That rabbinic sources are cited more critically than most bodies of ancient sources except Scripture is partly (and rightly) due to their long period of transmission but may also be partly related to their connection to an extant religious tradition, for which scholars of such documents (perhaps because of the limited size of their research canons) usually raise the bar of historical analysis. 4306. Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 15–16, notes that some of these early sources are pre-Christian. Even allowing for inaccurate attributions, they probably represent early traditions. 4307. Hock, Social Context, 23–24. 4308. In praise of hard work, see, e.g., Prov 10:4; 12:11, 24; 13:4; 14:23; Test. Iss. 5:3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 21, §44 B; b. Ber. 32b, bar. See further Safrai, “Education,” 958 (citing m. ʾAb. 1:10; ʾAbot R. Nat. 11 A); Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 440ff. In ancient Near Eastern wisdom, e.g., ANET 413, 425. 4309. In context, this exhortation (‫ )אהב את המלאכה‬may be opposed to playing up to the authorities, depending on how coherent the redaction of ʾAbot is supposed to be.

2726

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 430

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

idleness.4310 A Diaspora Jewish writer warned that one who does not learn a craft must wield a hoe—that is, engage in the strenuous and truly despised labor of digging.4311 See further discussion below on rabbis and learning a trade. Some early Christian writers emphasized the value of manual labor, often pointing to Paul’s example.4312 (4) Views of Work in Corinth

That the elite despised manual laborers in Corinth should not surprise us; instead, we should be surprised that while working with his hands, Paul reached some people of status. Yet Corinth in this period likely continued to host many laborers whom Paul wished to reach. Craftsmen were less despised in old Corinth than in any other major Greek city (Hdt. 2.167.2); their patron deity in Corinth was Athena.4313 But outsiders viewed this situation with disdain; Polybius fails to conceal his disgust when complaining about the common assembly in old Corinth consisting mainly of laborers.4314 New Corinth was settled primarily from the outside, and so, although laborers may have taken pride in their work, the elite probably reflected the values of broader GrecoRoman elite society. One of the qualifications for duumvirs in new Corinth was never having “followed an ignoble trade.”4315 Even some of the early Roman colonists of new Corinth were probably relatively poor. Rome sent unemployed, landless, and potentially unstable Romans to settle Carthage and may have done the same with Corinth.4316 Coins and inscriptions from Augustan to Neronian Corinth include among Corinth’s duumvirs more ex-slaves of Roman aristocrats than veterans and especially suggest an influx of businesspeople and their exslaves.4317 Corinth grew much more commercially successful under Claudius and Nero, at which time more older Greek families began to participate in the civic government.4318 (5) Laborers’ Self-Identity

Manual laborers themselves seem to have held a higher view of their work; their burial epitaphs, for example, advertise their occupations,4319 and farmers are portrayed as valuing manual labor.4320 From an early period, Greek potters may have even painted 4310. E.g., Ps.-Phoc. 153–54; on work versus laziness, see further discussion at Acts 17:5. Adam had to toil hard, but the later division of labor reduced humanity’s strain (t. Ber. 6:2). 4311. Ps.-Phoc. 158. On the difficulties of digging, see Luke 16:3; Aristoph. Birds 1432 (in Drury, Design, 79); Diog. Laert. 7.5.171; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.488; for slaves, Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.79.2; Char. Chaer. 8.8.2. For ditches, cf. Ovid Tristia 4.1.5–6; in the mines, Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.8; in agriculture, Theophr. Caus. Plant. 3.6.3–4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.79.2; for grave digging, P.Grenf. 2.68.1; 2.76.1; 2.77.3. 4312. E.g., John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 18.3–5; Hom. Acts 39; Augustine On the Work of Monks (FC 16:331–94); Sermon on Mount 2.17.57–58 (all in Martin, Acts, 223–24). Like Lucian, many could view manual labor as appropriate—at least for manual laborers. 4313. Engels, Roman Corinth, 99. 4314. Polyb. 38.12.5, from 147 b.c.e. (Grant, Paul, 15). 4315. Engels, Roman Corinth, 18. 4316. Grant, Paul, 15. 4317. Ibid., 16, following Spawforth, “Roman Corinth”; see also idem, “Corinth”; Sherwin-White, Levick, and Bispham, “Colonization,” 364. Julius Caesar had allowed freedmen, but Augustus required all to be freeborn (Engels, Roman Corinth, 18; on freedpersons and veterans in more detail, see 16–18, esp. 67–69). The original settlers were probably more freedmen than veterans, used in the city’s renovation (Grant, Paul, 19). 4318. Grant, Paul, 16, following Spawforth, “Roman Corinth.” The Greek economy was weak before the Roman period (Grant, “Economic Background,” 104–5). 4319. MacMullen, Social Relations, 120; Savage, Power, 85–86; Harland, Associations, 41; Martin, Slavery, 44–46, 123–24. Paul’s pride in earning his living thus need not indicate that he came from “a rather well-todo family” (pace Dahl, Studies, 35), although, in view of Acts 22:3 and his obvious measure of intellectual training in his epistles, he probably did. 4320. Alciphron views farmers as valuing hard work over nonsense such as philosophy and war (Farm. 11 [Sitalces to Oenopion, his son], 3.14; 13 [Phyllis to Thrasonides, his son], 3.16).

2727

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 431

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“signatures” on their pots (if the signatures are their own), and Athenian artisans had long mentioned their professions in inscriptions.4321 Even those who originally came from more privileged classes, such as Dio Chrysostom, might recognize that all laborers found satisfaction in their own work, however demeaning others may have found it.4322 Whereas Dio elsewhere warned against trades that are dangerous or too sedentary,4323 he affirmed that other occupations provided livelihood and were good.4324 One should not sneer at such occupations because they belong to the poor, he warned; poverty was sometimes healthier than wealth anyway.4325 (6) Status and Luke’s Report

Some question whether a Roman citizen in fact made tents (or worked leather): do not these high- and low-status associations conflict? Although Paul’s own letters attest his manual labor and the hostile reaction to it, we depend on Luke for Paul’s higher-status Roman citizenship (see discussion at Acts 16:37). But an educated Roman citizen would still need means of support when he came to a new city; inherited citizenship did not in itself automatically confer wealth.4326 Further, Paul’s high status as an educated citizen and his low status as a manual laborer would together create “status tension,” a not unusual situation in antiquity; this tension helps explain why he is treated neither better nor worse than he is in judicial situations in Acts.4327 When Paul speaks of working with his hands, he lists it among his hardships, well aware of the low status with which it was associated in the eyes of some (1 Cor 4:12).4328 Luke mentions Paul’s work only in passing here4329 and more forcefully at the climax of an apology for Paul in Acts 20:34; Paul, however, mentions it conspicuously in his letters, even when writing to Corinthians about his sufferings (1 Cor 4:11–12; 2 Cor 11:23, 27; cf. 2 Thess 3:8). Luke appeals to a socially respectable stratum and may know that some higher-status Corinthians probably favored Apollos over Paul for the former’s more socially respectable approach. Luke challenges the honor definitions of Theophilus’s class in Acts 20:34, as he often challenges them economically, especially in the Gospel (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:33; 14:33), but he prefers to emphasize higher-status aspects of Paul’s background than does Paul himself. The higher-status members in the Corinthian congregation may have resented Paul’s laboring with his hands. By contrast, Paul identified with the working class in a way that would commend him to its members.4330 His agenda was not to maintain high status but to “enslave” himself, if necessary, to reach everyone (1 Cor 9:18–19). 4321. Spawforth, “Artisans.” 4322. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.56; cf. Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:18–19. Dio also opines that philosophers ought to be versatile enough to build what they need (Or. 71.1–6). 4323. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.110. No one honorable should have any connection with such professions (7.111). One should also avoid professions harmful to societal morals, such as those involving makeup, perfumes, hairdressing (7.117–18) and those of actors, creators of mimes, etc. (7.119); auctioneers and criers in the market who must engage in vulgar shouting (7.123); and brothel keepers (7.133). 4324. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.112–13. 4325. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.115 (one wonders how many poor people would have agreed). 4326. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 149. 4327. Rapske, Custody, 111–12. “Status inconsistency” is a recognized category in sociological discussions (see esp. Lenski, “Status Crystallization”). 4328. Nevertheless, Still, “Loathe Labor,” may be right to question whether we find in Paul a wealthy or aristocratic disdain of manual labor. 4329. To pass over a matter quickly was appropriate rhetorical form if the matter might distress one’s audience (Theon Progymn. 5.52–56). 4330. With Martínez, “Pablo.”

2728

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 432

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

x. Learning a Trade (18:3)

Given Paul’s advanced education in Torah (cf. Gal 1:14 and the level of Paul’s letters), we may be surprised that Paul also learned a trade, yet his letters testify to his manual labor (e.g., 1 Cor 4:12). How did Paul learn this trade? (1) Various Possibilities

One might argue that he learned this trade under Aquila and Priscilla; he earlier worked in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:9), though we do not know for certain what the work was.4331 Luke’s wording, however, suggests otherwise (and given general attitudes toward trades, Luke lacked reason to lengthen Paul’s practice of it): Paul stayed with them because they shared the same trade, and so he could help in their shop. Perhaps he picked up the trade in Tarsus after fleeing Damascus and Jerusalem, having abandoned or lost his possessions.4332 It is more often suggested that he learned it in Jerusalem; if his family was well-to-do (see comment on Acts 22:3), he may have learned it only as a temporary job within his family’s larger textile business.4333 Perhaps he was not a “professional” “rabbi,” (though cf. “his disciples” in Acts 9:25), but he may not have been a full-time textile worker either (note 9:1–2; one need not suppose that he also had business interests in Damascus). He may have been a Pharisaic “layman” but still young (7:58) and perhaps only recently out of school (cf. Gal 1:14), and he may have been planning to teach Torah but was perhaps of such a social station that acquiring many students was not an urgent task. Unfortunately, at this remove, we can only speculate about such matters. (2) Apprenticeship

What we can reconstruct more easily is the most common means of learning a trade. After age thirteen, rabbis expected fathers either to train sons in their own trade or to apprentice them to another to learn a different trade.4334 One Tanna reportedly warned that a father who fails to teach his son how to make a living teaches him to become a robber.4335 A later tradition claims that a father could make arrangements for an apprenticeship even, if necessary, on the Sabbath.4336 Parthian Jews also arranged for their sons to learn by apprenticeship, even from Gentiles ( Jos. Ant. 18.314–15). Some of this custom reflects common ancient Mediterranean culture.4337 In classical Athens at least, a son was relieved of any obligation to care for his aged parents if his father had not arranged training for him in a craft.4338 Many ancient apprenticeship contracts survive, whether to weavers (P.Oxy. 275 [66 c.e.]; 725 [183 c.e.]), shorthand writers (P.Oxy. 724 [155 c.e.]), coppersmiths,4339 or others. Sometimes women would learn a trade as apprentices to women (to prevent molestation).4340 Around 4331. There is, however, no distinction from the work in Corinth in 1 Cor 4:12; cf. his exhortation in 1 Thess 4:11. 4332. See, e.g., Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 15. 4333. Perhaps they were engaged in Cilician imports to Jerusalem, although, as already noted, it seems likelier that Paul was a leatherworker. 4334. Watson, “Education,” 312. For the emphasis on the father’s responsibility, see b. Qidd. 29a, bar.; 30b. For apprenticing a son to a carpenter, see, e.g., b. Mak. 8b. 4335. Rabbi Judah in b. Qidd. 29a (qualified as metaphoric by some of his colleagues or successors). 4336. Attributed to the school of Hillel but cited in b. Šabb. 12a; Lam. Rab. 3. This may be hyperbolic; a tailor could not even walk with a needle in his garment (b. Šabb. 11ab). 4337. Athenians may have been distinctive in requiring children to support aged parents only if the latter taught them a trade (Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 3), but Vitruvius is himself grateful to his parents for teaching him a trade (6.pref. 4). 4338. Thür, “Kakosis.” 4339. PSI 871, from 64 c.e. (in Sherk, Empire, 232, §175). 4340. Minnen, “Women” (citing SB 18.13305; KSB 1.045; P.Heid. 4.326).

2729

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 433

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

age thirteen at the latest, a boy would typically begin an apprenticeship, which would consume most days in the next two or three years.4341 Discipline could be strict during this period; apprenticeship was to benefit the supervisor’s work as well as the boy’s learning.4342 Lucian claims that his father decided on a trade for him so that he could bring money into the family (Career 1);4343 he became an apprentice to his uncle in sculpting (Career 2–3) and was beaten for his mistakes (Career 4). For most boys, apprenticeship (usually to the father) was the only education their family could afford.4344 Records of linen weavers reveal that they trained not only their own sons and daughters but also those from other weavers’ families and even outside the guild, whether free or slave.4345 The apprentice’s father provided his son food and clothing while the overseer taught the boy the trade. Families tended to pass on skills from one generation to another.4346 It was normally expected that a young man would spend his life in his family’s craft4347 or at least the one in which he was trained. A later rabbi tells how a carpenter passes on his tools to his son when he grows up (y. Roš Haš. 1:3, §35). An apprentice learning to work leather, as Hock suggests for Paul’s background, would have learned to cut the leather pieces so that their placement would take advantage of the natural strengths of the leather and thus best withstand strains and pulling. An apprentice like Paul would also have learned how to sew these leather pieces together, using either a basting stitch, a seam stitch, or a felling stitch, the latter two being used where seams needed to be waterproof.4348 (3) Rabbis and Training in Manual Labor

Many, though not all, early rabbis practiced a trade alongside their studies.4349 An early third-century rabbi praised conjoining secular labor with study of Torah, perhaps because poverty created temptation (m. ʾAb. 2:2).4350 Some rabbis claimed that their versatility in studies stemmed from working a job during the day.4351 This emphasis on work alongside study of Torah remained an important stream in rabbinic tradition,4352 4341. Jeffers, World, 28. Jeffers estimates age thirteen (so also Hock, Social Context, 24); Lewis, Life, 135, finds that most linen weavers were ten to thirteen, with apprenticeship usually lasting one to three years and sometimes a little longer. For one year, see P.Oxy. 275; five years, P.Oxy. 725 (including no pay for the first two years and seven months but gradually increasing wages thereafter; the apprentice received just twenty days off annually for holidays). In some cultures, apprenticeship can last between three and seven years (Mbiti, Religions, 232, on traditional Yoruba diviners). Occasionally an apprentice started later (age twenty-five in CIG 4464, 9899, from 324 c.e.; Grant, Religions, 123). 4342. See Hock, Social Context, 24 (esp. notes, 76). As noted, the apprentice in P.Oxy. 725 received no pay for the first two years and seven months but gradually increasing wages thereafter. 4343. He appears to be young, since he still plays in Dream 2 and often cries because of his beatings in Dream 4. 4344. Jeffers, World, 256. 4345. Lewis, Life, 134–35 (with papyrological evidence). 4346. Also true in the ancient Near East, especially Egypt, where maintaining the hereditary trade was mandatory (de Vaux, Israel, 359). 4347. MacMullen, Social Relations, 97. 4348. Hock, Social Context, 24–25. 4349. See Safrai, “Education,” 964–65 (citing, before 70 c.e., a tradition in t. Beṣah 3:8; later, b. Beṣah 15b; Sipre Num. 148). 4350. Secular labor seems the likeliest way to understand ‫דרך ארץ‬, at least on the basis of comments from later generations and the likely sense of ‫ מלאכה‬in the same passage; see also the earlier source in m. ʾAb. 3:17 (but contrast 4:8). 4351. Allegedly R. Zera in b. ʿErub. 65a. By itself the report could mean the opposite, but the context of R. Simeon b. Lakish’s claim that night was for learning suggests that the Talmudic editors understood R. Zera’s claim as it has been construed here. 4352. E.g., Eccl. Rab. 9:9, §1.

2730

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 434

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

though the practical realities of full-time scholars eventually provided a different emphasis. Some wanted to reject crafts and teach their sons only Torah (m. Qidd. 4:14). Even in the pre-Christian era, scribes who could focus on learning wisdom rather than working as artisans claimed to gain more wisdom (Sir 38:24); other occupations were necessary, but their diversion of attention from wisdom could disqualify one from judging or expounding wisdom (38:32–33).4353 In the early second century, R. Ishmael interpreted Scripture as requiring both secular work and Torah study.4354 Later in the second century, R. Simeon ben Yohai disagreed;4355 a still later rabbi observed that more rabbis had found Ishmael’s advice beneficial than Simeon ben Yohai’s.4356 But study of Torah might free one from a secular occupation or at least from undue attention to it;4357 an Amora claimed that a man, if deserving, receives the opportunity to labor in Torah and, if not, to till soil.4358 Some Jewish sages also valued providing Torah without concern for remuneration,4359 though scribes and teachers of Mishnah in a later period were supported and did not need to work.4360 Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai in the late second century claimed that towns that neglected supporting their scribes and Mishnah teachers invited divine judgment.4361 Economic necessity needed to be taken into account, whether by Paul or by later rabbis. But a principle perhaps originally demanded by necessity became a matter of virtue; thus some rabbis would carry a pitcher or basket to the academy, claiming, “Labor is great, because it honors the laborer.”4362 Rabbinic tradition was not unanimous regarding every aspect of labor, but it did praise it as honorable. Likewise, having to depend on others was shameful,4363 though laboring in Torah was considered different (apparently even more so in later centuries) because those who did so merited support. Later rabbis claimed that publicly accepting charity from Gentiles disqualified one from serving as a legal witness unless absolutely necessary (b. Sanh. 26b). The Talmud’s reports of the earliest scribes, surely at least partly accurate, include various crafts: flax or asphalt merchants, bakers, tailors, master builders, makers of nails or sandals, millers, and so forth.4364 Some trades were dishonorable, as noted in a 4353. For historical context that might qualify this assessment, see Marböck, “Herz.” It is possible that 1QS VI, 19–20 suggests that nine of every ten Essenes provide support for the tenth to study continually (cf. VI, 6–7; suggested to me by Orval Wintermute). 4354. Sipre Deut. 42.3.3; b. Ber. 35b, bar. 4355. Sipre Deut. 42.3.3; b. Ber. 35b. 4356. B. Ber. 35b. 4357. M. ʾAb. 3:5, if, again, correctly understanding ‫דרך ארץ‬. It is so understood in later sources (e.g., Num. Rab. 19:26). 4358. Gen. Rab. 13:7. Laboring in the law was traced back to Adam (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 2:15). 4359. Le Cornu, Acts, 674, citing Der. Er. Zuṭ. 4:3. 4360. Lev. Rab. 30:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:1; Pesiq. Rab. 51:1; cf. Lev. Rab. 34:16. This had long been true of sages who were also priests (Safrai, “Education,” 964), though others may have early depended on hospitality (McNamara, Judaism, 172). 4361. Y. Ḥag. 1:7, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5. A later rabbi viewed God’s provision to Elijah by ravens as a reward for his dawn and evening Torah study (Lev. Rab. 19:1). 4362. B. Ned. 49b (late second- and early third-century rabbis). 4363. E.g., b. Ber. 6b; Beṣah 32b, bar.; ʿErub. 18b; Yebam. 63a; Song Rab. 2:5, §3. Rabbi Akiba allegedly even claimed (undoubtedly hyperbolically) that it was better to work on the Sabbath than to depend on others (b. Pesaḥ. 112a). 4364. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 3 (following Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:745–46); Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 102 (following Klausner); cf. also Soncino 2:627n1, on Shabbat. Cf. early second-century R. Joshua as a needle maker (y. Taʿan. 4:1, §14); mid-second-century R. Johanan the sandal maker (b. Ber. 22a; Ned. 85b; Qidd. 63a; Gen. Rab. 61:3); later Abba Saul the baker (b. Pesaḥ. 34a); R. Judah the baker (b. Menaḥ. 6b); R. Abin the carpenter (b. Šabb. 23b; cf. Shammai in b. Šabb. 31a); R. Hananiah, selling money (y. Peʾah 7:4, §4); three early third-century rabbis were silk traders (Gen. Rab. 77:2).

2731

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 435

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

second-century list: ass- or camel-drivers, barbers, sailors, herdsmen, and shopkeepers (whom the rabbi identifies with robbers; m. Qidd. 4:14). An early third-century rabbi emended the list to oppose mostly ass-drivers, physicians, and butchers.4365 Other trades were more honorable.4366 As members of the educated class, Pharisees included some members (such as Gamaliel’s family) who were wealthy enough to share with the Sadducees in Jerusalem’s aristocracy; many others were still better off than the masses, though probably working some trades that provided better than others.4367 Tradition declares that some, like Hillel, began poor or, like Akiba, began as “commoners.”4368 Undoubtedly, Paul’s family had means if he studied with Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and he had access to the high priest as a young man (9:1). Surrounded by Pharisees who honored labor, however, Paul may have imbibed this value or at least recognized its importance in some circles he honored. Given the discussion above, it is probable that Paul learned a trade even if he grew up in a home of moderate wealth; his trade may have been more “honorable” than tentmaking or leatherworking, but the honorable ethic of labor was undoubtedly instilled in him from youth. Even if he had escaped the drudgery of much such labor in his own youth, he knew the traditions that valued it, which would allow him to learn a trade at a later time if necessary (perhaps, e.g., during his adult sojourn in Tarsus, 9:30). xi. The Nature of Paul’s Work (18:3)

Although many have traditionally translated the term σκηνοποιός as “tentmaker,”4369 the etymological sense that one might guess for it, more recent scholarship has inclined toward the patristic view that Paul and Aquila were “leatherworkers.”4370 The term is rare (nowhere else in the nt or the lxx), but its etymological interpretation should not be pressed against the interpretation of ancient authors who knew living Koine. John Chrysostom, Origen, and all the earliest fathers take it as “leatherworker”;4371 most medieval interpreters understood the term etymologically as “tentmaker,” but they believed the tents were made of leather.4372 On any of these views, Paul could have ministered while at work. 4365. For tanners, see comment on Acts 9:43; for shepherds, see Keener, John, 799–802; comment on Acts 20:28. Artisans were thought to work harder than shopkeepers (b. B. Meṣiʿa 68b), but some were thought deceptive (b. B. Meṣiʿa 76a). 4366. Quilting is honorable in b. Qidd. 82ab (Rab Judah); a tailor appears not unfavorably in m. Šabb. 1:3; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 39a; a knowledgeable weaver appears in b. Ḥag. 15b. 4367. Riesner, Early Period, 154–55, thinks them mainly middle class. 4368. For Hillel, see b. Yoma 35b; for Akiba, b. Pesaḥ. 49b. 4369. E.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 233. Were one to rely on etymology, one might connect the role with Peter’s desire to build tabernacles (Luke 9:33; cf. Gen 33:17; Neh 8:15–17; Jonah 4:5; Jdt 8:5) or the making of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:43–44; cf. Exod 25:9; 26:1). If Luke substituted this term for a clearer one to offer such a connection (which is not impossible), the nature of the connection (e.g., a double entendre for workers on a spiritual temple) would nevertheless remain open to debate (Luke not being given to allegory). 4370. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 223 (apparently the minority view in their day); MurphyO’Connor, Corinth, 168; Hock, Social Context, 21; Arrington, Acts, 184; Reimer, Women, 202–3; Rapske, Custody, 107. Bruce, Commentary, 367, translates “leatherworker” but connects this with cilicium anyway (presumably because people used goatskins and other skins as well as sheared sheep when they were alive); in the later idem, Thessalonians, 34, he mentions tentmaking, “perhaps more generally ‘leather working.’” 4371. Reimer, Women, 199–200. The Old Latin ms h has a term meaning “maker of bed cushions,” most of which were of leather; Origen and Rufinus understand σκηνοποιός as sutor (“shoemaker”; Hock, Social Context, 20–21). 4372. Reimer, Women, 200–201. Roman military tents consisted of leather (Le Bohec, “Tabernaculum,” citing Livy 23.18.5; Tac. Ann. 13.35.3; 14.38.1), lined with straw in winter. Yet Bede Comm. Acts 18.3 suggests

2732

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 436

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(1) Fabric Worker?

Some evidence has been cited for Paul being a tentmaker who used fabric—that is, a weaver—like many people in Tarsus. The hills of rural Cilicia hosted many goats, whose hair was used for socks, stockings, “and a special kind of warm cloak, called a ‘cilicium,’ which was imported to Italy in the time of Augustus.”4373 Since one could both shear animals when they were alive and use their skins after their death, such material is not necessarily incompatible with the perspective that Paul was also a leatherworker (below), though they involved different skills.4374 Goat hair was not the only textile known in that region, however. Linen workers, probably as a guild, constituted a large group of workers in Tarsus (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21), Paul’s home city; this probably constituted a source of the city’s prosperity.4375 So closely associated was linen-working with Tarsus that rabbinic literature often mentions linen workers as Tarsiim in various Palestinian Jewish cities.4376 Some have also argued for the use of linen tabernacula, or tents, as shade for vendors or others.4377 The same sort of sailcloth used for stalls and shops might even be used in a port town for sails.4378 Although wool and linen were the most common textiles,4379 weavers and tentmakers of other fabrics sometimes used quite expensive fabrics, such as silk,4380 the expense of which was increased by costs incurred transporting it (usually) from China.4381 (2) Leatherwork?

A greater number of factors, however, probably count against this interpretation and favor the leatherworking interpretation. In Paul’s home city, linen workers were excluded from citizenship, which does not fit Paul (Acts 21:39).4382 The exclusion of cloth workers may have been more widespread,4383 but Tarsus’s linen workers resented it.4384 Their lack of resources helped contribute to their lack of citizenship (it cost five that the tents (used for shade) were made of wool, linen, or other substances. See full discussion in BDAG, rejecting “tentmaker” but noting the lack of hard lexical data for any position. 4373. Charlesworth, Trade Routes, 93 (noting for cilicium Varro Rust. 2.11, 12; cf. Mart. Epig. 14.141), who also connects this with Paul. Barr, “Tent Makers,” suggests that Aquila and Priscilla imported cilicium in Rome, where they made tents for the military. Pliny E. N.H. 8.76.203 noted that Cilicians wore goat hair garments. 4374. People strongly preferred sheep for wool, but goatskins made better leather after the animal’s death (see Lewis, Life, 132). 4375. Jones and Mitchell, “Tarsus.” On Tarsus’s fame for linen, Pekridou-Gorecki, “Linen,” 621 (along with Panopolis in Egypt [Strabo 17.1.41] and Colchis [11.2.17]). 4376. Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 684–85, citing reports for Jerusalem (b. Meg. 26a), Lydda (t. ʾOhal. 4:2; cf. b. Naz. 52a), and Tiberias (y. Šeqal. 2.47a). 4377. Lampe, “Paulus-Zeltmacher”; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 626. Szesnat, “Σκηνοποιός,” suggests that Paul could have used various materials, including linen, leather, and perhaps cilicium. 4378. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 417 (noting Pliny E. N.H. 19.23–24 for awnings for stalls in the forum area); cf. Wild, “Linen.” For linen sails, see Pliny E. N.H. 19.5.22; for linen cloths used as awnings in theaters, see 19.6.23–25. 4379. See Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 196. Pliny E. N.H. 19.1.1–19.2.15 discusses flax (from various regions); preparing flax for linen, 19.3.16–18; on various kinds of linens, see 19.4.19–21. 4380. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 105; Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 196. Baugh suggests that work in expensive fabrics could have brought Paul in contact with upper-class people (as in Acts 19:31; Rom 16:23). But given Luke’s Tendenz, we would expect him to emphasize the expense of the fabrics if this were the case (cf. Acts 16:14). 4381. Cf. Frye, Heritage, 153–57; Herbert, “Silk Road”; Casson, Mariners, 198, 204, 206; Croom, Clothing, 22; Aune, Revelation, 999; Bauckham, Climax, 355; Caird, Revelation, 228; Schneider, “Ivory.” As a luxury item, see, e.g., Suet. Calig. 52; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.14; 2 Bar. 10:19; Rev 18:12; cf. Croom, Clothing, 22. Some silk was available from Cos (Pliny E. N.H. 11.26.76; 11.27.77), but the highest quality was imported from China. 4382. Tarsian citizens despised linen workers in this period, not yet having granted them citizenship (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23). This suggests that it was not the most desirable occupation for Tarsian citizens. If an advocate of the linen-working interpretation contends that Paul learned the trade later, appeal to a connection between linen work and Tarsus must also be relinquished. 4383. See Theissen, Setting, 104. 4384. See Lee, “Unrest,” 129, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 34.22; cf. Or. 32, 33, 34, 39, 46.

2733

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 437

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

hundred drachmas, Dio Chrys. Or. 34.23), which also does not fit a family that could send Paul to Jerusalem to study with Rabban Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Further, Paul was raised not in Tarsus but in Jerusalem (22:3).4385 It also appears that in Judea, where Paul had spent most of his formative years and would have learned a trade, it was considered shameful for men to weave cloth ( Jos. Ant. 18.314).4386 Even elsewhere, spinners and weavers were most commonly associated with women.4387 Textile work was perhaps the most common occupation in Jewish Asia Minor, and the term Ταρσεύς “early became synonymous with a linen-weaver,” but Palestinian Jews did not clearly import Cilician goat hair cloths before the late second century c.e. (m. Kelim 29:1).4388 More important, weaving equipment was bulky and could not have been carried by the mobile apostle from one city to another; leatherworking equipment was much more manageable.4389 Granted, it is possible that Paul did different work in Thessalonica4390 and perhaps other cities and that he worked for others in each place instead of carrying his own tools, and so this objection is of limited value. But even if we think of “tentmaking” more generally, many scholars argue that most tents were made of leather and were rarely made of cilicium.4391 The matter continues to generate debate. (3) The Nature of Leatherworking

Leatherwork would not require the tanning and treating of hides, a malodorous work assigned to tanners (see comment on Acts 9:43).4392 Rather, leatherworkers were a more acceptably “clean” profession,4393 cutting leather with knives and then sewing it with awls.4394 Various products could emerge from leatherworking, including shoes and awnings.4395 Soldiers, like peasants, “wore leather shoes with nailed soles and uppers slit into strips”;4396 soldiers also needed tents. In Corinth, however, Paul’s customers would be primarily civilians, perhaps especially (and particularly strategically for the gospel) those who traveled. Visiting oarsmen might need tents until their ship left port; the well-to-do would use tents for shade on board ships or 4385. If a trade with cilicium is in view, it must be one learned from his father rather than by himself (van Unnik, Tarsus, 50); but the same objection concerning citizenship would apply to his father as well. 4386. Cf. Goodman, State, 56 (the supposed Aramaic mistranslation behind Josephus here [Cohen, “Asinaeus”] appears improbable). Légasse, “Career,” 378–79, counters that such trades were common in Jerusalem nevertheless. Given Paul’s reputed status, however (Gal 1:14; Acts 9:1–2), his activity was not likely considered among people of status to be a shameful one, however common. 4387. Peskowitz, “Textiles,” 197. 4388. Applebaum, “Social Status,” 717. Later rabbis discussed cilicium (‫קילקלי‬, b. B. Bat. 78a). 4389. Rapske, “Travel and Shipwreck,” 7 (on weaving equipment’s bulk, he cites, e.g., P.Oxy. 2.264; 36.2773; 7.1035); idem, Custody, 107 (citing, for the equipment’s size, Roth, Looms, 41). 4390. He does not specify its nature in 1 Thess 2:9 (or 2 Thess 3:8). Although we do not know the length of his stay in Thessalonica, it was apparently involuntarily abbreviated, and so we do not know what his longterm occupational plans there were. 4391. Hock, Social Context, 21 (following Zahn on the latter point); also Rapske, Custody, 106–7; Reimer, Women, 202–3; Jeffers, World, 27; Applebaum, “Social Status,” 716; Le Cornu, Acts, 470. They cite, e.g., Livy 5.2.7; 37.39.2; Tac. Ann. 13.35.3. Lampe, “Paulus-Zeltmacher,” counters that most of Hock’s sources on tents refer to fabric. 4392. Raw skin was far less durable and flexible than leather, requiring preparation (Anderson-Stojanovic, “Leather,” 339). 4393. Rapske, Custody, 107; Jeffers, World, 28; against the very tentative objection in Stagg, Acts, 189. It was, of course, possible for some workers to perform the entire range of work from tanning to the final product (e.g., ILS 7555, from Rome; Sherk, Empire, 229, §173H). 4394. Hock, Social Context, 24 (also describing the workers as bent over their work). 4395. Jeffers, World, 26. For shoemaking, see discussion at Acts 12:8; for awnings, see Pliny E. N.H. 19.6.23–25. One could also construct awnings from linen (Pekridou-Gorecki, “Linen,” 620). 4396. Jeffers, World, 42. “The two Jewish makers of hobnail boots (caligae) buried at Corycus belong to a later period, but . . . might, like Paul, have been working for the Roman army” (Applebaum, “Social Status,” 716).

2734

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 438

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

while visiting festivals.4397 In a leatherworkers’ market, one could reportedly find even a leather bed (b. Ned. 56b). (Given the probable wealth of Paul’s family [cf. comment on Acts 22:3], if his parents made tents, they might have owned a factory rather than only a family business, though Paul could have learned the trade in either.) If Paul indeed made tents (whether of leather or another substance), he was probably busy producing awnings during the Isthmian Games of spring 51 c.e.;4398 the biennial games were a major tourist event and a boon to the local economy.4399 (For further discussion of the Isthmian Games, see below.) Others suggest he made awnings for use in the theater or elsewhere in Corinth.4400 (4) Activity and Discussion in Shops

As noted above, artisans were better off than peasants, miners, and unskilled laborers; but usually they struggled, and only a small percentage achieved moderate wealth.4401 Apprentice contracts from Egypt suggest availability for work from sunrise to sunset, though most workers would have taken a midday siesta.4402 Paul seems to have worked long hours, too (20:31, 35; 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 3:8), although, undoubtedly, he counts preaching outside the shop among them. If remains of shutters found in Herculaneum are representative, many shopkeepers apparently began their workdays by opening folding wooden doors or grills facing the street.4403 Some shops (e.g., for sculptors and metalsmiths) were dirty, noisy, and potentially dangerous; some others (e.g., for weavers) required large and expensive equipment. If Paul was a leatherworker, his shop was probably more like a shoemaker’s, which could be fairly quiet and allow extensive conversation without distracting one from one’s work.4404 In such an environment, a worker (like a shoemaker in one account) could keep stitching while listening to someone reading; a servant might nap.4405 Mediterranean society was given to conversations, whether in streets, shops, or taverns or with business or residential neighbors.4406 Shops were common places to congregate and talk, especially (though not exclusively) those nearest the marketplace.4407 They might also provide one relatively private means of oratorical practice: an individual too young to address the marketplace was allowed to speak “in a saddler’s shop near the Market.”4408 Even married women could chat and ask questions while they considered buying something; tax and rent collection could provide contacts with city officials.4409 Paul certainly could have carried on lengthy conversations about his God with those who entered, and some scholars think that this work would provide 4397. Hock, Social Context, 33–34, esp. 34. 4398. See, e.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17; Witherington, Corinthians, 209. For “tents” at the Isthmian Games, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.22 (though ἐσκήνουν may simply refer to residence). 4399. E.g., Strabo 8.6.20; cf. Livy 33.32.3. 4400. Gill, “Achaia,” 452; for theatrical props, cf. Welborn, “Correspondence,” 208, following BDAG. Tents must have shaded the many market stalls in Corinth’s massive open forum (Engels, Roman Corinth, 13). 4401. Hock, Social Context, 34. 4402. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; Jeffers, World, 25, 28. Conditions were better in Greece than in Egypt, but long workdays seem likely. For siestas, see comment on Acts 8:26; 19:9; 26:13; also Keener, John, 592. 4403. Jeffers, World, 61. 4404. Hock, Social Context, 33 (followed by others, e.g., Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118; cf. Chilton, Rabbi Paul, 87–88). 4405. Hock, Social Context, 33. 4406. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 119. This social activity characterizes many societies that I have observed and seems odd only to people from busy urban mobile societies like my own (where people drive everywhere and tend to stay inside and, for different reasons, mistrust strangers). 4407. Lysias Or. 24.19–20, §170 (noting perfumers, barbers, and shoemakers). 4408. Xen. Mem. 4.2.1 (LCL, 269); this is classical Athens, but the principle probably remains applicable. 4409. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 170.

2735

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 439

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

an initial basis for evangelism in the Gentile community.4410 Most philosophers chose higher-status venues for intellectual discussion, but Socrates and especially some Cynics had also used shops for intellectual conversation.4411 Paul’s work suggests a significant difference between Paul and the traditional stereotype of modern Western missionaries. Paul became part of local societies, to which he had some relatively easy access because of common elements of eastern Mediterranean culture and Judaism’s intelligibility in and apologetic toward the larger culture. With probably no regular support from Antioch and only sporadic offerings from Macedonia (cf. Phil 4:15–16; 2 Cor 12:14), Paul also had no choice but to work within local societies.4412 Other traveling merchants also carried ideas and cults (see comment on Acts 8:4), but in contrast to many of them, Paul used work so that he could spread his gospel; it was labor, rather than the mission, that was incidental to his objective. The group’s shop would include basic tools necessary for their work (oil and blacking for the leather; knives, awls, and sharpening stones; a table and stool) and probably benches for customers.4413 As a missionary traveling lightly (Luke 9:3; 10:4), Paul may not have always taken his tools with him; on occasions when he was abruptly driven from a city (as in the case of his flight from Thessalonica shortly before his arrival in Achaia), he likely could not have done so. It seems nevertheless significant that he settled especially in cities with many tradesmen whom he could evangelize and through whose numerous contacts his message would be widely spread.4414 Paul could have borrowed tools when coming to a new town, or perhaps he worked for those who would have supplied them.4415 c. Ministry in and out of the Synagogue (18:4–8) Luke develops some of his preferred themes in this section, as elsewhere. Such literary connections need not mean that Luke lacked historical material (see discussion of such material above) but that he repeated particular themes to underline his literary and theological point. After the terse and closely packed introduction (Acts 18:1–3)4416 follow three “type-scenes,” each repeating Lukan or pre-Lukan biblical themes. Tannehill thinks that they are meant to emphasize the central pronouncements of Paul (18:6), the Lord (18:9–10), and Gallio (18:14–15).4417 The type-scenes are the following: 4410. As a setting for evangelism, see esp. Hock, Social Context, 41; idem, “Workshop.” Meeks, Urban Christians, 29, describes this thesis as “not implausible.” Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299) thinks that Paul did his primary teaching at night, after his workday, but our knowledge of Paul suggests that he probably spoke every chance he had (cf. 1 Thess 2:9; 3:10). 4411. Hock, Social Context, 38–41; cf. Malherbe, Philosophers, 69. Cynics generally lacked access to more respectable forums (and were thought to sometimes insult their hosts when they were brought into such forums). 4412. That is, in this respect, he resembles the early Moravian missions movement and early efforts by William Carey more than the more massive typical efforts of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Protestant missions. This is not intended as a critique of the latter, which generally faced a different cultural situation; some of the latter (e.g., Hudson Taylor’s China Inland Mission, like the Jesuits in Asia long before) were quite serious about cultural identification. For “tentmaking” in missions today (self-support in the cross-cultural setting), see, e.g., Peever, “Tent-Making.” 4413. Hock, Social Context, 33 (documenting all the points in this paragraph copiously, 83nn70–79). 4414. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 213. 4415. Such supplies could often be borrowed when one began in a new town ( Jeffers, World, 28); some tools might have been given Paul after his apprenticeship (Hock, Social Context, 25), but of course, he would not have them now. 4416. In terms of “scenes,” the introduction could be Acts 18:1–4, but I have chosen to keep the synagogue material (18:4–8) together; 18:4 may be connected with 18:1–3, but no more than the first part of 18:5 is. 4417. Tannehill, Acts, 221.

2736

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 440

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

1. Turning from the synagogue (18:5–7, fitting Luke’s earlier pattern, 13:44–47)4418 2. A vision that fully recalls “an epiphanic commissioning story”4419 3. “Public accusation before an official, similar to 16:19–24 and 17:5–9”4420 That the setting is similar to conflicts in 16:19–24 and 17:5–9 invites suspense, but this new confrontation ends more positively, underlining by way of contrast the benefit of appearing before Rome’s own officials rather than local magistrates. Paul himself may have learned the difference, if we may infer from his subsequent appeals to Roman authority (22:25–29; 25:9–11). i. Reasoning in the Synagogue (18:4)

Although some local Jews likely were Roman citizens (cf. 18:8; more certainly, the God-fearer in 18:7), most were resident aliens forming a semiautonomous immigrant community.4421 They were immigrants or descendants of immigrants, with the social stigmas that this status could carry in the sight of the Roman colonists (who were in a sense “colonialists” rather than immigrants) or local Greeks. Even in Roman colonies, the vast numbers of inhabitants who were not citizens of those colonies meant that Roman citizens were not always a majority.4422 The Jewish community was probably treated like other immigrant communities with their non-Roman and non-Greek religions. Most notable is the second-century c.e. temple of Isis in Cenchreae (cf. comment on Acts 18:18); Egyptian cults continued to flourish here until the fourth century.4423 On the whole, Jewish people in the empire exhibited the same range of economic resources found among Gentiles.4424 Whatever else we may surmise about the economic life of the Jewish community in Corinth (see comment on Acts 18:3), we can be fairly certain that this community faced significant external pressure in the wake of Claudius’s decree (see comment on Acts 18:2), which pressure would under normal circumstances generate internal community cohesion. The largest problem would not be the accommodation of new immigrants from Rome but the repercussions of Rome’s anti-Jewish sentiment; the capital’s behavior appeared to grant implicit permission to imitate it in the provinces. (On ancient anti-Judaism, see the excursus at Acts 16:20–21.) Corinth had a Jewish community, but it was never large enough to assert significant force in local politics.4425 The community might be economically insular in ways that local Romans and Greeks were not; Jewish people did not fit well into a guild system that included patron deities.4426 Colonies sometimes followed Rome’s lead on how to treat their Jewish minorities; this could include whether to provide kosher meat in the local market, which the ἀγορανόμος controlled ( Jos. Ant. 14.261).4427 Civic authorities controlled the market, including the fish and meat markets (cf. 1 Cor 10:25), which 4418. Ibid., 222. 4419. Ibid., 223, following Benjamin Hubbard. 4420. Ibid., 226. 4421. See Meeks, “Aliens,” 130. 4422. Cf. Jeffers, World, 208. 4423. Smith, “Egyptian Cults at Corinth”; briefly, Malherbe, Social Aspects, 76. 4424. See Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 80 (citing Philo Flacc. 57; following Applebaum, “Social Status”). 4425. Judging from Greek anti-Judaism in Alexandria, this may have acted to their advantage; they appeared less threatening. 4426. Cf. polytheistic cultic activity in guilds in Harland, Associations, 115–36; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 117–23. For the problem for Christians, see, e.g., Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 89–90; Metzger, Revelation, 36–37; Talbert, Apocalypse, 20. 4427. Winter, Left Corinth, 288–93.

2737

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 441

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

provided substantial tax revenue. Corinth’s own meat market was constructed in Augustus’s day by the Lechaeum Road,4428 near where an aedile supervised legal disputes concerning commercial matters.4429 Whether impatience with local Jews was local policy or not (until Gallio’s arrival, Acts 18:14–17), Rome’s example gave permission to such attitudes, and interest in Jewish market access may have been among them.4430 Explicit evidence from both Philo and Paul confirms Luke’s report of Jewish people in Corinth and, in Paul’s case, in the church.4431 Although we lack reason to doubt the existence of a synagogue in such a cosmopolitan center as Corinth, the discovery of an inscription noting the local Συναγωγή Ἑβραίων (CIJ 1:518, §718) is fortunate. It has been dated between 100 b.c.e. and 200 c.e.,4432 or even much later,4433 the style of lettering probably favoring a date after Paul. Still, it might have been built over the site of the earlier one, like many other synagogues.4434 Because it was found on the road to the marketplace,4435 some scholars have drawn connections with Paul’s work,4436 but because it was not recovered in situ but possibly moved, we cannot be sure of its original site.4437 If we can guess that it was not moved far, perhaps the Jewish community was near the market and Paul had easy access to both; but this is uncertain. In the final analysis, nothing rests on the matter, since Paul may have lived and worked in a shop in or near a largely Jewish enclave, and his journeys also reveal someone capable of walking long distances. The pre-70 Palestinian synagogue at Gamla could seat about three hundred people;4438 with urban space at a premium, we cannot guess how many the Corinthian building would have accommodated, and we do not know the local Jewish community’s size.4439 Members of the Samaritan Diaspora are also attested here, albeit centuries later (from the fourth century c.e.).4440 4428. The Lechaeum was Corinth’s cardo maximus, its main north-south street (McRay, Archaeology, 335; Romano, “Planning,” 30). It ran 3,150 m. from the forum’s rostra, where it was 24 Roman ft. in width, north to the Lechaeum harbor (Romano, “Planning,” 30). 4429. Winter, Left Corinth, 294. The aedile was in charge of grain. An inscription for the meat market, the macellum, remains (295). 4430. Winter (ibid., 288–94) thinks that the harsher policy was enacted after Paul left, creating the new situation that required advice in 1 Cor 10:25. This is plausible, though the textual evidence (Pauline and extrabiblical) renders this action historically certain at neither time (Winter’s arguments are always well informed, but on the degree of speculation involved in some of his proposals, note Dunn, Beginning, 783). 4431. Thus Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 10, cite Philo Embassy 281; Rom 16:21; probably 1 Cor 7:18–19 (to be relevant to Paul’s hearers); and with Acts 18:2, 8, 17, they cite 1 Cor 1:1, 14; 16:19. Possibly relevant (esp. 1 Cor 1:24), Kwon, Corinthians, 105, also cites the emphasis in 1 Cor 1:22, 24; on 110, Kwon also plausibly cites the likelihood of Jewish freedmen at Corinth’s founding in 44 b.c.e. (given Pompey’s import of Jewish slaves to Rome in 61 b.c.e.; following Vos, Conflicts, 187–88). 4432. So CIJ 1:518, §718. The inscription has long drawn comment (e.g., Cadbury, Acts in History, 86), though Koester, “Silence,” 340, doubts its usefulness because of the uncertainty of its date (possibly much later than Paul, McRay, Archaeology, 319–20). 4433. E.g., Welborn, “Correspondence,” 208, following West, Inscriptions, 79. Cf. also the probably fifthcentury c.e. capital with Jewish symbols (Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 10). 4434. Fitzmyer, Acts, 626 (also noting that the marble stone was probably originally from a lintel over the entrance); McRay, Archaeology, 320. Deissmann, Light, 16n7, regarded its writing as lower class and poor (if this does not reflect his romanticist bias). 4435. The Lechaeum Road also contained the “meat market” (above). 4436. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. Diaspora synagogues seem to have had commercial connections (Rosenfeld and Menirav, “Synagogue”). 4437. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 162. 4438. Sanders, Judaism, 200. 4439. The Sardis synagogue is the largest yet excavated, with a prime piece of real estate (see Seager, “Synagogue”); but this is, undoubtedly, a particularly extravagant example. 4440. McRay, Archaeology, 320.

2738

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 442

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

That Paul “reasoned” (διελέγετο) in the synagogue fits his usual pattern at least since Thessalonica (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:19; 19:8)4441—that is, in the first new synagogues explicitly reported since the most recent sending from Antioch (15:40). (Although Luke does not employ the same term, Paul ministered in synagogues from the beginning of his recorded ministry [see, e.g., 9:20; comment on Acts 13:5; in his letters, see 2 Cor 11:24].) The same term also applies to his teaching in other settings (Acts 19:9; 24:25), including church settings (20:7–9). The term’s semantic range includes both instruction and argumentation, but the fact that in some passages Paul does so “with” others (e.g., τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις in 17:17) probably suggests an element of interaction.4442 Disputation was a standard Jewish pedagogic technique,4443 including in the Diaspora,4444 and in a Greco-Roman context such as Corinth repartee and skill in silencing opponents would be greatly appreciated.4445 Any of Luke’s Christian hearers uncomfortable with this activity of Paul or Apollos (18:28) could be silenced by the model of Jesus in Luke and the gospel tradition on which he depends (Luke 20:1–47; Mark 11:27–12:40). On the term “persuade,” see discussion at Acts 17:4. Paul regularly sought to persuade “both Jews and Greeks” (14:1; 19:10, 17; 20:21). The “Greeks” whom Paul sought to persuade in the synagogue were undoubtedly God-fearers who attended there (cf. 18:7), as on earlier occasions (14:1; 17:1–4), though later Paul would find success ministering to Greeks elsewhere as well (19:10, 17). Although Paul and Luke both use “Greeks” loosely4446 and freely pair “Jews and Greeks” (with the latter being Gentiles), it may be noteworthy that “Greeks” attend Corinth’s synagogue, suggesting that it is Greek-speaking.4447 Corinth was a Roman colony with public inscriptions in Latin, but Paul writes letters to the Corinthians in Greek. We should expect the use of Greek to be no less true for the non-Roman citizen Jews expelled from Rome and settling in Corinth (18:1–2); Greek was the most common language of Roman Jews.4448 Although Paul undoubtedly used some everyday rhetorical principles when making his argument, suiting the Lukan persona of him, the epistolary Paul not only used various rhetorical techniques but insisted that his basis for persuasion differed from the mere rhetoric his audience expected (1 Cor 2:1–5, esp. 2:4).4449 4441. Paul’s denial in Acts 24:12 applies only to Jerusalem, where he arrived only recently (24:11). The Western text adds that Paul was inserting Jesus’s name (presumably where appropriate in the Scripture reading; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 461). 4442. Philosophers had introduced the value of conversational dialogue into even political rhetoric (cf. Kennerly, “Sermo,” emphasizing Stoic influence in Cicero), but disagreements could become heated. Indeed, “philosophers so often attacked each other that the abuse they heaped on each other became stereotyped” (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 12). 4443. Strelan, Artemis, 207. 4444. See esp. Ulmer, “Advancement,” noting parallels between early rabbinic teaching and diatribe. 4445. E.g., Plut. Statecraft 7, Mor. 803CD; Diog. Laert. 1.35; 6.2.33, 51, 74–75; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.540– 42; see further discussion and sources (including in Jewish sources, such as t. ʿAbod. Zar. 6:7; Sanh. 13:5) in Keener, John, 65–68. 4446. Though perhaps not as loosely as often assumed (cf. Stanley, “Jew nor Greek”; but see Rajak, “Location,” 11–13; Forbes, “Paul,” 127–28; discussion at Acts 14:1); at the very least, it refers to hellenized urban people distinct from either “barbarians” (Rom 1:14) or Jews (1:16). 4447. As in the later inscription found there; but by the second century, Greek was becoming Corinth’s dominant language, in any case. 4448. See, e.g., Noy, “Writing”; further comment at Acts 28:17. 4449. See, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 35. The term πείθω was, for Cicero, so connected with specifically oratoric persuasion that he introduces this Greek term into his Latin text to make the point (Brut. 15.59).

2739

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 443

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ii. Reinforcements Arrive (18:5)

That Paul is now able to devote himself more fully to the service of the word is an ideal of ministry for Luke (cf. Acts 6:2–4), though the term that Luke uses (συνείχετο) is a strong one that could suggest compulsion, possibly similar to how the inner compulsion of Jesus’s calling drove him toward its fulfillment (Luke 12:50). It is possible that Paul’s companions began working, freeing him from the necessity of labor; they may have worked with him in Thessalonica (if “we” in 1 Thess 2:9 covers the entire team; cf. 1:1). But this is not clear even in Luke’s narrative (cf. Acts 20:34), and in this case, knowledge external to Acts suggests that they probably brought an offering at this time. On one occasion when Paul was in Corinth, his companions brought him a gift from Philippi (2 Cor 11:8–9; Phil 4:15), which temporarily relieved him of the need to perform manual labor (Acts 18:5).4450 Although Paul is not explicit that the gift comes with Silas and Timothy or a group that includes them (“the brothers” could be entirely Macedonian), nothing he says excludes them. It seems better to accept Luke’s complementary claim, even in its terse, summary, and hence not necessarily precise form, than to contradict him on the basis of an argument from silence. The Macedonian church helped Paul when he was in Corinth (2 Cor 11:8–9),4451 and later he hoped that the Corinthian church might help him evangelize other regions (probably the meaning of 10:15–16; also the Roman church, Rom 15:24). Yet to be one church’s missionary elsewhere differed from depending on local support where the missionary could be viewed as becoming a client of the supporters; Paul refused the Corinthian Christians’ support when he was among them (2 Cor 12:13) and would also refuse it on his future trip (12:14–15).4452 He did so not because he doubted that support for apostolic labors was the ideal (1 Cor 9:4–14)4453 but because he sacrificed this (9:15–18). Rather, he apparently would not submit to local ideas of patronage or did not want to be compared too closely to begging Cynics. The basic picture of Acts 18:5 seems confirmed by various Pauline writings (which Luke would not likely have collected and read),4454 but the differences, perhaps caused by Luke’s terse summary, probably indicate that Luke does not depend on the epistles directly. Clearly, Luke omits most details while compressing the account; they are not strictly relevant to his narrative.4455 It is possible that in keeping his own narrative cohesive, he has erased details in a way that modern historians might consider inaccurate but that ancient writers seemed to accept as a matter of course at times (see, e.g., Matthew’s abbreviation by omitting messengers in Mark 5:35; Luke 7:3).4456 The primary complication is whether Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens and was 4450. Most note the gift here (C. Williams, Acts, 210; Bruce, Commentary, 370; Conzelmann, Acts, 152; Dunn, Acts, 242). 4451. He notes that only the Philippians sent him funds more than once in Thessalonica (Phil 4:15–16), and they continued to do so after he left Macedonia (Phil 4:15; 2 Cor 11:8–9), even in Rome (Phil 2:30; 4:10–14, 17–19). 4452. He also emphasizes that Titus (who appears twelve times in Pauline literature yet, surprisingly, never in Acts) did not exploit them (2 Cor 12:18). 4453. Those who receive teaching should share resources with their local church teachers (Gal 6:6), recognizing that the benefit of spiritual things outweighs that of natural things (1 Cor 9:11; Gal 6:7–10; cf. Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 9:6). 4454. See Hemer, Acts in History, 187. 4455. With, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 24; cf. the omitted detail observed in Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 33 (from Witherington). 4456. As noted earlier, comparisons of other ancient biographies yield the same kinds of differences; see Keener, “Otho,” 338, 348–51.

2740

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 444

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41) Acts 17:15; 18:5 Paul sends for Silas and Timothy while he is in Athens (17:15) — — — Silas and Timothy come to Paul in Corinth Consequently, Paul is able to stop working (18:5)

1 Thess 3:1–6 Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica (3:1–2) Timothy returns to Paul with good news (3:6)—possibly in Athens but usually assumed to be in Corinth* Apparently, Paul, Silas, and Timothy are together for authoring 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:1; cf. 2 Thess 1:1) Paul probably sends one or both of them to carry 1 Thessalonians† Silas and Timothy return to Paul at some point They are present early in his ministry in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19)‡ “The brothers” come from Macedonia with an offering from Philippi while Paul is in Corinth (2 Cor 11:9)

*Primarily on the basis of the impression in Acts that Paul stayed only briefly in Athens and of the small mention of Athens in Paul’s letters. †That he cannot return himself may suggest that he was busy, but it probably suggests the kind of official hostility, explicitly mentioned by Acts (17:7–9; cf. 1 Thess 2:2, 18), toward his presence. ‡Although Silas is mentioned only at the beginning of Paul’s ministry there, Timothy continues to be involved (see 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10–11). He may have left Corinth before Paul, reappearing later with Peter in Rome if (as I believe) 1 Peter is authentic (1 Pet 5:12). The idea that Silas fades from Luke’s view here once Paul’s mission leaves the synagogue (Kaye, “Portrait of Silas”) makes too much of a break; Paul still labors in synagogues and other distinctly Jewish settings (Acts 19:8; 21:39–40; 28:17).

sent away, leaving him alone (1 Thess 3:1), or Paul went there alone and sent for Silas and Timothy (Acts 17:15). As noted below, this complication is potentially reconcilable, but Luke also clearly did not write his narrative with Paul’s epistolary description in mind. One can connect the sources in several ways (not all of them mutually exclusive): 1. Luke perhaps did not know the details of these travels but knew that Paul was on his own for some time, and he fit this information into his narrative as best he could. Such an attempt to write cohesive narrative from data with some narrative details missing would fit ancient historiographic practice. 2. By condensing and summarizing the account, Luke shows his interest only in the basic action, not detailed movements here. 3. It is possible to fit all the details together, in which case Luke’s condensation is not technically inaccurate (no one could plausibly claim perjury even were it a legal testimony) but simply quite incomplete. This view would be explained somewhat as follows: a. Perhaps Paul sent for Silas and Timothy while he was in Athens (Acts 17:15). b. Timothy or both of them did join Paul while he was in Athens.4457 c. Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica (1 Thess 3:1–2). d. Instead of either one traveling alone to Macedonia, Silas may have traveled most of the way up the coast but gone on to the congregation in Philippi (a fact that Paul would not need to mention to the Thessalonians but that would make sense to express concern for another new and endangered church in the same region).4458 e. Silas would join Timothy for the return journey, carrying the financial support from the Philippian Christians. 4457. Barrett, Acts, 865, suggests that Luke might use the double coordinating conjunction in Acts 18:5 to emphasize “both Silas and Timothy, implying an earlier occasion when only one of the two came down from Macedonia.” 4458. This would account for both the first person plural in 1 Thess 3:2 and the singular in 3:5. Alternatively but less likely, Silas may have remained in Thessalonica the entire time. But this view is problematic if the first person plural in 1 Thessalonians reflects a genuine “we.”

2741

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 445

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Whether in conjunction with or apart from the second approach, this third approach is plausible (but faces a problem noted below). If Timothy carried 1 Thessalonians, he would have to return to Paul in Corinth again at some point; if Paul was in Athens “alone” after Timothy left (1 Thess 3:1), then Silas must also have rejoined Paul at some point for the ministry in Corinth (2 Cor 1:19).4459 Luke’s account works here as well as any. In this case, the only issue of compression is that he omits Timothy’s (and probably Silas’s) initially rejoining Paul at Athens and, to tie up the loose end in his narrative, reports only their later coming. Had he supplied all such details (in case readers might happen to know them from elsewhere), Acts would be much longer than it is; we notice the compression here only because we have further information from a Pauline letter, which we usually lack. While this approach is possible, however, it may falter if the pervasive first person plural in 1 Thessalonians means what we might expect. The plural first-person pronouns suggest that Silas either remained with Paul in Athens or, less likely (though somewhat less problematic for the third view), left after Timothy and returned to Paul before Timothy did (1 Thess 3:1–2, 6). “We” sometimes apparently includes all three, or at least Paul and Silas (1 Thess 1:1–2, 5–6, 9–10; 2:1–13, 17–20; 3:4; at most, Paul and Silas in 3:1–2, 6). Against this problem, Paul could use “we” for himself only (cf. 2:18; sending in both 3:2 and 5), though he specifies himself separately in his postscript (5:27). An authorial “we” does appear elsewhere in ancient sources.4460 On the whole, however, the probability of Silas remaining with Paul remains strong enough to reduce the overall likelihood of position 3. Without being certain, I currently find position 2 the most attractive historically. The matter will continue to generate debate. See further comment on Acts 17:15–16. On “testifying” in Acts 18:5, see comment on Acts 1:8 regarding the witness motif; see also comment on this verb in a note on Acts 2:40 (Keener, Acts, 1:988n1353). iii. Turning to the Gentiles (18:6)

Facing persistent recalcitrance, Paul withdraws, following the teaching of Jesus (Luke 10:10–11).4461 Although Paul pronounces judgment here on the synagogue, it is apparently only on the dominant majority of the synagogue (just as Paul’s letters lament the failure of Israel while affirming a substantial continuing remnant, Rom 11:5, 11); in the biblical ideal, Israel as an entire community must turn to the covenant. The opposing faction keeps the synagogue building, but Paul’s faction acquires a significant synagogue leader (Acts 18:8) and undoubtedly a significant patron (Acts 18:7; judging by his location, he may have even contributed significantly 4459. Goulder, Competing Mission, 225, argues that Silas must be the source who introduced overrealized eschatology into both Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Cor 4:8; 2 Thess 2:2), but this hardly fits the “Jerusalem perspective” that he attributes to him (224). The suggestion that Silas broke with Paul due to the latter’s break with Corinth’s synagogue (cf. Phillips, Paul and Acts, 171) similarly speculates from silence. 4460. E.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 58; probably Eurip. frg. 1066 (from Stob. 4.29.40); further Milligan, Thessalonians, 131; Lyons, Autobiography, 69; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 105. Ibid., 105–7, is surely correct that Paul uses both literary and “real” plurals; see the analysis in Lyons, Autobiography, 14–15. Commentators note Paul’s varied use of first person plurals, including at times an authorial “we” (Watson, Second Corinthians, 8). Scholars disagree as to whether those listed with Paul in opening lines are coauthors (in favor, e.g., MurphyO’Connor, “Co-authorship”; Milligan, Thessalonians, 132; against, e.g., Byrskog, “Co-senders”). Multiple authors could be named up front (Cic. Fam. 16.1.title; 16.3.title; 16.4.title; 16.5.title; 16.6.title; 16.9.title; 16.11.1), and Richards notes that mere secretaries would not be named as coauthors (Letter Writing, 105). But not all Pauline plurals reflect even possible coauthors (though to me the statistics in Lyons, Autobiography, 14n39, do appear to suggest that 1–2 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians do exhibit a much higher level of plurals). 4461. Le Cornu, Acts, 995, compares also teaching attributed to Hillel in t. Sukkah 4:3.

2742

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 446

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to the synagogue’s building). Both the theft of a wealthy Gentile sympathizer and probable patron, on the one hand, and the new movement’s competitive location, on the other, would further exacerbate tensions with the synagogue members staying behind. Division in the synagogue is not difficult to imagine. Besides its fitting a pattern in other synagogues in Acts (13:45–50; 14:1–4; 19:8–9), the pervasive Greco-Roman culture of Corinth invited speakers to compete and their followers to divide.4462 Given recent events in Rome (18:2), the last thing the synagogue community needed was any public division; it is, however, Paul’s opponents, rather than Paul, who make the division public before the authorities (18:13). Luke describes their verbal opposition as blasphemy; this can mean simply “speaking against harshly” but may bear more of its religious sense of speaking against a deity here (though not likely in the most technical form of cursing the Tetragrammaton; cf. 19:37).4463 It depicts Luke’s perspective, not that of the narrative’s speaker. Perhaps it refers to cursing Jesus’s name or regarding him as accursed (1 Cor 12:3) because he was hanged on a cross (Gal 3:13; Deut 21:23). Luke elsewhere applies the term to speaking against Christ (Luke 22:65; 23:39) and blasphemy against the Spirit (12:10); it also applies to hostility to Paul’s message in an earlier synagogue (Acts 13:45) and to Paul’s view of his former attempts to force Christian prisoners to repudiate Christ (26:11). This view of what is blasphemous contrasts with the perspective of the movement’s adversaries (6:11). Shaking out one’s garment4464 might serve as a warning of judgment to covenant breakers (Neh 5:13),4465 an even more dramatic form of public repudiation than shaking dust from one’s feet (see comment on Acts 13:51; cf. Luke 9:5; 10:11).4466 It would prove a dramatic and appropriate response to their “blasphemy,” for which one might even tear one’s garments (m. Sanh. 7:5); see comment on Acts 14:14; 22:23. (Shaking the garment would incur less expense than rending it!) Soards sees Paul’s pronouncement as primarily epideictic rhetoric with a judicial element,4467 but it is surely primarily judicial in the narrative world; although the speech might have some epideictic function for Luke’s own audience, denouncing opponents was common in forensic rhetoric. 4462. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–5; 2 Cor 10:10–12; cf. Phil 1:17; Pogoloff, Logos, 176 (citing Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8–9); Winter, Left Corinth, 36–37; Grant, Paul, 26, 52; cf. Welborn, Politics, 1. 4463. For the technical sense, see m. Sanh. 7:5; comment on Acts 6:11. In later rabbinic sources (as in t. Šabb. 13:5; Sipre Deut. 331.1.2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 16 A), one should hate minim (schismatics, probably often Jewish followers of Jesus); they were worse than idolaters (t. Šabb. 13:5; cf. b. Giṭ. 45b; Hor. 11a; Šabb. 116a; Herford, Christianity, 173–77). (A third-century Amora, however, warns against cursing even a min; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4b; Sanh. 105b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 108.) That intra-Jewish conflicts about Jesus became severe is clear in later rabbinic sources (see Keener, John, 194–214, esp. 197–203, 209–12) but is suggested already in this period if the conflicts behind Suetonius’s report about Claudius’s expulsion involved Jesus (see comment on Acts 18:2). 4464. The plural ἱμάτια suggests simply “garments” rather than the narrower usage for the outer cloak (of which Paul would be wearing but one, though it is, presumably, the outer cloak the shaking of which would be visible). Luke does not specify whether this was a pallium, appropriate to Greek sages (on which see Croom, Clothing, 51; cf. Eunapius Lives 471) or, much more likely here, a garment including his Jewish fringes. 4465. Commentators often note Neh 5:13 here (Karris, Invitation, 171; Fitzmyer, Acts, 627, viewing it as protesting innocence; Witherington, Acts, 549; Bock, Acts, 579). 4466. With Witherington, Acts, 549, though he rightly notes also that in this case, Paul is not leaving town. Shaking out one’s garment before folding it was part of taking care of it (Pesiq. Rab. 10:11), perhaps to keep it clean; this could fit the image here (implied in Acts 13:51) of being “clean” from their blood. More relevant may be priests shaking out their robes while cursing someone (Lysias Or. 6.51–52 [Against Andocides]), in Shiell, Reading Acts, 160). 4467. Soards, Speeches, 100.

2743

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 447

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Bloodguilt for another’s death is a frequent biblical image (Luke 11:50–51)4468 but of less direct importance here than passages recalling responsibility for one’s own judgment. The blood of Paul’s opponents on their own heads must thus instead recall the more particular biblical idiom for responsibility for one’s own death.4469 A preacher’s freedom from his hearers’ blood appears in Ezek 3:18–21 (esp. 3:18, 20) and (with the same expression, one’s “blood upon” their “head”) 33:4.4470 Paul recalls Ezekiel’s watchman also in summarizing his ministry in Asia in Acts 20:26. Philosophy often emphasized the importance of inner purity.4471 But when Paul says here, “I am pure!” he continues the thought of bloodguilt; his opponents are responsible for their own doom, but he is pure from others’ blood. This fits both the Ezekiel allusion above and the explicit connection between the concepts in 20:26: “I am pure from the blood of all people” (the only other nt verse including both καθαρός and αἷμα).4472 Bloodguilt could make a land impure (Num 35:33; Ps 106:38; Isa 59:3; Lam 4:14; Ezek 22:4); it could be removed (Deut 21:8–9; hence, in some sense, “cleansed”), but it was best to avoid it being imputed to begin with ( Jonah 1:14; cf. Matt 27:24). Paul’s declaration that he goes to the Gentiles because of his Jewish opponents’ rejection fits what we know of Pauline theology (Rom 11:11).4473 As long as the mission remained rooted in the synagogue, some Gentiles would avoid it for that reason, as a foreign ethnic faith; but Paul would not leave the synagogue until that step became necessary, because the gospel belonged first to the people of Israel. Ultimately, however, neither the Lukan nor the epistolary Paul articulates a permanent rejection of Paul’s Jewish people (Rom 11:15, 26). In Acts, Paul has made this declaration before (Acts 13:46) yet has continued going to Jewish assemblies (14:1; 16:13; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4). After the present announcement, he labors for three months in the synagogue in Ephesus (19:8) and meets with Jewish leaders in Rome (28:17). Unless we should think that Paul, an ideal character in Luke’s story, offers idle threats that he will not carry out (hardly an honorable trait in the ancient Mediterranean world),4474 these pronouncements represent purely local judgments (cf. Luke 10:12–15; see comment on Acts 13:46).4475 They must in some sense also further God’s agenda as well as Luke’s plot, for the commission to the nations was already Jesus’s command (Luke 24:47). iv. Titius Justus’s House (18:7)

Both in Luke’s Gospel and in earlier Jesus tradition, Jesus instructed his followers to use a local home as a base for reaching a local community (Luke 9:4; 10:7; Mark 6:10). As noted in the introduction to this section, many Corinthian Christians had Latin names, much higher than the usual percentage of those noted in the Pauline 4468. E.g., Exod 22:3; Lev 17:4; Num 35:27; Deut 19:10; 21:7–9; 22:8; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; 2 Sam 21:1; 1 Kgs 2:32; Ezek 7:23; cf. also Matt 23:35; 27:25; Acts 5:28; Sib. Or. 5.359. 4469. Josh 2:19; 2 Sam 1:16; 1 Kgs 2:32, 33, 37; Ezek 18:13. Normally one expects a verb rather than simply “your blood on your head” (1 Kgs 2:32–33, 37; Ezek 33:4), but it can also be assumed (2 Sam 1:16; even if not, for ellipsis, cf. Rowe, “Style,” 135; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 580; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 87). 4470. Others (e.g., Tannehill, Acts, 223; Peterson, Acts, 511) also cite here Ezek 33:4. 4471. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 18B, p. 118.4; Porph. Marc. 24.374–76. Cf. moral purity also in more common usage, e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.7–8; see, more fully, comment on Acts 15:9. 4472. Leviticus suggests cleansing by blood (cf. Lev 14:14, 17, 25, 28, 52; 16:19; Ezek 43:20; Heb 9:13–14, 22) and cleansing from a flow of blood (Lev 12:7), but neither is comparable in sense. That blood must be washed off (Lev 6:27; 1 Kgs 22:38; Ezek 16:9; for an ironic inversion, Rev 7:14) at least suits the image. 4473. In both cases, this reflects God’s sovereign plan to save Gentiles (Luke 2:32; Acts 1:8; Rom 11:11, 32–33; cf. Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 76–81). 4474. On critiques of indecisiveness or fickleness, see Keener, Corinthians, 159. 4475. For the judgment’s being local, see also Witherington, Acts, 549 and comment on Acts 13:46; for compatibility with Pauline theology, see also C. Williams, Acts, 23–25.

2744

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 448

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

circle in other locations. Not all those with single Latin names were citizens, but on the whole, the percentage seems higher in Corinth, which fits its status as a colony. In the case of Titius Justus, where two names are given, we may be relatively certain that he was indeed a Roman citizen, possessing the Latin tria nomina.4476 The double name for a Roman citizen fits common first-century usage4477 and was also sufficient to indicate citizenship when, as here, they are the nomen and the cognomen.4478 That Paul was able to reach Roman citizens or those with special Roman sympathies in Greek-speaking areas is evident from the high percentage of Roman names overall in his circle, especially—but by no means exclusively—in Corinth.4479 Titius Justus was not the only well-to-do member. Since nine of the seventeen names of Corinthian Christians preserved in the nt are mentioned as being on journeys, a significant number were apparently engaged in commercial activity or otherwise had means.4480 This fits the picture of Corinth’s prosperity noted in the introduction to this section; the church included members with substance as well as those without it. Because some think that the Corinthian church later meets in the home of one “Gaius” (possibly a rare home large enough to host everyone, at least initially, Rom 16:23),4481 some scholars suspect that this was probably Titius Justus’s praenomen.4482 “Gaius” was one of the most common examples of a praenomen,4483 and we may safely assume that this was not Gaius’s only name.4484 Since we do not know what may have transpired between the founding of the church and the writing of Romans, we cannot be certain that the names represent the same individual, but it is a very plausible guess.4485 Historical narrative would employ the more formal Titius Justus whereas Paul employs the more familiar language of the praenomen.4486 We do have reason to believe, however, that multiple house congregations probably grew in Corinth;4487 we cannot be certain how many or which individuals may have borne this praenomen. 4476. Judge, Rank, 13; Bruce, Commentary, 371; Jeffers, World, 206; Lestang, Annonce, 194 (probably); more tentatively, Meeks, Urban Christians, 63. Jews could have mixed names, but a double Roman name (e.g., CIJ 1:275, §352, though written in Greek letters; cf. also 1:413, §561, a gerousiarch, presumably of a synagogue, though I am reading the third element, “Philippus,” as Greek) probably indicated Roman citizenship. “Titius” was Latin (e.g., Mart. Epig. 7.55.5). On why he cannot be identified with the Titus of Paul’s letters, see Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:7, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). 4477. Jeffers, World, 204. 4478. Ibid., 206. “Justus” was a reasonably respectable cognomen ( Judge, Rank, 36n20). 4479. Judge, Rank, 13 (also idem, “Roman Base”), finds the proportion (one-third of the ninety-one persons) ten times higher than his large control group from inscriptions. 4480. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 75. 4481. Though cf. Jewett, Romans, 980; Adams, “Placing,” 26–27; Keener, Romans, 191; he may have simply hosted many traveling Christians. The description (cf. also 1 Cor 14:23) seems to contrast with the probably family-style “churches in the houses of so-and-so” (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 2; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156). 4482. Goodspeed, “Gaius Titius Justus”; Blue, “House Church,” 174; tentatively Bruce, Commentary, 371 (following Ramsay and Goodspeed); Jewett, Romans, 980. Fitzmyer, Acts, 627, notes this proposal as possible but speculative. Dunn, Acts, 243, finds him possibly also in the “Justus” in Col 4:11 (contrast Judge, Rank, 36n20), but it seems unlikely that this patron is Paul’s traveling fellow worker (the title appears elsewhere; see comment on Acts 1:23). 4483. Stambaugh, City, 94. 4484. Probably the only hearers in Rome who would know who Gaius (Rom 16:23) was were those who had been in Corinth, such as Prisca and Aquila (Rom 16:3–5), but this would be true of some others from whom Paul sends greetings. This is why Paul specifies Gaius’s role. 4485. Cf. the nuanced verdict of Dunn, Romans, 910: the identification fits our information, but it is too limited to be certain. 4486. Blue, “House Church,” 175. Paul’s letters, the character of which tends to be more private than that of Acts, tend to use single names “for private citizens” ( Jeffers, World, 204–5). 4487. Lampe, “Patrons,” 496, refers to the households of Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15) and Crispus (Acts 18:8); more certain is Phoebe from nearby Cenchreae (Rom 16:1).

2745

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 449

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Wealthier associations could construct their own meeting halls (under Roman laws governing voluntary associations), but smaller ones were limited to rented halls, homes, or public meetings in a part of a temple or in a corner café.4488 Speakers did not easily acquire public buildings without first establishing significant status;4489 but use of a patron’s home would be more easily come by, and synagogues often met in homes until resources were sufficient to build a separate edifice (see comment on Acts 12:12–13).4490 Romans built their well-to-do urban homes with large vestibules opening onto the street so that clients could gather there in the mornings; meeting with clients was among a patron’s civic responsibilities. This cultural and architectural characteristic of wealthy Roman households provided a natural setting for one of the most ample forms of house churches.4491 Some scholarship suggests that the average triclinium in Corinth was roughly thirty-six square meters, comfortably reclining nine guests (or up to twelve if four reclined on each couch); the atrium might hold fifty more, but with normal furniture probably thirty to forty.4492 These figures have been questioned but provide at least a general order of magnitude with which we can work. Although such a home would easily hold the initial assembly, five basic alternative explanations exist for Paul’s reference to a Corinthian house that could host the entire church by the time Paul wrote Rom 16:23: 1. The church still had only about fifty members by that time; this explanation is sometimes proposed and is not impossible,4493 but I deem it unlikely.4494 2. Christians had regular meetings in various homes, but the house churches met together periodically, in a more crowded way, in Gaius’s home;4495 it perhaps included floor seating in the courtyard for those whose status would allow it.4496 3. Gaius’s home is simply larger than most, whether it is a villa outside Corinth (a long walk for residents) or, more likely, an unusually large home in the Craneion.4497 4488. Jeffers, World, 77; see in detail (on beginnings in homes) White, Origins of Architecture, 1:26–59. 4489. Cf. Stowers, “Status, Speaking, and Teaching.” 4490. The church’s flexibility in using homes but not temples or sacrifices undoubtedly fostered its growth by reducing the cost of its expansion in new areas (cf. Witherington, Acts, 398). 4491. See Winter, Left Corinth, 135, 186–87 (citing Vitruvius and esp. Owens, City, 145). For the inside architecture, see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 193. 4492. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156. During the empire, triclinia grew larger than in an earlier period and eventually could host up to about twenty comfortably (see Dunbabin, “Convivial Spaces”). 4493. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 156–58, notes roughly fifty as both the size of a normal home and the total of named members plus their families suggested by Luke and Paul for Corinth. Similarly, Witherington, Corinthians, 114, estimates sixty, with about 10 percent wealthy (but exercising through their dependents a disproportionate influence). But some homes were large enough to hold more members than the usual estimate (Balch, “Houses”). 4494. It is highly doubtful that the named members, who are samples and overrepresent the higher-status members (cf. 1 Cor 1:26), with their families constitute the entire church. Cf. the uncertainty in Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 11. 4495. Most think that the largest homes could hold only fifty, with smaller homes holding closer to ten or twenty members ( Jeffers, World, 81). This was, presumably, usually the case, though the poorer the hosts and guests, probably the more willing to accommodate additional numbers by packing themselves more tightly. 4496. Paul might disallow this if, as wealthier members might insist, it was decided by status (cf. also Jas 2:3–4); “seating” in 1 Cor 14:30 may thus be more consistent. Still, seating was expensive and at a premium: e.g., Galilean synagogues included especially floor space but also benches along the walls for elders and seating on the platform (cf. Riesner, “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” 184; Sanders, Judaism, 201; Lachs, Commentary, 367). 4497. The Craneion was widely known (e.g., Lucian Dial. D. 329, 1 [1] Diogenes 1); it was a wealthy suburb of Corinth (Plut. Alex. 14.2; cf. also Blue, “House Church,” 153–54), which existed also in old Corinth (Xen. Hell. 4.4.4). Even to a writer in Rome, property in a Corinthian suburb could symbolize wealth (Martial Epig. 5.35.3).

2746

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 450

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

4. Paul did not mean that Gaius literally hosted the entire church (perhaps he meant merely that Gaius hosted the church by hosting Paul [cf. possibly analogous language in Rom 16:4] or that he had shown extraordinary hospitality to a cross section of the church); some scholars even think that Paul means only that Gaius hosted traveling guests from throughout the eastern Mediterranean world.4498 5. Gaius was once the host for the entire church, but it now meets in various homes. Of these alternatives, I tentatively deem the fifth one of the most likely, allowing for the possibility that Gaius is Luke’s Titius Justus. But the likeliest of five uncertain alternatives, none of which is more than 50 percent probable, still remains only speculation; that is, an educated guess may be better than an uneducated one, but in the end it remains a guess. It is probable that many Jews lived in the area around the synagogue and that Titius Justus’s patronage had focused on their community; perhaps he moved there because of his appreciation for Judaism, or perhaps the synagogue was built in a mixed boundary area to be near a wealthy patron’s home, or both.4499 Those who normally attended synagogue would run no risk of missing this new preaching site; newcomers or wavering members of the synagogue could be tempted to visit whenever they attended the synagogue; and the opposing groups were continually confronted with each other. That despite this proximity the hostile parties did not come to blows, that Titius Justus’s home suffered no vandalism, and that it was apparently more than a year before anyone attempted to bring a legal complaint (in a highly litigious society) suggest a degree of self-restraint despite strong feelings on both sides. If Titius Justus was as well-to-do as we may suppose, he may also have been well connected to the current administration; this would have offered further incentive for restraint until the arrival of a new governor in Acts 18:12. Many of Corinth’s elite, by Paul’s day, had achieved wealth not through a long aristocratic lineage but through mercantilism. “Such members of the nouveau riche,” Witherington notes, “were those most likely to affect culture by entertaining Sophists, preferring their more popular rhetoric of display and entertainment to serious discourse.”4500 Such might be the citizens most prone toward offering patronage to groups that some more traditional Roman nobles might have considered in poor taste, whether to a local synagogue or to a Jewish sect that had just split from it. Titius Justus may have been the synagogue’s patron and shifted his patronage to Paul and his group.4501 On the frequent inception of associations, synagogues, and other groups in homes, which were then often adapted for fuller use, see discussion at Acts 12:12.4502 For the expense of homes and other issues relevant here, also see discussion at Acts 12:12. 4498. Jewett, Romans, 980–81. Dunn, Romans, 910, questions this hypothesis, since the phrase echoes a lxx phrase for meetings of Israel (e.g., Deut 31:30; 1 Sam 17:47). 4499. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 130, even think that he is Jewish. Another formally possible explanation for the proximity of his house to the synagogue—namely, that the local Jewish community targeted him for conversion because he was a rich neighbor—is implausible. Such an explanation overestimates both the proselytizing and pecuniary zeal of most of Diaspora Judaism as well as the likely success of such a random exercise. 4500. Witherington, Corinthians, 24. 4501. Cf. inscriptions honoring synagogue patrons (some of them not members but benefactors who undertook this like other community projects), who helped them build their facilities (White, Origins of Architecture, 1:77–85). 4502. See esp. ibid., passim.

2747

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 451

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

v. Crispus’s Faith and Baptism (18:8)

Although Luke reports that many were converted, the conversion of a synagogue leader and his household invited special comment (18:8). On ἀρχισυνάγωγος, see comment on Acts 13:15; such a title appears to have been usually based on status, and his conversion may have both embarrassed the detractors and led to more conversions.4503 (As noted at 13:15, some who bore this title could be Gentile benefactors; that the God-fearer Titius Justus did not receive this title in 18:7, however, could suggest that in Corinth it applied to Jewish leaders.) Paul’s first extant letter to the Corinthian church incidentally confirms an early convert named Crispus, probably a person of status in the church;4504 Paul’s letter indicates that Paul personally baptized him (1 Cor 1:14; though Acts could simply indicate that he was an early convert).4505 (1) Crispus and Corinthian Christians

Crispus was a common Roman name,4506 used in both masculine and feminine forms by Jews in Rome (CIJ 1:89, §126; 1:92, §132) and elsewhere (2:26, §762).4507 Although certainty is not possible, Crispus’s Latin cognomen probably identifies him as a Roman citizen,4508 but we cannot be sure. That we have so many Latin names in the Corinthian church (Rom 16:22–23; 1 Cor 16:17) probably suggests that some were Roman citizens, as were all full citizens of Corinth (though the environment would have also invited resident parents to give children single Roman names even without citizenship and the tria nomina). We also cannot be certain if Luke intends to present Crispus as the only officer at the time holding the title “ruler of the synagogue,” since Sosthenes holds this office in Acts 18:17 (and Luke employs the plural in 13:15).4509 Probably, usage varied from one location to another,4510 and especially if the title was often honorary, associated with benefactors,4511 it might be conferred on multiple individuals.4512 (Theft of another community benefactor would also further explain the remaining synagogue leaders’ hostility.)4513 If a single “ruler” for the Corinthian congregation is in view (the word is articular here), Sosthenes (who appears more than a year later, 18:17; 4503. See Padilla, Speeches, 149, emphasizing the honor-shame aspect. 4504. I guess this because Gaius, also baptized here, was a prominent member (Rom 16:23) and Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) seems to have achieved leadership in the church (16:15–17; though this may have come partly from seniority). 4505. Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:8, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington), notes, in light of 1 Cor 1:14, that most of the converts here, unlike Crispus, were not baptized by Paul’s hands, suggesting (on his view) that Silas and Timothy aided. 4506. E.g., Mart. Epig. 5.32; 10.2.10; 10.14.2, 10; Tac. Hist. 2.10. 4507. The latter’s identity is clearly Roman (with a tria nomina, though in Greek letters), but his Jewishness is only probable. Cf. also Jos. Life 33, 382, 388. 4508. Gill, “Achaia,” 451; Judge, First Christians, 562. 4509. Johnson, Acts, 323 (who is not finally sure whether Sosthenes is Crispus’s replacement or a colleague, 329). Appealing to Acts 13:15 to support multiple synagogue rulers, see, e.g., Lenski, Acts, 759. 4510. On evidence for regional variation of synagogue leaders’ titles and functions, see Trebilco and Evans, “Diaspora Judaism,” 287. 4511. Rajak, “Community and Boundaries”; Winter, Left Corinth, 204–5. Most scholars accept the wellto-do qualification for the office (e.g., Meeks, Urban Christians, 57); if Crispus was responsible for the synagogue building, he would be chosen partly for his ability to contribute funds for this purpose when necessary (Theissen, Setting, 74, citing most relevantly CIJ 1:548, 766, 1404; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 72). Cf. already Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 225: not head of the synagogue but “one of the prominent men” with this title (citing Justin Dial. 137). 4512. Some also suggest as an additional possibility that Corinth, as a large city, may have had more than one synagogue (Nunnally, Acts, 322); this is quite possible (though cf. perhaps the later local inscription, “synagogue of the Hebrews,” in the unlikely event that this counts either way). 4513. With Winter, Left Corinth, 296.

2748

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 452

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

cf. 18:11) may be the chosen replacement. That they would have first chosen a ruler with a Latin name might be significant, and Sosthenes’s lack of one might suggest that Paul had appealed to Roman elements within the synagogue. But again, these are possibilities, not necessarily probabilities, especially since we cannot be sure the synagogue had only one ruler at a time. Since Crispus was an early convert (1 Cor 1:14), Sosthenes also seems a believer (1:1), and both are described by Luke as “synagogue rulers” (Acts 18:8, 17), it is possible that these are two names for the same person (allowing frustrated members of the synagogue community to beat their former leader Crispus in 18:17).4514 This proposal is ultimately unlikely, however; why would Luke change names without an explanation connecting them? (That Paul likewise uses both names reinforces the objection.) More likely, Sosthenes was simply a fellow synagogue ruler with Crispus or his replacement; for further discussion, see comment on Acts 18:17. Luke reports household conversions for a centurion (11:12, 14–15), Lydia the merchant (16:15), a state worker (16:31–34), and this synagogue ruler. In at least most of these incidents, the “households” could mean extended households, including servants.4515 Those familiar with Roman household cults would find intelligible the notion of entire households being converted.4516 Named Corinthian Christians—aside from the plainly temporary residents Paul, Timothy or Silas, Prisca, and Aquila—include the following: • Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14) • Gaius (1 Cor 1:14; Rom 16:23) • Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16; 16:15, 17) • Fortunatus, Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17) • Quartus, Erastus (Rom 16:23) • Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2) • Probably Tertius (Rom 16:22; why else send personal greetings?) • Possibly Chloe and certainly members of her household (a phrase that could include servants or freedpersons in her employ; 1 Cor 1:11)4517 • Possibly Sosthenes (1 Cor 1:1; cf. Acts 18:17) • Probably Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, if in Corinth (Rom 16:21), but they were probably not from Corinth Of these who are named, we know at least several who were leaders, including Stephanas (1 Cor 16:15–16, though possibly in an informal way) and especially Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2, in an explicit way), and also Sosthenes if he was from Corinth (1 Cor 1:1). Some others apparently had quite high status in society, such as Erastus (Rom 16:23) and probably those with homes large enough to host churches (Phoebe in 16:2; Gaius in 16:23), or travel (16:1–2), or send others (1 Cor 1:11) on business. It seems surprising that Luke, eager to report persons of status, omits mention 4514. So, e.g., Chrys. Hom. Acts 39 (Martin, Acts, 228) (even presenting Sosthenes as an example of suffering for Christ in Acts 18:17); Myrou, “Sosthenes”; for a recent and serious defense, see Fellows, “Renaming.” Judge, First Christians, 564, views Sosthenes here as a possible Roman citizen (such citizens could use Greek names). 4515. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 73; cf. Jeffers, World, 81. That they ultimately reached other social dependents is possible, though none of these offices necessarily had formal “clients.” 4516. Pearson, “Domestic Religion,” 301. Family shrines were certainly well known in Corinth (see Williams, “Corinth and Domestic Religion”). 4517. Theissen, Setting, 93; Meeks, Urban Christians, 57, 59; cf. earlier Lightfoot, Notes, 152; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 397.

2749

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 453

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

of Erastus the city οἰκονόμος (Rom 16:23), especially if he was an aedile.4518 Luke does not name Paul’s unconverted patrons in Acts 19:31, and it is also possible that the Erastus of Rom 16:23 was an unconverted patron rather than a convert. It is also possible that he fell away or—especially if he is the same Erastus in Acts 19:22 (see comment there), who later traveled with Paul—somehow lost status.4519 But it also may be that none of these possibilities is correct. Luke’s coverage of Corinth is not lengthy enough to provide more than an outline and a sample of Paul’s ministry there. (2) Water Sources in Corinth

The location or locations for the baptisms here are not specified, but in the case of Corinth (as in the case of a few other cities), we have sufficient archaeological evidence to demonstrate that an abundance of adequate sources of water were available.4520 Corinth was several miles from either coast on the isthmus,4521 and so nearer bodies of water would have been preferable. Although Corinth’s average rainfall is only fifteen inches (40 cm.), it was well watered; Corinthians tapped underground springs by tunnels and reservoirs cut through rock and with wells and cisterns.4522 Preindustrial cities often derived their water from wells susceptible to cholera and typhus or from polluted rivers, but the Greeks and Romans depended on natural springs and used aqueducts to transport water to the cities.4523 A private pool or natural body of water might have been sufficient, but if Paul wished to make a public statement, he could have used public fountains or public baths. Since the baths were public space also used for lectures,4524 they would have provided an ideal place to make an open “statement” if no religious or political scruples of the Christians prevented it. Although Greeks in Corinth had venerated local springs, we have little evidence of this in current, Roman Corinth.4525 Pools for swimming also appear near major fountains.4526 Although public baths were perhaps not the most common location for baptism, Apuleius speaks of Isis priests at Cenchreae (Corinth’s Aegean port town) washing an initiate at the nearest available bath (Metam. 11.23).4527 Before returning to Corinth’s bath complexes, it is helpful to give a sketch of what can be known about baths in the Greco-Roman world. 4518. For discussion, see, e.g., Koester, “Silence,” 339–40; Gill, “Erastus”; Theissen, Setting, 75–83; Winter, Welfare, 180–96; Gill, “Élites,” 112; McRay, Archaeology, 331–33; Meeks, Urban Christians, 58–59; Yamauchi, Stones, 116, 118; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160; Furnish, II Corinthians, 25; Goodrich, “Quaestor” (following Theissen in preferring the position of quaestor; citing Achaian evidence); idem, “Responding”; Weiss, “Quästoren” (questioning whether Caesarean colonies such as Corinth had quaestors). In contrast to the suggested identification and implied status, see, e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 235. 4519. But he may well have been aedile later than the title in Rom 16:23 (see Walters, “Civic Identity,” 416; Jeffers, World, 195). Others doubt that the status in Rom 16:23 was so great (e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 235; cf. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus”). If he was not a civic slave, he would have been economically and socially free to travel (Winter, Welfare, 196); the question is merely whether one of his status would likely have done so in the company of those of lower status (such as Timothy). If he became a quaestor, he probably was a local decurion beforehand (Goodrich, “Quaestor,” 113), probably preventing lengthy travel. 4520. If Titius Justus (Acts 18:7) lived on the first floor of an insula, he would have had easier access to water, though in this period the public water supply was not available for private homes (Carcopino, Life, 38). 4521. Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10–11, esp. 4.4.11, suggests 7.5 mi. from each. 4522. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 43. None of the above-ground streams in the area, however, was perennial (Engels, Roman Corinth, 12). 4523. Engels, Roman Corinth, 76. Their system of water resources reflected an understanding of hygiene better than that of most subsequent eras (the nineteenth-century Thames, e.g., was full of human waste, breeding cholera; p. 78). 4524. E.g., Watson, “Cities,” 214. On their character as public space (with libraries, shops, etc., nearby), see, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 43–44. 4525. Robinson, “Fountains,” 111–12. 4526. See, e.g., in McRay, Archaeology, 328–29. 4527. Pointed out by Meeks, Urban Christians, 237n49.

2750

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 454

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Excursus: Baths in Greco-Roman Antiquity

4528

Baths were important to Roman social life.4529 Although Greeks had built baths earlier for hygiene,4530 it was Roman culture that made them a social institution, and bathhouses characterized Roman cities.4531 Scholars generally suggest the origins of bath complexes in the hot baths associated with gymnasia in the Greek world of the fourth century b.c.e.4532 Some suggest that Romans adopted baths in the third century b.c.e., perhaps from Campania.4533 The most famous baths in Rome were those built by Agrippa.4534 By the first century, Roman baths existed as far north as Bath, England.4535 Romans became skilled in hydraulic engineering and aqueducts to maintain water supplies.4536 They designed their baths carefully both for utility4537 and for beauty.4538 The baths in Pompeii occupy a space 165 by 175 feet; the corridor from the atrium to the dressing room has golden stars on a blue ceiling.4539 The visitor to the baths would first enter the dressing room (apodyterium), then might proceed to the hot chamber (caldarium), a warm chamber (tepidarium), and finally the domed chamber for the cold bath (frigidarium).4540 Architects designed the furnace beneath the floor of the caldarium to distribute the heat there;4541 water from the frigidarium helped keep the tepidarium tepid.4542 Baths sometimes had lecture halls and libraries attached,4543 and people also played ball there;4544 they were also used for exercise.4545 4528. See also comment on Acts 19:5. See more generally Stambaugh, City, 201–6; Meister, “Thermae”; Carcopino, Life, 254–63; McRay, Archaeology, 42–48; sample sources in Shelton, Romans, 309–14. For one excavation report, see Yegül, “Complex.” 4529. See DeLaine, “Baths”; Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436. 4530. McRay, Archaeology, 42. 4531. Ibid., 43; among the civic essentials in Libanius Maxim 3.3. 4532. Killebrew, “Baths,” 284. 4533. Fagan, “Genesis.” 4534. Pliny E. N.H. 36.64.189. The size of the baths would be proportionate to the number of people they were intended to accommodate (Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.4). 4535. Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436. 4536. See discussion in Owens, City, 159–60. Romans had already concerned themselves with finding appropriate water sources for buildings; see, e.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8. For aqueducts and leaden and earthen pipes, see Arch. 8.6.1–15. 4537. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.1–5. 4538. See, e.g., Lucian Hipp. 4539. Massa, Pompeii, 114. 4540. Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436; Stambaugh, City, 202–3 (placing the tepidarium before the caldarium); Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77 (starting with the sweating room, the sudatorium, then the hotter calidarium, followed by the tepidarium and the frigidarium); McRay, Archaeology, 45 (moving from coldest to hottest; cf. also Massa, Pompeii, 114). The design may have varied by location. Apollonius allegedly took only cold baths, associating hot baths with weakness (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16). 4541. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.2. Slaves could tend fires outside; Cosgrave (History of Costume, 77) notes, “Hot air flowed under the floor and via hollow tiles in the walls and then out through chimneys in the roof. Inside, the heat could be so intense, that those in the hot chambers wore wooden clogs to avoid scalding their feet.” On Roman hypocausts (for baths), see Forbes, Technology, 6:43–57. Some even suggest that the daily hot baths lowered male fertility and contributed to Rome’s low birth rate (Devine, “Birth-Rate”). 4542. Vitruv. Arch. 5.10.1. 4543. Stambaugh, City, 204, on one from Trajan’s time; McRay, Archaeology, 43–44. 4544. Apoll. K. Tyre 13; cf. Stambaugh, City, 205; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77. Inns located near baths sacrificed quiet for convenience of access (Casson, Travel, 210). 4545. E.g., Stambaugh, City, 205; Watson, “Cities,” 214; Killebrew, “Baths,” 285; McRay, Archaeology, 43; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77; Jeffers, World, 29. Compare the Greek gymnasium with baths (cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118).

2751

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 455

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Most Romans bathed daily.4546 Baths were considered helpful for health4547 and could be used for washing in emergencies unrelated to leisure.4548 But baths were especially part of the day’s leisure,4549 constituting an activity the Romans considered characteristic of civilized life.4550 People typically went to the baths in the afternoon, before evening banquets;4551 following the morning’s work, they could socialize in the afternoon with “business associates” and others “for several hours” while relaxing in the baths.4552 Someone who went to the baths multiple times each day, however, was considered addicted to luxury.4553 Public-works projects sponsored by cities with sufficient funds included baths,4554 which were characteristic of any romanized city;4555 emperors also displayed beneficence by building them.4556 The admission fees were low enough (in Rome, just a quarter as, a nominal amount for most persons)4557 that nonaristocrats could find leisure there as well as aristocrats although, even naked, the wealthy could flaunt their wealth (with servants and clients).4558 The rich could be carried from a bathhouse in a sedan chair,4559 some “carried by servants almost as if they were corpses on their way to the graveyard.”4560 Some other sensitivities may have reduced the attractiveness of public baths for baptisms. During the republic, Roman baths segregated genders, but starting in the first century, Roman men and women could bathe together naked.4561 Although women concerned about their reputation could bathe in balneae designed exclusively for women, many others preferred the mixed baths, which offered a wider 4546. Dupont, Life, 263. Contrast starkly, e.g., the more difficult access to bathing in Elizabethan England. The closing of public baths, like the closing of public entertainments, represented mourning (Apoll. K. Tyre 7); one might also abstain while undergoing initiatory purification (Paus. 9.39.5) or for health reasons while fasting also from anointing, food, and drink (Pliny E. N.H. 28.14.53). 4547. So, e.g., Pliny E. Ep. 7.21.3; Fronto Eloq. 1.4; Apul. Flor. 16.2; cf. further Fagan, “Bathing.” Cf. also therapeutic hot springs (see, e.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8.3.4; Pliny E. N.H. 31.31.59–61; Philost. Hrk. 23.30; further comment and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:327). 4548. Tac. Hist. 3.32. 4549. E.g., Apul. Metam. 2.2. They are pervasive in the literature, e.g., Mart. Epig. 12.82; Juv. Sat. 6.419–23. 4550. Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77; Jeffers, World, 29. 4551. Vitruv. Arch. 1.2.7 (in the later half of the day); 6.4.1; Suet. Vesp. 21 (after morning business and siesta); Lucian Cock 7 (before a banquet). But cf. Alciph. Paras. 24 (Chascobuces to Hypnotrapezus), 3.60, ¶1, where they seem to be done by midday. The elite might arrive about midday, when the baths were warmest for their arrival (Winter, Left Corinth, 189). 4552. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 118–19; Jeffers, World, 29. 4553. Suet. Gramm. 23. 4554. Pliny Ep. 10.23.1–2; 10.24; 10.70.1, 3. 4555. See, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 365.20–21 (listing it among the three sample parts of a city); Apoll. K. Tyre 51 (among the select elements central to a city’s identity). 4556. E.g., Suet. Titus 7.3; Stambaugh, City, 204. 4557. Dupont, Life, 264. 4558. Stambaugh, City, 205 (citing, as an example of ostentation, Petron. Sat. 27–28); for ostentatious trains of attendants, see also Lucian Nigr. 34. Sometimes the rich would have their own baths (Pliny Ep. 1.3.1; 1.4.1); but this was probably rare (cf. Cosgrave, History of Costume, 77), and Suetonius praises the emperor Titus for bathing with commoners (Tit. 8.2; but contrast Polybius’s hostile assessment of Antiochus IV in Polyb. 26.1.12). The hygienic question of sharing baths arose especially in comic jibes at particular individuals’ uncleanness (Mart. Epig. 2.42) or in a warning such as Iambl. V.P. 18.83 (which might involve ritual purity). 4559. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.44 (59). 4560. Lucian Nigr. 34 (LCL, 1:133). 4561. Balch, “Families,” 268; Ward, “Baths”; cf. McRay, Archaeology, 45. Conventions varied by time and place (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80; Pearson, “Gymnasia,” 436). Early Romans would not even bathe naked with sons-in-law (Plut. M. Cato 20.5–6); in the late republic, a woman being near bathing men remained potentially scandalous (Cic. Cael. 15.36).

2752

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 456

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

range of activities.4562 Some philosophers rejected or sought to reduce the use of bathhouses, most often on the grounds that luxury breeds decadence;4563 Pliny the Elder, another first-century writer, also complained about the ensuing decadence.4564 After numerous scandals, Hadrian, in the early second century, decreed different times for male and female bathing.4565 (In Rome about 62 c.e., Demetrius the Cynic was said to have criticized baths as worthless;4566 perhaps he repeated such harangues when he settled later in Corinth, but this would be after the time of Paul’s ministry there.) Hellenistic and especially Roman culture had spread the use of public baths, even in Judea.4567 Archaeologists have examined, for example, the heating stones beneath the floor of Masada’s bath.4568 At the same time, Jews and Christians regarded public bathing as decadent.4569 Judean bathhouses were separated by gender,4570 and a husband could divorce his wife if she bathed together with men.4571 Jewish baths and the activities surrounding them resemble Roman baths, except for segregating genders, reducing nakedness, avoiding sculptures, saying prayers, and closing baths on the Sabbath.4572 Later Jewish sources also report some spiritual dangers associated with bathhouses, since (especially after the proliferation of demonology in the succeeding centuries) bathhouses and latrines were regarded as preferred haunts for demons.4573 Thus some rabbis said that when entering a bathhouse, one should pray for one’s death to atone 4562. Carcopino, Life, 258. 4563. Cynics might condemn them altogether (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42–43; cf. Apollonius’s later commendation of Demetrius for his frankness, 6.31, 33); Diogenes reportedly viewed bathers as effeminate (Diog. Laert. 6.2.40). Cf. also Pythagoreans (Apollonius’s own teaching in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 8, 43; Iambl. V.P. 18.83 [but this was not against all bathing; cf. 21.98]). Even the Stoic Seneca avoided the baths, warning that their heat can dehydrate the body (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.16). 4564. Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.153 (in the context of condemning luxury, not sexual promiscuity). Other writers also praised the sacrifice of luxury in abstaining from baths for a time (Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.5.3) or avoiding excess baths (Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.41). Like other luxuries, it could weaken soldiers (Livy 23.18.12). 4565. Carcopino, Life, 258 (citing, in addition to Pliny, Quint. Inst. 5.9.14; Mart. Epig. 3.51, 72; 7.35; 11.47; perhaps Juv. Sat. 6.419); McRay, Archaeology, 47–48; Massa, Pompeii, 115. Ward, “Baths,” finds only a single inscription from Lusitania suggesting different times for men and women. 4566. Grant, Paul, 46 (citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.42, though also evidence that shows that the baths cannot have been new if the story is otherwise accurate). 4567. Dayagi-Mendels, “Hygiene,” 302; Killebrew, “Baths,” 284–85; for the spread especially in the Roman period, see Wright, “Building Materials,” 377. Later rabbis claimed that Hillel regarded washing in a bathhouse as a religious duty, to honor God’s image (Lev. Rab. 34:3). 4568. For a photograph, see Corneld, Josephus, 482; for the steam room, see 488. 4569. Killebrew, “Baths,” 285. In addition to private bathhouses, Jews used some public ones shared with Gentiles (y. Šeb. 8:11); R. Gamaliel II could justify bathing in the Bath of Aphrodite, arguing that the statue was hardly treated as a goddess (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:4). An Amora associates public baths with revelry (Lev. Rab. 5:3). 4570. E.g., t. Nid. 6:15. 4571. Safrai, “Home,” 762 (citing t. Ketub. 7:6; though noting that he could not restrict her from going to the baths at reasonable hours, y. Ketub. 7.31b). Rabbi Meir allegedly urged divorce in such a case (Num. Rab. 9:12); even talking with another man could allow divorce without the ketubah (m. Ketub. 7:6). 4572. Eliav, “Bath,” helpfully. Nakedness in the baths could defile tefillin under some circumstances (t. Ber. 2:20; y. Ber. 2:2, §§3, 6); one should not meditate on Torah in a bathhouse or a latrine (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 44b). Jews might see other Jews naked in the bathhouse (e.g., t. B. Qam. 9:12) but should fulfill religious duties only in parts of the bathhouses where people were clothed (t. Ber. 2:20). The bath might be an Amora’s only waking time away from studying Torah (Deut. Rab. 8:6). 4573. E.g., at bathhouses, b. Qidd. 39b–40a; at latrines, b. Ber. 62a; Šabb. 67a; cf. also ruins (b. Ber. 3ab, bar.) and cemeteries (ghosts in b. Ber. 18b). Later the Gentile philosopher Porphyry supposedly cast a demon from a bath (Eunapius Lives 457); as early as Hesiod, Greeks held a superstition about the danger of washing in water where another has washed (W.D. 753–54). Before he sinned (and hence became vulnerable to their power), Solomon was said to have heated his public baths by demonesses (Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5).

2753

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 457

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

for one’s sins;4574 some others, by contrast, countered that this fearful prayer simply opened the door to demonic attacks.4575 In the second century, Pausanias pointed out that baths were scattered throughout Corinth; although he attributes one of these to Hadrian’s time in the early second century, many others may have been earlier.4576 Earlier excavations already attested nine Roman baths (and a possible tenth) in Corinth;4577 the earliest is from the Augustan period, north of the Peribolos of Apollo.4578 (The famous bath on the Lechaeum Road was not built until about 200 c.e.)4579 From Pausanias’s claim that many parts of the city had them, we must infer that there were also other baths not yet discovered.4580 Nearby Isthmia also had baths.4581 Corinth’s Asklepieion, away from the agora in a more recreational area, was connected with Lerna and its spring house, which continued in use until the late fourth century.4582 Passersby on the Lechaeum Road could wash or even swim in its large pool.4583 It is not likely, however, that Christians would have preferred for their baptisms a spring house so closely associated with the Asclepius cult.4584 The most famous water source is the spring of Peirene,4585 said to have been formed by a blow from Pegasus’s hoof.4586 It was south of the probable site of the Corinthian synagogue.4587 Already in classical Greek times the fountain was a busy public location, with people sitting, playing, talking, and watching passersby.4588 Like Glauce, Peirene was a surviving fountain from old Corinth; it was one of the Romans’ first rebuilding efforts in the city and was a major source of water for new Corinth.4589 Peirene was Corinth’s largest spring, producing about “18 cubic meters per hour.”4590 4574. E.g., t. Ber. 6:17; b. Ber. 60a, bar.; y. Ber. 9:4, §2. The reminder of circumcision when one is in a bathhouse (t. Ber. 6:25) might concern protection. 4575. B. Ber. 60a, bar. 4576. Paus. 2.3.5 (noting that others were built at the city’s expense). First-century Rome had some two hundred baths ( Jeffers, World, 29). For a probable first-century bath in Corinth’s gymnasium area, see Wiseman, “Gymnasium Area.” 4577. Biers, “Baths in Corinth,” 303, 305. 4578. Ibid., 305–6. For more early baths, see 307–8. 4579. Ibid., 308; Biers, Bath, 28–29, 61–62. On this bath, see Biers, Bath; the cumulative area for its baths is ca. 600 sq. m. (Bath, plate 38). 4580. Since only three of those discovered predate him; Biers, “Baths in Corinth,” 317. 4581. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96 (in case the Christians had occasion for baptisms during the Isthmian Games!). 4582. Roebuck, Asklepieion, 96–99; on the setting, cf. 1, 3; cf. also the east water basin, 26–28. Cf. Finegan, Apostles, 148. The map in Engels, Roman Corinth, 151, places the Asklepieion ca. 500 m. from the forum. 4583. Engels, Roman Corinth, 13; on its large pool, see further 100. 4584. Many sanctuaries’ springs were dedicated to deities (see Schachter, “Springs”), which might raise the same problem as food offered to idols (Acts 15:20). 4585. Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.11. For the high quality of the water and the spring’s prominence in Greek Corinth, see Lienau and Meyer, “Peirene,” 680 (citing for its prominence Pindar Ol. 13.61–62). 4586. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.46; Robinson, “Fountains,” 121, cites Statius Silv. 1.4.25–30; 2.7.2–4; Theb. 4.51–69; cf. coins in MacKendrick, Stones, 419. For more on the story of Bellerophon and Pegasus, see Robinson, “Fountains,” 118–20, including a Pompeian wall painting (119–20); on the constellation Pegasus (one of the twenty-one constellations north of the zodiac), see Hübner, “Constellations,” 1189. For the mythical Peirene, daughter of river deities, from whom the spring is named, see Junk, “Peirene.” 4587. McRay, Archaeology, 319–20. 4588. Robinson, “Fountains,” 118 (citing Eurip. Medea 68–69). 4589. Robinson, “Fountains,” 112–13. For Peirene’s new Roman façade, see 121–25. Strabo provides our earliest extant connection between Peirene on the Acrocorinth and the lower Peirene in the city (Strabo 8.6.21; Robinson, “Fountains,” 121). The “upper,” Roman Peirene, in the Acrocorinth’s southeast, was not on the same site as the original Peirene despite the transferral of the name (Lienau and Meyer, “Peirene,” 680). At the site of the Upper Peirene, a pool remains, at least 10–12 ft. deep (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 66–67). 4590. Engels, Roman Corinth, 77.

2754

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 458

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Glauce, by contrast, was restored but not “romanized.”4591 Some think that its name’s connection with the victim of Medea’s anger4592 might stem from a Roman desire for ancient connections rather than from earlier Greek tradition.4593 In neither case do we know of cultic activity at these sites in the Roman period;4594 religious scruples thus posed fewer obstacles to the use of these sites than to use of the pool by the Asclepius sanctuary. Peirene was also a very public location. “Transients, tourists, and pilgrims might have stopped to see Peirene, to drink its fine water, and to wash off the dust of the road.”4595 The fountain’s water replenished Peirene’s swimming pool in addition to serving public baths and eventually flushing the city’s latrines.4596 Many other springs have been discovered since the archaeological sources noted above, for a total of twenty-four known so far.4597 These include the Cheliotomylos fountain house (probably discontinued before Roman times)4598 and a Roman period fountain house in Trench 46.4599 Fountain houses served a useful purpose, but in the East they were also often elaborately decorated.4600 It seems unlikely that Paul followed stricter Palestinian rules (although these were widely followed in Palestine)4601 about the necessity of using freshwater (e.g., rainwater) rather than drawn water. Though natural fountains were freshwater, wells or artificial pools without a natural supply (rain, streams, fountains) would not be. d. Jesus’s Promise of Protection (18:9–11) The Lord’s appearance to Paul in a night vision encourages Paul to keep speaking in Corinth; despite the hostility of the synagogue in Acts 18:6, he will not face charges until 18:12, and even these prove ineffective. Although Paul had many stories of persecutions elsewhere to tell the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor 11:23–25), he faced no potentially life-threatening hostility in Corinth until a much later occasion, and even then the plot was betrayed and apparently not well coordinated (Acts 20:2–3). The division of Corinth’s Jewish community was quite different from what Paul had faced in Thessalonica (17:5, 13), and his Thessalonian opponents had not pursued him here (or at least had not yet proved sufficiently effective to be worth mentioning). The Lord apparently assures Paul in this passage that matters in Corinth differ from earlier cities and hence Paul can stay here for a long time (18:11). Night visions, typically in one’s sleep, were familiar and widely accepted in antiquity.4602 Although some later Platonist philosophers thought that only angels and demons, not true deities,4603 could appear as if visible, the vast majority of ancients were more inclined to accept the substantial lore that suggested otherwise. Pagan Corinthians were very familiar with the shrine of Asclepius on the north of the city, 4591. Robinson, “Fountains,” 113. 4592. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.9.28; Paus. 2.3.6–7; Philost. Letters 21 (38); Gr. Anth. 7.354. Medea also had killed her brother (Apollod. Bib. 1.9.24) and helped Jason kill Pelias (1.9.16, 27). 4593. Robinson, “Fountains,” 134–38 (contrasting earlier assumptions, e.g., in MacKendrick, Stones, 420). 4594. Robinson, “Fountains,” 139. 4595. Ibid. 4596. Engels, Roman Corinth, 77. 4597. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 45–47 (cf. sixteen springs besides Peirene in Engels, Roman Corinth, 77). 4598. Landon, “Beyond Peirene,” 48–51. 4599. Ibid., 52–54. 4600. Owens, City, 163. 4601. Cf., e.g., m. Ter. 5:6; ʿEd. 1:3; 7:3–4; t. Miqw. 2; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; comment on Acts 2:41. 4602. E.g., Diod. Sic. 7.5.5 (Aeneas); Char. Chaer. 2.3.5 (Aphrodite); Apul. Metam. 11.3–7 (Isis); Jos. Life 209–10 (a person appeared to him). See fuller comment at Acts 16:9–10; for the importance of dreams and other epiphanies for divine guidance in ancient thought, see Squires, Plan, 103–12 (esp. Josephus, 108–12). 4603. Iambl. Myst. 2.10; cf. Proclus Poet. K114.3–4, 9–10, 23–24.

2755

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 459

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

where Asclepius appeared to sleeping supplicants to provide either healing or instruction for healing.4604 The same was true for Asclepius’s cult center at Epidaurus in this region.4605 People also often came to Serapis shrines for the same purpose, and Corinth had two of them.4606 The biblically informed, however, will think of biblical precedent, and the reader of the rest of Acts will also be familiar with revelations from the true God in this way (2:17; 16:9). i. Assurance (18:9–10)

The Lord’s words include the conventional and necessary components of assurance oracles, including the admonition and reason.4607 Though Paul’s letters do not describe individual visions, he is clear that he experienced many of them, far more than Luke may have reported (2 Cor 12:1, 9; probably 12:2–5). Luke provides only a few samples, and the incidental way he mentions some (Acts 22:17–21) suggests that he may have known of others he did not have space or need to report. The divine exhortation “Do not fear” appears in earlier biblical dream oracles (e.g., Gen 15:1; 26:24).4608 That the allusion here is biblical4609 is clear from the fact that, for example, as here, the command is often linked with the divine promise “I will be with you” in Isaiah (Isa 41:10; 43:1–2, 5),4610 appropriate to one bearing the servant’s mission (Acts 13:47). But it is also common elsewhere, either in divine oracles or in other promises based on them (Deut 20:1; 31:6; 1 Chr 28:20; 2 Chr 20:17; Jer 42:11; 46:28), including in night revelations (Gen 26:24). God’s promise to be with someone often accompanies a divine calling or command, particularly when special encouragement is needed (Gen 26:3; 31:3; Exod 3:12; Josh 1:5; 3:7; Judg 6:12, 16; Jer 1:8, 19; cf. 1 Kgs 11:38; Matt 28:20). That God (here the Lord Jesus) would be “with” a person or a people was the ultimate basis for assurance, the reason fear was unnecessary.4611 Perhaps most relevant for Paul’s own mission would be God’s promise to one of his prophets, Jeremiah ( Jer 1:8, exhorting Jeremiah not to fear, because God was with him). Jeremiah was a “prophet to the nations” (1:5) as Paul was an apostle to the nations or Gentiles (Rom 11:13; Acts 26:17; cf. 1 Tim 2:7). The formula also applied to others carrying out a divine mission (e.g., Hag 2:4), perhaps especially to the earlier Joshua, who had large shoes to fill with Moses’s departure (Deut 31:8, 23; Josh 1:9; 8:1). The promise to Jeremiah, like the one to Paul here, includes the emphatic “I” alongside the verb (in Jer 1:8, 19; 42 [49 lxx]:11; 46 [26 lxx]:28; cf. Hag 1:13; 2:4). 4604. Engels, Roman Corinth, 100–101; see further comment in Keener, Acts, 1:326–27. 4605. See Keener, Acts, 1:327–29. 4606. Engels, Roman Corinth, 105. As a healing deity, Serapis was sometimes assimilated to Asclepius (Tac. Hist. 4.84). 4607. Aune, Prophecy, 267. 4608. Such dream oracles could also include the promise “I am with you” (Gen 26:24; 28:15). The assurance form was not originally purely oracular; it also applied to other assurances from one in power (“Do not fear,” 50:21). (For the rhetorical function of exhortations not to fear, cf. Hutson, “Timid”; although, in this case, the present imperatives probably mean “Stop being afraid” and “Keep on speaking”; see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 172, §336.3.) 4609. Less relevant for Luke’s ideal audience, which is biblically literate, but relevant for some hearers who would not be, the command not to fear sometimes accompanied ancient pagan epiphanies. See esp. Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.13: Ammon appeared to Alexander in his sleep, promising that he would face no harm, because he was with him; Conzelmann, Acts, 152, cites Hdt. 1.9; Aristoph. Frogs 1092; Lucian Dial. G. 20.7. 4610. Aune, Prophecy, 267. 4611. People could also offer the same assurance and its grounds: Do not fear, because we will be with you (Ezra 10:4). The language of deities being “with” one appears elsewhere (e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.5.5). On Christ’s omnipresence in Luke-Acts (rather than an “absentee Christology”), see Turner, Power, 305.

2756

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 460

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Elsewhere in Luke-Acts, divine revelations encourage the receiver not to fear. Sometimes this exhortation is meant to assure the person fearful of the vision itself (Luke 1:13, 30; 2:10). But other times it is the circumstances they fear (Acts 27:24),4612 and this seems to be the case here. Paul has faced discouraging circumstances in other cities; the Lord now encourages him that he will not be run out of Corinth.4613 Later, in a hostile setting, the Lord encourages him again to take courage, because the Lord will see to it that Paul fulfills what the Lord called him to do (23:11). On God’s being “with” someone, see, for example, Luke 1:66; Acts 10:38; comment on Acts 7:9. That Paul should continue speaking God’s message4614 fits the possible allusion to Jeremiah’s call noted above (cf. also comment on Acts 9:15–16). God tells Jeremiah to go wherever God sends him ( Jer 1:7) and not to fear the opposition, because the Lord is with him to rescue him (1:8). God touches his mouth (1:9; cf. earlier Isa 6:6–7; cf. Isa 51:16), places words in his mouth ( Jer 1:9), and commissions him to build, plant, and tear down (1:10; cf. 2 Cor 10:8); others would oppose him, but God would rescue him ( Jer 1:19).4615 The Lord’s “many people in this city” (Acts 18:10) may refer to those who are already his people, who will protect Paul. This probably does not refer to the already converted believers, however, since their number is not yet large (though it may be influential and has grown quickly, 18:7–8).4616 It is also unlikely that it refers to the Jewish community as a whole,4617 since those who were not believers would not likely protect Paul (unless the Lord means that although they are not believers, they will not seek Paul’s harm for more than a year). It is even less likely that it simply refers to those strategically placed to help Paul without being believers (such as Gallio, who is not “many”—though he certainly proves to be God’s agent of protection in the following context; cf. Isa 45:1). More likely, then, it refers to those who will be supportive though they are not yet believers (Luke 10:6; cf. Matt 10:11). The point may reflect God’s compassion on those he wishes to be converted (cf. Jonah 4:11, though the lxx wording is not close); that they belong to the Lord suggests that even if not yet converted, they will be (cf. Zech 2:11). In this case, the Lord encourages Paul that his mission will prosper because he has much more work there to do. The Lord will protect Paul for the sake of believers yet to be converted.4618 Thus Paul must continue speaking (Acts 18:9). That Paul may take courage because of God having many might evoke 1 Kgs 19:18, where many have not yet succumbed to Baal worship.4619 4612. Jesus also offers such an assurance oracle as a healer in Luke 8:50, in a call oracle in 5:10, and in his teachings in 12:4, 7, 32 (not a Lukan invention; cf. Matt 10:26, 28, 31; Mark 5:36; 6:50). Matthew is also fond of the assurance (see Matt 1:20; 14:27; 17:7; 28:5, 10). 4613. The promise applies specifically to Corinth, and so the criticism of Mac. Magn. Apocrit. 4.1–7 (that Paul was beheaded in Rome) appears to succeed only because it omits the context (“many people in this city”). 4614. Oratory filled a major role in first-century Corinth; see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 36; cf. also rhetorical studies on 1 Corinthians, esp. Pogoloff, Logos; Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation. 4615. Cf. Hubbard (“Commissioning Accounts”) for a comparison of Acts 18:7–11 and esp. 9:10–19 with ot commissioning accounts. 4616. It does not likely refer to a large number of believers in Corinth prior to Paul’s arrival (though a number may have come recently from Rome; cf. Acts 18:2), since Paul himself traces the founding of the church mainly to conversions after he arrived (1 Cor 4:15; 16:15), not to massive immigration beforehand. 4617. The term λαός usually applies to the Jewish people in Luke-Acts; many, however, think that it here echoes the Gentile “people” for God in Acts 15:14, suggesting the new people of both Jew and engrafted Gentile (Bruce, Acts1, 346; Tannehill, Acts, 224; Dunn, Acts, 243–44). 4618. With Marshall, Kept, 94 (who emphasizes foreknowledge rather than predestination of individuals); Aune, Prophecy, 267. God’s plan is a dominant motif in Luke-Acts; see comment on Acts 2:23. 4619. Le Cornu, Acts, 1000–1001 (noting Rom 11:1–4 and comparing with Elijah Paul’s Benjaminite ancestry, zeal, and prophetic calling).

2757

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 461

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

No one would lay hands on Paul with the outcome of harming him (rather than the intention of harming him; cf. 18:12). Some scholars have complained about Luke’s consistency, since some in Corinth eventually did attack Paul (Acts 18:12).4620 But that no one would “attack [Paul] to harm” him undoubtedly represents an infinitive of result rather than a more common infinitive of purpose;4621 that is, “no one will attack you with the result of harm to you.”4622 ii. Paul’s Lengthy Stay (18:11)

One difference between the Lukan and the epistolary Pauls about which some scholars have complained is Paul’s intimacy with churches such as Corinth in his letters in contrast to his offering speeches and moving on in Acts.4623 This portrayal is something of a caricature; Luke’s focus is what befits the telling of a story, and in a congregation such as Thessalonica, he does not take time to develop much the bonding between Paul and his followers. He does, however, mention a lengthy stay in Corinth (18:11; he also records no speech there),4624 departing from the proposed distinction. What might Paul have been doing during his lengthy stay in Corinth, the details of which Luke mainly omits? Clearly, Paul was founding the Corinthian church, bringing many to follow Christ (1 Cor 4:15; 2 Cor 10:14); he regards as false apostles others who claimed equal rights as the churches’ founders (2 Cor 11:12–13). Paul reminds the Corinthians that they themselves witnessed many signs and miracles that properly confirmed his apostolic ministry there (12:12). That Luke—despite his frequent mention of miracles—omits them in his summary of Corinth illustrates that he merely offers samples, which do not always overlap with the selective samples in Paul’s letters.4625 Regarding Paul’s teaching in Corinth, he claims that he preached the “foolishness” of the gospel there (by the standards of Greek philosophy and Greco-Roman rhetoric, 1 Cor 1:18–2:16) but could not expound more “deeply,” because most of the Corinthian Christians were immature. A sign of their immaturity was that they were deeply affected by the partisan divisiveness and competition of their culture (3:1–5). Seeking a good reception for his two volumes in Achaia as well as Philippi, Luke may not have wished to highlight the Corinthian church’s problems. Paul must have taught some Jesus tradition also, because he not only cites it for the Corinthians (7:10; 11:23–25; cf. 15:3–8) but also calls Peter by his Aramaic name as if they know it (3:22; 9:5; 15:5) and uses some Aramaic they seem to know (16:22). He is also clearly reminding them of some of these traditions, not teaching them for the first time (“what I delivered to you,” 11:23; 15:3; cf. 11:2). Paul may have lectured to passersby (or discussed the gospel over work) at the local games during his sojourn in Corinth. The Isthmian Games occurred every two years4626 4620. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 226 (citing also Acts 27:10 and, a more helpful example of “prophetic license,” 21:11). 4621. For the distinction, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 197–98, §§390–91, with the example of Acts 5:3. 4622. Reports of supernatural protection also appear in some modern evangelism accounts (e.g., in Myanmar, Khai, “Pentecostalism,” 269; idem, Cross, 143; elsewhere, Ising, Blumhardt, 266; cf. the various sources cited in Keener, Miracles, 274–75), although mixed with other accounts, as in Acts, of less pleasant outcomes. 4623. Noted in Porter, Paul in Acts, 101. 4624. The summers in Corinth were said to be mercifully breezy because of air currents meeting on the isthmus (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.3, cited in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 93). 4625. Philostratus does report Apollonius’s widely reported signs in Corinth (Vit. Apoll. 4.25, here overcoming a phantom). 4626. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18 wrongly has four years. On the Isthmian Games, see, e.g., Rothaus, Corinth, 84–92; Decker, “Isthmia”; McRay, Archaeology, 317–19.

2758

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 462

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and should have occurred during Paul’s stay (Acts 18:11);4627 they were held in the spring of 49 and 51 c.e.4628 When combined with the imperial games4629 every fourth year (i.e., every other celebration of the Isthmian Games), the Isthmian Games were the Great (as opposed to the Lesser) Isthmia.4630 There were four Greek games, often mentioned together:4631 the Olympic,4632 the Pythian,4633 the Nemean,4634 and the Isthmian.4635 The Isthmian “were the most splendid and best attended” of the pan-Hellenic festivals next to the quadrennial Olympics.4636 Whether or not Paul attended the Isthmian Games, which would have occurred during his stay there,4637 he would have known about them,4638 and it seems plausible that he would have made use of them somehow to reach people passing through, as Diogenes the Cynic reportedly did.4639 The Isthmian Games were well known among educated urban people throughout the Roman world.4640 Large numbers would gather from many diverse cities, discussing current events, at the Isthmian Games (Polyb. 18.46.1).4641 (Both genders would also be present.)4642 Many gave readings and orations besides other entertainments;4643 a local preacher might be ignored by the Corinthians, who were accustomed to him, yet draw a crowd 4627. With, e.g., Gill, “Achaia,” 452. 4628. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 16. 4629. For a history of the imperial games in Corinth, see West, Inscriptions, 30–31, 48–73 passim. On the games, see also Engels, Roman Corinth, 18; Horrell and Adams, “Introduction,” 5. 4630. Winter, Left Corinth, 271, 276–77. 4631. E.g., three or four in Epict. Diatr. 3.4.11; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.15; Lucian Anach. 9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43; Iambl. V.P. 10.52; two in Rhet. Her. 4.3.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.21; Suet. Nero 25.1; Max. Tyre 34.8. 4632. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 179; Epict. Diatr. 3.22.52; Lucian Posts 13; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.7. The wreath was wild olive (Lucian Anach. 9; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.19). 4633. Soph. El. 49; Ovid Metam. 1.445–47. The garland was laurel (Ovid Metam. 1.448–51, 553–67; Lucian Book-Coll. 10); laurel was sacred to Apollo (Phaedrus 3.17.3). Cf. comment on Acts 16:16. 4634. The wreath was parsley or wild celery (Lucian Anach. 9). 4635. The wreath was (withered) wild celery or (later) pine (Diod. Sic. 16.79.3; Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.15; Dio Chrys. Or. 66.5; Plut. Table 5.3.1–3, Mor. 675D–677B [Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 99]; Lucian Anach. 9; Broneer, “Crown”; idem, “Games,” 16–17). 4636. Broneer, “Corinth,” 95. The Olympics had long held pride of place (Pindar Ol. 1.4–7). 4637. Their location at a Poseidon sanctuary (Engels, Roman Corinth, 96) might have rendered them problematic for his warning against syncretism in 1 Cor 8:10 (although Paul would not have partaken of the food). Neither he nor other Diaspora Jews could have avoided proximity to pagan statues and temples; to be in a sacred enclosure deliberately could be viewed differently unless outsiders could distinguish between participation and proclamation. But it is not clear that the games had yet been moved to the Isthmian sanctuary when Paul visited (Winter, Left Corinth, 271), and Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17, points out that in Miletus Jews held special seats in the theater. 4638. This is true whether or not he alludes to these games in particular, as commentators frequently believe (e.g., Broneer, “Games,” 17; Krentz, “Games,” 351–53), in 1 Cor 9:24–27. Athletic illustrations were common (e.g., Isoc. Ad Nic. 11; Cic. Att. 13.21; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 80.3; Schwankl, “Lauft”; Garrison, “Metaphor”; Pfitzner, Agon Motif; see fuller comment on Acts 13:25), but given the location of Paul’s audience, it is the Isthmian Games that would first come to the audience’s minds (likewise in Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34; certainly far likelier than Paul’s supposed recollection of Tarsian games in Glover, Paul, 11). Others used these games for illustrations (Dio Chrys. Or. 8.11–13, 27; 9.11–12, 16–18). 4639. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5; see further comment below. 4640. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18 (noting their fame). They appear frequently in ancient literature, e.g., Callim. Aetia 3.59.7. 4641. In general at festivals, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 35.15; 40.26; 41.10; for crowds at the Isthmian Games, Livy 33.32.1; Strabo 8.6.20; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.5–6; Casson, Travel, 80. Visitors to the games could be described as going to Corinth; Alciph. Court. 2 (Glycera to Bacchis), 1.29, ¶1. 4642. At some point in the first century, it appears likely that girls also participated in these games (Kent, Inscriptions, 29; also SIG3 802, in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 16). Much earlier, Ionians took their wives and children to public games with them (Thucyd. 3.104.3). 4643. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9 (the context is the Isthmian Games, 8.6). Speeches at festivals often focused on the subject of the festival (Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.258; Men. Rhet. 1.3, 365.27–29; 365.30–366.28) or on encouraging the athletes (Dion. Hal. Epid. 7.283–92).

2759

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 463

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

of visitors.4644 It was a strategic place to make announcements that would reach all Greece.4645 Traditions attributed the founding of the games to Poseidon and Helios,4646 or to Poseidon alone, or to others;4647 they had long included what began as funeral rites for Melikertes-Palaimon.4648 It was said that the Cynic Diogenes attended the games merely to observe human behavior4649 and that some visitors, sufficiently entertained by Diogenes, left the games before their completion.4650 The officials tolerated Diogenes’s activities until he went so far as to don a victor’s wreath!4651 After Corinth’s destruction, the custody of the games passed to the Sicyonians, but after Corinth’s restoration, Corinth again achieved stewardship.4652 The games were restored to the site of Isthmia itself in the 50s c.e.4653 The location of the games, once restored to Isthmia, was a stadium belonging to the Isthmian sanctuary of Poseidon.4654 Regardless of Paul’s level of engagement in the Isthmian Games, he would not have missed an opportunity to learn aspects of the broader culture. Given Corinth’s romanization (noted above), Paul would certainly have learned Roman culture and probably the Latin language better.4655 Staying with two Jewish immigrants from Rome, at least at the beginning, would have also helped prepare him for his future stay in Rome (Acts 28:16). Even peripheral members of Luke’s audience would know that Corinth was highly romanized and might recognize the direction of the narrative if they were familiar with Paul’s later ministry in Rome. e. Gallio Refuses Paul’s Case (18:12–17) Luke provides a favorable legal precedent, showing that Jesus’s followers are not subversive against Rome but were wrongly accused by Jewish disputants over theological differences.4656 At the same time, he shows the fulfillment of Jesus’s promise of protection in 18:9–10. i. Historicity of the Appearance before Gallio

A novelist would not dare fabricate a precedent about the ruling of a recent, historical, named figure, nor would an ancient novelist have cared to research the details that Luke has accurately provided. Luke would hardly dare invent an official hearing 4644. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.10. His crowd consisted of visitors from Ionia, Italy, Libya, and elsewhere (9.5). 4645. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 9.9.4 (in 196 b.c.e.); Suet. Nero 24.2 (Nero, undoubtedly echoing the earlier “liberation”). 4646. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.14; Paus. 2.1.6. 4647. Crosby in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 4:15n4. 4648. Aeschylus Athamas frg.; Apollod. Bib. 3.4.3; Paus. 1.44.8; 2.1.3; scholiasts on Pindar Isthm., Argum. pp. 514, 515 (Frazer in Apollodorus, LCL, 1:320–21n3); cf. Gebhard, “Rites,” 203; Koester, “Melikertes”; idem, Paul and World, 180–91; for an early report of the sanctuary, see Broneer, “Contests.” On myths about the Isthmian Games in earlier times, see Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.15. 4649. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.1. 4650. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.22. 4651. Dio Chrys. Or. 9.10–11; commentators on 1 Corinthians sometimes compare the wreath of 1 Cor 9:25 with Isthmian wreaths. An Isthmian official comes off rather badly also in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 36. The most coveted, high-status office in Corinth was that of the official in charge of these games (Engels, Roman Corinth, 97); the officials had to help sponsor the games (18). Although many contests now awarded money, the most honored festivals, such as this one, continued to award wreaths (Decker, “Prizes,” 889). 4652. Paus. 2.2.2 (see Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 14). 4653. Winter, Left Corinth, 271. 4654. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96. The temple also held statues of the victors (Paus. 2.1.7). 4655. Ramsay, Pictures, 276, infers from Rom 15:24, 28 Paul’s confidence that he could communicate in Latin in Spain; but we cannot rule out partial dependence on interpreters (cf. Acts 14:14). 4656. After 70 c.e., blaming Jewish opposition would counteract anti-Jewish prejudice against the Christian movement (blaming Nero would have helped in some circles, though perhaps not in Greece).

2760

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 464

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

before a named proconsul in recent memory. Records of decisions could be checked, and fabricating precedents wholesale would not commend Luke or his colleagues to Roman authorities when claims of such precedents were inevitably raised before them.4657 Nor ought we to count against the account’s essential likelihood the supposed ability of Luke to check the basic information without a direct source: Luke would not have had easy access to the proconsul’s name from precisely the correct year if he were simply fabricating an account many years after the fact; how would he even know in what years to place Paul in Corinth?4658 Senate archives were available only to high-ranking Romans; access via corrupt clerks is first attested in the third and fourth centuries.4659 That Achaia was governed by a proconsul would be easier to know or assume (it was true in 27 b.c.e.–15 c.e. and, more recently, from 44 c.e. onward),4660 but the naming of the specific official is more striking. Moreover, had Luke been inventing precedents, we might expect him to have granted Paul a full acquittal rather than the dismissal of a case out of anti-Jewish prejudice. Luke likes to offer speeches, but Paul is not afforded the opportunity for one here. Luke certainly employs this case to serve his overall apologetic purpose, but it is unlikely that he would have fabricated it. ii. Date

Despite a small number of detractors,4661 most scholars agree that the Gallio inscription allows us to pinpoint to within a year or two the time when Gallio was in Corinth.4662 This is important for the study of Acts and Paul’s life because it provides the surest external referent for Luke’s chronology of Paul’s ministry. It seems likely that Claudius ordered provincial officials to leave Rome by April 1 (or, at latest, mid-April), to ensure smooth transitions for their assuming office on July 1.4663 Gallio did not finish his term of office,4664 and so his first (and only complete) year would thus run from July 1 of one year to July 1 of the following year—in the majority view, from July 1, 51 c.e., to July 1, 52.4665 An inscription4666 mentions him in the twenty-sixth acclamation of Claudius (other sources identify this as in the first 4657. Paul’s distaste for taking the community’s internal matters to court (1 Cor 6:1–8) might reflect this historical experience as well, but it is readily explicable without recourse to this experience. 4658. See Sherwin-White, Society, 104–5, emphasizing the absence of this information in extant historians. Lightfoot notes that from 15 to 44 c.e. the title “proconsul” would not have been appropriate in Corinth (citing Tac. Ann. 1.76; Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Cass. 60.29; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:12, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). 4659. Sherwin-White, Society, 105. 4660. Bruce, Acts1, 346. As a province of the second rank, it was governed by officials who had previously been praetors and usually before they became consuls (346–47). Traditionally, praetors drew lots for provinces, but matters could be rigged (Cic. Fam. 5.2.3). 4661. Slingerland, “Gallio Inscription,” gives a seven-year window; but cf. the forceful and convincing response in Murphy-O’Connor, “Paul and Gallio.” 4662. See further Riesner, Early Period, 202–11. 4663. Jewett, Chronology, 39 (citing Dio Cass. 60.11.6 for April 1 but noting that the departure date was later moved, 60.17.3). Delays in judges’ appointments were sometimes accepted (Metzger, Outline, 61–76), but those circumstances are not relevant here. Governors were normally not to leave office before their successors arrived (Suet. Jul. 18.1); a governor’s arrival could be delayed by adverse travel conditions to the interior (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1), but these would be irrelevant in a voyage to Corinth. 4664. If he stayed for nearly two full years, this would change the chronology, but his sickness probably sent him away earlier in his term. 4665. Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12–13; Porter, “Inscriptions,” 533–34; Gill, “Achaia,” 449–50; Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 68. A minority argue for 50–51 (e.g., Le Cornu, Acts, 1003). 4666. Bruce, Commentary, 374; Witherington, Acts, 552. This is an inscription of Claudius in Delphi (SIG3 801); see the text conveniently in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 173–76; or Fitzmyer, Acts, 621.

2761

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 465

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

seven months of 52 c.e.)4667 and seems to make an inaugural date in the summer of 52 unlikely (though see the comment below): Claudius has already received a report from him.4668 To most scholars this suggests that he probably left Rome in April of 51 and arrived in Corinth by May. The later possibility, in 52 c.e., is also reasonable (since he is said to have left “immediately,” whatever this means);4669 some mention this later date as plausible but less likely than the earlier date.4670 In any case, we must date Paul’s appearance before Gallio early in the proconsul’s tenure because this was the only part of his tenure he served; he departed before completing his term.4671 He may have become ill because of the Corinthian climate; Seneca reports that the illness was due to the location.4672 In any case, he cut short his tenure in Achaia for health reasons, taking a cruise;4673 he may have been succeeded by one Turcianus.4674 It thus seems likely that Paul’s accusers brought the case to Gallio early in his term of office.4675 Some scholars even aver that Gallio held office only between July and October 51 c.e.,4676 which would require the hearing to be early (but this dating is debated). A secondary, supporting argument in favor of this earlier dating of the case is the desirability of bringing difficult cases to new and potentially open-minded governors (Acts 25:2–3). On this dating, Paul may have arrived in Corinth in February or March of 50 c.e.4677 or, more generally, late 49 to early 50.4678 One could argue against a date in 51 if one assumes that Gallio must have remained in proconsular office in Corinth at the time of Claudius’s mention of him in 52 c.e. This assumption is not, however, necessary; even if the report was before Claudius in early 52, it could have been delayed in reaching him over the winter (see comment on Acts 27:9). If Seneca’s language that Gallio left Corinth “immediately” is meant literally, it is possible that he arrived in May of 52, reported on conditions to Claudius by letter, finished the summer, and then sailed before the seas closed in late October; in this case, Paul appeared before him in the summer or early fall of 52, with Paul arriving a year later than in the previous estimate.4679 During the summer, a report could reach Rome fairly quickly, and hence, even if Gallio sent the report after July 1, it could reach the emperor within July. Yet this approach requires a very tight chronology and seems somewhat less probable than the earlier dating that allows more time. 4667. More precisely, January 25–August 1, 52 c.e. (CIL 3.476; 6.1256; Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; most fully, Fitzmyer, Acts, 622). 4668. Gill, “Achaia,” 437. One may also read the inscription as if Gallio has by this point left Corinth (Witherington, Acts, 552); this reading would clinch the date but is not necessary, since Gallio could report by letter as easily as in person. 4669. See the vigorous case for it in Fitzmyer, Acts, 622–63. 4670. E.g., Bruce, Corinthians, 19–20; Conzelmann, Corinthians, 12–13. 4671. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 149–50; Bruce, “Paul,” 685. 4672. Jewett, Chronology, 40 (citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.1). Winter, “Gallio,” 291, 297–99 (citing esp. Ep. Lucil. 104.1; Pliny E. N.H. 33.62), counters the charge that Gallio was a “hypochondriac.” 4673. Bruce, Commentary, 354, citing Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 4.1. After his consulship, he took another cruise from Rome to Egypt for health reasons (Pliny E. N.H. 31.33; Bruce, Commentary, 354). A governor traveling to a province might face health complications, especially if traveling by land under harsh conditions (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1). One might speculate that Gallio’s strict disposition (expressed in Acts 18:14–17, differently from his brother’s strict moralism) exacerbated his health problems, but this can be only speculation. 4674. West, Inscriptions, 34. 4675. Riesner, Early Period, 209–10; Gill, “Achaia,” 437. 4676. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 150; idem, “Paul and Gallio.” But others have argued that Gallio was still proconsul in 52 c.e. (see Oliver, “Epistle of Claudius”; noted by Witherington, Corinthians, 50). 4677. Riesner, Early Period, 210. 4678. Gill, “Achaia,” 449–50. Bruce, “Paul,” 685, suggests the fall of 50. 4679. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 622–23.

2762

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 466

6/18/14 10:24 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Both dates for the beginning of Gallio’s term (51 and 52) can be defended, but the 51 date appears somewhat simpler and currently has more supporters. In either case, we can pinpoint Paul’s appearance before Gallio to within a year or two and establish a relative Pauline chronology on this basis. iii. Hauled before Gallio’s Tribunal (18:12–13)

Luke’s presentation in 18:12–13 intersects with the extrinsic world of his audience in its mention of Gallio, his tribunal, and the nature of legal conflicts and anti-Jewish prejudices in this period. It also connects with Luke’s apologetic themes of local Jewish hostility and the lack of such hostility in Roman courts.4680 (1) Gallio (18:12)

Son of Seneca the Elder (ca. 50 b.c.e.–ca. 40 c.e.), Gallio was born in what is now Cordova, Spain.4681 When the family moved to Rome, his name was changed to Lucius Junius Gallio as he took the name of his new adoptive father in Rome.4682 Lucius Annaeus Seneca, his famous brother (ca. 3 b.c.e.–65 c.e.), naturally enough, thought well of him,4683 and some others also preserve pleasant reports.4684 Paul and others may well have seen a governor’s procession in public before; slaves would walk in front of any high aristocrat’s procession to announce his titles and keep people out of the entourage’s way.4685 Achaia was apparently one of the most desirable posts for proconsuls (cf. Pliny Ep. 8.24.2). After Nero executed Gallio’s brother Seneca for complicity in the plot against Nero’s life, Gallio sought Nero’s favor but was publicly denounced; some think that he was forced to commit suicide.4686 “Proconsul of Achaia” is the appropriate title.4687 Paul uses provincial titles more consistently than Luke (cf. the less formal “Greece” in Acts 20:2),4688 but Luke often uses provincial titles (elsewhere including Achaia, 18:27; 19:21), and in this case he must do so to suit the office described. (2) The Governor’s Tribunal (18:12)

In 1935, archaeologists discovered the bēma, or tribunal (a speaker’s platform, Latin rostra), in the middle of the south edge of Corinth’s forum; it consisted of an elevated podium covered by a roof upheld by columns.4689 Here, in addition to judicial activity, the government announced edicts.4690 Important speeches would be offered 4680. As in many court cases, Luke draws on realities (in this case, intra-Jewish conflict between the Jesus movement and other Jews is well attested; see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:461–77, esp. 462–63), but he selects and compiles such examples in a way that reinforces his apologetic case. 4681. For an earlier discussion of epigraphic evidence relating to Gallio, see Deissmann, Paul, 261–86, but more is now available. 4682. Bruce, Commentary, 373. 4683. E.g., Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.pref. 12; 5.11.1. Cf. also works that Seneca dedicated to him (the entirety of Dial. 7 is dedicated to him [7.1.1]). 4684. Bruce, Commentary, 374; Witherington, Acts, 551; D. Williams, Acts, 317 (citing Sen. Y. Ep. 104.1; Pliny E. N.H. 21.33; Tac. Ann. 15.73; Dio Cass. 61.35; also see Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4A.pref. 11). 4685. Jeffers, World, 60. 4686. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 151–52 (citing Tac. Ann. 15.73, but the passage is not at all clear that Gallio was killed at this time, and Nero spared Seneca’s wife). 4687. Although Tiberius made Achaia and Macedonia imperial provinces, Claudius restored them to the senate (Suet. Claud. 25.3). 4688. Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55. Luke often prefers naming places by city centers (Cadbury, Acts in History, 39–40). 4689. Broneer, “Corinth,” 91–92; Gill, “Achaia,” 449; McRay, Archaeology, 333–35. See the inscription regarding work there in Kent, Inscriptions, no. 322 (pp. 128–29), probably from the first half of the first century. 4690. McRay, “Corinth,” 230. For prosecutions in forums, see, e.g., Suet. Aug. 29.1; for a conviction and public response before a rostra, see, e.g., Suet. Julius 17.2. On the Roman Rostra, see, e.g., Richmond, Strong, and DeLaine, “Rostra.”

2763

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 467

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

from a rostra.4691 The bēma is dated to 25–50 c.e., suggesting that it was fairly new in Paul’s day.4692 Certainly, Paul expected Corinthians to be familiar with the image of a bēma (2 Cor 5:10), though such knowledge would have been common throughout the cities of the empire, especially colonies modeled after Rome (Rom 14:10).4693 Some scholars have plausibly suggested that Gallio would have reserved the bēma for official occasions and would have been hearing cases primarily in an administrative building.4694 Luke employs the term βῆμα for an official seat (Acts 12:21; 25:6, 17), but we cannot rule out a broad sense (cf. 25:10). The lawcourts were in a basilica at the eastern edge of the forum, but the bēma lay on the southern edge, by a long row of shops.4695 Given the public beating of 18:17, however, Luke probably envisions the outdoor bēma rather than an indoor version. Romans preferred to do outdoors whatever they could—“trials, political meetings, elections, funerals, plays, buying and selling.”4696 The forum itself was massive and accommodated shops, administrative buildings, public baths, and toilets.4697 (Although first-floor individuals with more means might have running water for a latrine,4698 poorer individuals were limited to means of disposing of excretion such as chamber pots;4699 for them, public latrines in Roman cities were less convenient but afforded better sanitation.)4700 Its statues and temples also openly displayed the city’s religious interests; cities following the Roman model included a temple of Jupiter in their forum (see introduction to the section on Corinth). In a Roman city, the cardo (the north-south main street) and decumanus (east-west main street) normally intersected in the forum.4701 The road ran north to Lechaeum’s harbor, facing the sea route to Italy; it ran south to Cenchreae’s harbor, facing the route to Asia.4702 4691. E.g., Suet. Jul. 6; Vit. 15.2; Libanius Topics 5.7; also eulogies (Suet. Tib. 6.4; Calig. 10.1). 4692. McRay, “Corinth,” 230. Others have argued for the Augustan period (Gill, “Achaia,” 449), which might still be within memory of the oldest residents. 4693. Corinth’s version of the rostra was modeled after Rome’s (McRay, Archaeology, 334). The general image of a “judgment seat” would be even more widely understood (e.g., Jub. 43:2); βῆμα appears already in this sense in 2 Macc 13:26, and of its twenty-four occurrences in Josephus, often in this sense (e.g., Ant. 13.84; 14.228; 18.57; 19.310; 20.130; War 1.185). 4694. Furnish, II Corinthians, 26, with supporting evidence. 4695. Fant and Reddish, Sites, fig. 17, p. 58; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 158. 4696. Stambaugh, City, 197–98. When they had to be indoors (for rain, baths, etc.), wall paintings could remind them of outside. 4697. McRay, “Corinth,” 228. On the forum in Roman towns, see DeLaine, “Forum”; Vitruv. Arch. 5.1 passim; for the primary one in Rome, see Richmond, Strong, and Patterson, “Forum Romanum”; in Corinth, see Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22–23; Engels, Roman Corinth, 13, 60–62. The forum was ca. 200 m. east-west and 100 m. north-south (Sanders, “Urban Corinth,” 22). 4698. McRay, Archaeology, 85; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 102 (both noting that sewers carried the waste into cess trenches, on which see also Carcopino, Life, 40). Jerusalem lacked indoor latrines even in the Upper City (Avigad, Jerusalem, 143). 4699. See Hurschmann, “Household Equipment,” 550; cf. y. Ber. 3:5, §5. One might employ a sponge afterward (Hurschmann, “Hygiene, Personal,” 605; cf. Shanks, “Channels”). The Qumran sectarians may have had distinctive toilet practices (Harter et al., “Toilet Practices”; but cf. also Magness, “Toilet Practices”). The very poor who could not afford even an as for using public facilities used jars (Carcopino, Life, 42); these were sometimes unloaded from the windows, to the occasional dismay of passersby below (42–43, 46, citing, e.g., Juv. Sat. 3.269–72). 4700. For latrines in Rome, see Friedländer, Life, 4:284–85; Carcopino, Life, 42; for an example near some baths in Corinth, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 64. On Roman public latrines, chamber pots, etc., see also Koloski-Ostrow, “Latrines.” Naturally, public toilets allowed little privacy (Stambaugh, City, 133; Carcopino, Life, 41); this was true even for most toilets at an imperial villa, apart from those for the emperor and his prominent guests ( Jansen, “Distinctions”). 4701. Watson, “Cities,” 214. 4702. McRay, “Corinth,” 228. Lechaeum was the more important port, since Corinth was oriented more toward Italy (Salmon, “Lechaeum”).

2764

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 468

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(3) The Immediate Conflict

Scholars propose various reasons for the unrest behind this scene. We know of food shortages close to 51 c.e., and these often contributed to instability;4703 other economic tensions common in the urban parts of the empire may have also contributed.4704 The more immediate situation, however, would provide sufficient explanation even if such other contributing factors were absent. The schism in the Jewish community had, among other things, caused rancor and divided the community’s patrons and resources precisely at a time when it could ill afford the division (after Claudius’s expulsion in 18:2). If the synagogue members felt that Paul was attracting too much attention that could cause them worse problems with the authorities in Corinth, they may have been all the more eager to bring him to the authorities themselves and thereby dissociate themselves from him (cf. 19:33–34).4705 If this is the case, however, the new governor turned out to be less interested in Paul than they supposed, and their accusation produced the very backlash they were seeking to prevent. (4) The Plaintiffs

Synagogues, as resident-alien communities, had some rights to settle internal problems according to their own laws and customs.4706 Yet they also could bring criminal charges to the proconsul.4707 Early in Gallio’s administration4708 was the most strategic moment to bring the charges; he was a new governor and might be more open to them than a long-standing governor.4709 (The suggestion that the synagogue members may have acted close to the time of the Isthmian Games, which occurred around this time, is possible, though this timing probably would not have been deliberate.)4710 Romans did not look for cases to prosecute but depended on delatores, or accusers, to come forward4711 (for dragging an accused to the court, see comment on Acts 17:5; cf. 16:19; for the term used here, cf. comment on Acts 17:19). Indeed, a governor could not legally try a Roman citizen, which Paul was (see comment on Acts 16:37), unless someone had come forward to prosecute him.4712 Paul’s opponents would know this limitation and hence that they would have to bring the charges themselves, though the charges they chose turned out to be unfortunate for their case (18:13). One of 4703. Gill, “Achaia,” 451–52. 4704. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160. 4705. Parkes, Conflict, 66. He suggests that the community had already sought to silence Paul internally (2 Cor 11:24), but those beatings were probably not in Corinth, because Paul did have followers and support there (Acts 18:9–10); apparently left the synagogue over the theological controversy (18:4–7), retaining some leaders’ support (18:8); and, most important for those who accept only the evidence of Paul’s letters, would have probably worded the phrase differently had some of the Corinthian believers witnessed one of the beatings (e.g., 2 Cor 12:12; Phil 4:15; 1 Thess 2:1–2, 9–11). 4706. Jos. Ant. 14.235; cf. 19.283; Grant, Christianity and Society, 38; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 41; Moffatt, First Corinthians, 62–63; Thiselton, Corinthians, 425. 4707. Winter, Left Corinth, 295 (following Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 433). 4708. Probably early summer 51, though scholars are not unanimous about the date. 4709. Hemer, Acts in History, 119. Jewish tradition recognized that an edict remained in force only while a magistrate was in office (cf. Katzoff, “Edicts and Ta‘anit”), and so a new magistrate could set a new course (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50), though precedents were very important (cf., e.g., Cic. Att. 6.1). The new governor would also bring staff with him (Pliny Ep. 10.15.1). 4710. McRay, Archaeology, 318, mentioning it as one possibility because nationalism would be at its peak. But they could expect antiforeign sentiment against themselves to counterbalance such hopes. 4711. See, e.g., Cic. Verr. 2.2.38.94; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 51; see further comment at Acts 16:20–21. Technically, delator is usually a hostile term for more neutral activities such as denouncer (index), witness (testis), and especially prosecutor (accusator; see Rutledge, “Oratory,” 113). 4712. Cic. Verr. 2.5.54.141.

2765

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 469

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

lower rank could not easily prosecute one of higher rank,4713 but it would not be difficult for the hostile part of the Jewish community to find some members with status, especially since these members would be speaking for their community. From the standpoint of Luke’s audience, however, these accusers fit the conventional character type (especially popularized in defense speeches) of “malicious accusers”—ironically, just like the anti-Jewish accusers of 16:19–21.4714 In Corinth, plaintiffs would explain a normal charge to the magistrate, who could issue a summons for the accused to appear, though the accused did not always heed the summons.4715 The accusers might have to try to ensure the accused’s arrival in court. A Q parable in Luke’s Gospel illustrates the danger: an opponent might drag someone to the judge, who would hand him over to the officials for imprisonment (Luke 12:58; cf. Matt 5:25).4716 A court case could also prove an expensive affair; some particularly noteworthy lawyers earned more income than officials in Roman colonies.4717 Although this strategy might have worked against Paul politically, in this case it worked against his accusers; this reversal is not out of courtesy to Paul (who is permitted no defense and is himself Jewish) but apparently out of hostility to his accusers (or at least out of hostility to their bringing a baseless case). (5) Language of the Trial

In what language would the hearing have been conducted? Early Roman Egypt allowed two court systems, one with native law in the Egyptian language and the other in Greek (the latter required judges to keep moving among the Greek-speaking communities); Rome abandoned this bipartite system, however, in the mid-first century c.e.4718 One would expect the court to deal with Romans in a Latin-speaking colony in Latin, though a highly educated Roman such as Gallio would also know Greek.4719 Traditionally, Romans who understood Greek nevertheless spoke Latin 4713. See Rapske, Custody, 56–62; further discussion at Acts 16:20–21. This was not always the case, however, at least in theoretical declamations (Quint. Decl. 343.15; 344 intro.). Paul may well also have had tacit or explicit support from local persons of status, such as Erastus (Rom 16:23), if he favored Christians at this time; Crispus, a synagogue leader who agreed with Paul; Titius Justus; or some other persons who may have had wealth or influence. 4714. For malicious accusers, see, e.g., Libanius Declam. 44.68–69, 79. For the backlash against such accusers if political tides turned, see, e.g., Mommsen, History, 179. 4715. Winter, Welfare, 108–9; Witherington, Corinthians, 162. Fines could be imposed for refusing a court summons in classical Athens (Aeschines Tim. 46: one thousand drachmas!). In Quint. Decl. 300 intro.; 300.3 (possibly hypothetical), a person chooses a judge and, when dissatisfied with the verdict, appeals to a public court; in any case, appealing to the governor here seeks high-level support. Magistrates could grant postponements to trials, but the law was designed to prevent excessive delays (lex Irnitana 10 A, as understood by Metzger, Outline, 56, 60, 91). 4716. Luke probably substitutes Roman procedure for the earlier Jewish language (cf. Matt 5:25; Jeremias, Parables, 27n10). Some regard this as originally an eschatological “crisis” parable ( Jeremias, Parables, 43–44; Caird, “Expounding”; cf. Sipre Deut. 309.1.1). Given the prejudice against the poor in lawsuits in the empire (Petron. Sat. 14; Gaius Inst. 4.183; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 113; contrast Publ. Syr. 98; ʾAbot R. Nat. 33, §73), the parable could appeal to Jesus’s hearers’ fears. 4717. Witherington, Corinthians, 162 (following Chow, Patronage, 76), citing Tac. Ann. 11.5–7 for the lawyer’s salary (eight times a duumvir’s annual salary; obviously, this example lies at the upper extreme). 4718. Lewis, Life, 186–87. Use of local vernaculars varied from one place to another, with Greek and Latin most widespread in urban centers (Brunt, “Romanization,” 170–72). 4719. Already in the first century b.c.e., Cicero’s son practiced declaiming both in Latin and in Greek (Cic. Fam. 16.21.5). Cicero himself declaimed in both until becoming praetor (Suet. Rhet. 1), yet Cicero regarded lack of Latin proficiency as shameful (Brut. 37.140). Rome would prefer for Greek-speaking areas a governor who could speak Greek well (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.36). In a later period, at least the better-educated members of the citizen assembly in Carthage, in the Latin-speaking West, apparently understood or appreciated much Greek alongside their Latin; see Apul. Flor. 18.38–39; False Preface 5.113.

2766

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 470

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and expected monolingual Greeks to depend on translation (Val. Max. 2.2.2–3), but such Roman insistence may have faded by the mid-first century c.e.,4720 especially by the reign of Claudius.4721 Educated Romans were thoroughly acquainted with Greek culture and language,4722 though some felt uncomfortable with aspects of that culture.4723 Like Jerusalem, Rome had absorbed considerable Greek culture while retaining an uneasiness about being overtaken by it, though the cultural boundaries advocated by traditional voices were less rigid than they had been in the past.4724 Nevertheless, trials were typically conducted in the common language of the parties present, and when a participant did not know the shared language, the court could provide translation.4725 In Corinth, translation into both Latin and Greek would presumably be available, perhaps allowing participants their choice (though perhaps Latin-speakers would have an advantage with a Roman judge).4726 The plaintiffs in this case are likely primarily Greek-speaking, if we may judge by the synagogue inscription (though its date may make this point irrelevant), the language of 1–2 Corinthians, and the first language of the majority of Jews even in Rome (see comment on Acts 18:4). Though Paul is a Roman citizen and provincial Roman citizens often liked to learn Latin as a prestige language, learning it was never a requirement,4727 and Luke does not avail himself of the opportunity to announce Paul’s use of Latin here. (6) The Charge (18:13)

The claim that Paul illegally “persuades” people uses strong language; in legal settings the term ἀναπείθω typically connotes deceit or misleading,4728 and it is appropriate to false prophets or leaders in the lxx ( Jer 29:8; 1 Macc 1:11).4729 The 4720. Augustus studied Greek poetry but spoke publicly only in Latin, in which he was fluent (Suet. Aug. 89.1); Tiberius spoke Greek fluently but insisted on use of Latin in the senate (Tib. 71). Rutledge, “Philhellenism,” views Tiberius as the most philhellenic early emperor (even more than Nero). 4721. Claudius not only wrote novels in Greek but acknowledged it and Latin as languages of the empire, replied to Greek envoys in Greek, and noted the Greek character of Achaia (Suet. Claud. 42); at the same time, Claudius revoked the Roman citizenship of a Greek aristocrat who did not know Latin (16.2). After him, Nero could argue in either Latin or Greek as appropriate to the western or eastern empire (Nero 7.2). Titus as a boy composed in both languages (Tit. 3.2), and Domitian sponsored competitions for declamation in both languages (Dom. 4.4). Pliny thought translating Latin into Greek and vice versa the best use of leisure (Ep. 7.9.2). 4722. E.g., Virgil’s Aeneid displays familiarity with Greek stories (as Suet. Vergil 21 emphasizes). A soldier addresses a Greek-speaking peasant in Latin in Lucian Lucius 44 but in the narrative in Apul. Metam. 9.39 then shifts to Greek. 4723. Conversely, even during the empire, not all Greeks approved of all Roman customs (Grant, Paul, 131; Aul. Gel. 19.9.7). 4724. For Roman mistrust, Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 59.7; Bowersock, Augustus, 75; Goldstein, “Acceptance,” 69; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 113; Aune, Environment, 28; Reekmans, “Views,” 124–25, 127–28; Russell, “Emasculation”; especially early, see, e.g., Florus Carm. 7; Rhet. Her. 4.2.4–4.3.4; Cic. Tusc. 1.1.1; Polyb. 39.1.1–12. For gradual hellenization, MacMullen, “Hellenizing”; Swain, “Culture”; for appreciation, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 2.30.47; 3.23.38; 4.1.1; Cic. De or. 3.34.137; Plutarch’s parallel (Greek and Roman) Lives; Pliny Ep. 8.24.2–4; 10.11.3; for Nero’s philhellenism, see Griffin, Nero, 208–20 (for philhellenism generally, as a category already among ancient Greeks, see Ferrary, “Philhellenism”). Some Greek and Roman differences were merely cultural (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.8.1; Quint. Inst. 8.6.31; Corn. Nep. pref. 5–7; cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29–30). This difference between Greek and Roman culture affected the nature of homosexual intercourse (Vilbert, “Origines”; Harrell, Divorce, 36; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 229; Verstraete, “Slavery”), though a major Roman objection was to the junior partner’s freeborn status (Williams, “Greek Love”). 4725. Winter, “Captatio benevolentiae,” 526 (citing P.Thead. 14), on Acts 24:2–21, which he thinks was surely in Greek. 4726. Even a Greek-speaker who lived and taught in Rome for a while might not have become fluent in Latin (Plut. Demosth. 2.2); certainly that appears true of many Jewish residents of Rome (see comment on Acts 18:4; also on 28:17). Some Latin was known, however, even in Palestine (see Porter, “Latin Language”). 4727. See Adams, “Romanitas.” 4728. Winter, Left Corinth, 278–79 (citing P.Magd. 18; P.Ryl. 114). 4729. Cf. also Herm. 90.8; sources in BDAG, including Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.212; esp. Jos. War 7.438.

2767

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 471

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

expression “against the law”4730 is more difficult to decide: does it refer to breaking Jewish law (in which case we must explain why the accusers expect Gallio to be concerned about it) or to breaking Roman law (in which case we must explain why Gallio assumes that the accusers refer to Jewish customs)?4731 It is possible that the accusers mean Roman law or, more likely, that they state their accusation ambiguously to imply breach of Roman law (but can avoid perjuring themselves if cross-examined).4732 In this case they may appeal to Roman suspicion of subversive religious movements. It is also possible that their charge is formulated to appeal to Gentile anti-Judaism rather than to ward it off; Gallio might already suspect Jews of subversion, and they can clear the rest of their community by handing over sectarians who they think undercut the law. If so, however, the consequences of this internal division may have led to their bearing the brunt of their own strategy themselves (Acts 18:17; cf. 19:33–34). If this negative experience of airing a community’s “dirty laundry” before public courts is historical (and the Gallio connection makes it likely), it may have added urgency to Paul’s later warning against Corinthian Christians taking one another to court before unbelievers (1 Cor 6:1–8, esp. 6:6).4733 These accusers may, however, instead be arguing that Paul’s teaching contradicts the law of their people and hence they do not want him protected under the umbrella of Judaism’s privileges.4734 This might even leave him susceptible to expectations that he participate in the imperial cult4735 (though convincing outsiders that he was a Gentile would not be easy, whatever the status of his uncircumcised converts). Whether Judaism was an official religio licita has been debated,4736 but Josephus sufficiently attests that precedent recognized Jewish people’s rights to practice their ethnic customs. If Paul’s teachings do not fit within Judaism (i.e., are not ethnic customs), then he will be more susceptible to other complaints (such as a political interpretation of messianism; Acts 17:6–7; compare 18:2 with Suet. Claud. 25.4) that he cannot justify by appeal to his theological convictions.4737 iv. Gallio Rejects the Case (18:14–15)

Here Paul opens his mouth to speak, and other speeches in Acts lead us to expect a Pauline speech here (cf. also, for different reasons, Acts 19:30–31). Instead, Luke surprises a first-time reader, reserving the forensic defense speeches for later. Paul has reason to be anxious; when a trial’s setting was unfairly against the defendant, there was reason to fear (Cic. Balb. 1.1–2), and the local synagogue community’s corporate standing before the court probably would seem superior to Paul’s own. One could not necessarily count on a fair hearing; a governor who was criticized, for 4730. Familiar in forensic rhetoric; cf. παρὰ τοὺς νόμους as opposed to κατὰ τοὺς νόμους in Rhet. Alex. 19, 1433b.21–23. 4731. Molthagen, “Konflikte,” argues that Christianity was not reckoned a crime in itself until the time of Nero; prosecutions in Acts were for other reasons. 4732. Witherington, Acts, 552; Dunn, Acts, 244; Le Cornu, Acts, 1006; Parsons, Acts, 253. Walaskay, Acts, 171, compares Paulus Sent. 5.21.12: Roman law forbade teaching new religions. 4733. Of course, there were underlying ethical considerations (cf., e.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.16–17; p. 78.7–9; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22; Diog. Laert. 6.2.54; Grant, Paul, 32; Horsley, Corinthians, 86; probably Rom 12:14, 17–21; in associations, Smith, Symposium, 110; not always observed in practice, e.g., Lucian Eunuch 1–3; Icar. 16), not least of which was Jesus’s instruction (Matt 5:39–40; Luke 6:29; Paul elsewhere in Rom 12 may echo some of Jesus’s ethical sayings, e.g., Davies, Paul, 138; Schoeps, Paul, 56; Hunter, Predecessors, 46, 126; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Wenham, “Paul’s Use,” 15–17; esp. Thompson, Clothed; cf. Brown, “Parallels”). 4734. Ideally, Romans did not force peoples to break their own cultures’ laws ( Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.73). 4735. Cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 279–80. 4736. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:450, and sources noted there. 4737. Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 99–103; earlier, see Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 171; Robertson, Luke, 194.

2768

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 472

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

example, could sentence the offender to the stocks or even exile (Lucian Dem. 50). In this case, however, the new governor’s attitude toward the local synagogue community counts against them. A speaker might begin by begging the audience to hear him quietly as it has heard his accuser (e.g., Demosth. Eub. 1); in this case, however, Paul will need no defense. (1) Gallio’s Impatience (18:14)

Gallio’s impatience is, in one sense, understandable. The requests for a provincial governor’s time were legion, and a new governor particularly might be confronted with demands. Initially, most letters sent from a new governor of Asia were written by others and not even evaluated until his freedmen began reading through them to weigh them for equity (Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.2.3.8). The matter became even more serious when dealing with requests for legal attention. Papyri in Roman Egypt reveal that the prefect’s office might be open ten hours a day, and when the prefect came to local municipalities a few days each year, he had to deal with 700 to 750 petitions a day, better than one per minute. Clerks and aides thus undoubtedly processed the less important ones.4738 Although Corinth was more populous, Gallio would hear cases regularly there rather than only a few days per year. Nevertheless, some conscientious rulers heard cases till nightfall,4739 although governors in their provincial seat would not be expected to do so. Most governors were short staffed; even soldiers were at a premium, at least in more peaceful provinces.4740 For this reason, various courts addressed different kinds of issues. Private suits were normally decided by jury courts, consisting (in colonies such as Corinth) of Roman citizens, preferably those meeting the significant property qualifications.4741 A local Corinthian official dealt with civic cases, and an aedile dealt with financial ones; the proconsul’s business would be with criminal cases, both in Corinth and the rest of Achaia.4742 As proconsul, Gallio would be concerned only with public order, not with minor litigation that could be addressed by lower courts.4743 Criminal law, judged by the governor, covered such crimes as “treason, embezzlement of state property,” election bribery, extortion, “endangering of public security, forgery of wills and coins,” poisoning, murder and other violent criminal actions, incest, and adultery.4744 Even some of these areas of criminal law might be left to juries.4745 One could have charged Paul with treason or with disrupting public security by fomenting unrest (Acts 17:6–7), but the Corinthian Jewish community offers a charge that, though corresponding with their honest view of the matter, does not fit criminal law. As noted above, Jewish communities could bring criminal charges to the proconsul.4746 But if the charges could not easily fit the Roman definition of criminal charges, the 4738. Lewis, Life, 190. 4739. Suet. Aug. 33.1. Even a visiting patron in the countryside could be so besieged with petitions as to have no leisure (Pliny Ep. 9.15.1–2). 4740. See Pliny Ep. 10.21.1; 10.22.1–2; 10.27–28; 10.77.1; 10.78.1–2. 4741. Winter, Left Corinth, 59 (citing Dio Cass. R.H. 52.7.5; SEG 9.8A.18). 4742. Winter, Left Corinth, 44–45. 4743. Ibid., 60; Winter, Welfare, 108; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50–51. Jury courts handled particular categories of crimes, leaving the rest for magistrates (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32). 4744. Winter, Left Corinth, 45–46 (following Kunkel, Introduction, 66; Robinson, Criminal Law, passim). 4745. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32, assign adultery, forgery, murder, bribery, and treason to this category; but cf. some of these assigned to governors above. 4746. Winter, Left Corinth, 295 (following Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 433). Jews dissatisfied with local Jewish courts’ verdicts could also appeal to the governor, which constituted, in effect, a limit on the enforcement of Jewish discipline in Diaspora communities (Safrai, “Self-Government,” 408). Paul’s submission to corporal discipline in the synagogues (2 Cor 11:24) suggests that in most cases, he did not employ this right, exercise of which some Jews would have considered traitorous.

2769

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 473

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

accusers might be seen as frivolously wasting the governor’s time. As Gallio declares, Paul committed neither a technical ἀδίκημα (felony) nor a ῥᾳδιούργημα (“political misdemeanor”) by standards of Romans law.4747 If the proconsul had political incentive to hear the accusers out, he might do so;4748 but especially in the wake of Claudius’s recent decree (and even without it), he lacks such incentive.4749 Gallio’s impatience, however, probably has roots in anti-Judaism, not merely in the new demands of his work. He shared a prejudice against Jewish superstition with many other Roman aristocrats; even his temperate brother Seneca called the Jewish people a gens sceleratissima.4750 When convenient, prosecutors could impugn the credibility of prosecution witnesses on account of their ethnicity;4751 if the expulsion of Jews under Claudius came in 49 c.e. (see comment on Acts 18:2), then Gallio has the recent example of the emperor himself to allow him to vent hostility toward Jews in a Roman colony.4752 Further, whereas Felix and Festus had to accommodate Jewish concerns in Judea for political reasons, Gallio is under no such pressure.4753 Anti-Jewish prejudice works against Paul in Philippi (16:20–21) but may, ironically, come to his defense in this case. Not persuaded concerning Gallio’s anti-Jewish sentiment, Winter contends that Gallio rejects the case on valid procedural grounds.4754 Gallio’s aversion to flattery was well known;4755 he was also said to be quite affable.4756 Here, Winter thinks, Gallio answers politely but indicates that their charges are baseless under Roman law, the only basis on which he would rule.4757 I would argue that Gallio’s reference to details about the Jewish accusers’ own law (18:15), the context of anti-Judaism in 18:2, and Gallio’s lack of concern in 18:17 (though Winter explains this response differently) reflect anti-Jewish sentiment. But in any case, Winter is right that Gallio has reason to be impatient even solely on the grounds of apparent legal obfuscation before him. (2) Gallio’s Speech (18:14)

Even this brief speech reveals the rhetorical education expected for one of Gallio’s class,4758 including the use of repetition of related terms in 18:14 (“wrong or crime”) and 18:15 (“speech and names and your law”); rhetoric appreciated the accumulation of nouns (the use of polysyndeton in the second instance suggesting the tediousness of their complaint). The balanced contrast between two “if ” clauses (one in 18:14, 4747. Winter, Left Corinth, 279. 4748. This would be to “endure” them, possibly adding that nuance to the stricter legal sense of ἀνέχομαι, which is probably primary (on which see Fitzmyer, Acts, 630). 4749. Gallio seems to have been on exceptionally good terms with Claudius (see Winter, “Gallio,” 295). A public official sitting on the bēma all day could gain public favor by his availability to hear cases (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 10.19.1), but Gallio has no need of such favor, especially from resident aliens. 4750. Witherington, Acts, 551. 4751. Cic. Flacc. 4.9–9.20 (against Greeks). 4752. That Claudius calls Gallio his friend in the Gallio inscription reflects Roman political friendships, not the sharing of all ideas (Claudius himself was not consistently anti-Jewish); but if the emperor appeared anti-Jewish, anyone with such convictions would feel free to follow suit. 4753. Chow, Patronage, 78–79. 4754. Ancient sources portray him as the sort of person who would follow protocol strictly (Winter, “Gallio,” 301–2). 4755. Ibid., 299–301. 4756. Ibid., 301. Lightfoot, by contrast, takes this description of Gallio as consistent with his indifference to the following “tumult” (Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:17, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). 4757. Winter, “Gallio,” 301. 4758. Even though leading rhetoricians disliked flowery rhetorical figures in judicial rhetoric, crowds enjoyed them (Anderson, Glossary, 127, citing Rhet. Her. 4.32; Quint. Inst. 4.1.9; 4.3.2; 9.3.100–102; 12.8.3; Pliny Ep. 2.14). Gallio, however, is not using deliberate rhetorical figures but speaking in a fashion shaped by his rhetorical training; indeed, both Gallio’s natural and adoptive fathers were orators.

2770

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 474

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the other in 18:15), using the typical μέν . . . δέ construction, also suits the weighty speech of an orator or public figure. Given the setting and content of Gallio’s brief speech, it could be classified as judicial, though it is hardly a formal “speech” in a rhetorical sense.4759 In any case, many Romans would have appreciated his no-nonsense approach.4760 Once, when a second party was about to begin his defense, the mutually agreed-on judge decided the case in the prospective speaker’s favor on the basis of sufficient evidence heard from the plaintiff: “All credit to the judge for not letting time be wasted in a clear case.”4761 Although a herald might need to shout to quiet the crowd, a governor on his tribunal could speak concisely from his seat without strain on his voice.4762 Gallio claims that under some circumstances, but not the present ones,4763 it would be appropriate to “put up with” their complaint. The term (ἀνεσχόμην) often so translated has a technical sense in some legal contexts of accepting “a complaint for further consideration”4764 (“entertain” your complaint; cf. nrsv: “accepting the complaint”). That the term elsewhere generally means “withstand” or “endure” (e.g., Luke 9:41; 2 Cor 11:1, 4, 19–20; 2 Macc 9:12; 4 Macc 1:35) may add an appropriate nuance in the present case. (3) Rejecting the Charge (18:15)

A judge could “decide whether to accept a novel charge or not.”4765 Before deciding a case, he had to decide whether the charge in fact constituted a crime.4766 Naturally, judges were expected to follow statutes and custom ( Justin. Inst. 4.17, esp. 4.17.intro.); even a governor could be punished if found to have abused judicial power according to his whims.4767 But in practice there were few limits on Gallio’s power to decide the case or whether to accept it; he held authority to decide according to his judgment.4768 “I do not wish to judge this matter,” Sherwin-White notes, is “the precise answer of a Roman magistrate refusing to exercise his arbitrium iudicantis within a matter extra ordinem.”4769 Had he been allowed to speak, Paul might have sought this very solution; one technique in judicial rhetoric was to question whether an opponent’s case ought to be heard in court (Hermog. Issues 42.5–7). Perhaps learning from this occasion, Paul may seek to have his later charges thrown out the same way (see comment on Acts 24:19–21). Impatience with “speech and names and your law” fits common expectations and was a natural way to dismiss wordy arguments devoid of logic.4770 The sophists had used hair-splitting arguments based on wordplays rather than logic before Socrates 4759. Cf. Soards, Speeches, 101 (“more an explanation than an effort to persuade”). 4760. Romans were particularly well known for their laws, in contrast to Greeks, known for philosophic virtues (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 369.30–31); this tendency appears in Luke as well as everywhere else in ancient literature. 4761. Val. Max. 2.8.2 (LCL, 1:203). 4762. Apul. Flor. 9.10–11. 4763. Winter, “Gallio,” 301, regards Gallio’s response here as polite; yet Acts 18:15 sounds disapproving (as Winter [302] also recognizes). 4764. Fitzmyer, Acts, 630 (following Schlier, “ἀνέχω,” 359n2). 4765. Sherwin-White, Society, 100. 4766. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 32. 4767. Cic. Verr. 2.3.3.6. But erring on the side of clemency toward the accused was better than erring toward harshness (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621). 4768. See Rapske, Custody, 67–70; Le Cornu, Acts, 1004–5 (following Sherwin-White, Society, 13ff.); Ferguson, Backgrounds, 50; cf. even the assumed freedom of ordinary judges in Quint. Decl. 300.2. 4769. Sherwin-White, Society, 102 (followed by Witherington, Acts, 554; Le Cornu, Acts, 1010). 4770. On the “questions,” ζητήματα, see comment on Acts 25:10. Gallio’s “if it were . . . but [it is not]” can function as rhetorical antitheton (see Hermog. Inv. 4.2.173–76, esp. 176).

2771

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 475

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

challenged them.4771 Often ancient intellectuals disputed grammar and the correct use of terms (current vs. archaic terms, etc.).4772 We read, for example, of the strife of two grammarians in Rome over the vocative case of a word.4773 Philosophers often contended against useless quibbles over words4774 or the use of fallacious argument.4775 Seneca the Younger, Gallio’s brother, complained about students who came to learn to develop their wits rather than their souls, simply studying words;4776 those more interested in style or arrangement than in content were absorbed with petty things.4777 Stoic logic, often impatient with empty rhetoric, insisted on following argument (λόγος) and demonstration (ἀπόδειξις) and reason.4778 Some nonphilosophers also argued that empty talk and rambling was a fault.4779 The mention of the irrelevant “speech” (λόγου) of Paul’s accusers in this verse contrasts with the more appropriate “matter” (λόγον) of Acts 18:14.4780 (4) Refusing Jurisdiction (18:15)

Jewish people, like other large resident-alien communities and, to some extent, voluntary associations, could judge members of their communities by their own laws, provided that these did not conflict with Roman law (and provided that the 4771. Val. Max. 3.4.ext. 1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 71.7; Diog. Laert. 2.30. In the fifth century b.c.e., rhetoric was called “the art of speech,” τέχνη λόγων (Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 3). For examples of pedantic attention to detail or trivia, see, e.g., Hor. Ep. 1.18.15–16; Aul. Gel. 2.26; 13.26; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60.31–63.8; 2.7.11f, pp. 70–71.15–19; such light discussions were common at banquets (Smith, Symposium, 51–53). Philosophers could make a pastime with words, e.g., Plato Phaedr. 278AB; Gorg. 489BC. Rhetoricians could, when useful, argue against such hair-splitting use of words (Lysias Or. 10.6–7, §116), critique the bad arguments of politicians (Dion. Hal. Demosth. 3), and recognize that excessive demands for precision can simply stir hostility (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.20). One should not waste words (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 393.25–30; see comment on brevity at Acts 24:4). 4772. See, e.g., Aul. Gel. 6.2, 7, 9–11, 17, 21; 7.5, 6, 12, 15, 16; 8.1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14; 9.6, 12, 14; 10.1, 5, 11, 13, 20, 24, 26, 29; 11.1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 15; 12.3, 9, 10, 14, 15; 13.3, 6, 10, 21, 25, 30. Matters of style and grammar were essential in speech writing (e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.7, 10, 16, 22; 2.3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20; 3.14; 4.1, 7, 16, 17; 5.4, 8, 20, 21; some of these are defending the grammar of Virgil and other earlier writers, e.g., 5.8). For other grammatical, etymological, and similar discussions, see Aul. Gel. 15.3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 27, 30; 16.5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17; 17.13; 18.7 (18.7 is on the philosopher Favorinus); 18.8, 12; 19.8; 20.6; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.3.2–3, 7, 12. Though mostly pedantic, sometimes court cases could turn on the meaning of words in laws (e.g., Hermog. Issues 65.1–8, esp. 4–6). 4773. Aul. Gel. 14.5; cf. the debate over the use of a term in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.3–4. Precise meanings of words become subjects for serious debates in the midst of casual conversation (Fronto in Aul. Gel. 19.10.5–14, embarrassing a grammarian); grammarians (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.9) and sophists (Lucian Soph. passim, e.g., 9) were ashamed of inadvertent solecisms (on these, cf. Rowe, “Style,” 122–23); logical conundrums (e.g., Fronto Eloq. 1.14) offered another form of quibble. 4774. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 45.5; 48; Philo Good Person 80; cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.232. They also argued against pedantic discussions (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 49.12; 88.37; 117.31; Max. Tyre 18.6), even among some philosophers (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 48.6–7, 12; 71.6; 88.42; Max. Tyre 1.8; Fronto Eloq. 4.3); some complained that Zeno, Stoicism’s founder, simply invented new terms rather than new ideas (Cic. Fin. 3.2.5; 4.8.19; 4.20.56). Such leisurely pastimes squander precious time in one’s life (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 45.5; 48.12). 4775. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 82.24; cf. 117.25. 4776. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 108.23. Yet Seneca does affirm the value of philosophers’ investigating word meanings and arguments (89.9, 11, 14; though philosophers’ and philologists’ approaches differ, 108.30) and allows the use of wordplays and syllogisms to gain attention, so long as one turns then to ethics (108.12). 4777. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–4; 108.7; esp. 115.1–2. 4778. Mus. Ruf. frg. 44, p. 138.26–30. 4779. E.g., Aul. Gel. 1.15. Gregory of Nazianzus warns against babblings without purpose (Or. 27.1, quoting 1 Tim 6:20 and 6:4; so Pelikan, Acts, 201). In later rabbis, compare pilpulistic approaches and gematria. 4780. Winter, After Corinth, 279 (and idem, “Gallio,” 305), notes that λόγος could apply to “a declaration of legal immunity,” which could refer to the accusers’ possible request that Jewish Christians not share their immunity from the demands of the imperial cult. He may be right about the concern for immunity from the imperial cult, but given the term’s broad semantic range, we cannot hang this conclusion on the term. Even the proposal that “word” indirectly recalls the Christian message (cf. Soards, Speeches, 102) falters on the term’s broad semantic range.

2772

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 476

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

accused did not opt out of their community’s jurisdiction under duress).4781 But civil courts would not rule on offenses of Jewish law.4782 Gallio’s mention of their law (with ὑμᾶς in an emphatic final position) contrasts with the Roman law by which he must judge.4783 Telling them to “see to the matter themselves” simply throws Jewish theological issues back to the Jewish community as he refuses to involve civil authority or impose civil penalties. “See (to it) yourselves” (ὄψεσθε αὐτοί) likely reflects the imperative of the Latin expression videre de,4784 which may have been mentioned in Paul’s report and then remained in Luke’s mind, surfacing in the latter’s account. (Alternatively, Luke, trying to conform a more general summary of Gallio’s pronouncement to direct discourse, added the Latinism to bring it closer to how he would expect Gallio to have said it. Luke was not a native Latin speaker, but years in Philippi might have acclimatized him to some judicial idioms.) The same idiom appears in a similar legal setting in Matt 27:24,4785 and the same idea in John 18:31. (5) A Favorable Precedent

Although Gallio as an actor within the narrative was not trying to provide an apologetic for Paul or his movement, that is de facto how his response functions in the larger context of Acts’ apologetic.4786 As soon as a governor’s verdict was read out, it was recorded in the province’s official proceedings.4787 Because he was a governor and not a local judge (like Thessalonica’s politarchs, Acts 17:6–8), Gallio’s decision could have far-reaching implications. It would establish a favorable precedent for the Christians,4788 not binding on future governors but certainly useful for their decisions.4789 Gallio was a well-known jurist, and although his ruling established law only for Achaia, the ruling could be overturned “only if the prosecuting Jews possessed some special privilege such as Roman citizenship” and appealed to the emperor. In view of their recent expulsion from Rome by the same emperor, such an appeal would likely prove counterproductive. Christians would thus be viewed as Jews in this period (before 64 c.e.)4790 and hence exempt from expected participation in the imperial cult.4791 Those who could afford meat but wished to avoid pagan sacrificial meat probably were able 4781. See Meeks, Moral World, 63–64. Cf. a century earlier Cic. Att. 6.1 (LCL, 22:431), during Cicero’s governorship in Cilicia: “Greek cases are to be settled according to Greek law.” 4782. Judge, Pattern, 68. 4783. See Winter, “Gallio,” 306. 4784. North, “IDEIN PERI”; Barrett, Acts, 874–75. Padilla, Speeches, 157, accepts both this possibility and Bruce’s suggestion (Acts3, 396) of the Latin perfect uideritis. 4785. For Matthew’s literary use, see Keener, Matthew, 658. Cf. Marc. Aur. 5.25. Had Luke had Matthew’s material in his own tradition, he could have paralleled Jesus and Paul here (though he sometimes does omit potential parallels from Mark in his Gospel; see introductory comments on Acts 6:8–8:1). 4786. Noting the consistency with the rest of Acts, and Luke’s dramatic irony, see Padilla, Speeches, 161. 4787. Apul. Flor. 9.12. 4788. See Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 427; Bruce, Message, 56; idem, Commentary, 373. Paul’s accusers would not likely try to arraign him twice on the same charge before the same magistrate (cf. Quint. Decl. 266 intro., though cf. 300 intro.). Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 169, is undoubtedly correct that Luke preferred to emphasize Paul’s high status and favorable treatment rather than his harsh treatments (with some action-packed exceptions, e.g., Acts 16:20–23). But for Luke to be selective does not mean that he fabricates what he includes; the narrative of this case’s dismissal is plausible. 4789. Pliny Ep. 10.65.2 notes that he would have depended on previous governors’ precedents had there been any; the emperor replies that he also finds no precedent among his predecessors (10.66.1). On the value of precedents for Luke’s apologetic, see the sources and discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:450–53. 4790. If they are Jews, then they share Judaism’s legal privileges, which some include even as a religio licita (Winter, “Gallio’s Ruling”). 4791. Winter, Left Corinth, 279–80. The imperial cult became a provincial, rather than merely a local, matter there ca. 54 c.e. (see 269, 274).

2773

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 477

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to purchase kosher food at the marketplace like other Jews (provided this privilege had not been temporarily revoked).4792 Luke reports this vindication (incomplete as it was) as part of a consistent pattern throughout his apologetic history, similar to Josephus’s collection of precedents for Judaism in the empire.4793 Although faced with political considerations (Luke 23:30, 23), Pilate pronounced Jesus’s innocence (23:4, 14, 22), as did the leader of the Roman execution squad (23:47, probably Lukan redaction).4794 Luke’s marshaling of such precedents would provide Christians with a sense of security and perhaps evidence they could use to respond against slanders in the public arena. His approach comports well with the respect for Roman government often found in early Christian literature (Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:2; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13–14), though intense times sometimes invited a different approach (Rev 13:1–18). Some scholars doubt Luke’s favorable portrait of good precedents from high Roman officials; where, then, did persecutions come from?4795 Luke suggests that they came from other sources in this period besides the Roman government. That he breaks off his story before Nero’s persecution allows him to simplify the portrayal in this way (though Roman officials are by no means identical—i.e., they are not flat composite characters). Although a provincial governor’s decree could normally serve as precedent (Pliny Ep. 10.108.1), an imperial decree could make it permanent or could annul it (10.108.1–2). Governors’ precedents (which were not binding on other governors in any case) would be of limited value to Luke if Nero later established new imperial precedent—but they would be all that Luke had. Luke’s apologetic focus makes him selective but not wrong about what he does report. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence reveals that not all churches faced persecution; indeed, some members in Corinth even felt comfortable going to Gentile courts (1 Cor 6:1–8).4796 Against the assumption that Luke invents the scene, a historian would not normally knowingly appeal to a fictitious decision of a named official in a city where records still existed, especially if the historian were also an apologist for a movement that could scarce afford its arguments to be discredited. Moreover, Luke relishes the opportunity to provide Paul’s defense speeches, and were he writing pure fiction about the occasion, he could have provided one before Paul’s vindication. (Indeed, it was within Luke’s prerogative even as a historian to provide such a speech if he wished; see the commentary introduction, ch. 8.) That Gallio cuts Paul off before he can speak likely reflects the account as Luke heard it rather than Luke’s imagination.4797 Luke might also suggest a development of Paul’s own apologetic strategy through his experiences in Acts. In Philippi, Paul learned the value of appealing to his Roman citizenship; in Corinth, before Gallio, Paul learns the impatience of Roman administrators with intra-Jewish charges. Both of these experiences prepare Paul, and Luke’s audience, for the major strategies involved in Paul’s custody in the final quarter of Acts. 4792. Ibid., 296–97 (who thinks that this Jewish privilege was revoked after Paul’s departure). 4793. See the survey and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:452–53. 4794. Apologetic pervades Luke’s passion narrative: the disciples’ only swords (Luke 22:36) were to number Jesus as a transgressor (22:37); they were few swords (22:38), and Jesus opposed their use (22:51), a stark contrast with his seditious accusers (22:52–53). 4795. Pervo, Profit, 38. (Pervo elsewhere complains that Luke overemphasizes Paul’s sufferings for dramatic effect. But Luke certainly does emphasize positive precedents vis-à-vis the Roman government.) 4796. That is, even Luke’s portrayal is more nuanced than some allow: persecution is not pervasive (rarely in the empire, even under Decius, was it universally enforced equally harshly), nor are all governors favorable (Felix offers better in Acts 24:22 than Pilate offered Jesus, but he does not release Paul). 4797. Cf. also Keener, “Corinthian Believers,” 51.

2774

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 478

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

v. Abuse of the Plaintiffs (18:16–17)

In the immediate historical context of widespread anti-Jewish feeling (Acts 18:2), Gallio’s own anti-Jewish behavior in 18:16 gives implicit permission to other Gentiles present to vent their anti-Jewish sentiments in 18:17. Although Luke regards such behavior as unjust (cf. 16:20–21), he uses it to show not only the danger that Paul, as a Jew, could have been in (cf. 16:20–21) but also how God protected him (18:9–10) and even reversed the expectations of his Jewish accusers (cf. 19:33–34). (1) Driving Away the Plaintiffs (18:16)

Had Gallio merely been mildly annoyed and eager to save time, Luke might say that he “sent” Paul’s accusers away. Instead, Gallio “drove” (ἀπήλασεν) them away, which suggests hostility and perhaps force (many commentators even think that he had his lictors force them away).4798 The language is forceful, but what confirms that Gallio asks brusquely and unjustly, and likely out of anti-Jewish sentiment, is that he flagrantly ignores the beating in 18:17. Winter suggests that “driving away” plaintiffs in a baseless case was precisely the correct protocol.4799 Even if this view, which does not attribute anti-Jewish prejudice to Gallio, is correct, the crowds could still act out of such prejudice. But Gallio’s deliberate ignoring of the situation in 18:17 seems like prejudice.4800 Winter suggests that Gallio was not legally expected to deal with patrons and clients in the forum beating Sosthenes unless the latter brought a private case for assault against them.4801 This interpretation is possible, but Luke’s way of putting the matter sounds less friendly: Gallio “did not care” about these matters and, presumably, should have.4802 Angry crowds could sometimes drive a speaker from a platform by shouting and scorn (Aeschines Tim. 84), though particularly shameless speakers might resist this approach (Tim. 34).4803 The person overseeing an assembly could also order a speaker to depart (Plut. Cic. 16.3); that a governor could order someone driven away, however, goes without saying. Gallio was an unjust judge (cf. Luke 18:2–6), but Jewish people believed that God could use even unjust governments to fulfill his purposes, and in this context, the Lord fulfilled his promise to Paul (Acts 18:9–10).4804 Now the governor’s injustice in 18:16 (on the anti-Jewish reading) gives way to the crowd’s injustice in 18:17. If the example of the emperor’s treatment of Jews gave unofficial permission to governors to abuse Jews, even more clearly the governor’s example would have given the crowds present around the bēma freedom to vent their anti-Jewish (or even purely ruffian) sentiments.4805 That the governor ignores this plainly illegal action confirms that his behavior is anti-Jewish, not merely impatient. That the accusers’ attempt to cause Paul trouble leads instead to their own is the sort of irony that historians and storytellers 4798. Haenchen, Acts, 536 (citing, for the lictors, Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 658; cf. Wikenhauser, Apostelgeschichte, 170); Witherington, Acts, 555. Cf. Ezek 34:12 lxx; Wis 17:8; but this sense is not clear in 1 Sam 6:8 lxx. In view of the dangers to officials from mobs, Parsons, Acts, 256, allows the possibility that Gallio was concerned for his safety, but his retort in Acts 18:14–15 does not seem calculated to avoid controversy. 4799. Winter, “Gallio,” 302–3. 4800. For the view that what Gallio ignores is the irrelevant charges of 18:15, see Winter, “Gallio,” 302–3, cited by Padilla, Speeches, 145. But the passage of so much intervening action since 18:15 renders an allusion to 18:15 less likely. 4801. Winter, “Gallio,” 304–5. 4802. Cf. the language of Martha’s complaint in Luke 10:40, the only other use of μέλει in Luke-Acts (also negative uses in Mark 4:38; John 10:13; 12:6; though the use for impartiality in Mark 12:14 could favor Winter’s argument). 4803. An orator could plead that if his case be not heard, truth itself will be violently driven (repulsa) from the tribunal (Cic. Quinct. 1.5). 4804. With Witherington, Acts, 554–56. 4805. With, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 5; cf. Talbert, Acts, 163.

2775

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 479

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

appreciated recounting (cf., e.g., Dan 6:24); thus, for example, Domitian punished Josephus’s Jewish accusers ( Jos. Life 429). (2) Who Did the Beating?

One could argue that Gallio’s own lictors or aides beat the ruler of the synagogue.4806 Some first-century Roman governors in the East had Jewish victims publicly beaten (Philo Flacc. 77), even in front of their tribunals ( Jos. War 2.308).4807 But this would be an act of extraordinary corruption (and public hubris) on Gallio’s part, of the sort that did invite action against governors or other officials known to commit them (cf. Cicero’s In Verrem); even Claudius was not so anti-Jewish as to brook such behavior if he knew about it. Moreover, it does not fit what we know of Gallio from other sources.4808 Gallio’s unconcern and the participation of “all” indicate that this abuse was a crowd action, not the lictors acting on Gallio’s behalf. It is not impossible that Luke means that the rejected Jewish delegation performed the beating. In this case they might beat their own leader because he had led them into public humiliation;4809 it was a great embarrassment, for example, to charge someone and then discover the defendant’s innocence in court (Suet. Claud. 16.3). It is also possible that they beat a Jewish Christian ruler of the synagogue (if Sosthenes is another name for Crispus,4810 though this is less likely than that they beat another individual; see comment on Acts 18:8). In any of these cases, Gallio’s ignoring a public beating within plain sight suggests his disdain for Jews, including the man being beaten. It is even possible that Jews started beating Sosthenes and then Gentile anti-Semites joined them, the “all” referring to both Jew and Gentile;4811 if the Jews were at all recognizable from the court appearance, however, anti-Semites (as opposed to mere ruffians) might not elect to beat only the person they were beating but might exploit the opportunity to justify beating all the accusers. Although Luke’s condensed language is not finally clear, it seems more likely that it is the Gentile crowd present (hence the “all”) that beats the leader of the Jewish delegation.4812 (This is probably the most common opinion among modern commentators;4813 it was also the suspicion of those responsible for the Western text, who blame Greeks for the beating.)4814 (3) Court Settings

How unruly could crowds be in judicial settings? 4815 A writer could use lawcourts as an example of something loud (contrasted with the desert’s silence; 4806. So, e.g., Lenski, Acts, 759–80. 4807. Flogging before a tribunal was not abnormal if the person was duly tried (e.g., Val. Max. 5.8.1), but Philo and Josephus both report miscarriages of justice. 4808. Cf. Winter, “Gallio,” 304. 4809. With, e.g., Fitzmyer, Acts, 630 (as a guess); Malina and Pilch, Acts, 132. Even an unsuccessful prosecution was a matter of shame (Witherington, Acts, 555–56). 4810. So John Chrysostom (who, admittedly, knew the language and customs better than do Western scholars today) in Hom. Acts 39 (Martin, Acts, 228); followed by some (Myrou, “Sosthenes”; Fellows, “Renaming”). A former leader might have maintained his title after the split (Acts 18:7–8), especially if the new community called itself a “synagogue” as well (cf. Jas 2:2, but nowhere in Luke or Paul). But more likely, the synagogue had multiple leaders. 4811. Barrett, Acts, 875. 4812. Crowds often flocked to trials to be entertained by the oratory (Witherington, Corinthians, 163); they would, of course, obtain far more entertainment in the governor’s court than in the lower ones. 4813. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 171; Bruce, Acts1, 348; idem, Commentary, 375; Judge, Pattern, 41; Bornkamm, Paul, 69. Schnabel, Acts, 765, notes (but does not endorse) the possibility that both Jews and Gentiles beat Sosthenes. 4814. Johnson, Acts, 329. 4815. Although popular support of the masses for (or against) a hero appears in novels (Pervo, Profit, 35), novels at this point reflected social reality. A forum was also a social center and could be crowded (cf. Stambaugh, City, 111).

2776

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 480

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Marc. Aur. 7.48). Rhetorical schools offered few interruptions or mockery during practice declamations, but the courts were more difficult (Sen. E. Controv. 9.pref. 3); declamation students were thus unprepared, Seneca the Elder opined, for real courts (9.pref. 4). One must be loud so that the judge can hear over competing noise (9.pref. 5). Shouts from all the people were common in public trials.4816 Public trials, Maximus of Tyre complains, are conducted just like fights among groups of children (Or. 3.5–6). The court setting tended to stir the temper (Sen. Y. Dial. 5.9.3). Once, when Catiline sought to make his defense, the crowds were so unruly that he could not do so (Plut. Cic. 16.3). Cicero’s defenders shouted when he spoke against Clodius (Cic. Att. 1.16). Even the Roman senate was sometimes disrupted with proposals angrily shouted down (Cic. Fam. 1.2.2). Pliny the Younger boasts that his hearers in court maintained their composure as long as possible but finally leaped to their feet, stirred by his rhetoric (Ep. 9.23.1). Urban crowds were sometimes unstable.4817 One who was condemned thus might be assaulted by the bystanders (Suet. Julius 17.2). Public beatings and fights (the men of each side arrayed with their friends) occurred often in ancient urban society,4818 though this would happen in front of the governor only if he was deemed quite unsympathetic with the victims. (4) Luke’s Perspective

It seems likeliest, then, that local Gentile observers (perhaps Greeks, as in the Western text; perhaps hooligans) administered the beating—without Gallio’s permission but also without his intervention or concern. If so, this narrative parallels Acts 19:33–34, where Jewish community leaders hostile to Paul’s ministry seek to dissociate themselves from his radical monotheism—and, partly for that very reason, end up being blamed for it. This apparently comic irony4819 may fit a larger (and tragic rather than comic) pattern in Luke-Acts, one that climaxes in the rejection of the Messiah and his agents and thereby precipitates the destruction of the temple and the Jerusalem establishment in 70 c.e. Although the inversion of accusers and victims might be somewhat comic irony from a literary perspective, from the standpoint of Paul within the narrative world, this irony could only be tragic (28:19–20; cf. Rom 9:2–3). (Luke, indeed, reaffirms Paul’s own Jewish fidelity immediately in Acts 18:18; see comment there.) Nor does Gallio’s anti-Judaism reflect the author’s perspective; Paul earlier suffered because of anti-Judaism (16:20–21). Sometimes God used minor characters providentially to protect Paul, but these minor characters are not “reliable” characters in all their claims or actions.4820 For example, the Ephesian official’s assurance that Artemis’s image fell from heaven might sound humorous to Christian hearers of Acts if their own situation vis-à-vis paganism afforded them the luxury of humor about it (19:35–36).4821 4816. Apul. Metam. 3.2 (though it turns out to be a mock trial); Diod. Sic. 40.5a.1. For noise in courtrooms, see also Pliny Ep. 6.33.3–4. 4817. Dio Chrysostom’s mistrust of mobs as irrational reflects class assumptions (see comment on Acts 4:21) but also the instability of first- and second-century c.e. Alexandria (see Barry, “Aristocrats”). Hubbard, “Urban Uprisings,” focuses on the issue of urban crowd unrest for this passage (though allowing for the specifically anti-Jewish element); unrest could follow a judge’s verdict, among other things. 4818. E.g., Lysias Or. 3.16–18, §§97–98 (Athens, probably after 394 b.c.e.; not necessarily in the courts). Egyptian papyri attest considerable public violence also on an individual level (Bryen, “Visibility”). 4819. Cf. also Mattioli, “Ironia di Paolo.” It is comic, in the sense of ironic, from the narrative perspective but obviously not from Sosthenes’s perspective within the narrative world. 4820. On unreliable characters in ancient sources, see, e.g., Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.8–9. 4821. See Tannehill, Acts, 228–29.

2777

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 481

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(5) Sosthenes

Luke’s compression of a larger body of available material sometimes yields obscurity in his texts. The identity of the “all” who beat Sosthenes constitutes the primary obscurity of this text, but Sosthenes’s own identity invites some discussion as well. Sosthenes could be, but is probably not, the same person as Crispus (18:8; see comment there). More likely he was simply a fellow synagogue ruler with Crispus or his replacement.4822 It is possible that Paul’s Sosthenes in his letter to Corinth (1 Cor 1:1) is the same person as in Acts 18:17.4823 Against this proposal is the fact that the former is very likely a Pauline Christian whereas the present one at least appears to lead a delegation against Paul.4824 In favor of it is that this is the name’s only other occurrence in the nt (though, of course, it occurs elsewhere), in both cases associated with Corinth.4825 If it is the same Sosthenes, there are several possibilities for reconciling the identities of the two: 1. Sosthenes was a Christian or a sympathizer not yet expelled from the synagogue, against whom the members’ anger spilled over when their attempts to punish Paul proved unsuccessful.4826 2. Sosthenes retained his previous title but had already been forced out like Crispus;4827 a local Jewish Christian (or possibly Gentile donor),4828 he provided a readier target for the angry synagogue delegation than did Paul, whom Gallio’s words now de facto protected. 3. He was converted after this incident4829 (and hence probably beaten by Gentiles in an anti-Jewish incident here; cf. 16:20–21; 19:34) and was with Paul in Ephesus when he authored 1 Corinthians. If they are the same person, Luke’s audience might not have access to 1 Cor 1:1 to know about his conversion; if Luke writes partly for Greece, however, some members of his audience may know of Sosthenes. That the Sosthenes in Paul and the one in Luke are the same person seems more probable than not (though not extremely probable), since the name appears nowhere else in the nt. But at what point Sosthenes becomes a Christ follower we cannot say; in Acts, Paul’s opponents sometimes get themselves in trouble (Acts 19:34),4830 but opposition can also hurt his fellow ministers (19:29). One possible suggestion that we can consider historically unlikely is the 4822. So, naturally, most commentators (e.g., Neil, Acts, 197; Bruce, Acts1, 348; Johnson, Acts, 329; Barrett, Acts, 875; Le Cornu, Acts, 1011). For the plurality of synagogue rulers in many synagogues, see comment on Acts 13:15. 4823. E.g., Barrett, Acts, 875; Hays, First Corinthians, 15. Much earlier, Theodoret Comm. 1 Cor. 165 (PG 82:227–30; Bray, Corinthians, 4). 4824. Haenchen, Acts, 536n5, rightly warns of the tendency in the history of exegesis to conflate different people with the same name. Given limited information, nt scholars sometimes overuse the information that we have available. 4825. That the name “occurs often” (Haenchen, Acts, 536n5) should be qualified; it does occur, but it was not one of the most common names in our sources. 4826. This proposal makes sense, as Witherington notes (Acts, 556), if Sosthenes was later converted; cf. Karakolis, “Schlugen.” 4827. Barrett, Acts, 875. 4828. For “synagogue leader” often being an honorary title for significant donors, sometimes Gentile ones, see comment on Acts 13:15. 4829. So most commentators (with varying levels of certainty), in the event that it is the same Sosthenes (Bruce, Acts1, 348; idem, Commentary, 375n35; Fitzmyer, Acts, 630; Hays, First Corinthians, 15). 4830. Whatever the narrator’s perspective on Paul’s irony, Paul, at least within the narrative (Acts 28:19) and also in Paul’s epistolary ethos (Rom 9:1–5), would not wish trouble to come against his ethnic community even if its leaders were showing him hostility (cf. 11:28).

2778

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 482

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

suspicion that Luke, if he has in mind the same Sosthenes, would be so misinformed about Sosthenes’s identity as to make Paul’s ally appear an enemy, as Sosthenes was well known enough to the Corinthians for Paul to coauthor a letter with him to that church (without explanation of his identity).

7. Ministry in Ephesus (18:18–19:41) Paul’s longest single sojourn in a city after leaving Antioch, and without Roman custody, is his ministry in Ephesus. This narrative opens with Paul’s commencement of ministry in Ephesus before traveling (18:19–21); moves to depicting the incomplete understanding of followers of John the Baptist who have migrated to Ephesus (18:18–19:7); follows this depiction with Paul’s successful and lengthy ministry in Asia (19:8–22); and concludes with the conflict in Ephesus, which Luke cannot evade but can attribute to rabble-rousers (19:23–20:1). a. Beginning the Work (18:18–19:7) Historically, Paul experienced considerable success as well as opposition in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8; cf. Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19), and Luke wants to emphasize Paul’s role there. Paul begins ministry in Ephesus before others do (Acts 18:19–21), and some others who minister, especially followers of John the Baptist, have an incomplete understanding of the era of the Spirit that Jesus inaugurated (18:18–19:7). Although Luke’s sources on Ephesus are much less detailed than his source for Philippi, he recognizes and presents Ephesus as the climax of Paul’s ministry before his Roman detention.4831 i. Paul Begins Work in Ephesus and Leaves for Syria (18:18–23)

Acts 18:18–23 offers a geographic transition from Corinth, looking both forward to Ephesus and backward to Judea and Antioch. Luke describes Paul’s travels in detail in “we” sections but far less elsewhere; 18:18–23 and 19:1 are quite sparse in travel details, compared with the more detailed itineraries of 20:5–6, 13–16; 21:1–3, 7, 15.4832 As Luke organized much of Jesus’s ministry around a journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9–19),4833 so he provides many of Paul’s journeys in Acts (Acts 13:4–14:28; 15:36–16:12; 17:1, 10, 14–15; 18:1; 18:18–23 with 19:1; 20:1–21:16).4834 (1) En Route from Corinth (18:18)

Although Luke does not provide a detailed narrative, Paul’s ministry continues in Corinth for some time after the hearing before Gallio (presumably continuing the sort of work he was doing before, i.e., speaking God’s message, 18:5, 9, 11). Paul also shaves his head for a vow before setting sail with Priscilla and Aquila. L e aving C or in th

Before moving to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, Luke clarifies and completes (by way of summary) Paul’s ministry in Corinth. Lest Luke’s audience miss the point of Gallio’s judgment in 18:14–16 that Paul’s faith remains Jewish, Luke confirms it 4831. With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 572. Pervo, Acts, 469, is skeptical of Luke’s portrait of the Christian movement’s beginnings in Ephesus; he cites as highly skeptical Fieger, Schatten (see review in Skinner, “Review of Fieger”); as less skeptical, Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus; and as “least skeptical,” Trebilco, Ephesus. 4832. Knox, Acts, 57–58. 4833. Much of this material, which often supplements Mark and Q, may have been oral material that he collected during his time in Judea (Acts 21:8–27:2, explicit in 21:8–18; 27:1–2). 4834. Johnson, Acts, 10.

2779

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 483

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

in the following verse (18:18), underlining Paul’s continuing fidelity to his Jewish traditions.4835 It is also possible that 18:18 relates to the preceding context as a vow of thanksgiving for protection before the governor’s tribunal (cf. Pss 50:14; 56:12), 4836 although this point is not explicit and constitutes only one possible reason for the vow. That Paul “remained many days” (Acts 18:18) is a conventional Lukan way of marking an undefined chronological transition (9:23). Most clearly, it also suggests that Paul’s remaining stay was undisturbed by the sort of events recorded in 18:12–13 (perhaps because of the outcome, 18:17) while he continued to fulfill the Lord’s word (18:9–10) as in 18:11. (That is, he did not have to flee in an ignominious way as in 17:10, 14.) It may also, however, be Luke’s way of reinforcing Paul’s honor after the confrontation in 18:12–13: he is not so ashamed that he would flee because of hardship (14:20; 16:40; cf. 20:1). This point could fit a pattern in Acts. Many scholars think that in 20:16 Paul had another reason not to go to Ephesus that it would not be honorable for Luke to report; in 19:30–31, Paul’s failure to publicly appear is honorable because disciples and others would not allow it (as in 17:10, 14; cf. 9:25, 30). That is, in Acts fear never keeps Paul from dangerous situations; he is ready to risk his life when needed (20:24; cf. 2 Cor 4:11; 7:3; 11:23; Phil 1:20–24). It is never clear exactly how long Luke means by “many days” (if even he had access to that information; cf. 9:23), but the sea voyage at least indicates that Paul either left before late October (when the seas, for the most part, were closed for travel) or after early March of the following year.4837 (That this is not “we” material invites less detail regarding timing, as already noted.) On Paul’s farewell to his fellow Christians,4838 see the more detailed passage revealing their affection and intimacy in 20:37–38, and comment there; the passing mention here, given Luke’s limited space, may reinforce the importance of the relationships built. That Priscilla and Aquila4839 accompany Paul (also 18:26) fits the pattern of Paul’s use of coworkers in ministry.4840 Paul is sailing for Syria (18:18, 22) but crosses first to Asia (18:19); he would need to leave from Corinth’s eastern port (18:18). Sea voyages were more comfortable and quicker than traveling by land, though they came without furnishings. Ship owners made their primary profit from cargo, and so passengers would bring their own sleeping and cooking gear as well as their own food.4841 S h aving Cu sto m s

Grammatically, the shaving could refer to either Paul or Aquila, but, given Luke’s focus, undoubtedly refers to Paul; as Munck puts it, “Aquila could have had his hair cut all his life without its being recorded in Acts.”4842 Barbers were available for 4835. Dunn, Acts, 246. 4836. Witherington, Acts, 557. Cf. Jos. War 2.313. 4837. Some suggest a desire to reach Jerusalem for the Passover of 52 c.e., in early April, or (likelier) the March 22 Passover of 53 c.e. (in either case, after the March 5–10 shipping opened; Larkin, Acts, 268; Witherington, Acts, 558). 4838. The verb ἀποτάσσομαι appears again in 18:21; elsewhere in Luke-Acts only at Luke 9:61; 14:33 (and in the nt at Mark 6:46; 2 Cor 2:13; it is more common in 1 Maccabees [1 Macc 4:61; 6:50; 11:3; 15:41]). 4839. That Priscilla’s name occurs before Aquila’s may be significant; see Acts 18:26 and comment at Acts 18:2. 4840. With, e.g., Murray, “Evangelism.” See further discussion of this principle at Acts 13:1. Although they would also provide a private house for the mission, Blue, “Influence,” 484, may overemphasize this factor as a reason for their accompanying Paul. 4841. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 39. 4842. Munck, Acts, 180; also Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 229; Haenchen, Acts, 542, 545 (following Holtzmann); Arrington, Acts, 183; D. Williams, Acts, 326. Bede Comm. Acts 18.18 (L. Martin, 150) cites

2780

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 484

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

cutting hair,4843 but Paul may have done it himself or secured help from one of his associates.4844 Using water but lacking soap, the less skillful of barbers could make shaving unpleasant.4845 Paul’s vow is clearly a vow to the God of Israel, presumably modeled in some way on Nazirite vows in the ot (or vows more generally; see, e.g., Gen 28:20; Num 21:2; Judg 11:30–31; 1 Sam 1:11). Some scholars have, however, cited parallels with Gentile customs.4846 Greeks would also be familiar with vows and votive offerings.4847 Male followers of Isis (most often noted of priests) shaved their heads;4848 Jewish people recognized this as a familiar pagan practice (Ep Jer 31).4849 At Cenchreae, where there was an Isis sanctuary,4850 some observers might have thus thought of the shaved Isis worshipers when seeing Paul.4851 Apuleius was later initiated into the Isis cult near Corinth (Metam. 11); apparently, Cenchreae had a sanctuary “among warehouses on the south dock.”4852 Isis worship was popular from the fourth century b.c.e. to the fourth century c.e., peaking in the second century c.e.4853 The cult appealed to manuscripts that imply that Priscilla and Aquila shaved their heads but follows Augustine (Ep. 82.2.8) and Jerome (Ep. 112.9) in applying the verb instead to Paul. 4843. This is one of the fairly common professions in the papyri of Roman Egypt (Lewis, Life, 136); on barbers, see further Carcopino, Life, 157–64. Barbershops were known for being repositories of gossip (Polyb. 3.20.1–5) and other information (Lysias Or. 23.3, §166), though barbers’ skill with sharp objects made them helpful medically as well (Stambaugh, City, 136; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 71). Many Romans cut hair twice a month (Pliny E. N.H. 28.5.28); shaving of the beard entered Rome ca. 300 b.c.e. (7.59.211). Rich Romans had their own barbers and hairstylists, whom they could use daily (Carcopino, Life, 157). Galileans had barbers available in marketplaces, though some discouraged the vanity of excess use (Goodman, State, 59–60). On barbers shaving, Abbott, Acts, 227, compares nineteenth-century Middle Eastern custom. 4844. Palestinian rabbis mistrusted Gentile barbers (t. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:5; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:2, §5); people made regular use of barbers (Lewis, Life, 136; Goodman, State, 59–60; ILS 7414), but a hostile one could prove dangerous (Mart. Epig. 3.74.1–2). Diaspora Jews were, however, probably less scrupulous, though they would have likely used fellow Jews when available. Paul might not object (1 Cor 9:21), but especially for a religious vow, he might have preferred to identify more with his people at this point. The style of haircuts that Romans gave also differed noticeably from that of Palestinian Jews (b. Meʿil. 17a). 4845. Dupont, Life, 265. (Scissors were in use, including for cutting hair and beards; Hurschmann, “Scissors,” 96.) A barber who left large, uneven patches of beard angered the person whom he shaved (Alciph. Paras. 30 [Gymnochaeron to Phagodaetes], 3.66). 4846. E.g., some scholars according to Barrett, Acts, 877 (citing Juv. Sat. 12.81–82). 4847. See Burkert, Religion, 68–70; idem, Mystery Cults, 12–15; for Romans, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.25.4; in general, see Hahn, “Prayers,” 240–41; Rives, Religion, 11. 4848. Plut. Isis 4, Mor. 352C; Artem. Oneir. 1.22; Apul. Metam. 11.10. Cf. service to Osiris, Apul. Metam. 11.30. This was a traditional custom from Egyptian priests (Lewis, Life, 92; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 135; Brenk, “Image,” 221), who, Herodotus claimed, shaved their bodies every third day to maintain ritual purity (Hdt. 2.37; Blackman, “Purification,” 480–81). 4849. Though less often noted, priests of Heracles also shaved their heads (Sil. It. 3.28). 4850. In addition to two in Corinth itself, which were linked with the Serapis temples there (Engels, Roman Corinth, 103). Although later in date, Apuleius’s account of Isis rituals at the beginning of sailing season at Cenchreae (Metam. 11.8–17) has emphasized this temple for later readers (Engels, Roman Corinth, 103–4; Nock, Conversion, 56). 4851. Cf. Engels, Roman Corinth, 105. On the Isis cult, see further Koester, Introduction, 1:183–91; Martin, Religions, 76–78; Grieshammer, “Isis”; Takacs and Haase, “Isis”; Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis”; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 217–26; Heyob, Isis; Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 236–48; esp. in earlier Egypt, Assmann, “Isis”; on the cult’s history, see esp. Heyob, Isis, 1–36. For the cult of Serapis, see, e.g., Nock, Conversion, 49–55; for its alleged origins, Tac. Hist. 4.83–84. It did not include true ecstasy (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 113); although the myth of Isis stems from ancient Egypt (e.g., “The Theology of Memphis” [ANET]), the mystery cult was originally a Greek product (Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2–3, 40–41; Heyob, Isis, 57; pace the emphasis in Bleeker, “Initiation”), mixing Greek and Egyptian elements (Heyob, Isis, 45–47). For initiation as it was done in the time of Apuleius, see Metam. 11.23–24. 4852. Meeks, Urban Christians, 18 (following Scranton, “Harbor-Side Sanctuaries”). Merkelbach, “OsirisFest,” suggests an initiation on the night of December 24–25; if this was common (at least by Apuleius’s era), perhaps it was meant to follow Rome’s Saturnalia? 4853. Heyob, Isis, 36; for popularity, see also Kee, Miracle, 105–45; but cf. Rives, “Popular.” As Fate becomes an increasing issue in subsequent centuries (see comment on Acts 2:23), Isis appears as a deliverer from fate (Apul. Metam. 11.22; cf. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 113).

2781

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 485

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

women,4854 though the majority of cultic personnel and even members remained male;4855 judging from the many portrayals of her with Harpocrates, many may have been interested in Isis’s role as mother.4856 Although popular elsewhere, the cult faced hostility in Rome till the mid-first century.4857 Traditional Romans mistrusted the Isis cult,4858 sometimes portraying it as immoral;4859 it nevertheless attracted Roman adherents even in Rome.4860 Banned in the first century b.c.e., it eventually became fully Roman by some point in the second century c.e.4861 Although Corinth prided itself on its connections with Rome, the Isis cult undoubtedly made headway faster in Corinth. For Isis’s linking with and assimilation to other deities, see comment on Acts 8:10. An association with Isis, however, is not plausible here and would not have occurred to anyone in the narrative world who was remotely connected with Paul. Jews, including those in Egypt, were naturally less sanguine about Isis than were Gentile observers; the Jewish Sibylline Oracles denounce her and predict her eschatological judgment (Sib. Or. 5.484); she (5.486) and Serapis (5.487–88) would be forgotten, for they are not gods (5.491). Other Gentile practices could be cited here. People often shaved their heads or cut their hair short for mourning;4862 Greek mourning required the cutting of at least a lock of hair.4863 Heads could also be shaved for shame, such as one culture’s alleged 4854. See Heyob, Isis, 37–52, esp. 52. Isis made husbands love their wives (Horsley, Documents, 1:20, §2); but Isis’s role as a feminist icon (“the patron saint of the Egyptian women’s movement,” in Barth, Ephesians, 2:656–57) may be overstated (if intended literally). For women’s perceptions of Isis, see Heyob, Isis, 53–80. 4855. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 223; Meeks, Urban Christians, 25. See Heyob, Isis, 81–110, esp. 81–83: only 18.2 percent of Isis inscriptions mention women; whereas 48.6 percent are female in Athens and 37.1 percent in Rome speak of women, figures are less elsewhere (e.g., none of the seventy-five inscriptions at Rhodes; in Delos, only 11.3 percent; in Pompeii, 14.3 percent). 4856. Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 70 (noting [69] the assimilation with Hathor); cf. Heyob, Isis, 76 (noting representations of her with Harpocrates but that this emphasis is minimal in inscriptions). She is “mother of all” in Apul. Metam. 11.4. By contrast, immortality is probably not an emphasis there (Wagner, Baptism, 112). 4857. Heyob, Isis, 36. 4858. E.g., Val. Max. 1.3.4; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 223; cf. Juv. Sat. 6.511–29; Grant, Christianity and Society, 60. One who escaped by disguising himself as a priest of foreign Isis loved his life too much, according to the verdict of Val. Max. 7.3.8. 4859. Juv. Sat. 6.489; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.65, 79 (cf., e.g., Reitzenstein, Religions, 118; Grant, Gods, 35, noting that Josephus is not the only writer to connect Egyptian and Jewish expulsions under Tiberius, Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tib. 36). For the most part, the claim of immorality was a slander (perhaps related partly to Osiris’s missing phallus; Plut. Isis 18, Mor. 358B). Apuleius’s apologetic portrayed Isis’s priests as chaste (Metam. 11.19) and quite supportive of Rome (11.17); he may also portray the cult as antimagical (Schmidt, “Einweihung in Mysterien”). 4860. E.g., Jos. Ant. 18.70. In first-century Pompeii, a decurion might invest popularity in rebuilding an Isis temple (White, Origins of Architecture, 1:30–31). 4861. Grant, Gods, 34 (citing, e.g., Tert. Apol. 6.8.10; Dio Cass. 47.15.4); but cf. the claim of tolerance for the republic in Frank, Aspects, 42. Caligula readmitted it to Rome ca. 40 c.e. (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 343; Burkert, Mystery Cults, 2); Egyptian cults became prominent under the Flavians (Heyob, Isis, 26–27) and flourished especially under the Antonines (28–33). 4862. E.g., Job 1:20; Hom. Il. 16.844–50; 23.46; Eurip. Alc. 216, 427, 512; El. 241, 335; Hipp. 1425–26; Isaeus Nicost. 7; Quint. Curt. 10.5.17 (here Persians); Plut. Isis 4, Mor. 352D; Arrian Alex. 7.14.4; Suet. Calig. 5; Lucian Sacr. 15 (here Egyptians); Hdn. 4.8.5; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36; Hrk. 19.6; 51.13; Athen. Deipn. 12.523b; Cosgrave, History of Costume, 51; cf. perhaps Deut 21:12–13; Artem. Oneir. 1.22; in Corinth, cf. Paus. 2.3.7; tearing the hair in Eurip. El. 150; Andr. 1209–10; Ovid Metam. 11.682; Sen. E. Controv. 2.4.1; Quint. Curt. 10.5.19. Conversely, one could also let one’s hair grow long in mourning (Lucan C.W. 2.375–76; Gen. Rab. 98:15), perhaps after shaving it. 4863. Aeschylus Lib. 6–7, 167; Soph. El. 900–901; Eurip. El. 91, 515, 520; Orest. 96; Alc. 101–3; Ovid Her. 11.116; Metam. 13.427–28.

2782

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 486

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

shaving of adulteresses.4864 (Shaved heads themselves were humiliating;4865 some were embarrassed even by baldness.)4866 Recently freed slaves in Rome might have shaved heads (Polyb. 30.18.3).4867 Hygiene might not lead to such shaving, since other methods were used to remove lice infestations.4868 Although Luke’s pervasive use of Israel’s Scriptures shows that his ideal audience is biblically informed, it is plausible that some members of his initial real audience would hear of Paul’s practice in light of such Gentile customs. Yet such customs do not comport well with the closest analogies that Luke provides with Gentile figures for Paul—namely, philosophic sages. According to legend, Pythagoras did not cut his hair (and followed some other practices similar to those of biblical Nazirites).4869 Stoic and Cynic philosophers might refuse to shave their beards.4870 The H i stor ica l -The olo g ica l Que st ion

Certainly Luke emphasizes Paul’s personal law-keeping practice more than Paul does in his letters.4871 This fits his apologetic connection of the Pauline mission with Judaism as an ancient religion rooted in the faith of patriarchs and prophets (and useful in Roman courts, Acts 18:15). Further, by emphasizing Peter’s and James’s support for the Gentile mission (10:28, 47–48; 11:17–18; 15:13–21) and Paul’s solidarity with his Jewish heritage (18:18; 21:26), he is able to challenge the Jewish-Gentile rift with which the church struggled (probably addressed, e.g., in Paul’s own letter to the Roman believers). It was good rhetorical practice to use characters in such a way that they would carry the most weight—for example, a normally cautious elder advocating a hard stand.4872 Luke thus emphasizes Peter’s role in reaching Gentiles (10:1–11:18) and Paul’s fidelity to Judaism. Because Judaism as a whole valued faithful practice of the law, Paul’s behavior would also provide apologetic value for Jewish observers, as in 16:3.4873 Reporting Paul’s practice here is useful for Luke: it guards against the notion that Paul compromised personal convictions when accommodating the Jerusalem church’s request in 21:24–26. Nevertheless, because Luke has a reason to emphasize Paul’s keeping of the law more than does Paul, must we assume that Luke has invented the details? After all, Luke emphasizes not only Paul’s law-keeping practice but also Paul’s personal practice 4864. Dio Chrys. (if authentic) Or. 64.3; Tac. Germ. 19; cf. Thompson, “Hairstyles,” 113 (citing Lucian Syr. G. 6). For shaving and disgrace, see also Mart. Epig. 2.67; Test. Job 23:7–10; 24:10; 25 (see OTP 1:849 n. e); Conzelmann, Corinthians, 186n46, citing Aristoph. Thes. 837. 4865. A woman might shave her head because of sickness (Lucian Dial. C. 12 [ Joessa, Pythias, and Lysias ¶5], 314), but she was ashamed and wanted no one to know (315); shaving her head reduced her beauty (Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.5; Ach. Tat. 5.19.2; for a boy, Diog. Laert. 7.3.166; cf. Deut 21:12). Shaving half the head contributed to asceticism (Lucian Peregr. 17) and could be humiliating (Plut. Demosth. 7.3; cf. 2 Sam 10:4, for beards; 1 Chr 19:4). A philosopher might view shaved heads as indifferent (cf. Lucian Peregr. 17; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.34), but generally, philosophers discouraged unnecessary shaving (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 21 passim). 4866. Domitian in Morgan, “Achilleae comae”; cf. Croom, Clothing, 65 (citing Suet. Otho 12); Artem. Oneir. 1.21–22; esp. Apul. Apol. 74 (on one who was considered desirable “before this baldness started to disfigure him,” trans. p. 95); Cosgrave, History of Costume, 78 (noting that many viewed baldness as a “deformity”). 4867. Sometimes the practice apparently was associated with people of means (Alciph. Paras. 7 [Psichoclastes to Bucion], 3.43, ¶1). 4868. See Mumcuoglu and Zias, “De-loused.” 4869. See Green, “Pythagoras.” 4870. Epict. Diatr. 1.2.29; see comment on philosophers’ beards in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2140–41). 4871. See Brawley, “Paul in Acts,” 143–44; idem, Luke-Acts and the Jews, 156; cf. Ravens, Restoration, 251–55; Carras, “Observant Jews,” 697–703. 4872. See Heath, “Invention,” 91–92; cf. Soranus Gynec. 1.2.5. 4873. The oft-expressed emphasis on “orthopraxy” above “orthodoxy” (cf., e.g., Davies, Paul, 73) may be overstated when it comes to some segments of Judaism, but common allegiance to Torah did define common Judaism more than any illusory consensus of opinion on details (or how to practice them) did.

2783

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 487

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

in general (with some exceptions, e.g., 1 Cor 9:1–18) more than does Paul. This tendency to emphasize lifestyle and not just teaching inheres in the nature of historical narrative. Luke is also accused of presenting Paul’s conflicts with synagogues more harshly than does Paul. Is it likelier that Luke invents both the conflict and the congruence for his agendas (yet fails to reconcile them) or that he draws on divergent aspects of a Jewish apostle’s controversial ministry among Gentiles (the tensions of which might be more easily resolved with a larger context)? Some scholars find Paul’s shaving of his head historically incredible in view of the stand they believe he takes against the law; as Conzelmann declares, “One is not dealing with the historical Paul here at all,” and so one need not be troubled over incompatibility with Paul’s letters.4874 This position, however, appears to read an early Lutheran Protestant reaction against sixteenth-century (Christian) legalism back into Paul’s relationship with Judaism; Paul was not against practicing the law (see, e.g., Rom 3:27–31; 7:12–16; 10:6–8 [with its basis in Deut 30:11–14]) but against abusing it as if it were a means to justify oneself before God by one’s own obedience.4875 Why would Paul change his own cultural expressions of devotion, apart from occasions when he was accommodating Gentiles (1 Cor 9:21) or withstanding those who abused these practices (Gal 2:3)? As Bruce comments, “That Paul’s conversion to Christianity necessitated his giving up all his ancestral customs, including such a voluntary act of private devotion as a Nazirite vow, is a curious idea which should be entertained only on the basis of strong and explicit evidence of a kind that is not forthcoming.”4876 Just as Gentiles were not to become circumcised, Jews were not to become uncircumcised (1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15), a prescription that for Paul would entail retaining his Jewish identity. Subsequent Gentile readers have naturally focused on only one side of this picture; Paul’s break with Judaism has been overestimated, because scholars have anachronistically read him in light of later Gentile Christian history.4877 Further, do letters always reflect all aspects of one’s personal practice, especially when the only parts of them that seem opposed to the law are polemicizing against this abuse of the law?4878 Hill doubts that there was ever a fully “law-free mission to the Gentiles,” noting that “even Paul expected of his Gentile converts obedience to some (indeed many) Jewish laws.”4879 Further, Paul explicitly says that he practices the law for cultural identification (1 Cor 9:20; cf. 2 Cor 11:24),4880 although, in the case of a voluntary vow, it is probably more an expression of personal devotion in 4874. Conzelmann, Acts, 155. 4875. See further Dunn, Theology of Paul, 716–22; Longenecker, Paul, passim; others, e.g., Rosner, Law, 50; cf. Kidwell, “Law.” Haacker, Theology, 146, warns against de-Judaizing all of Paul in light of Galatians and notes that Paul’s letters are too occasion oriented to give us a balanced picture of him. 4876. Bruce, History, 318; cf. even more strongly Nanos, “Churches,” 12–13. 4877. See, e.g., Roetzel, Paul, ix; see further discussion of this anachronistic tendency in Keener, John, 214–28, esp. 215 (see also Schottroff, “Aspects,” 205–7), where I have argued that even the Johannine community retained its Jewish identity (a position far more controversial than that Paul did so). The rise of a modern Messianic Jewish movement (for varied perspectives, see Rudolph and Willitts, Introduction; Rausch, Messianic Judaism; Cohn-Sherbok, Messianic Judaism; Harris-Shapiro, Messianic Judaism), analogous to the church fathers’ Nazarenes (see esp. Pritz, Nazarene Christianity; Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Believers), and the more-sensitive portrayal of Judaism occasioned by the Holocaust and the discovery of the Qumran scrolls have forced more-nuanced consideration of such issues than was usually the case earlier. 4878. Cf. Larsson, “Paul: Law and Salvation.” 4879. Hill, Hellenists, 146 (citing homosexual behavior in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9). 4880. The explanation for his behavior here is suggested by Didymus the Blind in Cat. Act. 18.18 (Martin, Acts, 229). Some early Christian interpreters recognize Paul’s action as fulfilling Nazirite law but aver that Paul acted thus not because he believed the law still valid for Christians but so as to avoid offense to Jews ( Jerome Ep. 75; Bede Comm. Acts 18.18 [both in Martin, Acts, 228–29]).

2784

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 488

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

the forms of his heritage than a missiological identification.4881 Paul continued to explicitly affirm his Jewishness and solidarity with his people (Rom 9:3–4; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22).4882 Indeed, some who emphasize the Jewishness of Paul’s letters affirm, for example, that “the very Jewish Paul whom Luke portrayed in Acts can be seen also in Romans.”4883 In the end, many scholars today do see such expressions as compatible with the historical Paul.4884 See further discussion at Acts 16:3 and comment on Paul and the law at Acts 13:39. Paul’s P r actice a n d B iblica l Vows

Luke would not make up this vow; he does not “even trouble to tell us that Paul carried out the vow, leaving us to infer this.”4885 But would Luke have understood the details of this vow and explained its nature clearly and accurately in his narrative? That he explained it clearly there is reason to doubt unless he and his audience share some understanding of vows that we lack; but the proposition that he understood and reported it accurately, though disputed, remains possible. Nazirites grew their hair during the period of their vow (Num 6:5), then shaved at the sanctuary and offered the hair to God (6:18). This means that if Paul followed the rules technically (many in the Diaspora may have chosen to offer their own vows, not technically Nazirite, in ways that would not require this trip), he would not shave until he reached the temple in Jerusalem. Is Luke ignorant of this practice, reporting the shaving in the wrong place?4886 This is unlikely, since he understands the Jerusalemrelated practice later (Acts 21:24).4887 Extant Jewish tradition reinforces and develops the biblical picture of what was expected of Nazirites. Nazirites completed their vows and had their heads shaved in Jerusalem.4888 This practice might also require arriving for sacrifices thirty days before the shaving of their heads.4889 Later rabbis also assume the continuation of this biblical practice of shaving at the door of the sanctuary.4890 It is possible that Paul offers a preliminary cutting before beginning his vow, with the later shaving being implied. Why might he shave his head before a vow? Possibly for practical considerations: if he would not have his hair cut for some time, it made sense to cut his hair before beginning the vow.4891 Greeks might shave their heads at the beginning of a vow and wear their hair long until the vow’s completion (Hdt. 1.82).4892 4881. Barrett, Acts, 859, argues that a vow, unlike the Sabbath, was not mandatory and hence not simply cultural identification. The argument need not follow: one could identify even further by “voluntary” means. 4882. Pauline scholars widely affirm Paul’s Jewish identity today, e.g., Davies, Paul; Sanders, Paul and Judaism; Stegner, “Jew, Paul the”; idem, “Jewish Paul.” Jewish scholars with competence in the nt increasingly concur with Christian scholars in reading Paul in terms of his Jewish setting (see Segal, “Exégètes juifs”). 4883. Nanos, Mystery, 18. Not all would go as far as Nanos, but it is significant that the emphasis on Paul’s Jewishness comes especially from scholars most familiar with Jewish thought. 4884. See C. Williams, Acts, 24; Jervell, Unknown Paul, 58; Witherington, Acts, 557; cf. Horn, “Nasiräat.” 4885. Hanson, Acts, 187. 4886. Haenchen, Acts, 546. Ancient writers, like modern ones, were capable of misunderstanding their sources (cf., e.g., the proposal concerning Ben Sira in Egger-Wenzel, “Terminology”). 4887. Johnson, Acts, 330. 4888. Haenchen, Acts, 545 (citing Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:747ff.). 4889. Haenchen, Acts, 543, so reads Jos. War 2.313 (though one might argue that Josephus thinks of thirty-day vows [cf. m. Naz. 1:3] or an earlier shaving, they are less natural ways to read him). 4890. B. Yoma 16a; Naz. 45a. 4891. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 230; Hanson, Acts, 187; Johnson, Acts, 330; Dunn, Acts, 246–47; Le Cornu, Acts, 1016–17; noted as a possibility in Schnabel, Acts, 767. The imperfect εἶχεν would thus apply to the general matter, preceded by the action of the aorist participle, though it could seem to cover the entire period (the variety of possible uses of imperfects allows but does not require this interpretation). 4892. Jewish evidence is not so easy to come by, but we should recall that most of our massive Jewish evidence on vows is rabbinic and from either Palestine or Babylonia, probably not sympathetic to the concerns

2785

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 489

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

On this reading, there are two possibilities for when Paul could have later shaved his head in Jerusalem. Paul might go to Jerusalem shortly after this vow; this journey to Jerusalem is not explicitly mentioned, but his movements might imply it (see comment on Acts 18:22). If so, he might complete his vow there, shaving his head again. If Paul does not plan to visit Jerusalem in Acts 18:22, the likelihood of a preliminary haircut might be increased: if his hair will not be shaved for two years (with the vow in 21:23–24), he ought to have it cut before beginning.4893 His uncut hair would provide a visible symbol to the Jerusalem church of his personal commitment to Jewish piety.4894 (It would also suit his role as a Christian “philosopher” in 19:9, because many philosophers wore long hair, including those who did not regard hair length as important.)4895 Yet two years later Paul evidently purifies himself only for a short period of time and not in completion of his own vow (21:23–24); the narrative does not read as if Paul’s own vow is only then being completed, though this is a possible interpretation. Since Luke does not explicitly mention the trip to Jerusalem in 18:22, informed readers who understood Nazirite vows might assume the completion in Acts 21 (but historically it could have come earlier). Hearers ignorant of Num 6 might assume that Paul shaved his head only once; they would not then envision him ministering for two or three years and finally entering Jerusalem with long hair in Acts 21:15–26. Philosophers, as mentioned, often wore long hair,4896 as did statues of gods, heroes of old,4897 and many barbarians.4898 Those who did understand Num 6 might recognize why Paul needed to be “purified” with the others in 21:24. Even if Paul shaved before the vow in 18:18, would he have had to wait for a trip to the temple to shave again? Judeans would have believed so, but Diaspora Jews may have offered free vows to God that did not depend on biblical Nazirite categories. After all, vows were widespread in antiquity and in no way limited to the Nazirite format emphasized in Judea. In this case, the shaving of 18:18 could either precede or follow the period of the vow. Thus many German scholars think “of a Nazirite-like private vow,”4899 though Haenchen reasonably complains that this interpretation “was invented for our passage only.”4900 Haenchen is right about the evidence, but very little of the Mediterranean Diaspora (though one might hope Babylonian rabbis would have proved more sympathetic, the sources postdate the temple’s destruction, in any case). Gentiles, of course, could not undertake Nazirite vows (cf. b. Naz. 61a; Num. Rab. 10:7). 4893. Dunn, Acts, 246–47; Johnson, Acts, 330. The imperfect form of the verb here may suggest that some aspect of the vow was already in place (cf. the present participle in Acts 21:23); unfortunately, the lxx does not supply Luke’s idiom (which appears only here and in 21:23). 4894. Dunn, Acts, 247. 4895. See discussion below and in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42). 4896. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 12.15; 35.2; Lucian Phil. Sale 2; Peregr. 15; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.36. In contrast to Cynics, Stoics, though bearded, wore their hair short (Lucian Runaways 27; Hermot. 18). See fuller comment in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42, esp. 2140–42). 4897. E.g., Hom. Hymns 3.450 (to Pythian Apollo); Pindar Isthm. 1.7; 3.14; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.17; 72.5; Lucian Dial. G. 215 (8/5, Zeus and Hera ¶5); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7; Hrk. 27.13; 29.5; 31.1; 38.3; 42.1, 3. For ancients more generally, e.g., Hom. Il. 4.533; Od. 2.408; Sil. It. 15.671; the statue in Apul. Flor. 15.7. See fuller comment in the excursus “Paul as a Cynic Preacher?” at Acts 14:8–10 (Keener, Acts, 2:2131–42). 4898. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 14.9.4; Pliny E. N.H. 6.32.162; 11.47.130; Dio Chrys. Or. 35.11; Heliod. Eth. 2.20. 4899. Haenchen, Acts, 545; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 1016. Lightfoot calls it “not strictly a Nazirite vow,” noting that “it was modified by the circumstances” (contrasting Acts 21:24; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:18, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). 4900. Haenchen, Acts, 546. He argues that the only reference to Diaspora Jews’ fulfilling a Nazirite vow requires them to come to Jerusalem thirty days in advance ( Jos. War 2.313; cf. perhaps m. Naz. 3:6); this would not, however, address vows that were not Nazirite.

2786

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 490

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of our Jewish evidence referring to vows (mostly Palestinian) provides the perspective of Mediterranean Diaspora Jews. Certainly not all vows even in Judea were Nazirite vows; one could make all sorts of vows of abstinence.4901 A Nazirite vow here, fulfilled two years later in Jerusalem, appears problematic and unlikely. If Paul somehow contracted corpse impurity,4902 he would need to have his head shaved and begin again (Num 6:9–12); although this interruption technically also requires the involvement of the temple (6:10–12),4903 such involvement would be impossible in the Diaspora. Biblical law made some procedural exceptions for those who lived far from the temple (Deut 12:21; 14:24), and it is likely that many Diaspora Jews had to extrapolate such exceptions. Other scholars argue that the cutting was acceptable anywhere, so long as one made sacrifice in Jerusalem, as they often believe that Paul did in Acts 18:22.4904 One wonders why it would be better to carry hair to Jerusalem in a container than on one’s head, but the narrative affords us no details. Diaspora Jews may have followed this practice for convenience as well as because of the influence of Greek customs, where one could bring an offering of hair.4905 But that one could make the initial vow (as opposed to the final shaving) anywhere, merely completing it in Jerusalem (according to most sources, for a minimum of one month), is not in dispute.4906 Further, even the rabbis allowed some deviation: some felt that lifelong Nazirites should cut their hair once a month as in a succession of Nazirite vows (m. Naz. 1:4) or, in a later source, once a year (y. Naz. 1:2, §6).4907 In either case, and whether he followed strict Judean practice for Nazirite vows or a more practical voluntary vow based on Diaspora practice, we see Paul’s devotion expressed in a fairly conventional manner (at least from the perspective of Luke’s Diaspora audience).4908 Consequently, Luke also informs us in advance that Paul’s later act of identification with the Nazirites (Acts 21:23–24) is not simply a ruse to pretend that he allows Jews to keep the law but a fair portrayal of his own Jewish convictions. C e nchr e a e

Why do we find Paul in Cenchreae? If Paul intended to sail from Corinth eastward, Cenchreae was the port to use; Athens had its famous Piraeus and Antioch its Seleucia (13:4), and Corinth had two well-known harbor towns. Cenchreae was Corinth’s eastern port, near Epidaurus (Strabo 8.6.4); it was a village (κώμη) about seventy stadia from Corinth (8.6.22).4909 Other educated persons in the Mediterranean world 4901. Cf. Num 30:2–3; 11QT LIII–LIV. By this period, people often promised by God to abstain from something for a specified period (cf. Acts 23:12; Mark 14:25; m. ʾAb. 3:13; conjoined with mourning in Gen. Rab. 92:5). One had to specify, however, the precise parameters of one’s vow: one who vowed not to use light, e.g., was not allowed to use even starlight (b. Pesaḥ. 2a, bar.). On kinds of vows, cf. McNamara, Judaism, 197. 4902. In Luke’s own narrative, Paul touches what may be a dead body in Acts 20:9–10 en route to Jerusalem (but that the boy does not remain dead would have settled matters for most of Luke’s audience, if not for everyone else; cf. Luke 7:14; 8:54). 4903. Cf. b. Ḥul. 89b; 100b; Num. Rab. 10:13. 4904. Marshall, Acts, 300; Witherington, Acts, 557, citing m. Naz. 3:6; 5:4. These texts suggest this interpretation but do not require it; m. Naz. 5:4 suggests, by contrast, that the temple was necessary for completing the vow. 4905. See comment above on p. 2782 and references in n. 4863. 4906. For this, the generally cited evidence is clear: Jos. War 2.313–14; m. Naz. 3:6; 5:4. 4907. For the usual thirty-day Nazirite vows, rabbis debated whether the Nazirite might cut hair on the twenty-ninth or the thirtieth day (y. Naz. 1:3, §1). 4908. With, e.g., González, Acts, 212. 4909. See Shaw, “Harborage”; Scranton, “Commercial Features”; for a summary, Fant and Reddish, Sites, 41–44; Horsley, Documents, 4:139–40, §37. For one detailed portrait of Cenchreae, see Rothaus, Corinth. On the pottery there, see Adamsheck, Pottery; for the burial grounds there (from this period and later), see Rife et al., “Cemetery Project.”

2787

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 491

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

knew of Cenchreae as near Corinth4910 and as being its port.4911 It was “the most famous town of all the Corinthians, bordering upon the seas called Aegean and Saronica.”4912 Paul would have taken the road from Corinth south to Cenchreae; the road north would have led to the harbor town Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth, which was larger but for travel to the west.4913 The isthmus had favorable breezes for sailing.4914 The port was smaller than but probably comparable to Rome’s busy port: “Arrivals and departures by sea,” Aristides said of Rome, “never cease.”4915 On the isthmus and trade more generally, see discussion in the introduction to Corinth, at Acts 18:1–17, above. Corinth’s own territorium within Achaia extended about 340 square kilometers.4916 A number of people in Roman Corinth’s immediate vicinity (perhaps about 20,000) lived in smaller settlements, of which about forty are known. Of these, many were farms or villas, but five were significant towns; Cenchreae was one of these.4917 The largest, Tenea, occupied 60 or more hectares, with perhaps 6,600 inhabitants; Cenchreae apparently occupied 40, with perhaps 4,400 inhabitants.4918 Cenchreae’s harbor was small by comparison with many others: 98,000 square feet versus Caesarea Maritima’s 656,000 square feet and the 328,000 square feet of Corinth’s northwestern harbor, Lechaeum.4919 But it was widely used by a variety of travelers, including merchants and pilgrims (Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.8). Cenchreae exhibited the same features of paganism encountered throughout the cities Paul had visited.4920 Pausanias notes a temple of Artemis containing her aged wooden image, approached on the road to Cenchreae. In the town itself “are a temple and a stone statue of Aphrodite, after it on the mole running into the sea a bronze image of Poseidon, and at the other end of the harbour sanctuaries of Asclepius and of Isis.”4921 The nearby sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus was particularly famous.4922 Apuleius later depicts a πλοιαφέσια, or boat festival, at Cenchreae.4923 The harborside sanctuaries included one for Isis (at the southwest end of the harbor)4924 and an Aphrodision (at the northeast end).4925 4910. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.25; in the church fathers, e.g. (from Bray, Romans, 369), Ps.-Const. Rom. on 16:1 (ENPK 91); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:1 (IER, PG 82:218–20). 4911. Philo Flacc. 155. 4912. Apul. Metam. 10.35 (LCL, 536–37). 4913. On the two harbors, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 4.4.10. 4914. So Ael. Arist. Or. 46.22 (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 115), though Aristides’s knowledge of Corinth was superficial (119). 4915. Ael. Arist. Or. 26.13 (To Rome) (Grant, Paul, 16). At least in Rome’s case, this claim probably contained little, if any, hyperbole. 4916. Romano, “Planning,” 43. 4917. Engels, Roman Corinth, 82. 4918. Ibid., estimating population from the common density of “many small modern Greek towns, 110 per hectare.” 4919. McRay, Archaeology, 337 (on the harbor more fully, 336–38). Put differently, Lechaeum’s harbor covered ca. fifteen hectares, with a perimeter around its quays of ca. five km.; Cenchreae’s covered ca. eight hectares, with a perimeter around its quays of ca. one km. (Engels, Roman Corinth, 58). It also had its own lighthouse (12). 4920. As elsewhere, many of the Roman coins bear the emperor’s image (see Hohlfelder, Coins, 29–62 passim). 4921. Paus. 2.2.3, in Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 17; cf. the Isis temples in Paus. 2.4.6. Rothaus, Corinth, 82, believes that Cenchreae’s Isis, Aphrodite, and Asclepius temples “have not yet . . . been located.” 4922. E.g., Strabo 8.6.15; Val. Max. 1.8.2; Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18; Paus. 2.26.1–2.27.6; see Keener, Acts, 1:327–28. Its proximity to Corinth may be inferred from its inclusion in Paus. 2, as distinct from the rest of Achaia in Paus. 6. 4923. Apul. Metam. 11.7–18; Grant, Paul, 65. 4924. Scranton, “Harbor-Side Sanctuaries,” 53–79. 4925. Ibid., 79–90.

2788

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 492

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Given Corinth’s naval connections, the emphasis on Poseidon at Corinth and its harbors is not surprising.4926 More coin types relate to Poseidon than to any other deity in Corinth.4927 In addition to a major temple at Isthmia and a sanctuary at Lechaeum, Poseidon had a temple at Cenchreae.4928 Aphrodite, of equal importance in Corinth, was also associated with the sea because she was supposed to have emerged from its foam.4929 In keeping with the religious openness and despite the religious competition, a significant house congregation emerged at Cenchreae by the time Paul later wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth. He entrusted the letter to a prominent person in the church named Phoebe, who was a patroness4930 and some sort of minister4931 in the church at Cenchreae (Rom 16:1). Apparently some other wealthy members of the community of Corinth lived there.4932 (2) Beginning Ministry in Ephesus (18:19–21)

The missionaries’ arrival in Ephesus would be at the famous harbor;4933 travelers to the interior of Asia often landed there first.4934 When the engineers under Attalus Philadelphus in the second century b.c.e. narrowed Ephesus’s harbor, silt unexpectedly began to pile up, making the harbor shallower.4935 Problems with silt persisted over succeeding centuries; because of silt deposits, the city grew farther from the sea,4936 and eventually (in a later period) Ephesus had to be moved to a location about three kilometers distant.4937 Still, it was reputed to be Asia’s largest harbor.4938 At this time, those leaving the harbor could walk on the Arkadiane Road, which led up to it.4939 E p he su s’s S t r at e g ic Va lue

Why did Paul and his colleagues target Ephesus? One purpose may have been to provide a geographic link between the churches of South Galatia for which Paul 4926. West, Inscriptions, 5, 55, 66, 102, 108; Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 14, (perhaps) 23, 156. Cf. also Broneer, Temple of Poseidon (though focusing on the Greek period). 4927. Engels, Roman Corinth, 96. 4928. Ibid., 96–97. Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 4.5.18. Corinth has the earliest extant artistic portrayals of Poseidon (Bäbler, “Poseidon,” 677). 4929. Engels, Roman Corinth, 98 (noting that Corinthians associated her with the sea; he cites Paus. 2.1.7; Apul. Metam. 10.31). Further on Aphrodite, see discussion at Acts 13:6. 4930. Winter, Left Corinth, 202; Meeks, Urban Christians, 60; this probably means that she hosted a house congregation (Malherbe, Social Aspects, 98). Johnson, Romans, 233, infers that she was probably also Paul’s “financial agent” in arranging Paul’s coming trip to Rome. For patrons (including those in Corinth), see, e.g., Chow, Patronage, 64–68; discussion of patronage and patronesses at Acts 16:15. 4931. A very broad term (διάκονος) that Paul frequently employs elsewhere for ministry of himself or his colleagues; cf. Streeter and Picton-Turbervill, Woman, 63; Keener, “Perspective,” 216–17; idem, Paul, 238–39; somewhat differently, see Belleville, Leaders, 61–62 (translating “deacon”). In a later period, see Blue, “House Church,” 183 (following Lightfoot, Philippians, 95ff.). 4932. Cf. the Italian-style tomb of the elite L. Castricius Regulus near Cenchreae’s harbor (Gill, “Achaia,” 453). 4933. On the harbor at Ephesus, including its design, see Zabehlicky, “Harbor.” On excavations in Ephesus in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 149–51. On Ephesus in general, see further, in some detail, Oster, Bibliography; idem, “Ephesus”; Koester, Ephesos; Trebilco, Ephesus; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos”; accessibly, e.g., Fant and Reddish, Sites, 177–207; Arnold, “Ephesus”; Hoehner, Ephesians, 79–89; Schnabel, Mission, 1206–15; Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 421–23. 4934. E.g., Pliny Ep. 10.15.1; 10.17A.1; Ramsay, Letters, 186; Hemer, Letters, 15. 4935. Strabo 14.1.24. In Nero’s reign, we read of “opening” or “clearing” Ephesus’s port (Tac. Ann. 16.23). 4936. On the Caÿster’s silt, which kept moving the coastline, see Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115; sources report this as a problem as early as 499 b.c.e. and in 129 c.e. (Yamauchi, Cities, 79, citing, for the later occasion, Euseb. H.E. 9.4.2); cf. Ramsay, Letters, 243–45. Any harbor separated from the sea’s waves risked silting (Höckmann, “Harbours,” 1138). 4937. Ramsay, Letters, 433. The relocation of towns could prove advantageous or disadvantageous (Men. Rhet. 1.22, 356.12–23). 4938. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026. 4939. Yamauchi, Cities, 79.

2789

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 493

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

needed to provide some guidance and churches in Macedonia and Achaia.4940 More important, however, was that this was a strategic city for the gospel, just like Corinth; Paul had apparently even considered targeting it earlier (Acts 16:6). Asia was the empire’s “richest and most populous” province4941 because of its natural resources, industry, and location on trade routes.4942 Apart from prosperous Corinth, in the imperial period the Greek mainland became “something of a social and economic backwater,” the most “vibrant area of Greek culture” being “western Asia Minor.”4943 Although Pergamum was the capital, Ephesus was easily the leading city and included the seat of the proconsul, or governor.4944 Ephesus was the greatest emporium (ἐμπόριον, Strabo 12.8.15) in the territory of Asia west of the Taurus Mountains (14.1.24).4945 Scholars diverge widely in their population estimates for first-century Ephesus as for other cities: 400,000 on the higher end (with few advocates)4946 and 200,000 to 250,000 on the more common and likely lower end.4947 The figures are only guesses, based on ancient estimates that could include exaggerations, so still lower figures (below) are also possible. The lower modern estimates based on population density, however, are equally fallible; since we do not know sufficiently the density of the ancient cities (and not always their size, especially beyond their walls), we cannot reliably estimate their population. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that people lived in a more crowded manner than some scholars have estimated.4948 Ephesus was growing by Paul’s day (under Julio-Claudian emperors) but especially after the end of the first century, and so Paul arrived before its period of greatest growth.4949 Its population may have been as high as two hundred thousand by 150 c.e. but may have been closer to a hundred thousand in earlier times.4950 Since all estimates are guesses, our estimates may be tens of thousands off.4951 More objectively, most scholars agree in ranking it third or, more often, fourth in population in the empire, after Rome and Alexandria and usually just behind Antioch, 4940. Riesner, Early Period, 296. When messages had to be carried by travelers, a degree of geographic connection would prove helpful. 4941. Knox, Jerusalem, 296–97. 4942. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189. Its wealth is often noted (e.g., Stark, Ionia, 136); see Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71 (though this is after Paul’s day). 4943. Rives, Religion, 55. 4944. Tarn, Civilisation, 173. Ephesus and Smyrna passed Miletus in size in the centuries before Paul’s coming (172). Like Ephesus, Smyrna was reputedly founded by Amazons (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.118); Ephesus and Smyrna were rivals (cf. 5.31.120; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490) but are associated in judgment in Sib. Or. 3.343–44. For Ephesus as strategic, see also Patella, “Headquarters.” 4945. It was also known for very good wines (Strabo 14.1.15). 4946. E.g., Jeffers, World, 57, 267. Earlier estimates for Ephesus’s peak (later) population include 500,000 (MacKendrick, Stones, 420). 4947. Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131 (200,000); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319 (250,000); Kee, Every Nation, 226 (more than 200,000); Trebilco, “Asia,” 307 (200,000–250,000); cf. Crawford, “Population” (among cities in the range of 100,000–300,000 free persons). It was, presumably, larger than Pergamum, which we have reason to believe had 180,000–200,000, extrapolated from Galen’s estimate of adults there (Trebilco, “Asia,” 307n68; Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:244n12). But estimates should not be based on a second-century inscription assumed to claim 40,000 male citizens for Ephesus, since the inscription was misread (Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:244n12). 4948. White, “Development,” 41–42. 4949. Ibid., 35; on the growth from the century before and after Paul, see Höcker, “Ephesus: Archaeology”; a generation or two after him, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.11. Architecture (White, “Development,” 49–56) and inscriptions (57–63) attest increasing urbanization and romanization in the second and third centuries, when the population may have been growing by a thousand people a year (47). (On ancient urbanization, in addition to sources cited in Keener, Acts, 1:589–96, see now esp. Bowman and Wilson, Settlement.) Three long-distance water pipes had to be added to the original two by the mid-second century (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026). 4950. White, “Development,” 43, 46. 4951. As noted by Aune, Revelation, 136–37 (who thinks an estimate of 200,000–225,000 plausible for the late first century).

2790

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 494

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and third behind Rome and Alexandria in strategic importance to the empire.4952 By the middle of the first century, Seneca called it the second largest city of the East (i.e., third in the empire).4953 Ephesus would be the most strategic mission in which Paul engaged since leaving Antioch, in terms of population centers and the effect on the thought of the eastern empire. The Romans considered its location strategic.4954 They based “a college of tabellarii (messengers or couriers)” in Ephesus, making it the center for Roman communications in Asia, the hub of its courier routes.4955 This was also the center for tax collection in Asia, and the center of an assize district.4956 The government quarter built there included a “state agora” and a sanctuary, probably for the deified Julius and the goddess Roma (Dio Cass. 51.20.6).4957 An Augustus temple lay on the far south of the city.4958 Ephesus was fairly representative demographically, like most other Greco-Roman cities.4959 It was a free city rather than a Roman colony, in contrast to some of Paul’s targeted cities, but was the seat of provincial government, hosting the proconsul of Asia, as already mentioned.4960 The city was originally an Ionian colony and hence traditionally related to Athens.4961 Paul’s philosophic experience in Athens (Acts 17:18–32) and presumably in Corinth afterward thus would help prepare him for the most effective strategy in Ephesus; such preparation may have also been one providential reason for the delay in his ministry there (16:6). The Ionians were considered “the most distinguished” in their Greek heritage.4962 For e ig n e r s in E p he su s

Many foreign religions, however, had settled in Ephesus, which was to be expected in any cosmopolitan harbor city. Egyptian cults abounded, with special attention to the Hellenistic syncretistic deity Serapis (I. Eph. 1213, 1230–32).4963 Some Egyptian presence there is attested as early as the seventh century b.c.e.,4964 with the worship of Egyptian deities attested from the early third century b.c.e. to the fourth century c.e.4965 Ephesus included a plethora of competing groups, many of them probably divided by ethnicity; some scholars argue that Greeks, earlier inhabitants, Jews, Lydians, Phrygians, Cretans, and others all would be vying for influence.4966 The city’s 4952. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131 (rivaling Antioch in size; cf. Trebilco, “Asia,” 307, and Witherington, Acts, 563, both ranking it third); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319 (behind Antioch in size but not in importance); third or fourth (Kee, Every Nation, 226). On its importance in this period, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 305–7. 4953. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026, citing Sen. Y. Ep. 17.2.21. 4954. On its strategic location, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 308–11 (he connects Paul’s long stay there with its strategic importance, p. 310). 4955. Ibid., 309. 4956. Ibid. 4957. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026. In general, new Roman architecture had more effect in the western empire than in the east, which had a long tradition of building (Wright, “Building Materials,” 376). 4958. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” map, 1027–28. 4959. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos.” For epigraphic evidence, see I. Eph.; for archaeological evidence, see, e.g., Parvis, “Ephesus” (focusing esp. on pre-Pauline Ephesus); Filson, “Ephesus” (though noting [78] that most sources besides Josephus are second century or later). 4960. Witherington, Acts, 563. In the winter of 30/29 b.c.e., Octavian (later Augustus) made Ephesus the residence of Asia’s proconsul (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026). 4961. Borchert, “Ephesus,” 116; White, “Development,” 35; see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3. The title “Ionia” could be quite ancient (cf. Gen 10:2, 4; Görg, “Ionien”). 4962. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 354.9–14 (for whom the Dorians were the bravest and Aeolians the strongest). 4963. See Walters, “Egyptian Religions”; Koester, Paul and World, 155–58. For the spread of Egyptian cults during the empire, see, e.g., Kákosy, “Egypt,” 9–13. 4964. Walters, “Egyptian Religions,” 283. 4965. Ibid., 304. More fully on Egyptian cults in Ephesus, see 281–309. 4966. Strelan, Artemis, 34–36, esp. 36. Normally the self-identified Greeks must have held the upper hand, but competition at least among other groups is reasonable.

2791

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 495

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

basic civic identity was Greek, though a later writer could complain about how many citizens were taking Roman names; ancestry from Hellenic colonists was not enough, he insisted (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71).4967 It is therefore hardly surprising that we find a Jewish community in Ephesus;4968 we even read (later) of “synagogue rulers” there (I. Eph. 4.1251).4969 Jews had lived in Ephesus for a long time and were, if Josephus is accurate, apparently called Ephesians alongside the indigenes ( Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.39). Ephesian Jews may have become comfortable with their environment; the families that had long lived there apparently became citizens of Ephesus without compromising their customs (Ant. 12.125–26). In the first century b.c.e., they were granted special rights there by the Roman governor and others (14.221–30; 16.167–68, 172–73), confirmed by Ephesians themselves (14.262–64). That Josephus reports no controversies in his own time (which was full of difficulties for Jewish people in many locations) suggests assimilation and tolerance.4970 Archaeological evidence suggests that Jews were not very distinctive there but integrated into the broader society.4971 Jews there, as in Sardis and most of the rest of Asia, were probably able to achieve significant status in local society.4972 There is no reason to suppose that Paul’s Jewishness would exclude him from status (Acts 19:31) or expose him to the prejudices more dominant in Greece and Macedonia.4973 Jewishness would constitute a liability only when viewed as insensitive to local traditions (as in 19:26–27, 34). Paul’s De pa rt ur e in 1 8 : 1 9

Paul’s departure from his friends Priscilla and Aquila could be construed to mean that he stopped living with them, but it can also announce Paul’s departure from Ephesus that Luke will narrate on a different level in 18:21. On the latter reading, Paul left them in Ephesus, where they continued to offer instruction to individuals in the synagogue there (18:26). That this couple did travel to Ephesus, where they eventually continued to minister with Paul, is indeed confirmed by Paul’s own greetings from them and their Ephesian house church to the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:19; cf. 16:8).4974 If, as seems likely, Luke is saying that Paul left them in Ephesus, his continuing ministry in Ephesus at this point (Acts 18:19b–21) functions as a digression or afterthought (like the intrusive mention of Paul’s vow at the end of 18:18). Stating it here enables Luke to avoid reintroducing the couple for farewells (cf. 18:18) at 18:21, since he will continue on with his focus on Paul in 18:22–23. It has been argued that Paul could not have started the church in so brief a time, though perhaps Priscilla and Aquila did so while he was gone (18:21–23).4975 Whether 4967. Signs of romanization appear in the first centuries b.c.e. and c.e. (Thomas, “Dead,” 292–93), although they grew in the second and third century c.e. (White, “Development,” 47). 4968. For the limited epigraphic evidence for Jews in Ephesus, see CIJ 2:13–14, §§745–47; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 122–27 (including I. Eph. 5.1676–77, p. 124). On Ephesian Judaism, see further Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 143–48; Kraabel, “Judaism in Asia Minor,” 51–60 (though too skeptical of Acts); Hemer, Letters, 37–40 (suggesting they were citizens); Yamauchi, Cities, 110; Trebilco, Ephesus, 37–51; in Ephesus and all of Asia, Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 259–81; Strelan, Artemis, 192–99; van der Horst, “Judaism.” 4969. Although we lack clear archaeological identification of a synagogue, it is difficult, as other scholars also note (e.g., Strelan, Artemis, 189; cf. Trebilco, Ephesus, 43–44), to envision a synagogue ruler where there is no synagogue. For one Ionian synagogue, see CIJ 2:8, §738. 4970. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 87–89. Cf. Bruce, History, 329. Jewish people had faced problems in Ionia as recently as Jos. Ant. 12.125; 16.27, 45; see discussion in Barclay, Jews, 270. 4971. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 81–86. 4972. Ibid., 89–94. 4973. See ibid., 98–100. 4974. The evidence convinces virtually all scholars; see, e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 155; Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 468. 4975. Barrett, Acts, 886. For their activity (and name order), see also comment on Acts 18:26.

2792

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 496

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul started the church depends on how we define “start”: he began preaching there in 18:19–21 and resumed his ministry in the synagogue, gaining a number of disciples, in 19:8–9. In any case, Priscilla and Aquila were coworkers, and neither they nor Paul would have seen their continuing work in his absence as competition; apparently, Paul reckoned as his own even those he had reached at second hand (Col 2:1). At least some believers are meeting in Acts 18:27 (“the siblings”), though they are, it seems, still part of the synagogue (at least Priscilla and Aquila were attending there, 18:26). 4976 Paul’s De pa rt ur e in 1 8 : 2 0 –2 1

This is not the only occasion on which Paul avoided spending time in Asia and accepting Ephesian hospitality (see 20:16); pointing out this behavior here may make Paul’s later avoidance seem less suspicious. Luke also notes that crowds had tried to compel Jesus to stay with them (Luke 4:42) but he protested that he must go to other cities to fulfill his calling (4:43). Whatever Paul’s later troubles in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 20:16), he did not force himself on God’s will there, either at this time (Acts 18:21) or earlier (16:6). Whatever the later controversies, Luke reminds his audience (who may not have known many of the details of the goings-on in Asia) that it was God who equipped Paul’s ministry there. Paul puts God’s will first (16:6–8), here perhaps fulfilling a vow (18:18; cf. 21:24–26). Ideally, when declining a request even to one of significantly lower status, one was expected to say, “if possible” rather than, “No”; the latter was considered harsh and ungrateful (Cic. Att. 8.4). Paul’s “if possible” here is, however, genuine, as demonstrated when he returns (Acts 19:8). Commentators often note that the phrase “if God wills” was a familiar Greek phrase,4977 and the examples they have offered could be multiplied.4978 Its equivalent is common in Latin—for example, in Fronto’s correspondence,4979 along with equivalent phrases such as “if the gods prove favorable.”4980 Paul (1 Cor 4:19; 16:7; cf. Rom 1:10) and other Christians (Heb 6:3; Jas 4:15; cf. Acts 21:14; 1 Pet 5:2) used it as well.4981 The Western variant in Acts 18:21 provides a plausible reason for Paul’s haste (comparable to, but very possibly based on confusion with, 20:16, where Paul was hastening past Ephesus to be at the Pentecost festival in Jerusalem).4982 Its information is probably correct, because if Paul intended only to report back to Antioch (as in 14:26; 15:30), Caesarea was far out of his way; but this incongruity in 18:22 could also explain the variant, which may represent a reasonable inference. We know that Paul did observe the festivals, but not always in Jerusalem (20:6). If it was a festival he was trying to reach quickly, some scholars suggest Passover; the seas officially opened March 5–10, but Passover fell on March 22 in 53 c.e. (in early April in 52).4983 4976. With O’Neill, Theology, 74, the Christians were being well treated in the synagogue. 4977. Commentators cite, e.g., Jos. Ant. 2.333, 347; 7.373; Plato Alcib. 1.31, §135D; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.17 (ὡς ὁ θεὸς θέλῃ; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 499; Witherington, Acts, 558; Fitzmyer, Acts, 635). 4978. E.g., Hom. Il. 8.142; Xen. Hell. 2.4.17; 5.1.14; Anab. 7.3.43; Dio Chrys. Or. 45.15 (plural); cf. similarly (though in different wording) Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.23.18. For Stoics, see the discussion in Sorabji, Emotion, 219–20. 4979. E.g., Fronto, discussing what he hopes to do, as he has now recovered from sickness (Ad M. Caes. 5.40 [55]); likewise, M. Aurelius to Fronto (5.43 [58]; 5.55 [70], gods [plural]; Ad Ant. imp. 1.1). 4980. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.11 (deis propitiis), 20; Ad am. 2.11. Cf. Symm. Ep. 1.2.2 (if Fortune permits); 1.45.1 (if the gods are willing). 4981. Munck, Acts, 181, suggests that the phrase is intended to indicate only the speaker’s piety, not uncertainty or that he would face danger. 4982. The idea might be accurate even if the words are later (Ross, “Extra Words in 18:21”; Hemer, Acts in History, 120). 4983. Witherington, Acts, 558.

2793

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 497

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Whether it was possible for him to have left Corinth, stopped for at least one Sabbath synagogue service in Ephesus, and reached Jerusalem all in this short time is uncertain (perhaps failure to do so would explain lack of more detail concerning his agenda in 18:22, or perhaps his Jerusalem trip was not of interest to Luke for other reasons). (3) Revisiting Judea, Antioch, and Phrygia (18:22–23)

Paul visited Caesarea, probably Jerusalem, and then Antioch and the churches that he had earlier started in southern Asia Minor. (That he nowhere visits Cyprus, where he previously ministered, may be because his former companion Barnabas could be presumed to take care of any converts there.) Did Paul Vi si t Je ru s a le m on t he Jour ney in 1 8 : 2 2 ?

Most scholars suspect that Paul’s “greeting the church” in 18:22 refers to the church in Jerusalem, not just in Caesarea.4984 Why would Paul sail two hundred miles out of his way south to Caesarea, only to travel north to Antioch by land afterward, if Antioch was his only destination? Other explanations are possible: winds from the north prevail in the summer; when those winds blow from the northeast, a landing at Antioch’s port would be more difficult than a landing at Caesarea.4985 Or much less likely (given Antioch’s size), perhaps no immediate passage to Antioch was available.4986 But if, as some argue, Paul was traveling during the summer (when there would be no festivals in Jerusalem), he would have known about the summer northeasters before booking passage, and his urgency in 18:21 seems at least a bit more difficult to explain, as (other factors being equal) he could have left at a more suitable time.4987 Since Paul sailed for “Syria” (18:18), we might suppose that Antioch was his only goal. But this argument is inconclusive. Luke speaks of the province of Syria, which included Judea (Luke 2:2–3) and hence Caesarea as well. Reference to Syria does not therefore resolve the full extent of Paul’s planned destination.4988 Caesarea (not only Antioch) must be a deliberate destination: a ship would not sail from Ephesus to Caesarea without stops at other ports to gather supplies, yet Luke hurries past them, reporting only Caesarea.4989 If he reports Caesarea, it may be because it was more significant for Paul’s itinerary than were the other stops.4990 Once Paul went to Caesarea and visited friends there, however, it would only make sense to visit Jerusalem before traveling northward, unless he had good reason not to do so. It is also possible that he planned to visit Jerusalem all along (as stated in the Western text of Acts 18:21). As noted above, a trip to Jerusalem would, under normal circumstances, make the “detour” to Caesarea more explicable. Most important, a trip to Jerusalem also fits the statement that he “went up” to the church (21:12; from Antioch, 15:2; from Caesarea, 11:2; 21:15; 24:11; 25:1, 9) and then “went down” to Antioch.4991 Luke employs ἀναβαίνω for ascending to 4984. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Stagg, Acts, 192–93 (also noting the vow of Acts 18:18); others below. Also, “greeting” was important (20:1; 21:7, 19; 25:13), but the point here may be a serious assurance of fellowship, not the modern Western idea of a casual greeting in passing. 4985. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 231; Bruce, Acts1, 350; Dunn, Acts, 247; idem, Beginning, 752. 4986. Dunn, Acts, 247. 4987. Witherington, Acts, 559. 4988. With ibid., 556. Part of the problem is that Luke’s language is terse and concise; nevertheless, his six participles elegantly communicate “the sense of rapidity and smoothness” (Pervo, Acts, 456). 4989. Barrett, Acts, 880. 4990. It might also be relevant that in a “we” section such as Acts 20:5–6, 13–17 or 21:1–3, 7–8, Luke would report the travels in more detail because he knew them, whereas his source was hardly interested in preserving them here. 4991. “Going up” to Jerusalem had long been idiomatic; e.g., 1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 12:17; 16:5; 24:10; 2 Chr 2:16; Ezra 1:3; 7:7; Isa 7:1; Zech 14:17; 1 Macc 4:37; 6:48; 13:2; 2 Macc 12:31; 1 Esd 2:5; Jos. Ant. 11.67,

2794

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 498

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

heaven or to a rooftop, but elsewhere for going up to the hill country of Judea (Luke 2:4) or up to the temple mount (18:10; Acts 3:1), but by far most often for going up to Jerusalem generally. Certainly, “going down” does not suit a trip from coastal Caesarea to Antioch. Thus many scholars are relatively certain that Luke implies a trip to Jerusalem here,4992 as the Western text indicates more explicitly (see comment on Acts 18:21). If Paul traveled to Jerusalem, Luke’s reluctance to explicitly discuss the trip shows that he did not invent it. Some think Luke mistaken in believing the trip occurred, however, noting that Paul’s letters allow for only three trips to Jerusalem (Gal 1:15– 2:10).4993 Yet if the last of these trips is the Jerusalem Council (see introduction, above, to Acts 15), nothing in Galatians, regardless of that letter’s date, limits the number of visits after that point.4994 Some others think that Paul visited Jerusalem to offer sacrifice for fulfilling his vow in Acts 18:18; this is quite possible but depends on the interpretation of that verse.4995 If, however, Paul visited Jerusalem or planned to do so, why does Luke omit this visit when recording other apparently less significant details? Luke probably implies “went up to Jerusalem” in his simpler “went up” (so the nrsv), but he is not as explicit as he could be. It is possible that Paul faced an unwelcome situation in Jerusalem or a warning of it in Caesarea, and this situation would have required too much space for explanation or proved more embarrassing than necessary for Luke’s narrative.4996 (This might be especially the case if Paul preached again controversially and Luke wishes to emphasize that Paul cannot be accused of stirring up trouble in Jerusalem; cf. 24:5–6, 11–12.) If the trouble is with the elite, Luke may feel that he has foreshadowed the later trouble in Jerusalem sufficiently and will address that trouble more fully only once he reaches the final journey (paralleling Jesus’s final journey in the Gospel). But the elite might not know that Paul had come and, more embarrassing to Luke—and hence less likely to be emphasized—would be trouble with the Jerusalem church. Such early signs of trouble would help explain Paul’s expectation of danger in Jerusalem and concern about his work’s reception with the church there (Rom 15:31; though cf. prophetic revelation in Acts 20:23; 21:11–13). Luke elsewhere may avoid unnecessarily embarrassing (Acts 20:16) or time-consuming (9:23) digressions.4997 Of course, an alternative explanation could be the opposite one: the journey proved uneventful. Since Paul’s journeys were rarely uneventful in view of his preaching, 72, 89, 93, 122, 325; 12.248, 316; 18.90, 122; War 2.40, 232, 515. Perhaps 1QM I, 3 (so Vermes, Scrolls, 124); but differently, Yadin, Scroll of War, 258. 4992. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Stagg, Acts, 192–93; Bruce, Peter, 101n29; Witherington, Acts, 559; Riesner, Early Period, 297. 4993. Conzelmann, Acts, 156; Lüdemann, Christianity, 5–6. 4994. Some place Gal 2:1–10 in Acts 18:22, but this does not make the best sense of Galatians’ chronology, in addition to contradicting Luke’s (cf. also Watson, Gentiles, 108, although the disagreement with Barnabas in Gal 2:13 need not have precipitated the break with him and the shift to Silas). 4995. Witherington, Acts, 559; Riesner, Early Period, 297. See comment at Acts 18:18. 4996. Dunn, Acts, 247–48, thinks that Paul may have intended visits to Jerusalem and Antioch to heal the breach established in Acts 15:30–41 (on the basis of Gal 2:13–14) and that having not mentioned the breach, Luke has little to say here. This guess would be no weaker than the others if Dunn were correct about Acts 15:30–41, but I have argued that he is not. That Paul is working for unity between his churches and the two mother churches, however, could well be a factor (Riesner, Early Period, 298). If he had written Galatians already, word of his hostile rhetoric may have reached Jerusalem (via Paul’s enemies in Galatia), provoking a cool reception. A negative reception, if it occurred, would have likely encouraged Luke’s silence (Dunn, Beginning, 755). 4997. If Paul was forcibly prevented from fulfilling his Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18) at the time and chose to forgo it for practical reasons, Luke might not wish to mention this; but then why mention the vow to begin with in 18:18?

2795

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 499

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

however, it is somewhat more likely that Luke either lacked detailed knowledge of the events or that they were negative yet too complex for Luke to begin discussing. On “greetings,” see comment on Acts 21:7. S t r e ngt he n ing Churche s in P hryg i a ( 1 8 : 2 2 –2 3 )

Paul spent time in Antioch, probably because it was the center of his Gentile mission (13:1–4; 14:26–28; 15:2) and perhaps also, depending on the seasons, because it was now inadvisable to travel by sea or try to cross the Taurus Mountains by land.4998 If he stayed in Antioch partly for seasonal reasons, however, he probably had timed the arrival so as to be with his friends there and perhaps to meet the church’s new adherents. Paul returned by land so that he could control his own itinerary, strengthening the churches. Perhaps envisioning the collection (Rom 15:25; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8–9) after his visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18:22), he may have wished to prepare churches for it, and the churches in Galatia were among the first to know of it (1 Cor 16:1; cf. Gal 2:10). If he had already written Galatians, he also might now seek to consolidate his position in Galatia.4999 Luke returns to his mention of “passing through” regions (Acts 18:23) in 19:1, after the digression about Apollos in Ephesus. Luke’s description here requires Paul (and presumably companions, following normal safety protocol and his usual practice) to pass through the Cilician Gates on toward Ephesus in Asia; this region was passable only during late spring or early summer.5000 If Paul sailed from Corinth (18:18) shortly after the seas opened officially in March, this may now be the summer of 53 c.e. The journey on foot from Judea (whether Jerusalem or Caesarea) through the Cilician Gates to Ephesus was more than five hundred miles, and Paul might well not arrive before the fall of 53 c.e. The “succession of participles” appears to communicate haste in 18:22–23,5001 which verses together summarize a vast journey in an unusually terse report. The phrasing in 18:23 differs from that in 16:6, often leading scholars to conclude that Luke uses “Phrygia” more broadly here. In 16:6 Luke refers to PhrygiaGalatia—that is, Lycaonic and Phrygian Galatia—an area evangelized in Acts 13–14. Here, by contrast, “Galatia” may mean the same province as in 16:6, but “Phrygia” may extend the designation beyond Galatia proper into Asia, toward Ephesus.5002 After visiting the churches of South Galatia,5003 Paul could have made his way west in Phrygia through Apamea and the Meander valley toward the coast of Asia.5004 Paul did not directly evangelize the Phrygian region of the Lycus and Meander valleys (Col 2:1; 4:12–13), but this does not exclude him from having passed through them before they were evangelized. Other scholars argue that he need not have even traveled through those valleys en route to Ephesus; his ­passage 4998. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 313; Le Cornu, Acts, 711, 1024. 4999. Dunn, Acts, 248. Conversely, Paul’s conflict with Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14) could have occurred at this point (cf. Hengel, Peter, 57–58), which would explain the brevity of Luke’s report about Antioch (surpassed only by his omission of an even more hostile reception in Jerusalem). 5000. Haenchen, Acts, 548; Witherington, Acts, 559–60. 5001. Bruce, Commentary, 379. Luke certainly summarizes the itinerary hastily, employing a common verb for “go” five times in Acts 18:18–23 (Parsons, Acts, 261, comparing Rhet. Her. 4.14.21), not including other verbs for travel. 5002. Hemer, Acts in History, 120; Riesner, Early Period, 285–86. 5003. The North Galatian interpretation does not fit this passage geographically at all (Mitchell, “Galatia,” 871, citing also the fourth-century Pontic bishop Asterius, who read this passage as Mitchell does). 5004. Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:4. The Meander route passed from Ephesus through Phrygia to Apamea; another route from Apamea led to Pisidia (MAMA 7:ix). Wilson, “Routes,” 478, notes the intersection of the Southern Highway (leading west into Asia) with the Via Sebaste near Comama.

2796

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 500

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

through the “upper country” of Acts 19:1 could fit “the high road leading to the Cestrus Valley.”5005 Paul’s mission here is especially aimed at strengthening disciples, as in earlier summaries (14:22–23; 15:32, 41, the other nt uses; for a relevant cognate, see Luke 22:32; in Paul’s letters, Paul wanting to strengthen churches in Rom 1:11; 1 Thess 3:2); he had done so in Phrygia-Galatia in 16:5–6. Luke picks up the language of “passing through” regions (18:23) in 19:1, after recounting the activity of Apollos (whose role prepares for the next story in 19:1–7).5006 ii. Priscilla and Aquila Help Apollos (18:24–28)

Apollos is equipped with the Spirit, knowledge of the Scripture, and rhetorical skill, but his understanding is inadequate, depending only on John’s baptism. Paul’s associates Priscilla and Aquila help surmount this deficiency, after which he is more fully prepared. (1) Introduction

That Paul’s colleagues help Apollos emphasizes the unity of the church and the apostolic priority of Paul’s calling and mission over Apollos’s gifts (see comment on Acts 18:24). From 18:19–20:38 and especially in 18:19–19:41, the geographic focus is on Ephesus. Thus Priscilla and Aquila’s instruction of Apollos in Ephesus and its aftermath (18:24–28) warrant as much space as some of Paul’s long journeys outside Ephesus.5007 This seems odd to us in light of Paul’s letters because on some sections (esp. Acts 20:1–3) we are exceptionally well informed from Paul’s letters (though about others, such as 18:22–23, we know next to nothing aside from Luke’s terse summary). Whether this geographic focus indicates a source from Ephesus5008 or simply a common historical method of keeping material coherent,5009 it does provide unity to the section. The accounts in 18:24–28 and 19:1–7, however, which Luke skillfully places side by side, also provide some unity to the section.5010 In both instances we encounter disciples who know John’s baptism but lack Christian baptism, yet the former case (apparently) does not require rebaptism whereas the latter does. Both paragraphs emphasize the inadequacy of John’s baptism, but John’s baptism could lead to faith and, with Christian instruction and empowerment, did so here. This fits the role of John in Luke’s Gospel as well. (Possibly a group of John’s followers continued for some time in Ephesus and elsewhere, but we may gather from Luke that they tended to be open to the Christian message.)5011 5005. Riesner, Early Period, 286. 5006. That he traveled to locations in order (καθεξῆς) may not be significant, since it was difficult to travel otherwise, but its mention and repetition occasionally (Luke 8:1 for Jesus’s travels; Luke 1:3 and Acts 11:4 for recounting events sequentially), if not purely stylistic, may indicate a preference for a methodical approach. 5007. Acts 18:18, 22–23; 19:1; 20:1–6, 13–15, with the non-Ephesian raising in Troas in 20:7–12 being simply too good to omit. 5008. Witherington, Acts, suggests Ephesian church officials (168) or Priscilla and Aquila (562; Dunn, Acts, 249, allows either them or Apollos); this is likely at least for Acts 18:24–26, though their information could have been mediated to Luke through various intermediary sources (not least Paul himself). At the least, Luke’s “we” met the elders at 20:15–18. 5009. See discussion of ancient historiography and chronology in Keener, Acts, 1:193–94. 5010. The primary connection is mention of John’s baptism in both (Fitzmyer, Acts, 643; cf. 637). Hedlun, “Reading,” envisions a purity conflict hindering the welcome of Gentiles, but with Apollos rehabilitated for Luke’s audience here and tongues as a new purity marker in 19:6. (The suggestion has cohesiveness, but the use of immersion in purifying Gentiles might count against it.) 5011. Koester thinks that the church of Luke’s time must have been divided among disciples of John, followers of Apollos, a Pauline church, and (in Rev 2:1–7) an apocalyptic circle (“Ephesos in Literature,”

2797

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 501

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Why was Apollos not rebaptized as the disciples of 19:1–7 were? Like the others, the only water baptism Apollos knows is John’s, not baptism in Jesus’s name. But he apparently knew about and advocated Jesus (see discussion at Acts 18:25), which is less likely in the case of John’s Ephesian disciples (19:4).5012 Further, Apollos was “boiling in the Spirit” (18:25), which might also refer to having the Spirit.5013 Since John’s water baptism merely prefigured Jesus’s baptism in the Spirit, this Spirit baptism was greater and more necessary than the water baptism that symbolized it (8:15–16); though Cornelius was water-baptized after receiving the Spirit, he was not rebaptized. Apollos, on the other hand, had a symbolic water baptism and, in addition, the greater baptism of the Spirit; Cornelius and the Ephesian disciples each lacked one of these components.5014 Similarly, those among Jesus’s twelve apostles baptized by John probably did not require rebaptism, especially once all of them received the Spirit. (For John’s ministry as a salvation-historical transition point, see Luke 16:16, although its exact sense is debated.) Some scholars suggest that the narrative puts not only John and his movement in their place but also Apollos, because we know that some (at least in Corinth) preferred Apollos to Paul (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–7; 4:6).5015 In Corinth, their followers apparently divided into schools as disciples of rhetoricians or philosophers did.5016 But they do not seem to have taught competing doctrinal systems (cf. 16:12), and so there is no reason to believe that Apollos and Paul established rival “schools” that outlasted their own deaths. Unless we date Acts before the 70s (as a minority of scholars do) it seems difficult to suppose that rivalry among their followers persisted in Luke’s day. It is still more difficult to suppose that the rivalry spread beyond Corinth. Because Paul and Apollos themselves had a collegial relationship (16:12), the Corinthian problem reflected more a local response than hostility in their own relationship.5017 It is possible that Luke knows of the earlier conflict and responds to it, but the possibility should not be overemphasized. Paul’s letters confirm the connection of Apollos with both Ephesus, where he later returned (1 Cor 16:8, 12; cf. Acts 18:24), and Corinth, where he clearly made a positive impression (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 16:12; cf. Acts 18:27), as here. Although 133); unfortunately, this reflects the common redactional fallacy of reading narratives as precise mirrors of the audience (as a “community”). The church was plainly divided, however, among Jew and Gentile at some points (cf. Eph 2:11–22); and for followers of John as likely persisting, see also Keener, John, 388–91. Trudinger, “Milieu,” attributes most of the Johannine literature, Hebrews, Ephesians (from Paul), and part of Luke to Ephesus; I am more skeptical of Hebrews and Luke. 5012. Missing the one whom John proclaimed and his baptism (Luke 3:15–16), these disciples “represent a degenerate form of John’s heritage” from Luke’s perspective (Tannehill, Acts, 234). Unlike Apollos, they are in the process of conversion (Turner, Gifts, 45). 5013. See the discussion in Barrett, Acts, 885–86; Tannehill, Acts, 233; on the meaning of “boiling in [the] Spirit,” see also Barrett, Acts, 888, and comment on Acts 18:25. 5014. Wolter, “Apollos und Johannesjünger,” proposes a plausible, almost opposite interpretation: Luke expects us to read the Spirit deficiency of the disciples in Acts 19:1–7 back into Apollos, seeing Paul as bestower of the Spirit. The lack of rebaptism and Luke’s favorable view of Priscilla and Aquila, however, probably point instead to the more common view. If we read into the contrast with 19:1–7, it could be significant that the Spirit is imparted through Paul, but even if Apollos lacks the Spirit already (18:25), the contrast here would be with Priscilla and Aquila, whom Luke portrays favorably. 5015. Dunn, Acts, 249. 5016. For rhetorical rivalry, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Lucian Prof. P.S. 22; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; cf. 2.10.588. For disciples’ dividing in Corinth, see Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9 (often noted; e.g., Savage, Power, 31; Winter, Left Corinth, 37–40). 5017. For their collegiality rather than rivalry, see also (here) Wall, “Acts,” 252–53 (citing Hays, 1 Corinthians, 67–73; cf. also Keener, Corinthians, 137; Mihaila, “Relationship”; Bruce, Corinthians, 32). Leading figures could be friends despite popular assumptions that they were rivals (e.g., Cic. Brut. 1.2–3; cf., albeit somewhat fictitiously, Apul. Flor. 18.39–41); cf. later the Wesleys and Whitefield (most of the time).

2798

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 502

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

he was later invited to visit Corinth again with Timothy and his colleagues (1 Cor 16:10; cf. Acts 19:22), he was not able to do so as yet (1 Cor 16:12). Priscilla and Aquila’s instruction of Apollos more fully matches some of Luke’s other reports about the apostolic movement. Although God sovereignly works through believers in Jesus outside the central apostolic movement (as in Acts 18:25–26; cf. Luke 9:49–50), the apostles and their associates apparently desire to connect these movements to the apostolic movement with its continuity of witness and teaching (cf. 8:14; 11:22–23; 18:26–28), and certainly they must have continuity with the experience of the Spirit (8:15–16; 19:2–6). (2) Apollos from Alexandria (18:24)

Though Luke’s focus is on Paul, Apollos was too important a figure to omit. But Apollos learns from Paul’s colleagues, and Luke again portrays the relative harmony of early Christian leaders.5018 A p ollo s ’s Backg roun d

Like Paul and most of his other colleagues, Apollos was Jewish.5019 Egyptian Jews had many “Apollo”-compounded names (see CPJ 3:170), though this practice was rarer for Jews elsewhere.5020 Most scholars regard “Apollos” as a familiar, friendly contraction for “Apollonius” or (less likely) “Apollodorus”; since the first governor of Egypt under Alexander was named Apollonius, it had been a common name (Arrian Alex. 3.5).5021 This explains the reading in the D text (“Apollonius” being the more familiar name generally). The variant “Apelles,” found in many Egyptian manuscripts, is probably not original, but it may have been a preference among stricter Egyptian Christians.5022 Virtually all commentators agree that Luke’s picture of Apollos fits a highly cultured person;5023 many believe that those in Corinth most emphasizing “wisdom” and rhetoric would have gravitated toward him.5024 Because λόγιος can include being “learned” in a general sense (the classical usage, e.g., Arist. Pol. 1267b), some take the term thus in Acts 18:24;5025 this learning could include training in Philonic-style biblical exegesis (typically allegorical).5026 It is chronologically possible that Apollos 5018. Noting that Luke’s predilection to emphasize relative harmony means that he focuses on that aspect of the reality, not that he fabricates it, pace the old Tübingen School; Luke does not always portray their harmony (15:39); and Paul and Apollos were colleagues (1 Cor 16:12). 5019. The construction in 18:24 can sometimes apply to a Diaspora Jew’s area of birth or residence rather than ethnicity (4:36; 18:2). Most of the missionaries and chief leaders in the movement remained Jewish at the beginning, especially if the estimates in Friesen, “Demography,” 357, are anywhere close to accurate (78 percent of the transients named in Paul’s churches were fairly clearly Jewish, compared with a much lower estimate for the membership—though it would be harder to be sure in the membership’s case). 5020. See Witherington, Acts, 564. Names compounded with various Greek deities were common in Roman Jewish tombs (CIJ 1:lxvii); among such other deity-compounded names, see 1:64, §91; 1:166, §232; 1:344, §467. Given the preponderance of -Yah names in the ot, the adoption of such pagan theophorics is interesting. Cf. pagan weekday names in Revelation of Ezra (OTP 1:601–4), but this document may be quite late. 5021. Lightfoot, Notes, 153; Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 207. 5022. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 466 (following on this point Zahn, Introduction, 270n10; Offermann, “Apollos”); but Kilpatrick, “Apollos-Apelles,” thinks “Apelles” original (and the same person as Apollos). The name “Apelles” was not infrequent (e.g., Rom 16:10; Suet. Vesp. 19; Jerome in Puech, “Gospels,” 349–50), being especially attached to one of antiquity’s most famous painters (Cic. Att. 2.21; Fam. 1.9.15; Strabo 14.1.25; Val. Max. 8.11.ext. 2; Theon Progymn. 1.86; Pliny E. N.H. pref. 26; Dio Chrys. Or. 63.4–5; Plut. Flatt. 15, Mor. 58D; Isis 24, Mor. 360D; Fort. Alex. 2.2, Mor. 335A; Alex. 4.2; Pliny E. N.H. 35.32.50; 35.36.79–97; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.1; Eloq. 1.6; Lucian Posts 42; Portr. 3, 7–8; Slander 2–5). 5023. E.g., Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:161. 5024. E.g., Kee, Origins, 97. 5025. Johnson, Acts, 331. See Jos. Ant. 2.75; War 6.295; Ag. Ap. 1.236; Philo Posterity 162; Mos. 1.2; Embassy 142, 310. 5026. Cf. Kee, Origins, 97.

2799

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 503

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

studied directly under Philo (though given the large number of elite Jewish students at the time, this is not probable) and likely that he knew of him;5027 that Philo reflects and probably helped shape a wider Alexandrian Jewish ethos is certain.5028 (The preservation of Philo’s writings is not pure happenstance; his Embassy to Gaius reveals that he was a highly respected member of the local Jewish elite.)5029 But Philo represents only one strand of Alexandrian Judaism. Whereas Philo tried to relate the Jewish Torah to the larger Greco-Roman world and, normally, to maintain peace with the civic structures, others, such as some of the authors of the Sibylline Oracles, used Greek hexameter to develop the Egyptian and Jewish prophetic tradition, often with apocalyptic-type perspectives about judgment less amenable to cultural dialogue.5030 Because Apollos is also described as “mighty in the Scriptures,” some scholars take the expression ἀνὴρ λόγιος here as referring to learnedness in Scripture.5031 But because the specification of Scripture follows and because the phrase on this interpretation thus seems redundant, Luke probably refers to learnedness more generally or a different kind of learnedness. A p ollo s a s a S k il le d S p e a ker

More commonly, however, scholars associate λόγιος particularly with its narrower association with “eloquence,” a meaning well attested in this period.5032 (Although it can mean “learned” more generally, as already noted, ancient commentators tended to prefer “eloquent” here [cf. BDAG].) The phrase ἀνὴρ λόγιος, employed here, often applies to someone proficient in rhetoric.5033 Given the role of both wisdom and speech in 1 Cor 1–4, where Apollos figures heavily, one need not restrict the term’s use to its rhetorical sense; but given Paul’s focus there on wise speech (cf. 1 Cor 1:17–18; 2:1, 4, 13; 4:19–20), that is probably paramount. That general wisdom at least includes rhetorical proficiency may, for an Alexandrian, be taken for granted (see discussion on Alexandria, below).5034 If Luke, who belongs to the Pauline circle of churches, knows much about Apollos at all, it is reasonable to suppose that he is aware of the latter’s rhetorical skill. Some have argued that Alexandrian rhetoric, and hence likely that of Apollos, was “energetic, enthusiastic, playing to the tastes of the masses”;5035 in this case, it might be 5027. Some suggest that Philo had a direct influence of some sort on Apollos, e.g., Howard, Criticism, 160. 5028. Although it is technically true that being from Alexandria does not suggest connections with Philonic thought (Strelan, Artemis, 214), Philo’s thought is probably partly representative—and perhaps the most influential example—of elite Hellenistic Jewish learning there. 5029. Externally his role is corroborated in Jos. Ant. 18.259–60. That a member of his school became a Christian before the ethnic conflict of 115–17 c.e. probably explains the preservation of his corpus (and other Alexandrian Jewish works; see Sterling, “School”). Given Alexandria’s role in the development of Middle Platonism (Engberg-Pedersen, “Scene,” 3), Philo’s thought also would have appeared mainstream there. 5030. See esp. Tobin, “Philo and Sibyl.” Philo may reflect the primary approach of the Alexandrian Jewish elite. 5031. See Le Cornu, Acts, 1028–29 (although Jos. Ant. 17.149–50, which she cites, need not specify this); Strelan, Artemis, 213 (suggesting, as a secondary possibility, the sayings of the Jesus tradition). 5032. Scholars cite Demet. Style 38; Lucian Cock 2 (Witherington, Acts, 564n11); see also Jos. Ant. 17.149; perhaps War 1.13 (if it does not refer to learning more generally). In the fifth century b.c.e., Greeks spoke not of rhetoric but of τέχνη λόγων, the art of speech (Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 3), yet the lxx misses an opportunity to render Moses’s protest that he is not ‫איש דברים‬, a man of words, by ἀνὴρ λόγιος in Exod 4:10. 5033. Philo Posterity 53; Names 220; Cher. 116; possibly Virt. 174 (cf. Witherington, Corinthians, 130; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 36 [from Witherington]; idem, Acts, on Acts 18:24, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]; Kwon, Corinthians, 142; Lane, Hebrews, l–li, citing further Orth, Logios, 46); Plut. Cic. 49.5 (Pogoloff, Logos, 181); so also Meeks, Urban Christians, 117. See esp. Winter, “Philo among Sophists,” 183–85 (cited by Lane). 5034. On rhetoric in Alexandria, see Pogoloff, Logos, 183–87 (for Philo, 181–83); in more detail, cf. Smith, Rhetoric in Alexandria; Winter, Philo and Paul, 19–112. 5035. Pogoloff, Logos, 187; for Egyptians as too controlled by their emotions, cf. Hdn. 1.17.6; see esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.68, discussed below. Typical Alexandrian rhetoric was “Asianist,” perhaps classing it as

2800

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 504

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Paul’s rhetoric rather than that of Apollos that catered to more sophisticated tastes.5036 Many Greeks despised “Egyptian” rhetoric, though Alexandrian Greeks sought to distance themselves from “Egypt” altogether (see comment below).5037 But the matter remains open to debate; certainly, even if Paul’s argumentation was sophisticated, his delivery was not (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 10:10; though the lowering of audience expectations was partly conventional).5038 Alexandria also hosted notable rhetorical schools (see discussion of Alexandria below). In either case, impressing the Ionians of Ephesus would probably be easier than impressing their cousins in Athens if later reports of the Ionians’ inferior form of rhetoric may be accepted for this period,5039 and perhaps either form of rhetoric would have impressed the average crowd in a medium-sized synagogue. “Powerful in Scriptures”5040 might mean that Apollos was a powerful orator or lecturer concerning Scripture. Rhetorical teachers spoke of rhetoric as δύναμις, or power, because it could persuade.5041 Thus Philip spoke with both memory skills and powerfully (δυνατῶς, Aeschines Embassy 48); Aristodemus swayed the multitudes because he was powerful in political speech (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.4.5); a good speaker could be “powerful in tongue” (Sir 21:7). Perhaps most important for understanding this passage, Luke speaks of Jesus and Moses as powerful in speech and deeds (Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22);5042 Moses, indeed, developed his powerful speech along with an Egyptian education (Acts 7:22).5043 Apollos did not, unlike Paul, work signs, but he was powerful as a speaker. A le x a n dr i a’s E du cation a nd Je wish Com munit y

Some of the Hellenist believers in 6:1–7 may have been Alexandrian immigrants, given the representation of Alexandrians among the believers’ debating partners (6:9) and the geographic proximity of this major city with a large Jewish population. That word of the Jesus movement would have reached Alexandria by now (probably before Paul’s missions to Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia) is likely, even though it is not Luke’s focus.5044 Alexandria, close to the mouth of the Nile, was the second city of the empire demagoguery with the elite (Pogoloff, Logos, 187). On “Asianist” rhetoric (a Koine rhetoric, or a caricature thereof, against which anachronizing, Atticist purists reacted), which appears in inscriptions, some rhetorical schools, Ignatius, and 4 Maccabees, see Koester, Introduction, 1:103; Calboli, “Asianism”; cf. idem, “Atticism,” 325; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 18; Rowe, “Style,” 156; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 68; some consider 2 Peter similar to this bombastic category (Reicke, Epistles, 146–47; Thurén, “Writings,” 600). Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283, thinks that “Asianism” was simply “a handy term of abuse” for Atticists (certainly, it is abusive in Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Ancient Orators). The Rhodian style was said to blend both styles (Quint. Inst. 12.10.18); even the Atticist style had various subcategories (Cic. Or. Brut. 9.28); and no less an orator than Pliny the Younger thought purist Atticism too bland (Ep. 9.26.2). 5036. Pogoloff, Logos, 189, 274. 5037. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43 (one left Alexandria for Egypt); Eunapius Lives 493. 5038. See, e.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.34–36; Cic. Pro P. Quinct. 1.2; 24.77; Sall. Jug. 85.31; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.9; 12.16; 32.39; 42.1; 46.7; 47.1, 8; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 391.14–15; also notes about opponents’ rhetorical advantages (see comment on Acts 24:13; 25:10; e.g., Cic. Pro P. Quinct. 1.1; 26.80–27.85). 5039. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.18.598. 5040. But God’s Torah also expresses his power (Urbach, Sages, 1:93–94). 5041. Winter, Philo and Paul, 154–55 (citing Arist. Rhet. 1.2.2.1; Quint. Inst. 2.15.2–4; Dio Chrys. Or. 33.3). 5042. Cf. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:161. These other Lukan references are the only canonical uses of “powerful in speech,” though the idiom is quite close to 4 Macc 16:14 (“more powerful in deeds and speech”). 5043. Greek and Jewish Alexandrians distinguished themselves carefully from Egyptians, but Luke’s audience might think of their common location. 5044. On the earliest churches in Egypt, see, e.g., Patzia, Emergence, 138–40; also Pearson, “Christians.” Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 259, suggest that Alexandria’s being evangelized later than Antioch and Rome explains the nt silence; this is possible, but it might not appear simply because it did not belong to the Pauline or Jerusalem circle that collected the bulk of our earliest documents.

2801

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 505

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

and the greatest city of the East.5045 Some have even ranked it almost with Rome (Hdn. 4.3.7, but claiming the same for Antioch).5046 But far more than other giant cities in the empire, Alexandria was well known for its learning opportunities for those with sufficient resources.5047 The famous library of Alexandria, though it was possibly no longer standing, had been huge (Strabo 2.1.5).5048 At least by the second century, Alexandria’s university was more prestigious than the ancient schools of Athens.5049 Alexandria’s scholarly prowess must have extended to considerable rhetorical training. A later orator, praising characteristics of various cities, noted that Alexandrians were known for “their grammar, geometry, and philosophy.”5050 In the first century c.e., Alexandria lacked sufficient rhetorical teachers for all the students who wished to study there, but many students found private tutors and learned at public declamations.5051 Sophists appear more dominant than philosophers in first-century Alexandria.5052 Life in Alexandria seems to have valued emotion and vigor rather than the cooler Roman temperament. One speaker (focusing on areas where he thought that Alexandrians needed improvement) complained that Alexandrians were fun-loving and not very serious (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.1), though others saw them as wise and clever (32.2); they wasted their theater on things not beautiful or honorable (32.4). Beautiful as the city was, it was shamefully overenthusiastic about music and horse racing (32.41–42);5053 like their Macedonian ancestors, its residents became too rowdy when hearing the lyre (32.65). Their speakers were no less boisterous, leading to rowdy lawcourts and to music’s accompanying everything, including public speaking (32.68).5054 Some of Dio’s moralism may have been excessive, but Alexandria may have been home to 5045. Pliny E. N.H. 5.11.62 praises it (and places it 12 mi. from the mouth of the Nile). We depend mostly on literary sources, since ruins and the movement of the coast have left little archaeological access (Pearson, “Alexandria”). For archaeological work, including recent underwater archaeology, see McKenzie, “Glimpsing Alexandria”; for its many monuments, now known through underwater archaeology, see Empereur, “Diving.” 5046. Pucci, “Circuses,” 212, also assigns each about five hundred thousand inhabitants; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 103, estimate about five hundred thousand for Alexandria, as does Rathbone, “Alexandria,” 62. Alexandria may have had up to three hundred thousand free persons, plus slaves (Diod. Sic. 17.52; Crawford, “Population”; Jansen-Winkeln, “Alexandria”). For one legendary story of its divinely guided founding, see Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.30–33; for Alexandria, see further Bell, “Egypt,” 294–98; Pouderon, “Alexandrie”; esp. Pollard and Reid, Rise and Fall; for Roman Egypt, see further Friedländer, Life, 1:355–62; Millar, Empire and Neighbours, 182–94; Sandy, “Hellenistic Egypt,” 476–77; Lewis, Life, passim; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt. 5047. On Alexandrian scholarship (particularly in philosophy and mathematics), see Clarke, “Alexandrian Scholarship.” Well-to-do metropolite parents (Greek-speaking citizens of the nome capitals) sent boys to Alexandria for advanced learning (Lewis, Life, 63); a significant percentage would have been Greeks (cf. the high estimates of Greeks in a nome in Hansen, “Update,” 277). It is the intellectual connection that has led some (including Luther) to identify Apollos as Hebrews’ author (see comment in Bruce, Peter, 79–83, who thinks that it could be any Alexandrian). 5048. On the library, and uncertainty about its fate, see further Clarke, “Alexandrian Library.” Possibly Domitian rebuilt it (Suet. Dom. 20; see Rolfe in LCL, 2:380 n. c). 5049. Argyle, “University.” 5050. Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.23–24. 5051. Winter, Philo and Paul, 19–39, on P.Oxy. 2190, esp. p. 20. On rhetoric in Alexandria, see further Winter’s discussion of Dio Chrys. Or. 32 (pp. 40–59) and Philo’s works (60–112). 5052. Winter, Philo and Paul, 98. 5053. For a perspective on their critic: he believed that the proper way to watch horse races was in silence (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.80). 5054. Cf. similarly Hdn. 4.8.7 (Herodian stereotypes other peoples as well; for positive stereotypes of groups, see 3.3.5; 3.7.2; 3.11.8). He also criticized their sexual immorality (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.91). The Roman elite also disdained populist rhetoric more generally as “passionate, aggressive and frenzied” (Hall, “Delivery,” 231, citing Cic. De or. 3.214; Brut. 223, 224, 225, 241; Clu. 77), although they played on emotion where necessary (Hall, “Delivery,” 231–32, citing Brut. 274–78, 284, 317).

2802

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 506

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

either hotter tempers or a more unstable mix of peoples than some other cities, given the many conflicts reported there,5055 especially the ethnic conflicts that eventually led to the eradication of local Jewry (see discussion below). Apollos’s city of origin could have provided him not only a Greek education, if his family had sufficient means, but probably also a passionate desire for respectability by Greek standards, including a commitment to defend his faith’s intellectual integrity (cf. Acts 18:28). Probably at most a fairly small minority of Jewish residents became Alexandrian citizens and learned in the Greek gymnasium (a privilege soon ended altogether; see discussion below), but Apollos could have studied with scholars such as Philo who did have such training. Alexandria’s Greek elite guarded their status jealously; the city was founded by Macedonians, and only descendants of Greeks were considered indigenes and allowed to be citizens. Strabo notes that Alexandrian citizens were of Greek descent but claims that “quick-tempered” Egyptians and mercenaries also lived there (Strabo 17.1.12).5056 Most strikingly, Alexandrians called their city “‘Alexandria near Egypt’ (Alexandria ad Aegyptum), not ‘Alexandria in Egypt,’ because the political fiction held that it was autonomous.”5057 This chauvinism reflected but amplified a situation that obtained throughout Roman Egypt. From at least the time of Augustus, Rome privileged the elite “Greek” landowners in Egypt over native “Egyptians.”5058 Although many Greeks settled in Egyptian villages as “military reservists” during the Hellenistic era, the Romans recognized only the Greeks in the cities, counting the others as Egyptians. The more Greek blood one had, the higher one’s status, even among the despised “Egyptians.”5059 Tacitus calls Egyptians “the most superstitious of peoples” (Hist. 4.81),5060 and negative views toward Egyptians are common in the sources.5061 Perhaps you suppose me to be like some manner of barbarian or an inhuman (ἀνάνθρωπον) Egyptian, one letter protests (P.Oxy. 1681.4–7, third century c.e.). Despite Greek Alexandrians’ ethnocentrism, however, they did adopt elements from the local culture, and cultural influences flowed in both directions.5062 A flourishing Hellenistic Jewish literary culture existed in Alexandria, without significant parallel elsewhere.5063 Jewish residents in Alexandria might be treated better than native Egyptians, but they were still despised by Greek citizens as non-Greek immigrants and hence not genuinely Alexandrian.5064 Alexandria had a significant 5055. E.g., Mittag, “Unruhen,” surveys sixteen examples of unrest from 203 to 48 b.c.e. 5056. Romans, he says, had reorganized the city properly (Strabo 17.1.13). Some Egyptians did become Alexandrian, and then Roman, citizens, but this was exceptional (Pliny Ep. 10.6.1–2; 10.7). 5057. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:61. 5058. See Bowman and Rathbone, “Administration in Egypt.” 5059. Lewis, Life, 31–32; cf. 9–17. For Roman contempt for Egyptians, see 185; cf. also verbal assaults in Dio Chrys. Or. 32.31 and elsewhere (196). 5060. Cf. similarly Tac. Hist. 1.11: Egypt’s “civil strife” stemmed from Egyptian “superstition” and ignorance of laws (LCL, 1:21). 5061. E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.41 (but with a higher view of Alexandrians); P.Giss. 40, col. 2.27–29 (215 c.e.); Hdn. 1.17.6; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 51.3 on the lax morals and luxury of Canopus, at the westernmost branch of the Nile. Alexandria was known for sarcasm and “unchecked impudence,” even against emperors (Friedländer, Life, 1:359). Regarding hostility against Egyptian religion, see comment on Acts 7:41. 5062. See, e.g., Venit, “Tomb”; cf. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.42. The Egyptian temple of Serapis there exercised wide influence throughout the Hellenistic world (see McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Serapeum”). 5063. See Rajak, “Jewish-Greek Literature,” 795. On Judaism in Alexandria in general, see CIJ 2:356–66 (epigraphic evidence); Lewis, Life, 25–31 (including all Egypt); Clarke, “Alexandria,” 24–25; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 165–67. A Jewish text praises Alexandria as a source of prosperity (Sib. Or. 11.220); for Jewish assimilation in Egypt, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 103–24. 5064. Papyri suggest that Egyptian Jews probably resembled their neighbors physically (Fikhman, “Appearance”).

2803

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 507

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Jewish population (Philo estimates a million for Egypt, Flacc. 43),5065 though their numbers, like those of Alexandria’s population in general, can only be guessed.5066 (As Barclay notes, Philo had reason to exaggerate the numbers, but they must have been significant given the issues there.)5067 More objective is the information that two of Alexandria’s five districts were Jewish;5068 this proportion was enough to make Alexandrian Jews feel a part of the city and enough to threaten Greek insistence that they were not. Evidence reveals many synagogues in Alexandria5069 as well as elsewhere in Egypt;5070 papyri attest Jewish inhabitants in Egypt from the fifth century b.c.e. till well into the Roman period.5071 Despite the strong Jewish presence, Greek ethnocentrism prevailed politically, affecting Alexandrian Jews’ legal status. Many scholars view the point of contention as politeuma rights for the local Jewish community, but citizenship for their leading citizens was undoubtedly an additional issue.5072 The ranks of Alexandrian citizenry were mostly closed to Jews; though some had been admitted in an earlier period, this practice ended at some point under Roman rule.5073 Philo argued that Jews were so much like Greeks that they should be granted full citizenship;5074 the religious practices were so distinct, however, as to render Philo’s claim utterly implausible to most Greeks. Greek Alexandrians mostly disliked Jewish Alexandrians (e.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.32), leading to many conflicts.5075 It is possible that relations were better in earlier times, but more positive earlier sources (such as Hecataeus) were reapplied negatively (e.g., in Apion) in more recent times.5076 Greek and Jewish conflicts exploded in Alexandria in 38 c.e.5077 Assuming that Apollos lived in Alexandria or had relatives there fifteen years before he came to 5065. Literally “a hundred ten-thousands,” but the figure literally translated “ten thousand” was often employed hyperbolically (e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.1, 67; Iambl. V.P. 28.135; see comment on Acts 21:20), presumably by Philo as well (cf. “thousands” in Abr. 1). Philo has political reason to inflate the numbers or estimate on the high side (in Flacc. 43 he divides Alexandria into two parts: Jews and non-Jews). 5066. Delia, “Population of Alexandria,” suggests five to six hundred thousand residents, of whom perhaps 30 percent were Jewish. Their numbers grew under Ptolemy Soter; some estimate a million in all Egypt (Caird, Apostolic Age, 21; Jeffers, World, 213), though this may be questionable in view of Alexandria’s total population and the probable concentration of Jews there. Some think that more Jews lived in Egypt than in Palestine (Sandmel, Judaism, 257). The Zenon Papyri attest much trade between Egypt and Palestine as early as the third century b.c.e. (Cook, “Zenon Papyri,” 1301). 5067. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 41. 5068. Philo Flacc. 55; Caird, Apostolic Age, 21. 5069. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:8 (citing SB 589, second century b.c.e.; Philo Embassy 132; t. Sukkah 4:6; b. Sukkah 51b; y. Sukkah 5.55a; near Alexandria, OGIS 726, third century b.c.e.); see comment on Acts 6:9. 5070. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:8, noting evidence in Upper but especially Lower Egypt (SB 5862, 6832, 7454, 8939; OGIS 96, 101, 129, 134, 138, 432). 5071. Deissmann, Light, 45 (the earlier texts are especially the Elephantine Papyri). 5072. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 63–71. 5073. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:61. This was a major problem in the early Roman period (CPJ 2:25–107, §§150–59b, sect. 8, “‘The Jewish Question’ in Alexandria”). But Honigman, “Philon,” argues that a few Jews, like Philo, were granted citizenship without apostasy, and Barclay notes (Jews in Diaspora, 66–70, specific texts in 67–69) persuasive evidence for a minority of Jews who were Alexandrian citizens (CPJ 144, from 13 b.c.e.; Philo Migr. 91; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.38–72). Claudius’s edict (P.Lond. 1912) protected their rights to religious practice but apparently banned them from citizenship (see comment below). 5074. Tcherikover and Fuks in CPJ 1:63. Alexandrian Judaism was, however, intensely hellenized (1:25–47); the alternative was being classed with Egyptian fellahin or forging a status more analogous to the favored Greeks (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:39). 5075. For the conflicts, see Bell, “Egypt,” 308–12. 5076. E.g., Feldman, “Pro-Jewish Intimations.” 5077. Ben Zeev, “New Perspectives” (also rightly highlighting the socioeconomic differences within the Jewish community). This conflict may, however, have had other causes; citing Philo, Kerkeslager, “Absence,” argues that Roman imperialism, rather than Jewish-Hellenist conflict, led to this violence. Josephus claims

2804

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 508

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Ephesus, which is highly probable, he must have been deeply influenced by the conflict.5078 In 41 c.e., early in his reign, Claudius tried to establish peace between the Jewish and the Greek communities in Alexandria (P.Lond. 1912 = CPJ 2:36–55, §153).5079 In view of a veritable war between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria, Claudius threatened severity on either side if the conflict flared again (P.Lond. 1912.73–104, esp. 73–82). Alexandrians were to respect Jewish customs and not dishonor them, for both Augustus and Claudius had accepted their rights (1912.82–88). On the other side, Jews were to stop agitating for citizenship, were never again to send an embassy separate from that of the rest of the city, and were never to force their way into citizen-only games (1912.88–98). Predictably, each side proved dissatisfied with Claudius’s compromise, viewing it as favoring the other side.5080 As is customary in interethnic conflicts, each side reported the other’s atrocities, creating a spiral of increasing fear and retribution.5081 Like everyone else, one papyrus of 41 c.e. warned, you should watch out for the Jews (BGU 1079.23–26). Apollos had been raised in a more optimistic Alexandrian Jewish community, in which members of the elite were integrating into the city; he could not but know, however, the disgrace that had come to his community more recently. It was just as well for him that he was abroad; matters would gradually grow worse. The Judean-Roman war led to persecution against Alexandrian Jews ( Jos. War 2.487– 98). But the early second-century conflicts, about two generations after Apollos’s visit to Corinth, would culminate the story of Alexandrian anti-Judaism. Alexandrian Greeks attacked Jews in 113 and 115 c.e.; on both occasions, Jews retaliated, and Romans responded harshly to the Greeks.5082 In 115–17, Alexandrian Jews revolted, but the ensuing bloodbath virtually annihilated Egyptian Jewry or expelled them, eliminating their further resistance as a community.5083 The Egyptian priests were particularly anti-Jewish and stirred their people to slaughter Jews in the countryside;5084 Jews were their rival minority (in terms of political power) competing for attention in Roman Egypt. As always with ethnic conflicts, everyone suffered; a petitioner complains about the Jewish uprising of 116 and its consequences for his property holdings (P.Giss. 41, ca. 120 c.e.). Some earlier centers of Jewish life now had no or just a single Jewish family; significant Jewish communities did not appear again in Egypt until the third century.5085 that Alexandrian Jews agitated because of Caligula (Ant. 19.278). For the mocking of Agrippa, see Philo Flacc. 36–39 (he visited Alexandria, Flacc. 103). 5078. Some have even suggested that the conflict may have hastened his departure (Pogoloff, Logos, 187, as a possibility), but since it was more than ten years before this narrative, we lack reason to suppose this to be the case. 5079. It was, as CPJ 2:37 notes, copied down by a careless scribe. 5080. Jos. Ant. 19.280–86 reads it favorably on behalf of the Jewish residents, but while he preserves Claudius’s gist, he omits what is not beneficial to his case. Alexandrian Jews like Philo, who had integrated into the city, could no longer raise their Jewish descendants as Alexandrian citizens, and could have viewed the outcome only as disastrous (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 58–60). 5081. Cf. Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs, in which advocates of Alexandrian Greek rights were martyred by the emperors (CPJ 2:55–107, §§154–59). 5082. Ben Zeev, “Greek Attacks.” 5083. See evidence in CPJ 2:225–60, §§435–50; Lewis, Life, 25–31; Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 78–81. Jews’ destruction of the famous Serapeum and other sacred precincts confirmed long-standing Greek prejudices that they were sacrilegious (Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 79, noting also CPJ 437, in which a mother entreats Hermes to protect her son from being roasted by Jews). 5084. Frankfurter, “Egyptian Response to Revolt.” 5085. Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 81, noting esp. Euseb. H.E. 4.2; CPJ 375–403, 460.

2805

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 509

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(3) Apollos’s Incomplete Knowledge (18:25)

How did Apollos know the story of Jesus yet not know about Christian baptism? One could argue that Luke means that Apollos predicted the Messiah accurately from the Scriptures and John’s predictions without knowing the Jesus tradition. But this surmise is unlikely: we should then expect Luke to claim that Apollos taught accurately about “the Christ,” not about “Jesus” (cf. Acts 18:28); further, that he already taught “accurately” and his new teachers merely taught him “more accurately” (18:26) argues against this interpretation. Some scholars might argue that Christian baptism originated significantly later than the Jesus tradition, but for what it is worth, this suggestion contradicts all our explicit extant sources (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; John 4:1–2; cf. Mark 16:16). One could argue, without trying to date when John’s baptism gave way to distinctive baptism in Jesus’s name, that Apollos knew much about Jesus but simply remained uninformed about Christian baptism.5086 Yet explaining “the way of God more accurately” seems to point to something more than merely discussing baptism. If “the Way” includes the Jesus movement (e.g., Acts 19:9; see comment on Acts 9:2) and/or a system of Christian instruction, Apollos apparently knew the basic story of Jesus but not much about the church and its ministry. Unlike what is usually argued for John’s disciples in 19:4, Apollos already believed in Jesus. He seems to have been a follower of the message about Jesus yet not part of, and probably not familiar with, the Jesus movement—that is, the church (cf. Luke 9:49–50). Knowing only John’s baptism may also mean that he was unaware that the greater Spirit baptism that John announced was now available (cf. John 7:39). (Undoubtedly, Luke assumed him to be aware that John had announced this baptism [see Luke 3:16; cf. also Jesus’s teaching in Acts 1:5; the imperfect, suggesting Jesus’s regular speech, in 11:16].) Perhaps in contrast to the disciples in Acts 19:2–4, however, who still needed to be baptized in the Spirit (19:6), Apollos may have had the Spirit (18:25, if this is the meaning) without the clear articulation of it.5087 These pieces of information together may suggest that Apollos had heard about Jesus incompletely from some source or sources yet had little contact with those whose knowledge of the Jesus tradition and Jesus movement were more complete. Some scholars suggest an oral Galilean source,5088 but while alternative suggestions might be equally speculative, an Alexandrian would be less apt to cross paths with an Aramaic-speaking Galilean peasant or artisan than with more mobile urban folk. Far more likely is that some Cyrenian Jewish Christians went not only north, where Luke has occasion to mention them (11:19–20), but also toward Cyrene, passing through Alexandria en route.5089 If they stayed only briefly or if Apollos learned of their message secondhand, his knowledge would necessarily be incomplete. An educated guess such as this is not necessarily strongly probable, but it seems more probable than specific alternative suggestions. Probably much of the word about 5086. Cf. Hull, Spirit in Acts, 181–82. 5087. Alternatively, he lacked opportunity to be baptized in the Spirit because Paul was not present (which would favor the view that Luke subordinates Apollos here); but imparting the Spirit was not limited to apostles (Acts 9:17), and no such deficiency is here explicit. 5088. Bruce, Acts1, 351; Hull, Spirit in Acts, 184. This suggestion might increase in plausibility if those who postulate a Galilean origin for Q are correct (note the careful work of Reed, Archaeology, 170–96), but certainty remains elusive. They seem correct to emphasize its Galilean perspective, but this could be simply Galilean tradition passed on by the apostles in Jerusalem (cf. Dunn, Perspective, 27). 5089. Cf. Bruce, Peter, 71. In contrast to the split among Roman Jews (see comment on Acts 18:2), the internal divisions in Alexandrian Judaism of 41 c.e. involved militant extremists rather than Christians (Bruce, Peter, 72–74).

2806

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 510

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Jesus, expanding rapidly by word of mouth, was less standardized on details in the early period.5090 Some think that this passage emphasizes Apollos’s deficiency lest readers credit Apollos, rather than Paul, who briefly preceded him, with founding the Ephesian church.5091 Yet the rivalry among their followers that is attested in 1 Corinthians was probably less significant by Luke’s day,5092 and Apollos appears less deficient than others whom Paul later meets in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7).5093 Further, Paul’s letters are clear both that the two preachers functioned as colleagues (1 Cor 16:12) despite the rivalry among their followers (1:12; 3:4; 4:6) and that Apollos is not the Corinthians’ “father” (4:15) despite his usefulness in Achaia; that is, Paul had already founded the church (Acts 18:1–11). The contrast is apparently one of incomplete knowledge versus quite inadequate knowledge and experience; Apollos needed the message “more accurately” (18:26) but already knew “accurately” what he knew (18:25). Those who relate Apollos’s deficiency to the perceived unorthodox character of Alexandrian Christianity build from a far shakier foundation; for example, one scholar contends that of fourteen Christian texts from there apparently predating 200 c.e., only one appears to be “Gnostic.”5094 That Luke’s primary protagonist is Paul and that Luke compares him favorably to others is true, but more detailed speculations about Apollos’s rival role in the Ephesian church exceed available evidence. Scholars usually argue that Apollos was not rebaptized, because he already had “the Spirit.”5095 The primary basis for this claim is the use of “boiling in spirit” in 18:25.5096 The phrase at first glance seems more naturally understood as simply idiomatic for human enthusiasm,5097 but early Christian usage probably supports instead stirring by God’s Spirit.5098 The phrase must have carried more of a standard sense for its first 5090. I am referring not to gospel traditions passed on by the apostolic guarantors but to many voices peripheral to their movement. Moreover, Apollos’s information here seems correct, but it is incomplete. 5091. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 128. For the suspected rivalry behind the text here, see also Crowe, Acts, 142–43. For the issue of baptism both in this section and in 1 Cor 1–4, see Witherington, Corinthians, 84. 5092. This text suggests the unity of Apollos with Paul’s associates, as in 1 Cor 16:12. But the point could bear repeating if the more competitive model of many Corinthian believers themselves continued (1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6). Whether with Paul and Apollos or not, such rivalry among “schools” apparently characterized Corinthian (and sometimes other Greco-Roman) society (esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; on divisions more generally, see comment on Acts 15:25). 5093. Unless we are to read their deficiency back into Apollos (Wolter, “Apollos und Johannesjünger”). But then we would expect Priscilla and Aquila to baptize him and would expect Luke to make explicit mention of this baptism. Shauf, Theology, 143, argues rightly that the passage ultimately focuses more on Apollos’s contribution to the ministry (18:27–28; cf. 18:24) than on his deficiency (briefly in 18:25, with the correction in 18:26). 5094. Bruce, Peter, 74–76. Gnosticism developed among the elite in Alexandria and elsewhere, reading Christian texts in light of Platonism, but it did not develop instantly. We lack clear evidence for full-blown first-century Gnosticism either from that movement’s (if it may be called a movement at all) supporters or from its detractors (see, e.g., Yamauchi, Gnosticism). 5095. Cf. earlier Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 (arguing that his zeal attracted the Spirit without baptism, like Cornelius’s; but then we must note that Cornelius was afterward baptized). The suggestion that baptism was simply not as necessary as in later times (Witherington, Acts, 567) may fit Paul (1 Cor 1:14–17) but does not well fit Luke (Acts 2:38; 19:5). 5096. See Marshall, Acts, 303–4; Barrett, Acts, 885; Dunn, Acts, 250. 5097. Bruce, Commentary, 382n56; idem, Acts1, 351; Bock, Acts, 592; Shauf, Theology, 139; Byrne, Romans, 379 (though he sees God’s Spirit in Rom 12:11); Fitzmyer, Romans, 654 (the human spirit in both places). Johnson, Acts, 332, argues that it is not clear and that Luke avoids calling Apollos “full of the Spirit” (a phrase perhaps inappropriate for one not yet more fully instructed). For Zeus’s “boiling” hot character, see Heracl. Hom. Prob. 23.6. 5098. For God’s Spirit here, see, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 182; Arrington, Acts, 188; Tannehill, Acts, 232–33; Dunn, Acts, 250; Trebilco, Ephesus, 118; Peterson, Acts, 525; Green, “Acts,” 758; Nunnally, Acts, 324; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 18:25, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington); cf. Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 12:11. Despite his

2807

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 511

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

audience than today; that ζέω appears in only one other nt text and there is again conjoined with “the Spirit” (Rom 12:11) suggests that it belonged to early Christian idiom. This connection does not, however, settle what either text means: does the idiom refer to a person’s own “fervent spirit” or that of the Lord? In Romans, an idiomatic use for a human disposition is entirely possible (cf. 11:8),5099 but “the Spirit” in that letter usually refers to God’s Spirit (e.g., 2:29; 7:6; 8:16, 23, 26–27), sometimes linked with dispositions or other abstract nouns (8:2, 15).5100 In Acts 18:25, Luke’s context supports a reference to the Spirit of God. The context speaks of God’s Spirit (19:2, 6), and this may be the sense of some other obscure references to “the Spirit” nearby. Paul is “bound by the Spirit” (20:22) because the Holy Spirit testifies that he will be bound (20:23; cf. 21:11). “Purposed in the Spirit” (19:21) would also explain why Paul resists others who seem certain that they have heard from the Spirit and why they ultimately give in (21:4, 11, 13–14). Moreover, Luke focuses on the Holy Spirit in his two-volume work, not the human spirit (though occasionally he can speak of the latter; e.g., Luke 1:41; Acts 17:16).5101 Finally, the concern for those lacking the Spirit (Acts 8:15–16; 19:2) does not surface in Apollos’s case.5102 Thus, as noted, many scholars conclude that Apollos, unlike the disciples Paul met in Ephesus, was not rebaptized, because he already had the Spirit. (4) Paul’s Colleagues Instruct Apollos (18:26)

Luke often notes that a person “began” to speak (e.g., Luke 3:8; 4:21; 5:21; 7:15, 24, 49; 11:29, 53; 12:1; 13:26; 14:18; 19:37; 20:9; 22:23; 23:2, 30; Acts 2:4; 11:4, 15; 18:26); although such a phrase sometimes can be idiomatic,5103 it serves Luke’s point well here: Apollos began to speak well, but Priscilla and Aquila took him aside so that he could understand and speak better. On “bold” speech, compare, for example, Acts 19:8; see comment on Acts 4:13. Paul’s letters confirm that Priscilla and Aquila settled in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) and were still there leading a house church (16:19) at the height of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (16:8–9; Acts 19), probably sometime in the year before Acts 20:3. The term προσλαμβάνω can indicate that they “took Apollos aside” (with BDAG), but the term also applies to welcoming someone into one’s circle or home (for the sense between the two, cf. Acts 28:2). Given Apollos’s apparently substantive transformation and ancient hospitality conventions (on which see the excursus at Acts 16:15), the couple probably did not simply take him aside for a few moments in public but welcomed him into their home for food and discussion. Ancients recognized that lack of Christian baptism (a theological problem for them), most early Christian commentators believed that the text refers to the Holy Spirit ( John Chrysostom in Cat. Act. 18.26–27; Ammonius in 18.25; Didymus the Blind in 18.28 [all in Martin, Acts, 230–31]). Compare the language in 1QS IV, 4–5 (Le Cornu, Acts, 1032); in context, this passage probably refers to God’s Spirit (cf. 1QS II, 3; III, 19–IV, 2; IV, 21). On the Spirit in the scrolls, see, e.g., Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 52–57; Brown, Essays, 147–49; Johnston, “Spirit”; Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts”; cf. (more on the human spirit) Pryke, “Spirit.” 5099. In the culture, cf. Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 39, 54; Isaacs, Spirit, 71; perhaps 2 Tim 1:7; Test. Jud. 16:1; Test. Dan 1:6. 5100. E.g., Keener, Romans, 148. Fee, Presence, 610–13, offers evidence for both views regarding Rom 12:11 but ultimately concludes tentatively in favor of the human spirit—in large measure because he thinks that 18:25 can mean only this. He considers Käsemann’s view, that 18:25 refers to the divine Spirit, “certainly incorrect” (612n422), though he nowhere else treats 18:25 in this volume. If we discount Fee’s certainty on 18:25 (and on this point we should), the bulk of his evidence points in the other direction. 5101. With Barrett, Acts, 888. Tannehill, Acts, 233, adds the emphasis on Apollos’s speech (Acts 18:24–26) to the probability that Luke intends the Holy Spirit. 5102. With Tannehill, Acts, 233; cf. also Bruce, Acts3, 407. 5103. In Acts 11:15, Peter hardly means the very beginning of his speech, although he, admittedly, had not gone far past the narratio.

2808

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 512

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

those already schooled in one view are often least teachable for another,5104 but apparently Apollos recognized that he had limited information about Jesus and was eager to receive more from trustworthy Christians. “Precise” knowledge was considered important,5105 including for Luke (Luke 1:3). That Priscilla and Aquila teach Apollos “more accurately” probably represents “an elative comparative,” not implying that they corrected his misinformation (he already taught “accurately” in Acts 18:25) but that they increased his base of knowledge.5106 Apollos is eager to learn from those who have fuller knowledge of the Way, presumably through their Pauline connection. Name sequence can be important, especially when it diverges from the anticipated ancient norm of naming the husband first (see fuller discussion at Acts 18:3). Luke normally mentions first the dominant member of a pair;5107 the mention of Priscilla’s name first suggests “her primary role as Apollos’ tutor.”5108 Some scholars suggest that they did this at home, which is possible, but all that is clear from what Luke says is that they did not confront him publicly in the synagogue.5109 Private reproof was always considered more honorable than public confrontation, especially among Jewish people.5110 Some complain that Luke plays her down—for instance, because he does not use “ministry” to describe her work as he does Paul’s work—but this argument is fallacious. Luke sometimes employs διακονία, “ministry,” for preaching ministry (Acts 20:24; 21:19), for Judas’s apostolate (1:17, 25), and most often for service to the poor (6:1, 4; 11:29; 12:25); he also uses it once for a matron feeding guests (Luke 10:40; cf. the cognate verb in 4:39; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:27; Acts 6:2). This is not Luke’s favorite term for church leadership, and the description of her activity counts for more than the particular terms employed. Priscilla’s teaching role here5111 is noteworthy from a social-historical standpoint as well as because of modern interests. That an ancient reader might find something unusual here is suggested by the Western text, which displays a fairly consistent “antifeminist” tendency; in this context, it omits Priscilla in Acts 18:3, 18, 21 and places Aquila’s name before hers in this verse, ensuring that its readers will assume his leadership.5112 5104. So the complaint of Mus. Ruf. 6, pp. 52.29–54.2, as well as the lament of many seminary and university professors today! 5105. E.g., Men. Rhet. 1.3, 363.7; for the Pharisees, Jos. War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191; Acts 22:3; 26:5; see esp. Luke 1:3. 5106. Witherington, Acts, 567n20. 5107. Talbert, Acts, 166 (citing Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 7, 13, 50; see also 1:13; 2:37; 3:1, 3, 11; 4:13, 19; 5:29; 7:14; 8:14; 14:12; Luke 9:26; 18:20; 22:8; probably 8:19–21, 51; 14:26; perhaps 2:16, but cf. 2:38, 48), applying this principle to Priscilla as “the dominant religious authority” of the two. Cf. also Parsons, Acts, 260. 5108. Spencer, Acts, 184. Nevertheless, Spencer complains (184), Luke omits the content of her speech. But this omission is also true for many summaries in Acts if they add nothing to what has already been said (e.g., Acts 17:11; 18:4; 19:8–9; or briefly, 9:20; 17:2–3); moreover, Luke’s focus in the second half of Acts is on Paul (see comment on Acts 18:18). Summaries are all that the male Apollos gets in this context also (18:25–28). 5109. Gaventa, Acts, 265. 5110. See, e.g., especially in Judaism: Jos. Ant. 3.67 (added to Exod 18:14); m. ʾAb. 3:11; b. Sanh. 101a; 107a; Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Beer, “Lykwdm”; cf. Plut. Old Men 23, Mor. 795BC; for gentleness, cf. 1QS V, 25; Gal 6:1; Philod. Crit. frg. 38. 5111. Often observed (e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 227). On Paul’s women coworkers, see, e.g., McGinn, “Co-workers.” Women probably typically taught women (Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 13; cf. Titus 2:4); the practice here differs, though the usual conventional ideal partly separating public and private spheres is not breached. Some also find favorable implications for women in ministry and Christian leadership in Acts 18:26 (e.g., Barnes, “Finishing,” 244). 5112. Heine, Women, 43–44; Witherington, “Anti-feminist Tendencies”; idem, Acts, 506, 567n22; Ehrman, Introduction, 484; idem, Misquoting, 186. Heine, Women, 44, also notes Tert. Fug. 12, which omits Priscilla when praising Aquila’s service to Paul.

2809

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 513

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Others noted her teaching role here more favorably.5113 (Priscilla is not originally from Ephesus, and probably nothing specific to Ephesus informs the background here.)5114 We know that Luke favors women prophesying (Acts 2:17–18; 21:9; Luke 2:36– 38), but ancient society was far more often favorable to women prophesying (since inspiration was considered something that could not be restrained) than to their teaching.5115 Paul’s letters recognize women praying and prophesying publicly under inspiration, even as his letters accommodate social expectations more in other areas, such as asking questions (which men typically asked in lecture settings).5116 Yet the language for teaching here is the same as used elsewhere in Acts for ministry, and the preceding context of the synagogue also suggests that we should take the term seriously.5117 That Priscilla is engaged in teaching here suggests that she was well educated,5118 at least in the matters under discussion, including the Scriptures. Women as disciples of teachers were rare or unheard of in most philosophic and rhetorical schools of antiquity; in the philosophic schools where we find them (such as Epicureans and Pythagoreans), they remained a minority.5119 As teachers they were far rarer than this still.5120 Although unusual and noteworthy, Priscilla’s teaching here is not so radical as to offend the conservative sensitivities of all adherents of Ionian culture or traditional Judean culture. ( Jewish communities varied in their openness to women’s roles in various cities of the empire, but with Ephesus being heavily influenced by its Ionian origins, the Jewish community there might be fairly conservative.)5121 Priscilla teaches privately, even if she takes the lead, and the public/private dichotomy was the primary cultural objection to women teaching publicly.5122 See fuller discussion in the commentary introduction.5123 Even in public, exceptions could be respected in the case of exceptional women, provided the conventional societal order was normally maintained.5124 Paul’s letters 5113. Many commented on it, e.g., (in Bray, Romans, 370–71) Pelagius Comm. Rom. on Rom 16:3; Chrys. Hom. Rom. 30 (on 16:3); Theodoret Interp. Rom. on 16:5 (IER, PG 82:220). Pelagius Comm. Rom. on 16:1 (de Bruyn, 150–51; Bray, Romans, 369) employs her as a model for deaconesses in the East; Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:6; Bray, Romans, 372) allowed women to teach, though not from the pulpit. 5114. Ephesus may have claimed foundation by Amazons (e.g., Strabo 11.5.4; Plut. Gk. Q. 56, Mor. 303DE), but it was culturally like most Greek cities in this period (the old Ionian influence from gender-hierarchical Athens would be far more relevant than older myths about the Amazons). Current practice (with, e.g., a small number of women priestesses in Asia; see, e.g., Gardner, Women, 67–68; esp. Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis,” noting that the title did not come by marriage) was probably somewhere between. 5115. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:634–37, 883–84; idem, “Education”; Sigountos and Shank, “Public Roles”; Paige, “Matrix,” 231–33. 5116. On this situation in 1 Cor 14:34–35, see, e.g., Keener, “Learning”; idem, Corinthians, 118–19; idem, Paul, 70–100; on the same passage, see also quite helpfully Jervis, “Reconsideration”; Paige, “Matrix.” On the issue of gender in general, see again Keener, Acts, 1:597–638. 5117. Reimer, Women, 210–11. 5118. Arlandson, Women, 145–46, hence suggesting a background with some money and prestige. 5119. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 36.267; Meeks, Urban Christians, 23. See discussion at Acts 17:34 and in Keener, Acts, 1:630–32, 635; idem, “Education,” 752–54, 758. 5120. See Winter, Wives, 115–16; Keener, Acts, 1:634–37; idem, “Education.” 5121. The exception would be if we admit significant feminist influence from the Artemis cult, as some have argued (for all their commendable erudition and information; e.g., Kroeger and Kroeger, Woman, 50–54). But devotion to Athena produced no egalitarian impetus in classical Athens, and there is little reason to look for it in Ephesus either (most scholars do not find it there; cf., e.g., Baugh, “World,” passim, e.g., 32 [though, in light of his own data, 45–47, his skepticism about women’s weaker education, 45, seems curious]). 5122. For the dichotomy, see, e.g., Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 104, §107; Pliny Ep. 4.19.4; 1 Tim 5:14; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 57–58. On the frequent public/private gender divide, see Keener, Acts, 1:604–5, 634–35; idem, “Head Coverings,” 443. 5123. See Keener, Acts, 1:597–638, esp. 634–37. 5124. Cf. discussion in Winter, Left Corinth, 135.

2810

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 514

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

praise women spreading the gospel (Rom 16:1–7; Phil 4:2–3) even as his letters also follow social conventions of the day in restricting some speech (1 Cor 14:34–35).5125 Even though his setting is private, Apollos’s willingness to learn from her5126 alongside her husband might imply that, for him, Priscilla was such an exceptional woman. She was noteworthy enough to merit the later praise of John Chrysostom for both her artisan work and her preaching.5127 (5) Apollos’s Corinthian Ministry (18:27–28)

Given Apollos’s eloquence as a speaker, which would make him welcome in many circles, he could prove a great asset to the church in Corinth, which already had to face some local conflict with the competing synagogue and the departure of the founding apostle on whom they had likely depended for apologetic answers. Receiving instruction was an important ability, but one who could then hand it on accurately while improving its rhetorical expression would be considered especially gifted (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621). To urge someone on in a task (προτρέπω) was characteristic of the sort of discourse that came to be characterized as protreptic (προτρεπτικός, Isoc. Demon. 3–4).5128 Priscilla, Aquila, and the other believers (“the siblings”) provided letters of recommendation, as most commentators note here.5129 Paul writes letters of recommendation to churches or individuals (Rom 16:1–2; 2 Cor 8:16–24; Philemon; 3 John 5–8, 12) and later protests that he should not need them in Corinth (2 Cor 3:1–3). Although he contrasts himself with those who need letters of recommendation in Corinth (3:1), it is unlikely that he is still contrasting himself with Apollos; others who came after Apollos would also have carried letters of recommendation (on the pervasiveness of such letters, see comment on Acts 9:2).5130 Whereas the synagogue in Ephesus remained open to reports and discussion about Jesus (Acts 18:19; unlike later, 19:9), those who remained in the Corinthian synagogue were far less open at this point (18:6) and were probably even hostile to the most effective Christian preachers (18:12–13). Apollos’s skill in Scripture (18:24) would make him quite effective in Corinth. That Apollos refuted members of the synagogue publicly (18:28) perhaps means in discussion at their synagogue (especially given that, presumably, a house church remained next door), since synagogue settings may have included more dialogue about Scripture rather than (as in a later period) a single rabbi exercising a pastoral role and offering sermons.5131 This would explain Apollos’s use of Scripture. Like Paul and other speakers, he might speak at dinner 5125. As noted above, this probably refers to asking questions (Keener, Paul, 70–100; idem, “Learning”; idem, “Perspective,” 228–30); but cf. also the later 1 Tim 2:11–12, which, for the conservative situation in Ephesus, restricts even teaching (for the particular situation there, cf. 1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6–7). 5126. The private setting may have helped, reducing shame (Arlandson, Women, 146). Ammonius in Cat. Act. 18.25 (Martin, Acts, 231) praises Apollos’s zeal for salvation, that despite his own learning in the Scriptures, he was ready to learn from a woman. 5127. Reimer, Women, 209 (citing Chrys. Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam [Hom. Rom. 16:3] 2.1). Commentators often agree here (e.g., Horton, Acts, 314). 5128. Johnson, Acts, 332 (citing, for the use of the term, also Plato Laws 4.711B). 5129. E.g., Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 119; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 170; Johnson, Acts, 332; Witherington, Acts, 568; Parsons, Acts, 263. 5130. Probably they were Judeans (cf. 2 Cor 11:22, though it need not be interpreted so strictly); it is also unlikely that Apollos, especially if he used allegorical hermeneutics (but even if he did not), would be accused of teaching “according to the letter” (3:6–7). 5131. In a later period, some rabbis warned (b. Sanh. 38b) that only the most skilled should debate with minim (possibly Jewish Christians); Jewish Christians’ opinions were deemed dangerous (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 16b–17a; Ber. 12b; Eccl. Rab. 1:8, §§3–4; independently confirmed in Justin Dial. 35). Some reported that the rabbinic movement was mostly more skilled in Tannaitic tradition than in Scripture itself (b. ʿAbod. Zar. 4a, possibly contrasting this with Christians).

2811

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 515

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

parties hosted by the elite;5132 some of these might be among undecided elements in the Jewish community or simply among Gentiles who knew that the local synagogue was unhappy with the Christian sect that had separated from them. But even though δημόσιος might be contrasted simply with “privately” as in a house setting (20:20), Luke can use it for much more public settings (5:18; 16:37), so Apollos might have spoken in some even more public venues.5133 From Luke’s perspective, Apollos simply developed further Paul’s ministry in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 3:6). Apollos refuted Paul’s Jewish opponents (Acts 18:13). He also carried further the sorts of argument that Paul used first (18:4–5) and that Apollos learned from Paul’s colleagues (18:26), who may have been trained by Paul; his ministry of refutation also echoes Paul’s (9:22, though not with close verbal similarities). Yet Apollos does not seem as involved with signs and wonders (despite probably having the Spirit in 18:24; thus he is only “powerful in speech” in 18:24, in contrast to “powerful in speech and deed,” as in Luke 24:19; cf. Luke 4:36; Acts 7:22). If John was Jesus’s forerunner, Apollos was in some respects Paul’s successor or follower, but Luke retains focus on his primary protagonist.5134 Defending the Christian message with the Scriptures was a crucial mission (Luke 24:44–45; Acts 7:52), one in which Luke himself engages by demonstrating that the story of Jesus’s movement belonged to Israel’s history.5135 Because Apollos was from Alexandria and presumably studied there, some scholars suspect that he was skilled in allegorical exegesis, like Alexandrian Greeks and Philo.5136 This is possible; though we do not know whether Apollos’s advanced training was in exegesis or in rhetoric, he probably experienced at least some influence from dominant exegetical methods in his originating synagogue community, and Philo shows that allegorical exegesis was one of the significant options there (cf. also Let. Aris. 128–71). (Much of the later Christian exegesis in Alexandria continued that tradition.) Paul’s writings reveal that Apollos did in fact come to Corinth after him, furthering his work (1 Cor 3:6), though Paul was the church’s founder (4:15). Apollos’s Alexandrian background would not have counted against him in Corinth, which was increasingly open even to Egyptian cults (see introduction, above, to Acts 18; comment on Acts 18:18); Alexandria, by contrast, was a highly respected “Greek” city (see comment on Acts 18:24). Corinth was cosmopolitan and even had administrators at various times who also served at different times in Alexandria or Egypt.5137 People probably moved between Ephesus and Corinth, across the Aegean, even more freely.5138 5132. Pogoloff, Logos, 264–71. On lectures at banquets, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 22; Slater, “Introduction,” 2–3. 5133. Cf. the usual, very public use of the term (even for public records, treasuries, roads, etc.) in 2 Macc 6:10; 3 Macc 2:27; 4:7; Jos. Ant. 4.78, 238; 8.55; 13.214, 261, 265–66; 14.113, 187–88, 191, 219, 243, 253, 255, 319–20; 16.146–47, 164; 17.232; 19.223, 326; 20.113; War 2.228, 455, 564; 4.140; 5.344, 518, 568; 7.61; Life 6, 199; Ag. Ap. 1.9, 11, 20–21, 107; Shep. 22.2. For the contrast with “private,” see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.55, 233, 251. Still, use of the Scriptures here makes it difficult to imagine that Luke means something like a court setting; at most, some debates may have occurred in the marketplace, where amateur speakers might try to gather crowds with their rhetoric or wisdom (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.10, criticizing those who declaimed only in halls instead of in public). 5134. The Corinthian believers and Paul himself may have accorded Apollos a more significant role; see Wilson, “Apostle Apollos.” 5135. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:441–57. 5136. C. Williams, Acts, 216; cf. Bruce, Commentary, 382. 5137. Kent, Inscriptions, nos. 136 (p. 64), 138 (pp. 64–65). 5138. See, e.g., the person from Ephesus who bought a burial place in Corinth (Kent, Inscriptions, no. 303 [pp. 118–19], though this is probably late third to early fourth century c.e.); apparently a triumphant athlete or artist lists Ephesus among the locations of victory (Kent, Inscriptions, no. 370 [p. 143]; late second to early third century c.e.).

2812

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 516

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

iii. Paul Helps Twelve of John’s Disciples (19:1–7)

Paul here helps some deficient disciples receive the Spirit. For Luke, the Spirit is absolutely necessary to carry out God’s mission (Acts 1:4). The relationship between 19:1–7 and the unit that immediately precedes it appears vital for interpretation, but its nature is difficult and much debated. The identity of the disciples is also in question; I take them to be probably John’s disciples, but others have offered a reasonable case for them as Jesus’s disciples. This debate further compounds the passage’s difficulties. (1) John’s Disciples and Apollos

As noted above (at Acts 18:25–26, with fuller discussion), the paragraphs about Apollos and the twelve Ephesian disciples are connected. In 19:1–7, Paul instructs some others who know only John’s baptism, as Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos, who also had only John’s baptism (18:24–28); these disciples have only the outward symbol that points to Jesus’s greater Spirit baptism, but through Paul they receive the promised Spirit, just as John taught (Luke 3:16). In both paragraphs, Paul or his coworkers bring John’s disciples into a fuller experience of the gospel and/or the Spirit in Ephesus.5139 In both cases, John’s disciples are inadequately instructed and have experienced only John’s baptism. Apollos, however, seems to have more complete knowledge than these disciples (Acts 18:25); many commentators think that he also had been baptized in the Spirit (“burning in Spirit,” 18:25), in contrast to these disciples.5140 The other possibility is that having only John’s baptism meant that both Apollos and these disciples lacked the greater baptism that John announced. Certainly the contrast between John’s baptism and Jesus’s greater baptism in the Spirit is important to Luke (1:5; apparently implied as regularly said in 11:16). But it seems more likely that Apollos had this Spirit baptism, in contrast to disciples who need it here (19:2, 6), and that reception of the Spirit marks a key difference between them. He does not need a new rite to impart to him the Spirit that he already has.5141 In either case, no mention is made of Apollos’s rebaptism, in contrast to that of these disciples. Although it is possible that Luke simply does not mention it or that Aquila and Priscilla erred by failing to administer it, it appears much more likely that Apollos’s experience was already more complete than that of these disciples, whether because of his knowledge of Jesus or because he had the experience of the Spirit (18:25) without being able to articulate it as what John had promised, or both. It is possible that a movement of John’s followers remained in Ephesus for some time after this occasion and that Luke reflects this historical reality (depicting a period more 5139. Dunn, Acts, 252. In support of historical tradition here, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 130–32; cf. also HayaPrats, Believers, 16–17, who suspects a pre-Lukan source in 19:1–7 based on grammatical patterns. The claim that the “John” referenced here reflects (before Luke’s redaction) the Johannine tradition, which the Paulinists in Ephesus opposed (Price, “Paulus absconditus [2002]”; idem, “Paulus absconditus [2003],” using the late second-century Acts of John; on this dating, see, e.g., Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 6), is implausible. There was a real John the Baptist (see esp. Meier, “John the Baptist”; Webb, Baptizer) and no need to conflate Johns, given the commonness of their names (on which see comment on Acts 1:13). Johannine tradition reflected in the Fourth Gospel moves the Jerusalem tradition, in fact, in a more Pauline direction (cf. Keener, John, passim, e.g., 998–99). Pervo, Acts, 469, is skeptical of Luke’s portrait of the Christian movement’s beginnings in Ephesus; he cites as highly skeptical Fieger, Schatten; as less skeptical Thiessen, Christen in Ephesus; and as “least skeptical” Trebilco, Ephesus. 5140. See discussion in Tannehill, Acts, 233–34; Turner, Gifts, 45; Fitzmyer, Acts, 637, 643; Dunn, Acts, 254; idem, Beginning, 760. 5141. Though see 10:47. The difference is possibly that Apollos, unlike Cornelius, has apparently already experienced one baptism—namely, John’s.

2813

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 517

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

than two decades after the Baptist’s death) as the Fourth Gospel does later.5142 Disciples could prove very zealous for promoting their own teachers, which often led to strife with disciples of other teachers;5143 this probably happened between Jesus’s and John’s disciples at times (cf. John 3:26). That this is Luke’s primary reason for preserving the story, however, seems less likely,5144 since Ephesus is probably not his primary audience.5145 Still, Luke has paralleled Jesus with John and has emphasized his superiority to John (though the latter remains a positive figure) as early as his infancy narratives (cf. Luke 1:80; 2:40, 52), where Mary also appears superior to Zechariah (1:29–38 with 1:12–20).5146 Whether because of continuing competition from the Baptist’s followers or simply to highlight Jesus’s greatness, Luke underlines Jesus’s superiority to his forerunner. That “twelve” receive the Spirit probably recalls Jesus’s original twelve apostles in Jerusalem,5147 demonstrating that the work of the Spirit continues in one location after another. Such parallelism provides Luke a relatively clear way to emphasize, without departing from his narrative genre, that the Spirit’s activity in Acts is a model and expectation for the church, not simply a record of past events. Paul noticed (Acts 19:2) and corrected (19:4–6) Spirit deficiency when he found it, and Luke expects this deficiency to require correction wherever it is encountered (8:15–16). (Probably for Luke, this could involve baptized, genuine Christians as well as those not properly initiated into the faith. In 8:14–17, in probable contrast to 19:1, the disciples were probably already Christians; see comment there.) In the context of Luke-Acts as a whole, recalling John’s ministry (Luke 3:3–20) might also recall the ministry of Jesus, which followed it (3:21–22; Paul’s ministry in Acts 19:10–12 exhibits renewed power). Luke does not, however, draw this connection clearly. (2) John’s Preparatory Baptism (19:1–4)

These disciples have received John’s baptism but not the greater baptism in the Spirit that it prefigured. Paul’s R ou t e to Ep he su s ( 1 9 : 1 )

The geographic summary in Acts 19:1 either briefly recapitulates 18:235148 or picks up where it left off. Paul had been traversing mountainous Phrygia (18:23). Traveling from, for example, Perga, one could move northwest through much hill country (nearly 100 km. north-northwest to Cormasa, then nearly 100 km. northwest to Laodicea, and finally ca. 150 km. west-northwest to Ephesus), or one could move from, for example, Pisidian Antioch along a more traveled route (ca. 150 km. west-southwest to near Laodicea, then ca. 150 km. west-northwest to Ephesus).5149 5142. See Keener, John, 388–91; see further Simon, Sects, 92. Some also associate Eph 4:5 with this movement (Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 70). Conversely, some (esp. Robinson, Studies, 49) doubt the hypothesis of a Baptist sect, since we lack evidence external to the nt. 5143. See Dio Chrys. Or. 8.9; Suet. Tib. 11.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; Winter, Left Corinth, 35–40; idem, Philo and Paul, 184–86; Pogoloff, Logos, 175; Witherington, Corinthians, 130. 5144. Haenchen, Acts, 556–57, thinks that polemic “against the Baptist sects was urgently required.” 5145. It is not his primary audience, at least, if we may extrapolate from the nature of his sources to the congregations with whom he was most in touch. 5146. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:556–57. 5147. See discussion below. Though more than twelve were likely present at Pentecost, they were emphasized there (Acts 1:2, 26; 2:14, 37). Turner, Power, 389, is right (against F. S. Spencer), however, that they do not specifically indicate Apollos as Paul’s “forerunner” in Ephesus. 5148. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 236, suggest that the “upper country” might refer to “hinterland” from an Ephesian point of view (cf. perhaps Tob 8:3). 5149. From Mitchell, Anatolia, map 7, 1:120. Traveling from Perga on the Via Sebaste, beyond Comama one would reach the road’s junction with the Southern Highway; one could follow it west to Apamea and on to Ephesus (Wilson, “Route,” 478). Any possible routes from North Galatia would have taken longer (depending

2814

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 518

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Two proposals regarding Paul’s route are most common. Paul could have traveled the standard route to Ephesus through the Lycus and Meander valleys (though he did not stop to establish the later church in Colossae, Col 1:7; 2:1).5150 Alternatively, he “may have taken a higher road farther north, leaving the main road at Apamea”;5151 this would be a more direct route through the hills,5152 the “upper country” here probably being “the high road leading to the Cestrus Valley.”5153 Given Paul’s encounter with Gallio in Acts 18:12–17 and his travels in 18:18–23, some scholars estimate that Paul could have arrived in Ephesus no earlier than the fall of 53 c.e. and possibly as late as the spring of 54.5154 Apollos is in Corinth by the time Paul returns to Ephesus. Luke never recounts Paul and Apollos’s meeting (though historically they finally did at some point, 1 Cor 16:12), but this omission may occur simply because such a meeting is not Luke’s concern. His focus on Paul allows Silas to drop from sight after Acts 18:5 (whether or not he left Corinth immediately) and Priscilla and Aquila to do so after 18:26, though they did not drop from the epistolary Paul’s own sight after this point (Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:12, 19; 2 Cor 1:19; cf. 2 Tim 4:19; Titus 3:13). W ho s e Di s cip le s ? (1 9 :1 )

Scholars divide in their opinions concerning the identity of the “disciples” here. Were they already followers of Jesus or not? Some argue that they were Christians, former disciples of John never rebaptized,5155 perhaps originating in the same lessinformed circles as Apollos.5156 Most would agree at least that these disciples, even if Christians, were incomplete in their faith.5157 Although many scholars argue that they were not Christians at all5158 (and I am inclined to venture that they are probably correct), the matter warrants more investigation than is often assumed.5159 on where in North Galatia Paul would be leaving from); but probably Paul, who most likely had not visited North Galatia previously, had little reason to do so now. 5150. Calder, “Introduction, 7,” ix. 5151. Witherington, Acts, 570. 5152. Hemer, Acts in History, 187. This route reached “Ephesus by the Cayster valley north of Mt. Messogis” (120; cf. also Bruce, Acts1, 353; Peterson, Acts, 528n5). 5153. Riesner, Early Period, 285–86; see comment on Acts 18:23. Most of the interior would be “high country,” however, compared with coastal Ephesus (Le Cornu, Acts, 1041). Travel through the highlands would have avoided the scorching heat of a land journey around Ephesus in the summer (Pliny Ep. 10.17A.1)—though Paul was probably by now inured to it, in any case (cf. 2 Cor 11:27, for cold weather). 5154. Witherington, Acts, 560. For discussion of Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19. 5155. Cf. Munck, Acts, 187; Bruce, Acts1, 353; idem, Commentary, 384–85; Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 59; Shelton, Mighty in Deed, 134; Norris, “Christians Only”; Arrington, Acts, 191; Menzies, Empowered, 221–25; Porter, Paul in Acts, 85 (preferring Menzies’s case here to Dunn’s); Miller, Empowered for Mission, 227; Strelan, Artemis, 232–35; Le Cornu, Acts, 1042; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 135; Nunnally, Acts, 326–27; Pervo, Acts, 468 (“‘Christians’ of a sort”). Haenchen, Acts, 556, takes the disciples as Christians though he doubts Luke’s condensed report. 5156. See Hull, Spirit on Acts, 112. 5157. E.g., Johnson, Acts, 337. Perhaps they believed in Jesus (Acts 19:2) and were “disciples” (of Jesus, 19:1) but regarded John as almost a cult figure (Pelikan, Acts, 208; this would explain why Luke emphasizes that the least in the kingdom is greater than John [Luke 7:28; but this is Q material: cf. Matt 11:11]). Some scholars offer a mediating approach: at first apparent disciples (to Paul), but then recognized as not truly regenerate (Larkin, Acts, 272); this may well be correct (if, as I argue, they were not Christians), but we should note that Luke offers the narrative from his own perspective, not from that of an internal observer (Paul; thus it does not explain “disciples” in Acts 19:1). Ash, “John’s Disciples,” argues for their rebaptism to follow Christ and receive the Spirit. 5158. Green, Holy Spirit, 163–64; Turner, Power, 390–91; Witherington, Acts, 570; Chance, Acts, 343; McDonnell and Montague, Initiation, 38; Trebilco, Ephesus, 128–29; Peterson, Acts, 529; Green, “Acts,” 758; Schnabel, Acts, 788; Thiselton, Spirit, 361. Dunn, Acts, 256, seems more nuanced here than in earlier works. 5159. In the end, as Porter notes (Paul in Acts, 85), the case is not clear enough to warrant extrapolating Luke’s theology primarily from this passage.

2815

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 519

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Without further identification, “disciples” in Luke-Acts elsewhere means Jesus’s disciples, whether those during his earthly ministry (e.g., Luke 9:16, 18; 10:23; 16:1; 17:22; 18:15; 19:29, 37; 20:45; 22:39, 45) or those converted after his resurrection (Acts 6:1–2, 7; 9:19, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 30; 21:4, 16).5160 This factor would clearly weigh in favor of the disciples’ being here Jesus’s disciples. In 19:1, the expression is not precisely “the disciples” but “certain [τινας] disciples,” yet phrases such as “a certain one of his disciples” or “a certain disciple” refer elsewhere only to followers of Jesus in both the Gospel (Luke 11:1) and Acts (Acts 9:10, 36; 16:1).5161 (Though cf. one who did not follow them, in Luke 9:49–50; Mark 9:38–40.) This argument is not absolute, however; many others had disciples, including the Pharisees (Luke 5:33) and Paul (Acts 9:25), and where context makes clear, “disciple” does apply to John’s disciples (e.g., Luke 5:33; 7:18; 11:1). It seems as if these are John’s disciples here, because they know only John’s baptism (Acts 19:3).5162 It is much harder to conceive how followers of Jesus could be unaware of the Pentecost event—which preceded their spread—than how informed followers of John could. Still, if Luke means John’s disciples, he could have made this much clearer at the outset. Further, some arguments for their not being part of the Jesus movement are weak, and even some of the stronger ones are not absolutely compelling. They had received only John’s baptism, but the same was true of Apollos, who nevertheless had been preaching about Jesus (18:25). (Then again, Luke recounts their rebaptism but not that of Apollos.) Most scholars deem that the strongest argument for their not yet being believers is that they have not yet received the Spirit (19:6), but we saw earlier that in Luke’s use of the expression, it was possible for genuine believers to still need the Spirit in some sense (8:15–16).5163 On the other side, Paul initially takes for granted that they are believers (19:2),5164 yet he also must recognize that something is amiss to prompt him to ask whether they have received the Spirit. An analogy with Apollos could argue for a person who believes in Christ without specifically Christian baptism. Yet Apollos was not rebaptized, as these disciples are, and whereas he is preaching about “Jesus” (18:25), Paul (after he learns of their Spirit deficiency in 19:2–3) must be specific that Jesus is the one in whom John invited faith (19:4, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν). A decision is not easy, nor is consensus soon likely. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, what I believe probably tips the scales against their being believers in Jesus is their lack of knowledge that the Spirit has come (19:2); even a minimal association with any part of the Jesus movement should have revealed that the Spirit had in fact been 5160. These are references to “the” disciples, rather than the more obvious “his” disciples (or “disciples of the Lord,” e.g., Acts 9:1). 5161. Ervin, Conversion-Initiation, 59. The claim of some scholars that Acts 19:1 is the only anarthrous use of “disciples” in Luke-Acts (Dunn, Baptism, 84; Witherington, Acts, 570) neglects the other “certain disciples” of Acts; omitting them because they are singular would be a case of narrowing the evidence so far as to create a grammatical rule to one’s liking. 5162. John’s “disciples” appear elsewhere in gospel tradition, in Mark (Mark 2:18), Q (Matt 11:2//Luke 7:18–19), John ( John 1:35; 3:25), and, most relevant here, Luke (Luke 5:33; 7:18–19), including in an unparalleled instance (11:1); cf. further Webb, Baptizer, 87–88. The authorities did not seek to crush John’s followers, perhaps because his approach differed from nationalist wilderness prophets and his followers were unarmed and because Antipas was less brutal than Rome’s governors (377–78). 5163. Also Strelan, Artemis, 238. In this case, we could read plausibly, with some classical Pentecostal scholars, that these “disciples” simply had not yet received the Spirit in the sense that Luke normally emphasizes, i.e., baptism in the Spirit as an empowerment for ministry (Horton, Spirit, 159–62), as suggested above in the comment on Acts 8. As Shauf, Theology, 91, notes, both pro- and anti-Pentecostal, and pro- and antisacramental, interpreters make much of the passage. 5164. E.g., Strelan, Artemis, 238.

2816

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 520

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

poured out (cf., e.g., 2:17–18; Rom 8:9; Titus 3:5–6; Jude 19; 1 John 3:24). That Paul finds it necessary to explain that Jesus has fulfilled John’s promise of the Spiritbaptizer (19:4) implies that they lacked even basic knowledge of Jesus—that is, they knew less than Apollos (18:25).5165 Part of the problem in the debate as to whether they were Christians may be what we mean by “Christians,” a problem that Luke may not be addressing in this passage.5166 Like Apollos but even more so, they belonged to the transitional stage of John the Baptist (Luke 16:16).5167 Such disciples, already exercising faith in what they know, appear to respond readily when confronted with the more complete gospel (cf. John 1:47–49). L ack ing t he Sp ir i t (1 9 : 2 )

Paul’s question here is striking, especially given the lack of preparation for it in Luke’s terse summary in Acts 19:1. Why does Paul ask these disciples if they have received the Spirit? It is possible that he normally asks the question of disciples, but nothing else in Acts leads us to expect this to be the case. Is something deficient in their behavior or, perhaps more likely, in their prayers? For the earliest Christians, as Caird points out (in relation to this passage), “the Spirit made his presence known unmistakably by the gift of revitalizing power.”5168 In that case, Paul might be assuming (until their answer later in the verse) that they are Christian disciples like the Samaritan believers who have not yet received the Spirit (8:16). Perhaps more likely, if they identify themselves only as disciples of John, Paul may ask the question not to obtain information but to provide the opportunity to proclaim John’s promised Spirit-baptizer. This could be likelier than that Paul has been wrongly assuming that they are Christian disciples, if they have not identified themselves as such;5169 apart from mentioning Jesus directly, most of what the Baptist’s disciples might say would be common intellectual property with Judaism. They could identify themselves as John’s disciples by baptizing fellow Jews or by speaking about the Baptist explicitly, a matter that alone might well bring them into contact with other transplanted Judeans such as Paul. Some scholars have argued that Paul here expects the gift of the Spirit after conversion, on the basis of the aorist participle πιστεύσαντες, “having believed.”5170 But while 5165. Strelan, ibid., 242 (who does take them as Christians, 232–35), thinks that they respected Jesus as the prophet after John but expected the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the more graphic apocalyptic terms painted by John, rather than just “Christian prophecy and glossolalia.” 5166. Certainly, if true followers of Jesus appear only in contact with the larger movement of Jesus’s Spiritempowered followers, these twelve do not qualify, but Luke may allow isolated cases of believers who simply lack access to more information (Luke 9:49–50; cf. Mark 9:38–39). Yet if their understanding of even Jesus’s identity is lacking, they would not meet even this lesser criterion. Our earliest extant documents may not provide sufficient information about the early followers of John to explain fully what was happening here. The theological debate as to whether they could “receive the Spirit” subsequent to faith sometimes motivates the discussion, but even if, as I am suggesting, they were John’s and not Jesus’s disciples, they do not seem to have received the Spirit (in the Lukan sense of empowerment to speak God’s message) at the precise moment of their faith (Acts 19:5–6). 5167. The teachings of John would fit the foundational message in Heb 6:1–2, though these elements also appear together in Judaism in general (cf. Delville, “Prosélytisme juif,” comparing basic catechesis for Gentile converts to Judaism, though I do not agree that Hebrews addresses Gentile converts). Perhaps Paul could have met them in the synagogue (though Luke reports his revisiting it only at Acts 19:8; cf. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 478, who suggests that the Jesus movement and John’s disciples had contact in Ephesus through the synagogue). 5168. Caird, Apostolic Age, 57. For such signs in this passage, see Acts 19:6. 5169. The exception would be if a third party, not much interested in the distinctions among Jewish baptistic sects, referred Paul to them as fellow Christians. 5170. E.g., Horton, Spirit, 159–61; idem, Acts, 317–18. Bede Comm. Acts 19.2 (Martin, Acts, 232–33; L. Martin, 153) expects this event to follow baptism, but because he believes that it normally accompanies the laying on of hands. The verb πιστεύω with the preposition εἰς here refers to faith in Jesus (Acts 10:43; 11:17; 14:23; probably equivalent to πιστεύειν ἐπί, 16:31 and 22:19, and πιστεύω with the dative, 18:8 and cf. 26:27;

2817

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 521

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

an aorist participle often expresses temporal precedence (hence, “after you believed”), exceptions are abundant, including in Acts (10:33; 27:3; most relevant here, 1:8).5171 This is not a grammatical rule, and one should not read a temporal relationship into the aorist participle especially when it reflects “action . . . identical with that of an aorist finite verb,” as many will argue is likely here.5172 The grammatical argument cannot be ruled out simply by appeal to the nt “association of the Spirit with conversion,”5173 since Luke (as opposed to Paul) sometimes does narrate reception of the Spirit after conversion (8:14–17; see comment there). Nevertheless, many argue that 2:38 may reveal the typical or the norm even for Luke,5174 so that he would hardly word Paul’s question in such a way (just as Paul would have hardly uttered it in such a way) as to expect Spirit reception to generally follow conversion rather than occur coincidentally with it. The context of Lukan theology must take precedence over grammatical ambiguity. This being the case, the phrase presumably retains its typical Pauline (Rom 8:15; 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 3:2, 14) sense here, which is also compatible with much Lukan use in terms of chronology (Acts 1:8; 2:38; 10:47; but cf. 8:15, 19).5175 Even if this argument is of limited force, an argument to the contrary based on grammar alone cannot carry much weight, given the ambiguity of the grammatical evidence. Some count Luke’s report of their ignorance of the Spirit as historical evidence against Luke’s (and Q’s) claim that John announced a greater one who would baptize in the Spirit.5176 Yet this is a rather selective use of evidence (accepting the reliability of a comment in Acts that can then be used to dispute an earlier claim in Q). More to the point, Luke would hardly have found a claim that he thought intended in this manner amenable for inclusion in his work (cf. Luke 3:16). Their ignorance of the Spirit no more counts against John’s having spoken of the Spirit than against contemporary Judaism’s having spoken of the Spirit; that, too, cannot have been unknown to them. How could John’s disciples not know about the Holy Spirit? Virtually all of ancient Judaism known to us spoke about the Holy Spirit,5177 from Qumran texts (usually God’s Spirit,5178 sometimes more ambiguously)5179 to other sources,5180 most commonly the 27:25), although πιστεύω with εἰς seems particularly characteristic of Johannine sources ( Jeremias, Theology, 159n2; cf. Hawthorne, “Concept”). 5171. With Dunn, Baptism, 86–87, supporting a coincident aorist. As Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” ch. 2 (in my version, 40n47), notes, “Aorist participles are particularly underdetermined.” 5172. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 175, §339. 5173. Marshall, Acts, 306. 5174. Though this, too, is debated, since some argue plausibly that repentance is a condition but not necessarily temporally coincident (see comment on Acts 2:38; and now esp. Elbert, “Acts 2:38,” citing significant evidence from Koine constructions). 5175. Dunn, Acts, 253, 255. See discussion at Acts 1:4–5; 2:38. 5176. Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 158, preferring Josephus’s report. But that Josephus and the early Jesus movement had different foci qualifies, rather than excludes, the evidence of either (see Meier, “John the Baptist”). 5177. The argument that they expected the Spirit but did not associate the Spirit with holiness (cf. Strelan, Artemis, 239) falters on this standard title and on the association of the two in early Judaism (e.g., 11Q17 IX, 5; 1 Thess 4:8; cf. 1QS IV, 5; 4Q257 V, 2). 5178. CD II, 12; 1QS III, 7; IV, 21; VIII, 16; IX, 3; 1QSb II, 22, 24; 1QHa IV, 38; VI, 24; VIII, 20–21, 25, 30; XV, 9; XVII, 32; XX, 15; XXIII, 28, 32; 1Q34bis 3 II, 7; 1Q39 1 6; 4Q171 IV, 25; 4Q213a 1 14; 4Q255 2 1; 4Q257 III, 10; 4Q266 2 II, 12; 4Q270 2 II, 14; 4Q287 10 13; 4Q422 I, 7; 4Q427 8 II, 18; 4Q444 1 1; 4Q504 1–2 V, 15; 4 5; 4Q506 131–132 11; 4Q509 97–98 I, 9. On the Holy Spirit as purifier from sin in the Qumran scrolls, see, e.g., Bruce, “Spirit in Qumran Texts,” 52–54; less plausibly but in passing, Johnston, “Spirit,” 33, connects this with Qumran’s purifying baths. 5179. CD V, 11; VII, 4; 4Q266 3 III, 5; 4Q270 2 II, 11; 4Q416 2 II, 6; 4Q418 8 6; 4Q436 1 II, 1. Many of the Qumran texts speak of the human spirit, but Pryke, “Spirit,” 345 (allowing only seven for God’s Spirit but seventy-two for the human spirit, among the four major, earlier published scrolls), may overestimate the proportion. 5180. See Keener, Acts, 1:530–36, and sources noted there.

2818

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 522

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

rabbis;5181 the question was whether the Spirit was active in the same manner as in the ot.5182 It was therefore impossible for John’s disciples to be unaware that there was a Holy Spirit. For Luke, John himself was full of the Spirit (Luke 1:15); his announcement involved the Spirit’s eschatological fullness (cf. Acts 1:4–5; 2:17–18; 11:16; Luke 3:16), as Mark and Q also recognized (Mark 1:8; Matt 3:11).5183 Perhaps these disciples would not know this particular saying of John, but Luke probably expects us to assume that they know what Luke summarizes as John’s message (Luke 3:7–17, esp. 3:16). Most likely, they question not whether there is a Holy Spirit, or even whether the Spirit will be poured out in the future, but whether this has already begun to occur.5184 As commentators often note, John employs similar language in John 7:39: the Spirit was “not yet,” though clearly the Spirit was already active in Jesus (14:17). Thus most manuscripts here have the present ἔστιν (perhaps suggesting a question about the Spirit’s present availability), and the Western text of Acts reflects this interpretation more explicitly with λαμβάνουσιν (although it does appear to be only an interpretation, not the original reading). J ohn ’s Ba p ti s m (1 9 : 3 – 4 )

That they do not know that the Spirit has come (Acts 19:2) immediately informs Paul, if he has not surmised it already, that they have not followed John’s testimony to its completion (Luke 3:16) and are not yet Christians (or at least not part of the formal Christian movement). The earliest Christians were eager for new believers to receive the endowment of the Spirit for evangelism (Acts 8:15), and so, if they had not heard of the Spirit’s coming, they had not been discipled in that movement. At least from Luke’s vantage point and—presumably—historically, baptism in the name of the risen Lord began at Pentecost and would be known in the same circles that knew the Pentecost experience.5185 Baptism in the Spirit at least ideally accompanied it (1:4–5; 2:38–39), so their defective experience and knowledge of the Spirit has alerted Paul to their incomplete knowledge of Christ. Thus Paul asks the obvious question in 19:3.5186 If his point, as suggested above, is to clarify their deficiency so that he can propose John’s prescribed solution, he is successful. (Otherwise, if he generally asks for the purpose of discovering their status, he succeeds in that task as well.) “John’s baptism” is a phrase that Luke does not need to explain for his audience (Luke 7:29–30; 20:4; Acts 1:22; 18:25; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16); it was already available in the widely read Gospel on which he most depended (Mark 11:30). Paul emphasizes in Acts 19:4 that John’s baptism of repentance prefigured the baptism of repentance in Jesus’s name (2:38; see comment there). The baptism of repentance that these disciples of John have received might be viewed as efficacious 5181. See ibid., 1:536–37. 5182. See ibid., 1:890–96 (esp. 890–94). 5183. Against Conzelmann’s emphasis, the Spirit in Acts is a foretaste of the future kingdom rather than a substitute for it; see discussion of Lukan eschatology in Keener, Acts, 1:518–19, 524, and especially now Haacker, “Geist.” 5184. With, e.g., Hull, Spirit in Acts, 110–11; Holwerda, Spirit, 1; Bock, Acts, 599; Horton, Acts, 318; cf. Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:2, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). ( Johnson, Acts, 337, thinks that they merely did not know that the Spirit was received in connection with baptism; in practice, this might amount to the same thing.) 5185. In at least one line of tradition, they should have heard of the Spirit even in their baptism (Matt 28:19), which would certainly explain Paul’s question about their baptism. 5186. The phrase τί οὖν (“What, then?”) was more generally a standard phrase in Greek grammar; see, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.1.7, 13; 1.2.17; 1.8.11, 14; 1.9.30; 1.10.12; 1.11.20, 27, 28; 1.12.10, 21, 30; 1.16.10; 1.17.14; 1.18.18, 21, 22; 1.19.4, 16; 1.20.13; 4.12.19; Plut. Educ. 15, Mor. 11D; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 380, §126D (τί δαί;); Marc. Aur. 6.26; Rom 3:3, 9; in Latin, cf. Cic. Rosc. Amer. 1.2; Tusc. 3.20.46; Sen. Y. Dial. 3.6.1; 3.8.7; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; Ad verum imp. 2.1.4. See some other references under Acts 21:22.

2819

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 523

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

beforehand, pending Jesus’s coming, but now they must respond to the new era in salvific history. Believing in Jesus (19:4) entails being baptized specifically in his name (19:5; cf. 8:12; 18:8), though, as suggested above, Spirit baptism would take precedence over water baptism.5187 John’s baptism especially prefigured the greater baptism in the Spirit (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16)—a refrain in Acts repeated, albeit by implication, here. Even Christian water baptism is meant to secure the greater baptism in the Spirit (Acts 2:38–39; see the a fortiori argument in 10:47). Paul seems to assume here a lack of the most basic knowledge of Jesus’s story; he recounts John’s call to repentance (which they must know) and connects it with faith in Jesus. (The call to faith in Jesus is worded from the vantage point of Luke and Paul looking backward but is a natural inference in view of Luke 3:15–16; 7:18–22.)5188 They probably knew that John announced a coming one;5189 they did not know that it was Jesus, and Paul’s wording here might be taken as if he did not think they had even heard of Jesus. How could John’s disciples not know about Jesus (cf. Acts 26:26)? Presumably Luke expects us to assume their knowledge of what he summarizes as John’s key message (Luke 3:16–17; see comment on Acts 19:2), but they need not have connected the promised Spirit-baptizer with Jesus and may have heard nothing of Jesus. If they heard nothing of Jesus, there are three most likely options: (1) they were Diaspora Jews who learned of John while on a pilgrimage to Judea; (2) they were Judeans who had emigrated with limited knowledge (not having still been with John during the time depicted in Luke 7:17–23); or (3) they were initiates to John’s sect who were exposed to John’s message outside Judea by others who knew John’s call to repentance but did not know about (or at least tell them about) Jesus and the fulfillment of the outpoured Spirit. (On the third option, the informants may have fit among the first two options, may have regarded this aspect of John’s preaching as inconsequential, or perhaps personally rejected Jesus as the fulfillment of John’s message. Probably the present followers of John had not known much about Jesus or rejected John’s preaching about Jesus, given their apparently ready acceptance here.) (3) Baptized in Water and the Spirit (19:5–7)

Those who received only John’s baptism and have not believed in Jesus (or at least have not received the Spirit) are rebaptized in Jesus’s name, and then they receive the Spirit. John’s baptism was good, but it was only preparatory to baptism in Jesus’s name and the greater baptism in the Spirit (Acts 1:4–5; 2:38). R e ba p t i z e d in Je su s’s Na me ( 1 9 : 5 )

The first apostles (“the Twelve”) may not have been rebaptized after John’s baptism,5190 but in their case, Spirit baptism probably sufficed if added to some sort of water baptism.5191 This is presumably also the case with Apollos, as was suggested above. Cornelius, who received Spirit baptism yet lacked any preparatory water baptism (and who, in any case, needed an external rite of some sort to validate him for the 5187. Shauf, Theology, 156, rightly underlines here “a stock theme of Luke’s regarding John’s baptism—i.e. its contrast with baptism of the Holy Spirit.” For baptism “in” or “into” Jesus’s name, see discussion at Acts 2:38; 8:16; also Martin, Worship, 127; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 199. 5188. That is, it is based on Luke’s whole story rather than on John’s initial perspective within the narrative world (see Johnson, Acts, 338). 5189. At least from Luke’s perspective but probably also historically; cf. Keener, Matthew, 127, 130–31, and sources there. 5190. Haenchen, Acts, 553, resists the term “rebaptism” even here, arguing that from Luke’s perspective, this was their first “true baptism.” This verdict may be too harsh toward Luke’s picture of John’s baptism; Luke 16:16 predicts something new without denigrating what preceded. On Acts 19:1–7 emphasizing the need for Christian baptism, see Paroschi, “Baptism.” 5191. With Bruce, Commentary, 386. Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 opines that the Ephesian disciples had the baptism of repentance but not of forgiveness, for they (unlike Apollos) did not yet have the Spirit.

2820

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 524

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Jerusalem church), was baptized afterward (10:48). If there is any standard rule in Acts (and it is possible that there is not), a previous water baptism is accepted if accompanied by Spirit baptism; if not, rebaptism was appropriate as an invitation for the Spirit’s coming, as here. But this practice would apply only to John’s baptism; the Samaritans, who believed and were baptized in Jesus’s name, did not need to be rebaptized in water when they received the Spirit (8:12–17). How long after their understanding of Paul’s message the baptism of these followers of John occurred depends partly on where Paul might have baptized them. Even Luke’s terse wording here seems to allow little room for the sort of extended catechism practiced by the later church; the only time interval we must certainly allow for is the time it would take them to locate a suitable place for baptism. The Selinus River flowed past the Artemisium in Ephesus (Strabo 8.7.5; Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115), but public baths would have afforded a quicker and simpler location for the baptism.5192 The fountain near the Augustus temple on the city’s south may be from the first or second century c.e., but the baths of the state agora, only about a hundred meters from the south wall, are from the first century.5193 Caius Sextilius Pollio built some fountains between 4 and 14 c.e., supplied by an aqueduct bringing water more than three miles from the Marnas River.5194 The Callippia, a spring, also lay inside the city (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115). Although baptism in public baths might not be the norm, it is conceivable; in Apul. Metam. 11.23, “the priests of Isis at Cenchreae made use of ‘the nearest bath’” for an initiatory ablution.5195 (On the pervasiveness of public baths in major cities, see the excursus at Acts 18:8.) We cannot, of course, be sure whether the baptism was immediate or would have been delayed while they were looking for water (or whether perhaps even the conversation occurred near water). Yet baptism alone does not instantaneously confer the Spirit here (see comment on Acts 19:6). The S p ir i t a n d Sig ns ( 1 9 : 6 )

Although in Acts Luke occasionally notes an individual’s reception of the Spirit (suggesting, though not narrating, Paul’s in Acts 9:17; cf. 4:8; 13:9), his narrative focuses on groups receiving the Spirit. Traditional Christian theology has naturally focused on individual reception of the Spirit, in connection with other theological— especially soteriological—issues often treated individually in the Pauline corpus. Luke’s focus on corporate reception, however, in some respects might have more in common with some subsequent corporate experiences;5196 this observation requires more attention than it can be given here.5197 5192. For Roman period baths, see, e.g., Bammer, “Ephesus,” 254. 5193. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” map, 1027–28. The baths of Varius are later, as are the Pollio fountain and Trajan’s baths (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 188, 190–91). Probably, two long-distance water pipes into the city date to this period (Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026). 5194. McRay, Archaeology, 259. On the Selinus and the Marnas, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 184; the aqueduct was from Augustus’s era (201–2). 5195. Meeks, Urban Christians, 237. 5196. For several among many examples from recent centuries, one might consider the Moravian Pentecost of 1727; the Wesleyan revival; experiences surrounding the U.S. Great Awakenings; revivals in India in the 1850s through the 1870s; Indonesian revivals of the 1860s and 1916–22; the Welsh revival of 1904–5; the revival at Pandita Ramabai’s orphanage in 1905; the Korean revival of 1907; the renewal experience at Duquesne University in 1967; and some recent renewal movements (from North America to Mozambique). Luke’s perspective may reflect especially outpourings in early Christian memory, but diverse experiences of the Spirit also dominated in the ot, in which prophetic renewal movements rose periodically, such as in Samuel’s era (cf. 1 Sam 3:1 with 10:5–6; 19:20–24) or the era of Elijah and Elisha (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:13, 22, 39; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7). The Chronicler reports renewals of worship in special periods (e.g., 1 Chr 25:1–6; cf. 1 Chr 6:31–32; 15:16, 28–29; 16:4–6, 41–42; 23:30; 2 Chr 8:14; 20:18–22, 28; 29:25; 30:27; 31:2; 35:2–5; Ezra 3:10–11; Neh 12:24, 27–47). Prophets could also call Israel back to the foundational covenant in the Scriptures (e.g., 1 Kgs 22–23). Balancing elements of these various revivals, when they did not occur together, was vital. 5197. My doctoral student Thomas Lyons plans to explore further the diversity of corporate outpourings in Acts and the analogous range of diversity of such experiences in modern church history.

2821

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 525

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Of the diverse corporate outpourings of the Spirit in Acts (2:4, which is foundational;5198 4:31; 8:15–17; 10:44–45; here; and possibly briefly in 13:52),5199 this one might involve the smallest group (since Pentecost involved more than just the Twelve, though the number here evokes that scene). Paul’s laying on of hands offers the closest parallel (in terms of mode of reception) to the Samaritan reception of the Spirit through Peter and John, just as the outpouring on Cornelius’s household parallels the way the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (see 10:47; esp. 11:15–17). Luke’s narrative reads as if there is “no significant ‘delay’” between their baptism (Acts 19:5) and their reception of the Spirit (19:6).5200 But while it is clear that Luke envisions a theological connection between baptism in water (undertaken by converts) and baptism in the Spirit (given by the risen Lord; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; esp. 2:38), the connection is not always temporal in the sense of being simultaneous (Acts 8:14–17; 10:44–48; see discussion on those passages). The immediate connection for receiving the Spirit here is not baptism per se but the laying on of hands (19:6), which could also follow baptism (8:12, 17; cf. 13:3) or precede it (9:17–18).5201 (For the Spirit coming “on” persons, see comment on Acts 10:44.) This is the third time in Acts that believers’ reception of the Spirit is explicitly marked by speaking in tongues (2:4; 10:45–46).5202 Tongues speaking is important as a sign of crosslinguistic empowerment by the Spirit, and in view of Luke’s theme (1:8), this is the most natural phenomenon for him to emphasize,5203 especially when it accompanied or immediately followed Spirit reception. Nevertheless, Luke reports such phenomena to assure us that these disciples received the Spirit (especially the dimension of cross-cultural empowerment), and probably not to imply that tongues 5198. It is not necessary to revisit here the debate as to whether “Pentecost” is an inaugural or repeatable event, a debate heavily and unnecessarily divided by semantics. The seminal experience of the Spirit was certainly Pentecost, but Luke is also interested in continuing corporate experiences of the Spirit (just as Paul is interested in individuals continuing to receive the Spirit, a presumed interest also of Luke in Acts 2:38–39). 5199. Acts 13:52 appears to depict a corporate experience, yet without narrating it in detail or addressing the extent to which it began with a particular occasion (the relevance of the imperfect tense may be debated; the verb is apparently employed here as a synonym for πίμπλημι in 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; and the contrast with 13:45). The primary fruit explicitly associated with that Spirit experience was joy. 5200. Turner, Gifts, 45. Although the delay is not significant, they do not appear to be simultaneous in a precise sense, a distinction that ancients could also recognize (cf., e.g., the distinction between the act of slaying in sacrifice and the offering of the victim afterward, Siebert, “Immolatio,” 744). 5201. Shauf, Theology, 155–56. Curiously, Hull, Spirit in Acts, 114, denies that laying on hands is related to Spirit reception here, viewing the connection as irrelevant also in Acts 8 (104–5) and 9:17 (102–3). The recurrence of an apparent connection in so many texts suggests a pattern of some sort rather than irrelevance. Laying on hands to impart the Spirit may not be a standard baptismal ritual before 200 c.e. (Marshall, Acts, 307), but in our effort to avoid anachronism, we should not deny the model (albeit occurring sometimes rather than always in Acts; cf. 6:6) on which the later ritual was based. Augustine apparently believed that in apostolic times, the Spirit and tongues followed the laying on of hands but that this did not always occur through laying on hands in his day (Retract. 1.13.7 [PL 32:604–5], cited in Kelsey, Healing, 185). At least in later tradition, rabbis believed that prophets could receive the prophetic Spirit through other prophets (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; Bowman, “Prophets,” 208, citing Lev. Rab. 10:2); cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6. 5202. Chrys. Hom. Acts 40 takes the tongues and prophesying here as confirming their current Spirit reception and hence the deficiency of their former baptism that failed to impart it. Attempts to firmly distinguish the experience of tongues speaking in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 from that in 2:4 are exegetically unfounded, especially since tongues demonstrated that the later Christians received the Spirit “in the same way” that the first ones did (10:47). See, e.g., Forbes, Prophecy, 51n16; Everts, “Tongues or Languages?” In the later cases, no one was present who understood the languages (in contrast to the Diaspora Jews at Pentecost), but this is not a difference on the level of the speakers’ experience. At Acts 2:4, this commentary surveyed various views of the reported experience, including glossolalia that Luke developed as xenoglossy; for a more recent collection of claims of xenoglossy, some supported by multiple attestation, see May, Witnesses to Pentecost. 5203. Miller, Empowered for Mission, 229, suggests that the Spirit coming “on” them evokes Acts 1:8. We could also suggest 2:17–18 (which could have helped shape the language of 1:8) or 10:44–45 (which clearly does evoke Pentecost; 11:15), but these cases all point in the same direction.

2822

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 526

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

necessarily must accompany Spirit reception in every individual instance.5204 To argue the latter would require a much more complete record, because Luke at times does not specify the evidence (8:18), and he links it with other phenomena in both this passage and 10:46.5205 Apparently, the epistolary Paul does not believe that all Christians pray in tongues (1 Cor 12:30),5206 though he seems to believe that it would be ideal for them to pray this way privately (14:5; cf. Num 11:29).5207 For Paul the gift is less significant in public than gifts useful for public edification unless it is accompanied by interpretation, which can render it edifying to the assembly (1 Cor 14:4–5). Paul uses the gift in private devotion (14:18; cf. 14:15) and does not want it forbidden in the assembly (14:39). But he highlights its value and continuing use in private prayer whereas Luke emphasizes its initial occurrence alongside reception of the Spirit to emphasize especially the reality of the Spirit experience and its character (cross-cultural empowerment).5208 Some scholars think that Luke’s community lacked continuing experience of tongues speaking and that this allowed him to glorify the gift beyond its usage in 1 Corinthians.5209 But while Luke may present the most positive side of the phenomenon, Paul himself appreciated and utilized the gift (1 Cor 14:18), and there is no reason to doubt that Luke expected this gift, like the Spirit empowerment it often accompanies in Acts, to continue in his own day.5210 Although Luke mentions tongues speaking on this occasion in Ephesus, he omits it in the church in Corinth,5211 where we know from Paul’s accounts that it happened (1 Cor 12–14). Since it is unlikely a mere coincidence that both Paul (14:18) and many of the Corinthian Christians experienced the gift, it may have reflected Pauline influence there,5212 though Luke indicates that tongues speaking was not limited to Paul’s circle (Acts 2:4; 10:46). Luke does not need to report this phenomenon or any other phenomenon every time it occurred; he does not mention even baptism in all his conversion reports. But he needed to mention tongues with Paul’s ministry at least once to balance the parallelism with Peter in 10:44–48 and the risen Lord Jesus in 2:4, 33.5213 5204. It would be a logical fallacy to claim that if B (genuine tongues) is present only when A (the Holy Spirit) is present, then A (the Holy Spirit) is present (or complete) only when B (tongues) is present. In geometric logic, B is a member of the set A, so that A includes, but is not identical with, B. See fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:824–31. (What distinguishes Acts 2 is not inspired speech but multilingual hearers.) 5205. In Acts 13:52, the only specified evidence is joy; but that summary is Luke’s most concise account of a group being filled with the Spirit, and the imperfect might suggest continuing experience (though the imperfect form of the verb need not connote this; cf. 7:23; 9:23; 13:25). 5206. He might even acknowledge the possibility of Christians distinct from unbelievers who are unfamiliar with tongues speaking (1 Cor 14:23; but this may simply refer to those unfamiliar with the language). 5207. He also believed that they could seek particular gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1), though he emphasizes this point to urge them to seek especially gifts that build up the congregation, such as prophecy (12:31–14:1). 5208. See much fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:816, 823–24, 828–30; idem, “Tongues.” 5209. Conzelmann, Acts, 160. 5210. Bornkamm, Experience, 38–39, notes that second-century “Christian prophets” continued to associate their messages with tongues (citing Origen Cels. 7.8ff.). 5211. Not surprisingly, since Luke rarely reports the goings-on in church meetings, except perhaps in Acts 2:42, 46. 5212. If the Corinthian church was later divided over the value of the gift and the division fell along the lines of Paul’s and Apollos’s followers (which is not clear), the glossolalists were more likely the Pauline faction (cf. again Acts 18:24–19:6). 5213. Luke rarely reports spectacular phenomena at conversions, yet he may have offered enough of them, where they occur in his sources, to make his point. Judaism did not prime early Christians to expect the need for any necessary sign of “initial evidence” (see Turner, Power, 448–49), although one would ideally expect prophetic empowerment to sooner or later be expressed in prophetic ways.

2823

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 527

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Prophesying, which occurs here, reveals the same empowerment of the Spirit as tongues speaking; both are Spirit-inspired speech (2:17–18).5214 Although tongues speaking is probably identified with praise in 10:46, it is clearly distinguished from prophecy here, as indicated by the emphatically double connection τε . . . καί.5215 It is possible that some persons experienced tongues while others experienced prophecy,5216 though the grammar allows the possibility that all did both (the ambiguity reminds us of the more general point of such descriptions; e.g., 1 Sam 10:5–6, 10; 19:20). T w e lve Di s cip le s ( 1 9 : 7 )

Most scholars doubt that Luke finds significance in the number twelve here; his estimate of “about twelve” is thought to count against it.5217 The opposite conclusion, however, seems more likely (though cf. Luke 8:42). If Luke lacked the exact number, he could have said “about ten” (cf. his estimate “eight or ten days” in Acts 25:6);5218 that he mentions specifically that the number was “about twelve” is significant. It could evoke the twelve tribes (perhaps as a transition to synagogue ministry in 19:8),5219 but it is far more likely that he evokes Jesus’s twelve apostles5220 (who in turn evoked Israel’s tribes, Luke 22:30). Luke again stresses the continuity between the church’s biblical heritage and the flourishing Gentile mission. Luke’s emphasis is not merely distant foundational history but history as a sort of archetype or model for the continuing mission. b. All Asia Hears the Message (19:8–22) In Acts 19:8–20, Paul’s ministry shifts from one sort of intellectual venue, a synagogue, to a more cosmopolitan one, with an even greater ministry of signs than before (19:8–12). Some attempted to imitate his method without his power, but the exposure of such imitations as ineffective contrasts magic with a more powerful gospel, bringing stronger commitment to the gospel. As a model for missions, Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s intellectual appeal alongside his charismatic signs presents a balance that probably reached a range of groups of people.5221 Western missions (and Christian ministry and education in general) 5214. Some compare prophesying here with magnifying God in Acts 2:11 and 10:46 (Bruce, Acts1, 355), but that activity may have involved especially praise (see comment there). Although prophecy and praise were by no means exclusive (e.g., 1 Chr 25:1–3; Ps 46:10; Hab 3:1; cf. 1 Sam 10:5; 2 Sam 23:1–3; 2 Kgs 3:15), Luke typically employs “prophecy” more specifically when that is what he means (e.g., Luke 1:67, 70, 76; 2:36; Acts 21:9–10). On prophecy further, see the extensive excursus at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909). 5215. For the distinction this entails, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.11.10; Paus. 8.29.1; Levinsohn, Connections, 121–36. This construction appears thirty-two times in Luke-Acts (60 percent of the nt’s fifty-three uses), twenty-eight of them in Acts. It is a stylistic feature; of thirty-seven occurrences in the Apostolic Fathers (including two in Papias fragments), seventeen appear in 1 Clement, twelve in Ignatius, and seven in Martyrdom of Polycarp but only one in Hermas. In the lxx (fifty-six times if one counts all the Maccabean literature), it tends to predominate in works written in Greek (and appears only seven times in the Pentateuch, the first part translated), esp. 1 Esdras (eight times); 3 Maccabees (seven times); and 4 Maccabees (sixteen times). 5216. Turner, Gifts, 226; idem, Power, 395; cf. 446–47. 5217. Barrett, Acts, 898. Luke regularly qualifies estimates with “about” (e.g., Acts 1:15). 5218. He sometimes estimates in multiples of ten (Luke 3:23; 9:14; Acts 1:15; 2:41), though not always (Luke 9:28). 5219. Ephesus was also the chief of the twelve traditional Ionian cities (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319, citing Strabo). Others see “twelve” as symbolic for a complete group (Langner, Hechos, 371); for various symbolic uses of the number twelve in antiquity (e.g., “the twelve” deities, Apul. De deo Socr. 121), see comment at Acts 1:26. 5220. With Goulder, Type and History, 29; earlier, Bede Comm. Acts 19.7 (Martin, Acts, 235; L. Martin, 154) (who also cites the 120). 5221. The educated were sometimes more skeptical than the masses (see Keener, Acts, 1:344–48; but cf. 348–49), though generally less skeptical than modern Western thought, at least in the twentieth century (cf. 355–58). Certainly, sages and mystics were not viewed as mutually exclusive (cf., e.g., Sterling, Ancestral Philosophy, 31–32, 99–113, 171–80, esp. 180).

2824

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 528

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

have often focused on the intellectual to the exclusion of the charismatic, and some church circles (perhaps increasingly frequently today) have focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former. If today’s practices are any indication, Paul’s combination of the two would be quite remarkable, but today’s dichotomy may be influenced by the dominance of antisupernaturalism in Western thought.5222 i. Paul in the Synagogue and a School (19:8–10)

After beginning in the synagogue, as he usually does, Paul is forced by hostility there to withdraw to a more neutral venue (cf. similarly 18:6), which also proves less threatening to Gentiles. Following the model of Greek philosophers widely respected in Ephesus, Paul speaks as a Christian sage, exposing Jews and Greeks alike to his message. (1) Teaching in the Synagogue (19:8)

That Paul was able to speak boldly5223 in the synagogue5224 for three months,5225 and initially at its invitation (18:20), suggests that Jewish communities in more cosmopolitan areas may have often been more tolerant of new ideas (contrast 17:2 in the urban but somewhat smaller Thessalonica). Paul’s first convert in Asia was Epaenetus (Rom 16:5), perhaps part of this synagogue community (though perhaps earlier, in the period depicted in Acts 18:19–21, or in the period of 19:1 before the events of 19:1–7). But even here Paul’s message eventually made him unwelcome. As in Corinth (18:6), he seems to work with the conviction that he must expose many people to his message in a limited time, and hence he follows the basic pattern, laid down by Jesus, of leaving where one is not welcome (Luke 9:5; 10:11; cf. Gen 26:16–22). It appears that this synagogue was not yet a place of liturgical services (or at least this did not consume the entire meeting, or that people gathered for discussions on occasions in addition to services); Luke’s focus here is not even a Torah service (contrast Acts 13:15; see comment there), at least not explicitly, but a meeting place that includes dialogue and dispute about the Torah (on “reasoning” in the synagogue, see comment on Acts 18:4). The function of synagogues may not yet have been standardized in this period.5226 (For Gentiles, even the eventually standard Torah service appeared like an exotic foreign philosophy, lacking normal features of a Gentile religious cult.)5227 (2) Conflict in the Synagogue (19:9)

From the perspective of the synagogue community, this newcomer, Paul, had been welcomed hospitably (18:20) but, when opposed, took some zealous synagogue members with him (some of them probably relatives of those left behind); his unbridled zeal for his views also led to public embarrassment for the normally well-accepted 5222. And the traditional revivalistic reaction against it. Even in antiquity, the combination of sage with miracle worker probably became dominant especially later, possibly partly under Christian influence (cf. Tiede, Figure, 99; Gallagher, Divine Man, 173; Holladay, Theios aner, 237; Kee, Miracle, 37, 297–99). 5223. On “bold” speech, see comment at Acts 4:13. The participles explain how he did so; for διαλεγόμενος, see comment on Acts 18:4; for πείθων, see comment on Acts 17:4. For the “kingdom,” see comment on Acts 1:3, 6; for preaching the kingdom, cf. Acts 8:12. 5224. For this practice, see comment on Acts 13:5; on the synagogue in Ephesus, see the introduction, above, on Ephesus at Acts 18:19. 5225. The three months are in addition to, rather than included in, the roughly two years of Acts 19:10; thus the overall estimate of parts of three years in 20:31 (Haenchen, Acts, 559; Barrett, Acts, 903). Bruce, Acts1, 356, suggests the fall of 52 c.e. to the summer of 55. 5226. See the excursus on synagogues at Acts 6:9 (Keener, Acts, 2:1298–1302). 5227. Lake, “Proselytes,” 75; Moore, Judaism, 1:324.

2825

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 529

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Jewish community in Asia (19:33–34). Such behavior provoked predictable hostility from many members of the local synagogue (21:27, 29).5228 Luke’s perspective differs. For him and for Paul, unbelief regarding God’s truth constituted rebellion against God. The truth was obvious, and only the morally or spiritually closed minded would reject it (28:26–27); Jesus said not to waste time on those who rejected the gospel as long as others had not yet heard it (Luke 10:10–11).5229 In this approach, new disciples had to be guarded from this environment’s growing hostility. If members of the synagogue were slandering “the Way” publicly (from the authoritative position of critiquing an intra-Jewish view), remaining within the synagogue would do more harm than good.5230 Their “speaking evil” (κακολογέω) was severe; the phrase was applied in the lxx to cursing, sometimes with a capital sentence (Exod 21:17; 22:28; 1 Sam 3:13; Prov 20:20), and to evil slander (2 Macc 4:1).5231 Luke uses the term σκληρύνω, “harden,” to describe the condition of Paul’s opponents, resembling the denunciation of Stephen’s opponents in Acts 7:51; the term used here would evoke its rich use in the lxx. The most common lxx use applies to God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart to fulfill God’s purpose (Exod 10:1);5232 it also applies to Israel’s disobedience (Deut 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; 2 Chr 30:8; cf. 2 Chr 36:13; Neh 9:16–17, 29; Ps 95:8; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15),5233 which could also be attributed to God’s anger (Isa 63:17). This ot use may suggest an idea familiar from Pauline theology: God’s hardening his own people so that Paul could go to the Gentiles (Rom 11:11, 25).5234 God’s hardening of Pharaoh becomes a paradigm for Israel (9:17–18).5235 For ἠπείθουν, “disobeying,” see Acts 14:2; contrast 26:19. For “the Way,” see comment on Acts 9:2. Some scholars contend that the split between synagogues and the Jesus movement reflects a later generation than Paul’s,5236 but while this is likely true in some cities, proposing this for all cities underestimates the intra-Jewish conflicts that already existed (Rom 11:28; 15:31; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6; 1 Thess 2:14–16).5237 (Those who doubt that Paul even went to synagogues err on the other side; see comment on Acts 13:5.) Apparently, the problem of division within the synagogues of Asia continued in the late first century, as often argued for the Johannine community ( John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2),5238 but this conflict in that period may have dominated 5228. About a century later, Justin debated the Scripture (e.g., Dial. 39) with a Jewish interlocutor, probably in Ephesus (Dial. 1; Barnard, Justin Martyr, 39; Williams, Justin Martyr, 1n1), if (as was common even in fictitious or augmented dialogues) Trypho reflects a genuine individual. 5229. Jesus had warned that others would “ostracize” (ἀφορίσωσιν) his followers (Luke 6:22); here Paul apparently initiates the separation (note ἀφώρισεν). 5230. Thus the separation was “not of his making” here (Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 93). 5231. Cf. Mark 7:10; 9:39; Theophr. Char. 28 (e.g., 28.1, always looking for the worst in someone to criticize). 5232. This hardening was God’s plan from the beginning (Exod 4:21; 7:3); early in the narrative, the text merely says that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, as God had said (7:22; 8:19; 9:35; cf. 13:15), but soon afterward the narrative grows more explicit that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8). He also hardened Pharaoh’s soldiers (14:17) and Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut 2:30). Cf. 4Q365 2 5; 3 3; 4Q422 III, 7, 11. 5233. This idea is echoed in Heb 3:8, 13, 15; 4:7, by means of Ps 95:8. 5234. For hardening in Rom 11 as blindness to truth, see, e.g., Haacker, Theology, 89; cf. Philo Spec. Laws 1.304–6; Test. Levi 13:7 (using a different term); for “hard” disposition, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 6.296; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11o, pp. 96–97.28; cf. Jub. 48:17; 1 En. 5:4; 4Q487 1 II, 3; 4Q497 1 4. But Rom 11:25 is clear that the hardening is temporary (Haacker, Theology, 92; Das, Paul and Jews, 111; Harrington, God’s People, 12–13; Johnson, Romans, 178). 5235. Cf. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 513. 5236. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 129. 5237. See much fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:462–70, and sources noted there. 5238. See Keener, John, 194–214.

2826

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 530

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

more in Smyrna and Philadelphia than in the synagogue or synagogues of Ephesus (Rev 2:9; 3:9; cf. Mart. Pol. 12.2).5239 (3) Paul’s School (19:9)

Ephesus was a center of rhetoric,5240 where public debate would be a normal course. In earlier times, some ancients criticized Ephesian philosophy as second-rate (Plato Theaet. 179E–180A), but the city’s reputation grew, perhaps with its economic ability to draw teachers. As a center of rhetoric, Ephesus hosted many prominent sophists, including Damianus,5241 Lollianus,5242 Dionysius,5243 and others.5244 When Tacitus mentions rhetoric students honoring their teachers, his specific examples are in Ephesus and Mitylene (Dial. 15). The noted Stoic philosopher Heraclitus, who predicted the world’s future dissolution by fire, was also from there.5245 Ty r a n nu s’s M e et ing P l ace

From classical Greek forward, σχολή applied to schools or to the location where schools gathered.5246 Such “schools” could meet anywhere the lecturer and the pupils agreed.5247 Roman schoolteachers taught wherever they could, even outside, but preferably in a house or rented quarters.5248 When regular classrooms were available, they often included a statue of Hermes; Cicero’s friend procured a Hermathena5249 for him, since Minerva was also appropriate for his classroom (Cic. Att. 1.4, ¶2).5250 Typical schools for Greek boys held 60–120 pupils.5251 At a more advanced level, Greek and Roman scholarship was quite sophisticated in matters of grammar, geography, and so forth.5252 Such schools also could be large, and advanced students were usually in their mid- to late teens, though some older students might also attend.5253 5239. See Keener, John, 148. 5240. See Tac. Dial. 15.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.8 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126); also see Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:85. 5241. I. Eph. 672A/B, 676A, 678A, 735, 811, 2100, 3029, 3051, 3080–81 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127). 5242. I. Eph. 20A, 984 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127). 5243. I. Eph. 426, 3047 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127). 5244. I. Eph. 611, 1539, 1548, 3901, 4340 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127). 5245. Lucian Phil. Sale 13. I have used much of this material regarding Paul’s “school” also in Keener, “Teaching Ministry.” 5246. Fitzmyer, Acts, 648 (citing Plut. Alex. 7.3; Dion. Hal. Isoc. 1; Demosth. 44); probably rhetorical schools in Dio Chrys. Or. 51.2. It originally meant “leisure” (cf. Gehrke, “Leisure,” 374–75) but took on the meaning “school” ( Johnson, Acts, 339, adding Arist. Pol. 1313b; Epict. Diatr. 3.21.11). On Tyrannus and this σχολή, see Yamauchi, “Tyrannus.” 5247. Meeks, Moral World, 41. At times there were established schoolhouses (e.g., Jewish teaching in Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, xxi, 101, 105; in Middle Eastern communities today, Eickelman, Middle East, 141; b. Qidd. 29b, but these were not yet standard even in the earliest rabbinic sources; see Goodman, State, 75); for teaching outside, see Young, Parables, 214; Safrai, “Home,” 762; among Romans, though usually inside, see Jeffers, World, 255; in homes, Watson, “Education,” 312. 5248. Jeffers, World, 58, 255. 5249. Probably a bust of Hermes and Athena on reversing faces, or perhaps of Athena alone atop a herm pillar. A statuette of Hermes or Mercury might also be associated with magic (cf. Hunink’s comment on Apul. Apol. 61, in 84n155), but this was only one of a number of possible associations, and perhaps not even the point of Apuleius’s accuser’s criticism (he alleged that it resembled a corpse, Apol. 63). 5250. That pagan symbolism also existed in Tyrannus’s lecture hall is likely, assuming that Paul did not have sole use of the facilities. 5251. Jeffers, World, 254. Where a town employed a single teacher for all boys of a given age-group, the numbers might be larger (cf. Plut. Cam. 10.1, speaking of the Greek custom). 5252. See esp. the excellent and careful studies of Caragounis, “Scholarship”; Wilson, “Scholarship”; Kaster, “Scholarship”; Tosi, “Lexicography” (including encyclopedias in the imperial period, p. 469). The more formal canon of liberal arts derives from late antiquity (Christes, “Artes liberales”). 5253. On age categories, see, e.g., Keener, Acts, 2:1447–48, and sources cited there; on ages and schooling, see discussion at Acts 22:3, esp. the section “Stages of Education.”

2827

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 531

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

But while a school may meet in this location, we should think here not of an elementary school or a “school” building but of a hall used for lectures, as most scholars recognize.5254 Such lecture halls were in common use in the cities of the empire.5255 Rhetorical students would declaim in such a “schoolroom and lecture-hall” (schola et auditorium, Pliny Ep. 2.3.6 [LCL, 1:86–87]). Not everyone thought highly of such a venue. Dio Chrysostom criticized those who lectured only in private halls instead of declaiming in public (Or. 32.10).5256 Others argued that the real oratorical action belonged not to lecture halls but to legal conflicts in the forum (Tac. Dial. 10).5257 But such a venue would still allow Paul to have an impact on many hearers, including the sort most attracted to professional teachers. The precise location remains uncertain. Some scholars have pointed to a hall (called an αὐδειτώριον in a third-century inscription) adjoining the second-century library of Celsus in Ephesus;5258 this would simplify the apprehension of two of Paul’s colleagues from this well-known location, just beyond the commercial agora, dragging them the short distance up the Marble Street into the theater (Acts 19:29).5259 Subsequent examination, however, suggests that this “auditorium” was used as a courtroom rather than a lecture hall.5260 Although most scholars today accept the idea that the σχολή here is a lecture hall, Malherbe has pointed out that the term often applied to a guildhall, which he believes was often named after the guild’s patron. Thus he suggests that Luke views the hall as something like a meeting hall of a collegium, or guild, with Paul as an artisan more than a philosopher.5261 But all the extant Ephesian inscriptions show that guilds named their buildings for their guilds, not the guilds’ patrons (e.g., I. Eph. 444, 547, 2076–80).5262 Whether Tyrannus’s building was a school, lecture hall, or guildhall makes little difference in the end, as Paul does use it as a lecture hall and school. But Paul’s use of it probably does match the building’s usual function, increasing his status for using that particular site. Most likely, Tyrannus was not a guild patron but either the landlord or the building’s usual orator during regular hours.5263 Because “Tyrannus” means “Tyrant,” it could be a nickname, perhaps for a difficult teacher.5264 If it is a nickname, this was probably the hall’s popular name in Ephesus,5265 not a name that Luke coined for it (though perhaps most of his audience would not have known the difference). This 5254. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239; Haenchen, Acts, 559n2; Witherington, Acts, 574. 5255. E.g., Latourette, First Five Centuries, 16 (on philosophers’ lectures, following Dill, Society, 289–333). 5256. Cited here by Johnson, Acts, 339; Winter, Philo and Paul, 45. 5257. Cf. one speaker’s preference for the real rhetoric of the courts to the artificial rhetoric of declamation schools (Tac. Dial. 34–35). 5258. Hemer, Acts in History, 121n53; idem, “Audeitorion,” 128; Yamauchi, Cities, 100; uncertainly, McRay, Archaeology, 251, 261. The nearby sarcophagus of a second-century rhetorician (I. Eph. 426) could suggest rhetorical activity nearby (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 122–23). The Celsus library, from long after Paul, held roughly twelve thousand volumes (Evans, World, 65), but what sorts of library resources were available to first-century Ephesian readers is uncertain. On libraries, see, e.g., Veenhof, “Libraries,” 355–56; Nielsen, “Library”; Vössing, “Libraries.” For libraries in Rome later destroyed by fire, see Galen Grief 12b, 18. 5259. McRay, Archaeology, map, 251. 5260. Trebilco, “Asia,” 311–12; Witherington, Acts, 575. 5261. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 89–90. Earlier he regarded Paul as lecturing as a philosopher there (idem, “Life,” 35); later he writes of “a hall that could have been used by a guild or a school” (idem, Moral Exhortation, 23). The Latin term schola applies both to schools and to club halls (“Schola,” 64). 5262. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 124. Guild patrons are sometimes named (124; I. Eph. 636, 646, 727, 3025). 5263. “Or both if he was a rich rhetorician like Herodes Atticus” (Witherington, Acts, 575). 5264. Ibid. Professors of rhetoric were often demanding and were known to berate and beat unprepared students (Libanius Anecdote 3.7; cf. t. B. Qam. 9:11). (Like Quintilian [Inst. 1.3.13–17; 2.4.10], Paul would probably have disapproved; cf. Eph 6:4.) 5265. Cf. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 93.

2828

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 532

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

might tip the scales in favor of his being the usual lecturer rather than the landlord, but certainty eludes us.5266 If we take the designation as “Tyrant,” it could be a subsequent designation for the “Neronian Hall” in the auditorium area.5267 But a name is also possible, without negative connotations: Only one Ephesian inscription mentions a tyrant (IEph. 1377), but it is too fragmentary to be of any use. Nine men named Tyrannus are mentioned, including at least three from the first century who would also be in a position to own a school: Tyrannus, son of Apollonius, the priest of Ares (IEph. 3417); M. Pacuvius Tyrannus the Curator (IEph. 1001); and L. Tarutilius Tyrannus also a Curator (IEph. 1012 and 1029).5268

The name was unusually common in Ephesus,5269 and “its recurrence in the 1st–2nd cent. Curetes lists may suggest its use as a cognomen in successive generations of a small group of perhaps interrelated leading families from whom these functionaries were drawn.”5270 It is possible that Tyrannus was among the new movement’s patrons,5271 or perhaps he was a wealthy person acting on a patron’s recommendation (see comment on the Asiarchs at Acts 19:31). Inscriptions show that some Asiarchs, some of whom were Paul’s “friends” (probably patrons, Acts 19:31), functioned as patrons for public lectures and education.5272 Many scholars suggest that the Western text preserves a reliable tradition concerning when Paul used the lecture hall—namely, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.5273 Although the Western text is often given to guesses (some more educated than others), this variant reading is both specific and plausible enough that it might reflect reliable tradition; if not, it is at least a reasonable guess from someone familiar with the arrangements of ancient schools. If Paul was working throughout this period of his ministry (cf. Acts 20:34; 1 Cor 4:12),5274 he may have worked from dawn till about 11:00 a.m. (about five hours),5275 “then devoting the next five hours to the still more exhausting business of Christian dialectic.”5276 Most people in Ionia stopped working for several hours at 11:00 a.m., and this reflected a more widespread custom;5277 elsewhere commentators typically cite Mart. Epig. 4.8.3 (giving 11:00 a.m.), but resting at midday appears throughout ancient literature.5278 5266. For the uncertainty, see, e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239. The later library of Celsus in Ephesus was named for its patron, who was buried there (MacKendrick, Stones, 422). 5267. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 123 (citing PWSup 12.1603). 5268. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 121. Others also include, among Ephesian inscriptions naming Tyrannus, I. Eph. 1001.5; for this precise period, 54–59 c.e., see 20b.40; for 92–93 c.e., 1012.4 (Hemer, Acts in History, 120; Trebilco, Ephesus, 144). 5269. It also appears in nearby Magnesia for a Jew (CIJ 2:18, §753); a famous orator later bore the name (Weißenberger, “Tyrannus”). 5270. Hemer, Acts in History, 234. 5271. Possibly even one known to Luke’s audience, and thus not described; see Aletheia, “Localización,” who notes also that Alexander appears as if known, and supports an Ephesian destination for the letter (brought to my attention by Richard Fellows, personal correspondence, Feb. 26, 2013). 5272. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55 (citing, e.g., I. Eph. 2065). 5273. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239; Bruce, Acts1, 356; idem, Commentary, 388–89; Trebilco, “Asia,” 312n86; Larkin, Acts, 275; Witherington, Acts, 574; Bock, Acts, 601; cf. Yamauchi, Cities, 99. 5274. It is possible that we should envision Paul doing manual labor only early in his ministry here, but if so, Luke does not clarify this for us. 5275. The Western tradition of Paul’s work from morning until 11:00 a.m. also appears in Ambrosiaster’s comments regarding 2 Cor 11:23 (Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles [Vogels, 292–93; Bray, Corinthians, 297; cf. Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299]; also noted by Conzelmann, Acts, 163). 5276. Bruce, Acts1, 356. 5277. Bruce, Commentary, 388–39; idem, Acts1, 356; Witherington, Acts, 574. 5278. E.g., Polyb. 9.17.3; Catull. Carm. 32.10; Sil. It. 13.637–38; Plut. Themist. 30.1; Heliod. Eth. 4.8; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.13; Philost. Hrk. 11.7; 16.3; 2 Sam 4:5; see esp. fuller comment on Acts 26:13; Keener,

2829

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 533

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

If this tradition is correct, probably Tyrannus or someone else lectured in the hall during the normal school hours of the morning.5279 Even secondary education began at dawn, but Greeks normally continued it after the midday break in the afternoon whereas Jews reconvened in the evening.5280 Presumably, however, an adult lecturer would have more flexibility with hours.5281 One later lecturer, for example, would teach grammar in the mornings, then declaim in the afternoons.5282 Further, “formal lectures for a clientele who could afford to attend in the mornings would be over by eleven.”5283 Perhaps few members of Paul’s audience, however, would be people of leisure and hence able to attend morning lectures; most would be working in the morning.5284 Even artisans in Ephesus might leave their work to listen to a particularly prominent sage (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1).5285 Many urban workers labored in the markets and elsewhere from dawn till sundown,5286 so that sacrificing the few leisure hours around noon displayed serious commitment on the part of Paul’s students if the above tradition’s arrangement is correct. Perhaps the largest crowds came during the siesta hours (on which see comment at Acts 26:13), and Paul’s more formal students, some perhaps supported by Paul’s work or benefaction, continued for a few hours after the crowds had gone back to work (hence until 4:00 p.m.). Paul a s a C hr i st i a n P hilosop he r

Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a popular sage is respectable and useful for his purpose, but it is hardly his invention; the Paul of the letters reasons like an intellectual. Speakers could declaim anywhere, but special halls for regular meetings indicated and conferred status.5287 Not all philosophers had such facilities available;5288 even in the case of Epictetus, we do not know where his school met.5289 Speakers coming to a city would first declaim and seek to draw attention.5290 Most cities also had public halls for orators to declaim,5291 but only an established teacher would have a regular meeting place. Securing use of an official lecture hall meant that Paul no longer played the role of a street corner Cynic (see comment on Acts 14:8–10), user of public buildings, or lecturer at banquets; he was now a recognized teacher of philosophy in Ephesus, John, 592. Some scholars worked also at night, but it was considered unusual (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.518) or due to exceptional diligence (e.g., Cic. Fam. 1.2.4; Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 11); some studied from dawn till noon (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.20.514). 5279. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 239 (comparing Mart. Epig. 9.68; 12.57; Juv. Sat. 7.222ff.). 5280. Watson, “Education,” 311–12 (with advanced Jewish education often in the evening). Most Gentile schoolchildren studied from early until “evening with a break for a midday meal” (Stamps, “Children,” 198). Normally children were exempted from study from July through October and for many holidays ( Jeffers, World, 256). 5281. One teacher with just a few students would receive between one and four of them in the afternoon while he reclined (Suet. Gramm. 24). 5282. Suet. Gramm. 4 (LCL, 2:405). For philosophers and morning lectures, see also Lucian Tim. 54. Apollonius allegedly instructed disciples in the morning and crowds in the afternoon (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16). 5283. Witherington, Acts, 574–75. 5284. Ibid. 5285. Apollonius allegedly exhorted the city to abandon its frivolous dances, pantomimes, androgynous activity, and noise and turn instead to the serious pursuit of philosophy (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2); he taught philosophy there again, 8.24. 5286. Jeffers, World, 25 (so also agrarian workers, Reden, “Working Hours,” 746). Public business was done by afternoon, but merchants remained active (Stambaugh, City, 200). 5287. Witherington, Acts, 574–75. 5288. See, e.g., Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 13. 5289. Culpepper, School, 138. 5290. Winter, Left Corinth, 36; see discussion on Acts 17:19. On successfully moving from visiting lecturers to popular lectureships, see Ramsay, Cities of Paul, 229–30. 5291. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 206.

2830

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 534

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

with his own students, listeners, and patrons. Because Paul lectured there regularly, he clearly had an arrangement for use of the building (as opposed to simply declaiming in a public portico or market). Yet as with some other popular teachers,5292 he undoubtedly welcomed the public to venture in and listen alongside whomever he was training more specifically. That is, though no longer on the street, these lectures were most likely open to the public; he speaks of lecturing “publicly” in Ephesus in Acts 20:20.5293 People would thus view Paul as a philosopher or rhetorician—the categories that their environment provided for a lecturer meeting in such a hall.5294 Acts presents Paul as highly trained for public discourse in the Greek world, or with an aptitude for rapid learning, or, most likely, both. Early in his ministry he speaks in synagogues, a venue for which study under Gamaliel (22:3) should have best prepared him, but progressively he is able to package himself in the more broadly acceptable categories of sophist and philosopher (17:18–31).5295 This public role would have provided Paul a high status and hence connections with powerful individuals (19:31).5296 Many rhetoricians in Ephesus were high-status officeholders;5297 although Paul was not, he had sufficient rhetorical and other intellectual skills to maintain a serious following.5298 Nor would Paul’s artisan work (18:3; 20:34) have necessarily degraded him in the eyes of most people here;5299 Ephesus had some wealthy and prominent artisans and also an emerging nouveau riche class that was displacing the older hereditary elite.5300 Despite usual elite prejudices elsewhere (see comment on Acts 18:3), even readers elsewhere might appreciate Paul’s work there. Musonius Rufus emphasizes earning a living with one’s hands, though born as an equestrian.5301 P l au s ibili t y of Thi s Port r aya l

Some scholars doubt that the historical Paul could have packaged himself in such terms. Though he shows a philosophic impulse, “he would never have accepted that kind of designation,” in part because he rejected the world’s wisdom (1 Cor 1:19–25; cf. Col 2:8).5302 If he gained a public hearing among Greeks, however (cf. 1 Cor 9:21), Paul would have been understood in such terms by outsiders, and he could have accommodated himself accordingly for the sake of reaching people (9:20–21). As we shall see, Paul’s letters do reveal the use of philosophic language, even if he did not use the title “philosopher” for himself. It was philosophy that addressed moral issues whereas religion generally focused on cult; various vocations studied ancient texts, but most people would hear them more often from public speakers than in cults.5303 Christianity’s common goals as a 5292. See ibid. Though not as influential as myth or cult, some philosophers in antiquity attracted significant popular attention (Rives, Religion, 41). 5293. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 124–25. 5294. With Witherington, Acts, 574–75. 5295. See Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 126–27; for Paul as a Christian philosopher (as well as Jewish sage) in Acts, see Malherbe, Philosophers, 150–54. That Gamaliel’s aristocratic household also fostered Greek education (t. Soṭah 15:8) may be significant in this situation, though Judge is probably right to give greater weight to Paul’s subsequent acquisition of these skills. 5296. Also Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 119–30. 5297. I. Eph. 811, 984, 3047, 3057, 3062 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 127–28). 5298. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 128–30. 5299. Ibid., 114–16. 5300. Ibid., 64. Nor are Roman names predictors of wealth there (68–69). 5301. See Grant, Paul, 52, 54. 5302. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 15. 5303. On Paul and philosophy, see discussion at Acts 17:22–31.

2831

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 535

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

teaching movement in a Mediterranean context would lead to its appearing like a philosophic school.5304 Structural similarities already existed between synagogue meetings (with their readings and homilies) and philosophic schools.5305 Outside a synagogue, such communication of information would naturally be understood in the categories that Greeks had available. Nor would a school setting be incompatible with Paul’s work in house churches.5306 Philosophic groups could create “nontraditional and radical social formations” such as utopias or anti-utopias; Josephus and Philo each portray the Essenes (and Philo also the Therapeutae) as such “radical philosophical communities.” 5307 Philo may have conducted a school in a manner analogous to other Greek and Roman teachers.5308 Indeed, some scholars have found Paul’s Christian communities closer to the Stoic communitarian ideal than any Stoic movements known to us from Paul’s era.5309 Although people had some conventional expectations for popular philosophers’ appearance, many recognized that it was the content, rather than garb or hair length, that made for true philosophers (Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 106.12–16). Scholars often comment on the rhetorical skills in Paul’s epistles; although Paul’s style is not rhetorically sophisticated (neither was that of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus despite his academic training), his argumentation is skillful. That he honed such skills not only in debate in the synagogue but also in a non-Jewish Hellenistic school setting is entirely reasonable. But while Paul used what rhetorical knowledge he had, he would have been seen, as noted above, primarily as a philosopher. Paul’s earlier letters include elements that would have been at home in Stoic (e.g., Rom 1:20; 2:14–15; 1 Cor 6:12; 8:5–6; 12:12) and sometimes Platonic (2 Cor 4:16–18) circles. Even before his ministry in Ephesus, we likely find the language of the ideal Cynic in 1 Thess 2.5310 That Philippians (e.g., Phil 4:8, 11) includes even more philosophic language suggests that Paul’s philosophic vocabulary grew in time.5311 Granted, Paul lacks many interests of concern to particular philosophic schools (such as cosmology or elaborating on rules of logic), but he is conversant enough with the language to write as a moralist. “Sage” was one of the most apt categories with which his Greco-Roman contemporaries could have identified him. On Paul’s education, which probably focused on Torah and probably included little philosophy, see ­comment 5304. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 81–102; cf. Schmeller, “Gegenwelten”; with respect to early Christians’ ethical emphasis, Meeks, Moral World, 114. Because Jews and Christians had both teachers and learners, Galen viewed them as “schools” founded by Moses and Christ (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 107). See discussion at Acts 17:19–20. 5305. Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 105, noting that “this basic school structure” was widespread and not “distinctively Hellenistic.” Schools often studied texts associated with their founders (e.g., Platonic texts as noted in Culpepper, School, 79; Stoic writers in Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xiv). For schools of the prophets, cf. Culpepper, School, 186–88; for disciples of the prophets, see, e.g., CD VIII, 20–21; Mek. Pisha 1.150–53; Sipre Num. 93.1.3; schools of rabbis, e.g., Carmon, Inscriptions, §183 (pp. 84, 184–85); possibly Philo’s school (Culpepper, School, 199–209; cf. Mack and Murphy, “Wisdom Literature,” 391). 5306. For analogies between philosophic schools and associations, see Wilken, “Collegia,” 279. 5307. Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 94–95. 5308. See Sterling, “School.” 5309. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 78 (attributing this situation partly to Stoicism’s current predominance of teachers from high-status backgrounds). Cf. also Stoic elements in Paul in Downing, Cynics, 267–82 (contrast the scarcity of Epicurean elements in Paul, in ibid., 282–86). 5310. See esp. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” Downing, Cynics, passim, offers numerous connections with Paul (probably too generously). 5311. The common Stoic imagery in Ephesians, joined with some Platonic imagery in Colossians (cf., e.g., Keener, “Heavenly Mindedness”), would fit this picture of intellectual development in Paul’s writings if we accept them as Pauline (as I do); others have also noted the philosophic language there (Ramsay, Teaching, 10–11, though attributing it to the audience). By contrast, Paul’s use of rhetorical devices varies from one letter to another, but not in any chronologically discernible sequence (see the statistics in Harvey, Listening, 286).

2832

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 536

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

on Acts 22:3. Paul would not have used Greek philosophy to inform his exegesis as Philo did, but the latter demonstrates that Jewish exegetical training in Greek could include at least some philosophic knowledge. Paul’s letters attest his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8), though they do not reveal what specific techniques he learned there while interacting with his students. Some scholars have compared Paul’s rhetoric in his epistles to rhetorical “Asianism,”5312 but despite some affinities in the use of figures, Paul’s style in his early, undisputed letters lacks characteristics of Asianic rhetoric.5313 Given the normal use of the label “Asianism” as a designation of abuse,5314 however, its absence in Paul may be just as well, perhaps even in Ephesus.5315 Paul would be classed more as a philosopher than a rhetor; it is questionable whether he could have survived long purely as the latter, given apparent deficiencies at least in delivery in earlier years (1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 10:10). Because various philosophic sects often differed radically in their approaches, Paul’s lack of advanced training in a particular philosophic school would not have prevented his reputation as a sage in an alternative intellectual system. L o g i st ics of Run n ing t he S cho ol

The format of (more traditional) schools varied: teachers could offer lectures, either formal (sometimes read) or informal; many philosophic schools also included “the exegesis and discussion of texts”; class discussions (at times using questions and answers) were common; finally, teachers could dialogue with one student in front of the rest of the students.5316 Both Luke and Paul lead us to expect that Paul would have used the Scriptures for texts and that he may have used some acceptable philosophic lecture forms such as diatribe.5317 (Against Bultmann, Paul’s use of diatribe characterizes classroom teaching more than specifically street corner preaching.5318 Moreover, a diatribe approach may have been not so different from his training in Jerusalem as is often supposed.)5319 If his letter to the Romans is at all representative of his dialogic 5312. Norden cautiously in 1898; T. S. Duncan less cautiously in 1926 (so Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283). 5313. Ibid. 5314. Ibid. (doubting whether the style in any pure form ever existed). Some do find significant elements of Asiatic rhetoric, however, in the rhetorical flourishes of Ephesians (see esp. Witherington, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians, 4–6, which I am currently inclined to find fairly persuasive). 5315. There was, however, at some point a specifically “Ionian” mode of declamation, which rhetoricians might wish to learn (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.619). 5316. Stowers, “Diatribe,” 74 (citing, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.26). “Formal exegesis” was important in Neoplatonism (see Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 7), but in antiquity, most philosophy was more a matter of the way of life than of exegeting texts (cf. Blyth, “Cicero,” noting that it was especially Western appropriation of an element in Cicero that led to a shift in perspective). 5317. Cf., e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 18; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 93–103; Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 93, 200, 370; Enslin, Ethics, 41–42; others, however, suggest that Paul and diatribes may have simply both depended on conventional language that occurred outside diatribe (Nock, Christianity, 93). For its presence in others’ epistles, see Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 129; Aune, Environment, 168; idem, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 165; Tobin, Rhetoric in Contexts, 96; cf. speaking styles in rhetorical letters in Malherbe, “Theorists,” 15. Paul could have acquired the style easily, since it was employed in schools in markets and by philosophers whom bypassers would hear (Stowers, “Diatribe,” 80–81). Similar material appears in other Hellenistic Jewish sources (39–41). 5318. See Stowers, Diatribe, 175; Malherbe, Philosophers, 5–6, 22–33 (noting Epictetus, Bultmann’s source); cf. Lutz, “Musonius,” 6–7n13; for its being a form rather than a genre, Donfried, “Presuppositions,” 134; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 155. The style may not, in fact, make this case by itself, but a street preacher without regular disciples would have to reckon with a shorter attention span. Styles in diatribe varied; diatribe served a range of instructional settings (Stowers, “Diatribe,” 73; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 243); but what we usually mean by the term contains dialogical form (Porter, “Diatribe,” 296; cf. Kustas, “Diatribe”; on characteristics more extensively, see Stowers, Romans, 86–93, 122–33). 5319. For a comparison of diatribe with early rabbinic argumentation, see Ulmer, “Advancement.” If one casts the net widely enough, one finds diatribal similarities in a range of texts (Backhaus, “Kohelet,” finds it in Ecclesiastes); it was more of a dialogical style than a genre.

2833

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 537

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

teaching style, it suggests that he interpreted Scripture and used conventional forms of “ethical-religious instruction.”5320 Popular interest in hearing acclaimed speakers was great,5321 so that once Paul’s status was secured and his reputation grew, his influence would grow accordingly (see Acts 19:10). Given Paul’s apparent refusal to accept fees (20:33–34) and his likely policy of accepting all inquirers,5322 his school probably grew at a tremendous pace. The demand for sophistic schools far exceeded the supply in places such as Alexandria;5323 given the rapid growth in rhetorical interest in Ephesus in this period,5324 Ephesus probably experienced the same shortage. In addition to regular students, many other interested persons would come to listen; rhetorical students, for example, learned declamation by going to hear practice speeches in the schools.5325 After attending lectures with one teacher, students might go to listen to another.5326 Teachers with large numbers of students often had little leisure time;5327 given Paul’s other responsibilities (20:34), we may be certain that he, too, had little (20:31). Paul also taught in more private settings (20:20); probably some of his students accompanied him on such occasions, as students of other teachers sometimes did.5328 In Luke’s account, Paul’s academic activity in 19:9, focused on Christ, produced a massive cultural impact.5329 Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s success reflects an optimism that the gospel could succeed in open and intelligent dialogue.5330 How would the hall have been paid for? There are several possibilities, in order of increasing likelihood:5331 1. Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla supported Paul’s teaching in the hall by their own earnings or perhaps by a growing business under their leadership (cf. 20:34). 2. Tyrannus or the hall’s owner (if not Tyrannus) was a convert or sympathizer. 3. Paul paid lower rates by using the hall during its “off-hours” (as in the Western text). 4. Wealthy benefactors supported what they viewed as a popular, growing movement (in the popularity of which benefactors often liked to share). These options are not mutually exclusive, and it is likely that at least the use of patrons (see comment on Acts 19:31) and lower rent for using the building in offhours (the Western reading) are compatible and plausible explanations. Benefactors increased their own reputation by sponsoring public work that was popular, and Paul’s growing movement (19:10) would certainly qualify until an adversely affected guild complained about his monotheistic “intolerance” (19:26), probably 5320. Stowers, Diatribe, 183. 5321. See Pogoloff, Logos, 176. 5322. Philosophers were known for converting profligates (e.g., Polemo through Xenocrates, Val. Max. 6.9.ext. 1; on moral transformation through philosophy, see further Diog. Laert. 4.16; 6.2.56; Wilken, “Collegia,” 272). 5323. Winter, Philo and Paul, 20–25, citing esp. P.Oxy. 2190. 5324. We often read of students of rhetoric; e.g., I. Eph. 2101, 2202, 2211 (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126). 5325. See Winter, Philo and Paul, 30–34. 5326. Eunapius Lives 469. Socrates sent a student to hear a relevant lecturer, though sometimes with challenging questions (Xen. Mem. 3.1.1–3, 11); cf. John with Jesus ( John 1:36–37). 5327. E.g., Plut. Demosth. 2.2. 5328. See, e.g., Socrates (Xen. Mem. 4.2.8); Jesus ( John 1:38–39; 2:2, 11). 5329. See, e.g., Luter, “Deep.” 5330. See, e.g., Backhaus, “Hörsaal.” This seems much more optimistic than what we have, e.g., in John’s Gospel, but it addressed a different environment. Paul’s various speeches in Acts also present him as an ideal proclaimer (Quesnel, “Paul prédicateur”). 5331. I adapt this list from Witherington, Acts, 575.

2834

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 538

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

embarrassing his wealthy supporters. Asiarchs were among patrons of public education in Ephesus; see comment on Acts 19:31.5332 A letter of recommendation from a person of high status could also help secure property at a reasonable price (Pliny Ep. 1.24.1–2). A ll A si a H e a r s t he M e ss ag e ( 1 9 : 1 0 )

Paul’s two years in Acts 19:10 are added to, rather than include, the three-month period of 19:8 (hence a total of parts of three years in 20:31).5333 By usual reckonings, this represents roughly the period from the fall of 52 to the summer of 555334 or, at the latest, the spring of 53 to the summer of 56. This was the period in which Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and probably an earlier letter no longer extant (1 Cor 5:9),5335 received a delegation from Corinth (16:17–18; cf. 1:11), and also visited Corinth very briefly (cf. 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1; probably 2:1).5336 More important for Luke’s point, it included dangerous opposition (1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 1:8–10). That Paul’s message spreads to all Asia is a recurrent point in Luke’s description here (Acts 19:10, 17, 20), twice specifying both Jews and Greeks (19:10, 17) and twice concluding a section (19:10, 20). The claim especially frames the spectacular account of 19:11–20, which might recall the less successful outcome (in terms of short-term public response) of Paul’s exorcism in 16:18–19. This more successful response draws attention to an irony: just before the earlier passage, the Spirit did not allow Paul to enter Asia (16:6); but now (perhaps after Paul’s preparation in Achaia) the time is right, and the word of God spreads there. Yet even here success comes at a price: challenging the vested economic interests of paganism, Paul will face opposition (19:23–29). The spreading of the message from Paul’s immediate circle in Ephesus to all of surrounding Asia comports with the duration of Paul’s stay, longer than in any other single ministry location (20:31). It also fits the picture of Ephesus’s growing strategic importance in this period (see comment on Acts 18:19). Many coming to Ephesus for various reasons would take news about the movement from Ephesus to elsewhere, and a number would take back their discovery of its message.5337 The claim that “everyone who lived in Asia” heard the message of Christ is hyperbole (cf. 19:17); Luke elsewhere employs the hyperbolic “all” in similar ways (Luke 2:1; 6:17–19).5338 It points to the very plausible spread of the gospel from this center in Ephesus, however, and also serves important literary functions in this text. This spread would counter situations like what Paul encountered on his arrival, where even some Jewish baptists had not heard (Acts 19:2). It also emphasizes that Paul’s mission was 5332. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55. Some others also allow that the Asiarchs might be Paul’s benefactors (Keener, Background Commentary, 380; Dunn, Acts, 258). 5333. With Haenchen, Acts, 559; Barrett, Acts, 903. The time specified is not unusual; Cicero studied six months with a philosopher and then studied rhetoric (Cic. Brut. 91.315), spending a total of two years abroad (in Asia and Rhodes, 91.316); Apollonius allegedly taught in Greece for two years before moving on (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.24). 5334. Bruce, Acts1, 356. 5335. Assuming that Paul did not write the letter in the period of Acts 18:18–23; but Paul usually wrote his letters while staying in a location (at least longer letters, such as 1 Corinthians and Romans), and mutual contact would be simpler once he settled in Ephesus. 5336. Luke’s lack of record of these events is understandable when he summarizes two years in a single statement, then adds only a few examples germane to his point. 5337. With, e.g., Trebilco, “Asia,” 310. 5338. See also Trebilco, Ephesus, 137–38. The point is that people from every part of the province heard, which is plausible enough in Ephesus, which drew many visitors from the rest of the province (Mitchell, Anatolia, 2:37, noting Pliny E. N.H. 5.120).

2835

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 539

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

reaching both Jews and Greeks (also 19:17):5339 Jews, despite Paul’s limited success in the synagogue (19:9), and Greeks (the majority of the city’s population), with whom he shared less common theological ground. That word spread to “all who lived in Asia” may well be hyperbole, but it was the sort of hyperbole well understood in Greco-Roman literature ranging from novels to biographies and history.5340 In a world without mass media but with many travelers, rumors about the outcome of battles (for example) spread rapidly from one city to another (Plut. Cam. 24.1); since not all rumors were true (as our passage later reveals, Acts 19:28–29), conflicting reports also emerged this way (e.g., Tac. Hist. 1.51).5341 This phenomenon appears both in historical narrative5342 and in other forms of narrative that mimicked it.5343 Pindar expects news of an athletic victory to spread far and wide orally as the ships leaving a place carry songs of victory (Pindar Nem. 5.2–3). Noting how quickly rumor spreads, Cicero recognized that, like other messengers, it would probably reach his brother before his letter did (Quint. fratr. 1.1.1). “Many everywhere” praised Pythagoras as his reputation spread (Iambl. V.P. 2.11 [Dillon and Hershbell, 37]). When one philosopher settled in Pergamum, he became so widely known, with people coming from nearby regions to hear him, “that his fame touched the stars” (Eunapius Lives 465). Other sources also note the rapid travel of rumors.5344 Ephesus was an urban regional center,5345 and word would naturally spread throughout its province and beyond.5346 We may compare a later story about a handsome and skillful youth in Ephesus: “Everyone in Ephesus sought his company, and in the rest of Asia as well.”5347 An earlier report mentioned a false rumor circulated through all 5339. See also Trebilco, Ephesus, 140–45. For the phrase “Jews and Greeks,” always in that sequence, see also Acts 14:1; 18:4; 20:21; comment on Acts 14:1. This combination may reflect Pauline influence or the language of that circle of early Christianity (1 Cor 1:22, 24; 10:32; 12:13; cf. Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9; 10:12; Gal 3:28); the sequence varies only in Col 3:11. One could think that he reached Jews first in the synagogue for three months (19:8), then Greeks in the school of Tyrannus afterward (19:9–10), but the frequent pairing of the terms suggests that he continued to reach both in the new venue. 5340. Cf., e.g., Ovid Tristia 2.324: Caesar spread his exploits everywhere (omnia); Statius Theb. 6.249–54 (rumor can call a crowd “from all fields and cities” to watch); Philost. Hrk. 28.10 (“The Lesbians and all the rest of Aeolia, as well as their Ionian neighbors, request oracles there” [Maclean and Aitken, 91], though this cannot literally mean every individual); Lucian Alex. 2 (he filled the entire empire with his robberies). 5341. Sometimes, however, rumor (fama) was not wrong (Tac. Agric. 9). 5342. E.g., rumors of conspiracy (Tac. Ann. 14.58), of catastrophic losses in Germany (Hist. 4.12), of mass exile (Ann. 4.46); rumors exaggerating enemy numbers (4.23); a false rumor of a leader’s death (Hist. 1.34; 4.34) or survival ( Jos. Ant. 19.134; Tac. Ann. 2.82–83) or that the enemy had fled (Tac. Hist. 2.42); or even deliberately false rumors (disinformation; Hist. 4.38, 54; Ann. 4.24). Panic facilitated rumors’ reception (e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.20.15). 5343. Rumor (fama) could spread through Rome news both true and false (Sil. It. 6.554) and rapidly from city to city (4.1–7), though often growing in exaggeration when spread (4.8–9). Personified Rumor could quickly shroud a region in panic (Statius Theb. 4.369); rumors could reach even the underworld quickly as the dying brought reports (Val. Flacc. 5.82–85). (On the personification of rumor, see Scheuer, “Fama.”) 5344. E.g., Symm. Ep. 1.49; 1.95.3; 1.102. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:700, note that in the first century couriers could get a letter from London to Rome in one week; seventeenth-century Sabbatianism “spread from Turkey and Palestine throughout the whole of Europe in less than three years”; the Reformation’s most significant changes spread through much of Europe in five years. Likewise, the modern scholarly idea of first-century Christian communities totally isolated from one another is historically naive (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:187–88). 5345. It was, indeed, shifting from a traditional city-state function to its role as an administrative center (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 190). 5346. Within a city itself, gossip with neighbors or in shops also spread word quickly (Stambaugh, City, 139–40; Jeffers, World, 31); neighborhood taverns, where people congregated for hot food and entertainment, may have especially circulated rumors (Toner, Culture, 109). See further Acts 19:29. 5347. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1 (CAGN 128). Shortly thereafter in the same novel, word about the couple spread throughout Rhodes (Anthia 1.12).

2836

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 540

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(tota) Asia (Cic. Flacc. 6.14). Paul might not have been the most famous speaker in Ephesus, but a massive church in early second-century Asia testifies at least in part to the effectiveness of his labors.5348 Public speakers were among the most highly renowned and prestigious people in the cities of the empire.5349 The interior of Anatolia was more traditional, poorer, and rural, but its strict religious culture proved fertile ground for Judaism and Christianity, and “Much of the interior had apparently converted to Christianity before the beginning of the 4th century.”5350 We know from Paul’s own writings that he had a significant ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8–9) with many enemies (16:9); he also was thinking in terms of reaching “Asia” (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Cor 1:8). Paul presumably expected those who learned from him to propagate, and hence multiply, the message (cf. 2 Tim 2:2). This is probably the period when Paul’s associate Epaphras reached areas such as the Lycus Valley, evangelizing people Paul had not met (Col 1:7; 2:1; 4:12–13).5351 Dunn’s picture of the expanding mission in this period is likely right: “We can well imagine mission teams being sent out from it, southwards to Magnesia and Miletus, north to Smyrna and Pergamum, and up the river valleys to the cities of the Lycus valley (Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossae), to Sardis, Philadelphia and Thyatira.”5352 The culture was already primed with the means for propagating a beloved teacher’s ideals. Disciples typically propagated the message of their teachers5353 (though this claim must be nuanced; they nearly always respected them but sometimes did respectfully disagree with them).5354 More generally, beneficiaries also worked to spread the fame of their benefactors, as a sign of gratitude.5355 Paul sometimes spoke of evangelizing areas representatively (Rom 15:19), perhaps because an area with a self-propagating evangelizing church would eventually be saturated if evangelism continued there. But we know that the major cities of Asia were evangelized early; by the time of Rev 2–3, some “were in a state of decline,”5356 and even to the north in Bithynia, Christians had a great impact, with many former Christians remaining there (Pliny Ep. 10.96–97).5357 By the time of 1 Pet 1:1 there were Christians in Cappadocia even though it lacked significant cities at the end of the Julio-Claudian period.5358 Clearly the Christian message had spread rapidly throughout Asia, and if any single name is preserved for us as most influential in sparking that spread, it would need to be Paul’s. Social control is more difficult and custom less constricting in urban centers, allowing new ideas to flourish more rapidly. Once established in the cities on trade and communication routes, churches began spreading even to the initially 5348. This is true even if at least part of the Pauline circle felt that Asia did not embrace his teaching fully (2 Tim 1:15). 5349. See the view of one speaker in Tac. Dial. 7. 5350. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 190. 5351. With Bruce, Commentary, 389; Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Dunn, Acts, 253; Barrett, Acts, 905; Bock, Acts, 601; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:10, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). For the understanding that a teacher multiplied his influence, see Libanius Anecdote 3.2 (on Isocrates). 5352. Dunn, Acts, 253. 5353. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.14, 20 (he cites especially his primary teacher, Attalus, as in Ep. Lucil. 108; he agreed especially with him); Eunapius Lives 458; cf. t. Yebam. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135–36; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6. 5354. E.g., Seneca respectfully disagrees with a Pythagorean teacher of his, Sotion (Ep. Lucil. 108.17, 20, 22). 5355. See deSilva, Honor, 134–35. 5356. Barrett, Acts, 905–6. 5357. For the spread of the Christian movement by the late second century, see Tert. Apol. 1.7. It is interesting to contrast Pliny’s more active hostility toward Christians (Ep. 10.96) with Tacitus’s more passive approach (criticizing Nero’s mass executions [Ann. 15.44] although, given Tacitus’s anti-Semitism [Hist. 5], he resented simply Nero’s excesses); Tacitus was governor of Asia (BCH 621–22). 5358. See Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:98.

2837

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 541

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

more resistant villages by the end of the first century.5359 Here in Acts, Paul’s ministry has certainly come a long way from the small and resistant beginnings Luke recorded in locations such as Philippi; nevertheless, he will soon need to leave Ephesus as well (Acts 19:21–20:1). Some scholars doubt Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s success in Ephesus.5360 (Some even appeal to improbable scholarly conjectures about competition between Johannine5361 and Pauline Christians there toward the end of the first century.5362 But Johannine Christians were by then more theologically “Pauline”5363 than is likely to have engendered competition.)5364 But even if Luke has concentrated on the positive elements of Paul’s activity and used hyperbole (as all acknowledge in 19:10), it does seem likely that Paul was successful there.5365 One writer disputes this success partly because Acts provides no evidence that Paul in fact won many converts out of the Artemis cult.5366 But the Artemis cult was public, for the entire city, not a mystery cult with merely some initiates; even hundreds of converts would not have made a significant dent in the Artemis cult (cf. Demetrius’s hyperbole in 19:27). And even if Paul made extraordinary inroads into the Artemis cult, would we expect Luke to say more than he did say in his summaries of Paul’s wide impact? In addition to Luke’s explicit claims for growth (19:10, 17, 20), he does envision a significant number of elders in 20:17 (cf. 20:30); the epistle to the “Ephesians” (likely circulated throughout Roman Asia, but with Ephesus named in many early manuscripts probably because it was the most important addressee of the province)5367 may also testify to the continuing vibrancy of Pauline Christianity in Asia. 5359. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 63. On churches spreading especially in Asia’s cities (helped by Diaspora Judaism’s presence there), see Stark, “Christianizing the Empire.” 5360. E.g., Günther, “Gescheiterte Mission.” 5361. On Johannine Christianity in Ephesus, see also Keener, John, 146–49; Smalley, John, 148–49; Fenton, John, 16; Trudinger, “Milieu”; Witherington, Wisdom, 29; Rodríguez Ruiz, “Composición.” 5362. E.g., Court, “Rivals,” 402–3; for one recent study, including a survey of views, see Lémonon, “Christianismes.” See also Strelan, Artemis, 128, arguing that by the end of the century, Johannine Christians outnumbered Pauline ones in Ephesus (further on the competing community, perhaps “Johannine,” 169–72). Strelan’s ultimate conclusions are more balanced, however, suggesting that instead of necessarily being in conflict, Pauline and Johannine traditions were two coexisting streams, where successive leaders could reflect one or another tradition (301–2). 5363. Probably at least hundreds of the thousands of Judean Christians displaced by the Judean-Roman war of 66–73 c.e. settled in Ephesus; “Johannine Christianity” was more Jewish than Gentile (in contrast to the Pauline churches by this period). Nevertheless, the Fourth Gospel’s author offers a vision that is more Pauline (e.g., John 14:23; 15:4; cf. Keener, John, passim, e.g., 998–99) than related to Paul’s circumcisionist detractors (cf. John 7:22–23); he also welcomes non-Jews (4:4–42; 10:16). The author of Revelation combats the same vices as Paul does in his letters (Rev 2:14, 20; cf. 1 Cor 8–10 as many now argue it should be interpreted, e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 73). 5364. This notion of competition (rather than perhaps succession of teachers) is forced-choice logic, since the presence of a Johannine circle need not compete with other Christians (see Keener, John, 149–52; on comparison’s not always implying hostility, see also, e.g., Men. Rhet. 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; Philost. Hrk. 13.3–4; 27.4; 37.2; 38.1; Keener, John, 916–17). 5365. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 127, citing the “churches of Asia” in 1 Cor 16:19, and information about other churches (Col 4:13) apparently founded through Paul’s coworkers (1:7; 2:1). See more fully Trebilco, Ephesus, 138–40. 5366. Strelan, Artemis, 129–30. Strelan does allow that Paul may have been successful among Jews there (171; contrast 128). The view that Luke could mean by “Greeks” simply “Diaspora Jews” (mentioned, 255) fits neither Luke’s nor Paul’s usage. And if Paul’s message spread to outlying regions beyond Ephesus, Gentile involvement is even more likely. 5367. Cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 601. For Ephesus as the destination or part of the destination, see, e.g., Ramsay, Teaching, 432 (comparing 2 Cor 1:1); Robinson, Ephesians, 11; Ford, Revelation, 389; Trudinger, “Milieu”; Arnold, Power, 5–6, 165; Hoehner, Ephesians, 78–79, 144–48. Most accept western Asia Minor (e.g., Lincoln, Ephesians, lxxxi–lxxxiii). Some early emendations in texts universalized, rather than localized, works

2838

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 542

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

ii. Paul’s Signs (19:11–12)

That reports of healings generated popular favor is evident from the popularity of healing shrines in antiquity, especially in the empire.5368 (Ephesus was not famous for these but was one of the ancient centers for medical training.)5369 Asclepius was known and celebrated in Ephesus (e.g., I. Eph. 105, 1253–54), though not in any unique way.5370 A closer comparison, however, is to the popularity of individuals known for healing potency.5371 Some Western nt scholars have treated these descriptions with embarrassment, but other historians of antiquity (who do not expect Luke or Paul to conform to modern Western expectations) find them less disconcerting.5372 (1) Extraordinary Miracles (19:11–12)

The expression “extraordinary miracles” appears elsewhere in antiquity for “unusual” (but not necessarily unique) miracles;5373 Luke presumably offers in Acts 19:12 the most noteworthy examples. “Through the hands of Paul” (cf. 14:3) could be Semitic idiom for the agency of Paul or could allude to his healing through laying on hands (28:8), but in 19:12, healings begin to take place even without his direct touch.5374 The level of Paul’s miracles here appears to exceed earlier, more isolated occasions (e.g., 13:11; 14:10). Though it is possible that Luke portrays Paul as working the same level of miracles from the start (cf. the open-ended summary of 14:3), this passage seems to recall the level of miracle working attested among the Jerusalem apostles earlier (5:12–16). If the disciples in the Gospel of Luke grew in faith (Luke 9:40–41; cf. 8:25; 17:5–10), it is possible that Luke portrays Paul as doing so as well, just as he seems to have grown in his comfort in the role of a popular sage (cf. 17:22–31; 24:24–26; 26:24). What is clearest is that Luke emphasizes that Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, worked miracles no less spectacular than those by the group of Jerusalem apostles. Luke’s report of Paul’s miracles comports with Paul’s own claims, but it also serves Luke’s narrative purposes. That Paul historically believed in ongoing miracles in the church (1 Cor 1:22; 12:10; Gal 3:5) and was effective in performing them (2 Cor 12:12; Rom 15:19; cf. 1 Cor 12:28, 29) in many locations other than Ephesus is clear from his writings. For Paul, apostolic ministry should be attested by signs and miracles (2 Cor 12:12). While Luke’s claim of miraculous activity surrounding Paul therefore likely reflects solid tradition, however, Luke makes good use of it here. That healing and deliverance occur through indirect contact (Gamble, “Formation,” 186); but most scholars doubt that “Ephesus” was original (e.g., Cadbury, “Dilemma,” 93; Santer, “Text,” 248 [despite the unusual solution]). 5368. Friedländer, Life, 1:343. See much fuller discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:326–29. 5369. Beck and Thomas, “Education,” 508; Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131. 5370. He appears less than Zeus (I. Eph. 1239–43) and about the same as Dionysus or Demeter. Pergamum emphasized Asclepius far more (Hom. Il. 5.446–48; Statius Silv. 3.4.23–25; Paus. 2.26.9; Lucian Icar. 24; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.1; Hdn. 4.8.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.11, 34; Vit. soph. 1.25.536; 2.25.611; Ramsay, Letters, 284–86; Klauck, Context, 157; Koester, Introduction, 1:182; Kee, Miracle, 104; Casson, Travel, 131). 5371. On signs prophets, see Keener, Acts, 1:335, 340–41, and sources cited there (esp. the initial, groundbreaking works by Barnett). 5372. So Ashton, Religion, 174–77. Favoring the plausibility of Luke’s portrait here, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 149–52. Pervo, Acts, 473, remarks sarcastically that Luke’s message here is that “human misery, the fruit of Satan’s power, is being wiped off the face of the earth”; a more balanced assessment should recognize that Luke recognizes divine intervention alongside continued suffering (see, e.g., Acts 19:23–34!). 5373. Conzelmann, Acts, 163 (citing Vettius Valens); see more fully BDAG and sources there (including 3 Macc 3:7; Jos. Ant. 2.120; 6.292; BCH 22 [1898]: 89; SIG 528.10; BGU 36.9; P.Oxy. 899.14; examples from Wettstein). Luke expresses this by way of negation, using litotes (as in Acts 19:23; Witherington, Acts, 579). 5374. Cf. Acts 5:12–16, where Luke also notes healing through the apostles’ hands and then miracles beyond their touch.

2839

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 543

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

with Peter (Acts 5:15) and Paul (19:12) parallels both of them to Jesus (Luke 8:44).5375 In each case, such miracles also lead to increased notoriety and demand (Acts 5:16; 19:17–20).5376 Unquestionably, such miracles would have been appreciated. The health needs in Ephesus, as in other cities, would have been phenomenal. Wherever sufficient evidence remains to examine, “for all cities up to the 1870s . . . the death rates of those born in the city exceeded their birth rates.”5377 Whereas diseases such as cholera and smallpox die out in towns below thirty thousand, they spread in major urban areas; many rats would also be in the cities (though some cats might have been available to control them).5378 This health situation became especially dangerous for large commercial cities linked by trade, as Ephesus was.5379 In famines (an extreme situation not in view here), people usually died not of starvation but of disease, to which their malnourished bodies readily succumbed.5380 Ephesus was fairly prosperous (see comment on Acts 18:19), but any known means of recovery would be welcome. (2) Use of Cloths (19:12)

Items of Paul’s apparel here mediate divine power for cures.5381 Those who anointed wounds with oil could use a rag to do so, except on the Sabbath,5382 but cloths had no specifically “medical” use and certainly no specifically thaumaturgic function.5383 The term σουδάριον (a loanword from the Latin sudarium) referred to a cloth used for the face (e.g., John 11:44; 20:7), naturally often used to wipe away perspiration.5384 Given the Latin origin of both terms for cloths here, many (perhaps most) commentators have argued that Luke refers to Paul’s work aprons and sweat cloths.5385 Some ancient commentators may have understood the text similarly.5386 The use of Paul’s sweat rags would demonstrate people’s desperation and belief that even the most despised objects associated with Paul were potent. Another plausible suggestion is that this is Paul’s orator’s garment used, not in his workshop (cf. Acts 18:3; 20:34), 5375. Noted by most literary observers, e.g., Goulder, Type and History, 31. García Recio, “Agarrar,” argues for even ancient Mesopotamian parallels to the sick praying while touching a garment (as in Luke 8:44). 5376. Although not specified in Luke 8:43–48, this pattern obtains frequently in Luke’s Gospel (see comment on Acts 19:10). 5377. Engels, Roman Corinth, 74. It was immigration that caused population increase. 5378. Ibid. On sickness in the cities, cf. also Stark, Cities, 28. 5379. Engels, Roman Corinth, 75. 5380. Ibid., 76. 5381. Infinitives of result naturally follow the conjunction ὥστε here (see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 197–98, §391). 5382. T. Šabb. 12:12. One could lay on a poultice to protect a wound but not treat it with a scroll on the Sabbath (y. Šabb. 6:3, §7). 5383. Although σουδάριον appears in magical texts, it never functions as an agency for cures (Trebilco, “Asia,” 313). 5384. Ibid. (citing OLD [1976 ed.] 1859). It could function as a towel or as a sweatband around the head. 5385. C. Williams, Acts, 221; Bruce, Acts1, 357; idem, Commentary, 389n22; idem, Apostle, 292; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 90; Larkin, Acts, 276; Witherington, Acts, 579–80; Dunn, Acts, 259. A σουδάριον was not used exclusively for sweat (Luke 19:20; John 11:44; 20:7); the connection with σιμικίνθιον, however, might support this usage. The latter term renders the Latin semicinctium, an apron (LSJ, s.v. σημικίνθιον), i.e., a semigirdle or belt. Still, even this piece of clothing was in general usage, not restricted to the workplace (Leary, “Aprons”; cf. Jeffers, World, 43–44; Prov 31:24). Because it can bend in Petron. Sat. 94.8, Strelan, Strange Acts, 197, suggests that it is “a thinner version of the cinctium,” i.e., the girdle (ζώνη), which people of both genders “commonly” wore (see comment on Acts 21:11). (The association with childbirth magic in Pliny E. N.H. 28.9, also cited by Strelan in Strange Acts, 197, was not applied to men.) 5386. Conzelmann, Acts, 163, citing Ammonius (linen bands on the head and others held in the hands); also Theophylact (for handkerchief; so BDAG, though disagreeing). Hesychius construed it as some sort of bandage (BDAG).

2840

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 544

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

but in his school (19:9);5387 there is supporting evidence, although there are also some potential problems with this view.5388 If this passage refers to Paul’s sweat rags (as opposed to his teaching uniform), people may have taken them without Paul’s knowledge,5389 just as those seeking healing by indirect association with God’s agents acted without the agents’ knowledge in Luke 8:44 and Acts 5:15. Given the limitations of time, however, it is not impossible that Paul allowed such proxies if he knew of them, provided the service was offered in Jesus’s name (Acts 19:13). Yet the idea that they acted without his direct approval, given Luke’s parallel with Jesus, might be precisely the point; Luke may emphasize the activity of the Spirit’s present power even beyond the activity of the Spirit’s agents.5390 In either case, we do know that some sought to exploit the reputation of Paul’s agency for Jesus in order to accomplish miracles without his knowledge (19:13). Some scholars find magical associations in the description here.5391 Certainly many believed that the touch of special individuals or anything in contact with them exercised thaumaturgic power (see discussion at Acts 5:15).5392 Although miracle working belonged to Paul’s biblical tradition (e.g., Exod 4:6–9, 17;5393 1 Kgs 17–19; 2 Kgs 1–2; 4–7), it was also a relevant means to contextualize the true God’s power for the Greco-Roman world.5394 Many people believed in healing by touching something that had come into association with supernatural power; earlier Romans, for example, brought fever remedies to their shrines to Fever before applying them to the afflicted (Val. Max. 2.5.6); later rabbis forbade laying a scroll or phylactery on a person to seek recovery on the Sabbath (y. Šabb. 6:3, §7).5395 Later Egyptian Christians spread the gospel by following expectations for Egyptian holy men, eventually supplanting the latter.5396 Although Luke includes an antimagical apologetic and hence shares with many others hostility toward magic (see Acts 13:8; comment at Acts 8:9–11), the boundaries may have seemed thinner to those on the verge of popular paganism, and Luke does not deny the value of divine signs revealing truth where unbelievers were looking (cf. Matt 2:1–2). The approaching of some to Paul with what may have been 5387. See Strelan, “Acts 19:12” (citing various ancient authors); followed by Parsons, Acts, 270 (noting Suet. Nero 25.3, 51; Quint. Inst. 6.3.60; 11.3.118). 5388. Scholars’ apparel would constitute a more expensive “medicine” than sweat rags, so it is difficult to imagine this happening often. The present infinitives here could suggest (although need not demand) iterative force (cf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, 166, §318; 172, §§335–36; 174, §337; Robertson, Grammar, 1081). 5389. So, e.g., Horton, Acts, 322, arguing against a normative model here. Ultimately, the details of how people acquired the cloths may only be guessed, given the conciseness of Luke’s account. Theodor Zahn suggested that Priscilla, with whom Paul was staying, lent people his items, which they afterward returned (Klauck, Magic, 98, citing Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 681–82); this is, of course, speculation. 5390. Twelftree, Name, 149. 5391. Kee, Miracle, 215; cf. Aune, “Magic,” 1537. 5392. See Plut. Pyrr. 3.4–5; Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 313); see further Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63. Contrast the conception of “power” in Ephesians (which Arnold, Power, 36–37, even suggests may polemicize against a pagan “‘substance’ view of power”). 5393. The exodus tradition was foundational for thought about past miracles (Num 14:11, 22; Josh 24:17; Judg 6:13; Neh 9:10; Pss 78:11, 43; 105:27; 135:9), including as a paradigm for present signs ( Jer 32:20–21) and those of the eschatological exodus (Mic 7:15). In early Judaism, see further Eve, Miracles, 244, 377. 5394. Cf. Polhill, Acts, 402. 5395. Substances could have spirits in them, as with demons in some oil (b. Sanh. 101a; cf. further sources cited in Alexander, Possession, 29, 32, 34). That the Greek term translated “phylactery,” which often has a magical use (see, e.g., Becker, “Phylakterion”), could be applied to tefillin does not suggest magical connotations in all its uses. 5396. They went further in the direction of magic (with spells and amulets) than Luke’s Paul did, but many of the examples in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 267, can be paralleled in the ot (e.g., 2 Kgs 13:21). Magic spells did, however, persist in the Christian period (Lewis, Life, 97); for Egyptian priests and magic-working, see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 228, 236–37.

2841

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 545

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

viewed by others as semimagical expectations (cf. Luke 8:44) is probably, however, why Luke immediately emphasizes the distinction between Paul’s ministry, blessed by God, and the magic of some of his contemporaries (Acts 19:13–19). Luke, however, would not view such phenomena as magical, and thus he directly repudiates potential magical associations in the following context. Touching an object associated with a healer also proves efficacious in the pre-Lukan Gospel tradition (Mark 5:27–28; 6:56), though its efficacy is specifically attributed to faith (5:34), which might be implied for those seeking healing among Christ’s agents (cf. Acts 5:16; 19:17). For Luke it is not “relics” per se but God who is performing miracles (19:11). The idea is not foreign to ot prophetic tradition (Exod 7:20; Num 17:5–10; 2 Kgs 4:29; 13:21; cf. Jos. Ant. 8.353–54)5397 and is implied in a broader manner in Levitical codes of clean and unclean. The context in Luke’s first account, in his Gospel, also implies the idea of communicating ritual impurity through touch (Luke 8:43–44, 47 taken together with Lev 15:25–27; cf. Lev 15:19–24),5398 which is reversed by a transfer of superior power (Luke 8:46).5399 For Luke, long-distance healings reveal special power (Luke 7:7–10),5400 connect Paul with his predecessors, and might even imply continuing blessing on Paul’s ministry and circle after his death (cf. 2 Kgs 13:21), an idea probably relevant to Luke’s audience. (3) Exorcisms in Ephesus (19:12)

Public exorcisms proved strategic in the expansion of Christianity in the Roman Empire in subsequent centuries.5401 See the lengthy excursus on demons and spirit possession at Acts 16:16–18, especially section 5, “Exorcism.” It was believed that Solomon provided incantations for illnesses and strategies for exorcism ( Jos. Ant. 8.45–49); one Jewish exorcist cast out demons by citing Solomon’s name and using his incantations (8.47).5402 Probably Sceva’s sons and others (19:13–14) try to use Jesus’s and Paul’s name the same way. Luke appears to distinguish between sickness and demonization here.5403 On the relationship between the two in some ancient sources, see the excursus on demons and spirit possession at Acts 16:16–18. Although Ephesus is hardly the only location where Luke reports demonic activity or exorcisms, it may be no coincidence that it features heavily in his account here (Acts 19:12–16). Philostratus later reports a significant encounter between his hero Apollonius and a demon here, although this encounter was hardly an exorcism. 5397. In these examples, the object was separated from the living prophet. But cf. also Moses’s staff, though not detached from him (Exod 4:17; 7:17, 20; 8:5, 16, 17; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:5, 9). Parsons, Acts, 278–79, very helpfully cites parallels in early Pentecostalism (unrelated to later corrupted gimmicks) and, 279–80, parallels regarding relics. Popular literature offers many other modern examples (for one in Nigeria, e.g., Folwarski, “Point of Contact”; in southern Africa, Koch, Zulus, 106; in India, ibid., 105; in connection with Azusa Street, Robeck, Mission, 106; with Wigglesworth and other early Pentecostals, Wacker, Heaven, 94; more recently, e.g., Stewart, Only Believe, 149; and expectations, e.g., Sung, Diaries, 90); so also earlier history (besides the use of relics attributed to saints, cf., e.g., oil from the cave of Gäbrä-Seyon; Michael, “Gäbrä-Seyon”). 5398. See also Keener, Matthew, 303–4 (with many; but on Matthew, cf. differently Levine, “Responsibility,” 384). Luke is well aware of Levitical purity laws (Luke 2:22–24 with Lev 12:2–8). Strelan, Strange Acts, 192, treats the effectiveness of holy power as analogous to the contagion of corpse impurity. 5399. Cf. power in Luke 1:17, 35; 4:14; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 4:33; especially power for healing or exorcism in Luke 4:36; 5:17; 9:1; Acts 3:12; 4:7; 6:8; 10:38; and such power coming forth in Luke 6:19. 5400. Contemporaries also seem to have agreed; thus, e.g., people were cured by merely seeing Abraham in Gen. Rab. 39:11. For other examples underlining the special expression of power in long-distance healings, see, e.g., b. Ber. 34b, bar.; Bultmann, Tradition, 225. 5401. See MacMullen, Christianizing, 28, 40–41, 60–61, 112–13 (followed by, e.g., Wagner, Acts, 473–74). 5402. For the association of Solomon with exorcism, see also Betz, “Miracles in Josephus,” 220–21. 5403. See Thomas, Deliverance, 282.

2842

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 546

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Apollonius bade the people of the city to stone a supposedly blind beggar to death; the carcass became a huge dog, which everyone then realized was a daimon (Vit. Apoll. 4.10).5404 Although the term δαίμων did not regularly carry the negative connotations assigned to it in the nt,5405 it might be pertinent that we know of an altar in Ephesus dedicated to both Artemis Savior (cf. Acts 19:24–27) and “the good Daimon” (ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, I. Eph. 1255). A later Ephesian source also reports Jesus’s power to expel “unclean spirits and demons” (I. Eph. 46.3–4). Although Paul’s letters do not specify that his signs (2 Cor 12:12) included exorcisms,5406 Luke’s testimony to this effect is consonant with both Paul’s summary that he performed signs and his belief in demonic activity among pagans (1 Cor 10:20). Luke’s term ἀπαλλάσσω (Acts 19:12) appears frequently in medical writers5407 but is by no means limited to them; Luke himself uses it in nonmedical ways (Luke 12:58; so also Heb 2:15 and most of the fifteen uses in the lxx).5408 iii. Magic Inferior to Paul’s Signs (19:13–20)

In Acts 19:13–20, Luke emphasizes at length that magic is inferior to Paul’s signs (19:11–12). Lest any hearer of 19:11–12 suppose that Paul was a mere magician, 19:13–19 clarifies that Paul’s ministry was antithetical to magic and the spirits on which it depended (see discussion of Luke’s antimagical apologetic at Acts 8:9–11). Magicians practiced exorcism by invoking the names of a variety of higher spirits, and they did so secretly; by contrast, the earliest recorded Christians viewed Jesus’s name as “uniquely efficacious,” and they acted publicly.5409 Ephesus was notable for its reputed trade in magic spells (see discussion at 19:13). Not surprisingly in a city known for magic but especially for its cult of Artemis, magic may sometimes be linked with her cult there,5410 but usually they are separate issues. As Luke drew on Athens’s reputation for philosophy in 17:18–34, he will draw on both aspects of Ephesus’s reputation in his account of Paul’s ministry here; additionally, the sophistic and philosophic part of the city’s reputation likely appears in 19:9. (1) Exorcists versus Jesus’s Name (19:13–16)

In 19:13–16, Sceva’s sons try to use Jesus’s name as a magical formula, the way they think Paul did, and discover that this name cannot be manipulated like other 5404. Others also point to this account in connection with Ephesian practices (Arnold, Power, 30–31; Trebilco, “Asia,” 313), though it may not be distinctively Ephesian. 5405. E.g., I. Eph. 1255; Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; see further the excursus “Demons and Spirit Possession” on “daimones,” at Acts 16:16. 5406. Paul’s letters naturally focus more on the cosmic dimension of evil whereas Luke’s narrative genre more readily recounts exorcisms. To exclude any particular category of signs because Paul does not mention them—when he does not specify any particular category—would exclude all categories, inferring the opposite of Paul’s claim simply on account of the miserliness of one’s methodology. Cf. Twelftree, Paul, 261. 5407. Hobart, Medical Language, 47. 5408. Compare also some 156 uses in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 1.92, 103, 202, 230, 309; 2.31, 33, 97, 133, 137; 3.14, 48, 69, 83; War 4.355, 412, 465; 5.99; 7.34, 63, 66–67, 76, 111, 205, 319); some 46 uses in Philo (e.g., Cain 23; Abr. 30; Jos. 25); and occasionally in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clem. 5.7; 2 Clem 17.3; Mart. Pol. 3.1; Quadratus 2). 5409. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 204–5. Shauf, Theology, 196–218 (esp. 217–18), questions “antimagical” apologetic in this passage, noting (229–30) that magic appears only in 19:19, and there only for some of those confessing in 19:18. This objection is technically true, but there may be contextual reasons for specifying only this sin in 19:19. At the very least, this passage involves a power encounter comparable to Philip’s superiority over Simon’s power in 8:9–13. 5410. Arnold, Power, 22–24. The connection arose partly from the Greek association of Artemis with Hecate, and appears also in Tatian Or. Gr. 8.2, but the connection is considerably weakened if texts mentioning Hecate are discounted (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95).

2843

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 547

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

names. Jesus’s name is not that of a mere spirit but the name of “the Lord” (19:17), and these exorcists who do not obey him lack authorization to use his name.5411 Sata n Ca n not Ca st Ou t Sata n ( 1 9 : 1 3 –1 6 )

This passage illustrates a theology of power encounter earlier borrowed from Q in Luke 11:15–26. Sceva’s sons apparently assumed that Paul acted by something akin to magic, which they could duplicate. A similar misunderstanding of magical exorcism had also followed Jesus’s ministry, as Luke notes (11:15).5412 Luke and early Christians were well aware of exorcists outside their own ranks, but such exorcism would prove inadequate (11:19) unless it was antithetical to Satan’s kingdom (11:18) and advanced God’s kingdom (11:20). Indeed, Jesus cast out demons by God’s “finger” (11:20)—possibly recalling the admission of Pharaoh’s magicians that they could not match the true demonstrations of God’s power through Moses (the finger of God in Exod 8:19 [mt, 8:15 lxx]).5413 Likewise, the magical exorcists here cannot compete with Jesus or his agent Paul. Satan does not genuinely cast out Satan (Luke 11:17–19); only in the name of one stronger than Satan can one free his possessions (cf. 11:21–22), and not everyone has the right to use that name (11:23). Unless transformed by God’s kingdom, 5414 the person exorcised risked even severer repossession, so that others’ exorcism (cf. 11:19) would ultimately result in more harm than good (11:24–26). 5415 Christian exorcism had to proceed on a higher level than the strategic barter between evil forces of varying levels of power in Satan’s kingdom.5416 Jesus’s followers needed no special training, but they needed to use his name in faith (9:49–50).5417 E xorci sm , M ag ic, a nd E p he su s ( 1 9 : 1 3 )

It is often argued that Ephesus was well known for its magical practices.5418 Scholars have long argued that ancients sometimes labeled rolls of such incantations Ἐφέσια γράμματα—that is, “Ephesian writings.”5419 The designation alone would link Ephesus with magic for some ancient hearers; it applied more specifically to six special magical terms that could be spoken as charms or inscribed in amulets.5420 As noted 5411. Cf. Bates, “Sons,” 417, 420. Although Williams, Miracle Stories, 144, views the current form of the story as legendary, he finds “nothing historically improbable in the idea that an incautious exorcist might receive a thrashing at the hands of a violent lunatic!” For the consistency of various features with what is known of ancient Ephesus, exorcists, and the spirit possessed, see comment below and the excursus at Acts 16:16. 5412. See Keener, Spirit, 103–9. Garrett, Demise, 36, also argues that Acts 13:10 counters the accusation of Luke 11:15, and Shauf, Theology, 224, finds echoes of Luke 11:14–23 here. 5413. Many Gentiles envisioned Moses himself as a magician (e.g., Apul. Apol. 90; Gager, Moses, 134–61), but Luke’s ideal audience is more biblically informed (see, e.g., Luke 2:22; 9:30, 33 and passim). 5414. For Jesus’s exorcisms as demonstrations of God’s kingdom overcoming Satan’s (as suggested in Luke 11:18–20), see also Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 141; idem, “Kingdom”; cf. their eschatological significance in Theissen and Merz, Guide, 309. In a larger Jewish context, cf. the observations in Vermes, Religion, 130, concerning 4Q510 1 4. 5415. The number of Sceva’s sons probably matches that of the spirits in Luke 11:26 only by coincidence, since they are unsuccessful, not paralleled with spirits, and Luke 11:26, in fact, implies a total of eight. 5416. Garrett, Demise, 97–98, is helpful but may go too far in assuming that pagan exorcists could no longer cast out spirits. Bates, “Sons,” 420, argues that their appeal to Paul misconstrues Jesus’s power. 5417. The passage in Luke 9 seems to stand in tension with our present passage, a tension that invites caution in drawing the boundaries. But see especially the requirement of faith implied in 9:40–41. Eve, Miracles, 337, thinks the tension a deliberate contrast between right and wrong models of exorcism (here “adjuring,” a magical technique used by demons in Mark 5:7). 5418. See esp. Arnold, Power, 14–16 (including the reference to magi in Clem. Alex. Exhort. 2.19). Inscriptions also mention “magi” there (I. Eph. 3817A.8, in a probably cultic context [3817A.2, 6]; cf. I. Eph. 3820C), though the designation was not limited to “magicians” (see comment on Acts 8:9–11). 5419. Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Trebilco, “Asia,” 314 (citing Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.15; 5.8; Plut. Table 7.5). 5420. Trebilco, “Asia,” 314. On amulets, see Versnel, “Amulets”; Becker, “Phylakterion”; Ritner, Mechanics, 51–55, 244–45.

2844

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 548

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

above, it would not be surprising if, in a city known for magic but especially for its cult of Artemis, magic is sometimes linked with her cult there,5421 though this has been debated.5422 Exorcism was sometimes linked with magic, although not always;5423 magical exorcism was often associated with Egypt but also with Jewish exorcists.5424 In one fictitious work, we also have, as noted above, a later account of an alleged exorcism in Ephesus (of sorts; after the apparently human demon was stoned to death, it reverted to the shape of a giant dog, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.10). It is not clear, however, that the exorcists addressed here were from Ephesus; that they traveled around (περιέρχομαι) indicates that they were itinerants,5425 though it does not specify the range of their travels. Some itinerants were known to be charlatans.5426 If Sceva’s “sons” were foreign, this could have augmented the aura of mystery and proved good for their business; esoteric knowledge from Eastern cultures was sometimes considered particularly efficacious, though Egypt was counted a special source for magic.5427 That they were ethnically Jewish says nothing about their relationship with the synagogue in Acts 19:9, but for Luke’s audience, it might confirm the powerlessness of Ephesian Judaism compared with Paul, the true preacher of Jewish monotheism (cf. 19:26, 33). That all the major magical figures in Acts are Jewish or (apparently) Samaritan (8:9–11; 13:6–8; and here) could help counter Jewish accusations that Christian signs represent sorcery. “By whom,” Jesus asks in Luke’s Gospel, “do your own sons cast them out?” (Luke 11:19; Q material also found in Matt 12:27). As noted earlier (see comment on Acts 8:11; 13:6), Jewish involvement in magic was widely known in the Gentile world (though not all Jews approved of it).5428 Some Jewish pietists, like some other people, used incantations to ward off demons (e.g., 4Q560). Na m e s in E xorci s m (1 9 : 1 3 )

Ancients used various means of exorcism (see full discussion in the excursus on demons and spirit possession at Acts 16:16–18, esp. sect. 5, “Exorcism”). One popular method of exorcising or controlling spirits was to invoke the spirit by name or to invoke a more powerful spirit to expel or control the lower spirit.5429 Invoking more powerful spirits against lower ones appears in ancient Near Eastern sources from at least 2100 b.c.e. forward.5430 5421. Argued by Arnold, Power, 22–24. 5422. The link is denied by Strelan, Artemis, 83–88, esp. 87. 5423. Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 140–41. 5424. See Graf, “Exorcism,” 270–71. 5425. With, e.g., Strelan, Artemis, 262. The term does not specify either way, since it means just moving around; within a single city, e.g., Josh 6:7, 11, 15; 1 Tim 5:13; Jos. Ant. 5.27; 11.178; Philo Jos. 120; further, e.g., Job 1:7; Heb 11:37; Jos. Ant. 8.182. One wonders whether Luke’s contextual use (six verses, or about 120 words, apart) of a similar-sounding περίεργα (Acts 19:19) might be deliberate, coincidental, or—perhaps somewhat most likely—unconscious (the meaning is not related); neither term (or its cognates) appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts (out of some 2,150 verses). 5426. See, e.g., Liefeld, “Preacher,” 246; Furnish, II Corinthians, 178; further comment at Acts 20:29, 33–35. 5427. Lucian Lover of Lies 31, 33. For Egypt’s association with magic, see, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 28 A; 48, §132 B; b. Qidd. 49b; Gen. Rab. 86:5; Exod. Rab. 9:6; 20:19; Horsley, Documents, 1:47–51; Hom. Od. 4.228–34; Lucian Lover of Lies 31, 33; Apul. Metam. 2.28; Heliod. Eth. 6.14; Dauphin, “Amulet”; Frankfurter, “Magic”; idem, Religion in Egypt, 198–237; Klauck, Context, 213. 5428. For Jewish magical practices and Acts 19, see helpfully Arnold, “Sceva,” 10–19. 5429. Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8; Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5; 8:5–11; 18. For exorcism by a name (as well as other formulas), see Leicht, “Mashbia‘.” 5430. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 252–53. For invoking a more powerful spirit to enforce a womb exorcism, see Faraone, “New Light.”

2845

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 549

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Luke himself is surely aware of the use of names in exorcism and magic (cf. Luke 8:30);5431 this was common knowledge, not requiring any specialized training in magic.5432 A magical text advises the practitioner to ask the appearing deity its name (PGM 1.160– 61);5433 if it cooperates (1.167), then it will perform magic for the invoker (1.171–92).5434 One who wished to command a deity needed to simply invoke the greatest name (in this case, OUPHŌR), and the deity would obey (12.316). Magical texts frequently invoke Jewish angels.5435 A third-century Jewish text highlights the importance of asking demons their names.5436 Access to secret names functioned as passports for heavenly visions in later Jewish mystic and gnostic texts; this too reflects magical influence.5437 Invoking even deities’ names in magic may have been most popular, especially initially, in Jewish circles invoking the divine name,5438 but it was hardly limited to them. A mid-first-century Roman writer writes of a witch practicing name invocation on deities of the underworld and threatening to use their real names if they failed to comply (Lucan C.W. 6.732–34). Because the God of Israel had a sacred name that was effectively secret because publicly unpronounced (see comment on Acts 2:21),5439 it would be considered especially powerful.5440 (Thus, for example, one kept secret the names of the gods of the Samothracian Mysteries.)5441 A tradition existed that Rome had a “secret” name known only to priests lest its gods be enticed away by use of their real names;5442 Romans also regarded “unknown gods” as especially powerful.5443 Romans kept the name of their tutelary deity secret to keep others from luring their deity away from them as they invoked other peoples’ tutelary deities away from them.5444 5431. New Testament scholarship has often emphasized the use of name invocation in healing (e.g., Bultmann, Tradition, 223), magic (Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” 243), or confronting spiritual enemies (Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 376; Bultmann, Tradition, 232). For forcing the demon to reveal its identity, see Deissmann, Light, 261 (third century c.e.); for having to use the demon’s name for exorcism, sometimes requiring trying various forms, see Tarn, Civilisation, 353. 5432. Garrett, Demise, 106 (contrasting the more knowledgeable Hermas). Name invocation was not limited to Ephesus, and the index to the inscriptions lists ὀνομάζω only at I. Eph. 45a.3, a sixth-century Christian reference to invoking God. 5433. Cf. Luke 8:30; Mark 5:9 (though the question was not unusual; cf. Gen 32:27; Judg 13:17). 5434. This approach to manipulating a deity appears in Jewish magic, so treating the divine name (Pr. Jos. 9–12). 5435. E.g., Scholem, Gnosticism, 86 (regarding an amulet); Pfeiffer, Scrolls, 143 (regarding incantation bowls); Arnold, “Sceva,” 10. Josephus might reveal awareness of such a practice in his own day when he attributes to Essenes careful guarding of the sects’ secrets about angelic names (War 2.142). 5436. Test. Sol. 5:2, 6–7; also the name of the angel by which that demon was thwarted (5:9). 5437. See Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33, 45. 5438. So Pulleyn, “Power of Names.” See further, e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:130. Not all who used the name for power viewed their practices as magical (cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34); see comment on Acts 3:6, especially for the use of name outside magic. 5439. E.g., Jos. Ant. 2.276; in the third century c.e., CIJ 2:69–70, §821. This was probably originally to prevent hearers from using it lightly (so y. Yoma 3:7). Some later Platonic thinkers viewed the supreme deity as too great to name or define (Apul. Apol. 64). 5440. Invoking a deity’s secret name would invite help (PGM 1.216–17). Thus a later Christian sage could warn that those with names are named by those more powerful and so “God” is not a name but a conception (Sent. Sext. 28). On mysterious activity and secret names being especially powerful, see further Theissen, Miracle Stories, 64 (citing, e.g., on “hidden names,” PGM 4.1609–11); Bruce, Apostle, 292. In some societies today, shamans cannot reveal secrets such as the identity of their guardian spirit (Harner, Way of Shaman, 95). 5441. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68.3. Ancients sometimes feared that deities had unknown names; this was reflected in their use of “whoever the deity is” in invocations (Aune, Revelation, 1056, citing Aeschylus Ag. 160; Eurip. Tro. 885–86). 5442. Aune, Revelation, 926–27, citing for its secret name Plut. Rom. Q. 61; Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.18; and for the gods being enticed, Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 2.351. 5443. Harrauer, “Agnostos Theos.” 5444. Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.18–19; cf. Plut. Rom. Q. 61, Mor. 278F. Cf. also Aune, Revelation, 926–27, citing these same texts; and for the gods being enticed, Servius Comm. in Verg. Aen. 2.351.

2846

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 550

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

YHWH’s name sometimes appears in magical texts,5445 though some of the supposed permutations of YHWH cited today may have represented simply magical use of the seven vowels, used in Egyptian hymns to deities.5446 Later Aramaic incantation bowls can invoke the ineffable name against demons.5447 Gentiles also used Jewish and Christian divine names;5448 thus we have texts that address thoroughly pagan deities alongside transliterated Hebrew divine names and those of angels (e.g., PGM 3.145–50).5449 Gentile practices also affected Jews; Jewish adjurations in Hekhalot texts resemble Greco-Egyptian adjurations.5450 The exorcists’ use of ὁρκίζω and similar oath formulas would be familiar as exorcistic language, as Luke might infer from the Jesus tradition (Mark 5:7, though there it is the spirits that employ it).5451 Paul used Jesus’s name in exorcism without magical incantations (e.g., Acts 16:18; cf. 4:30), but Jesus’s name grew increasingly popular in magical texts in subsequent centuries.5452 Origen counters Celsus’s charge that Christians worked miracles by magical incantations invoking demons: Christ’s coming has actually weakened occult power. Further, Origen concedes that even “bad men” expel demons by using Jesus’s name, but Jesus’s warning that such things would happen rules out his involvement in sorcery.5453 Exorcists were pragmatic, and both pagans and Christians eventually mixed Jesus’s name with traditional formulas;5454 it is doubtful that Luke would have approved.5455 More positively, rabbinic literature 5445. E.g., the Samaritan bronze amulet in CIJ 2:217, §1168. Israel’s God is named frequently in magical texts (e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 41–42), widely adopted by Gentile magicians (Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 201; Tiede, Figure, 170); Smith, Magician, 69, claims that YHWH’s name appears more than three times as often as “that of any other deity.” Magical texts multiplied divine names (Pr. Jos. 9; CIJ 2:62–65, §819) or permutations of the sacred name (e.g., Incant. Text 69.6–7; from Germany, CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:486, §674; 1:490, §679). They could include the divine name among a list of angels invoked (1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:90–91, §849); “Iao” was normally a divine name (2:81, §833; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; cf. Diod. Sic. 1.94.1–2), though two permutations of it appear as sons of Sabaoth in Test. Sol. 18:15–16. The divine name “Iao” appears frequently in ancient magical papyri and curses (Nock, Conversion, 62–63) as well as on amulets (MacMullen, Enemies, 103). 5446. See Demet. Style 2.71. 5447. Incant. Text 20.11–12. 5448. Klauck, Context, 213. 5449. For other examples of texts blending pagan, Jewish, and Christian elements, see, e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 2:174–88; Arnold, Power, 18; for other examples of magical texts with angelic names, see Simpson, Literature of Egypt, 455–57 (probably late Christian). Josephus claims that Essenes swore to preserve angels’ names (War 2.142), perhaps envisioning their proper use. 5450. Cf. Lesses, “Speaking with Angels”; Scholem, Gnosticism, 32–33. It was impious not to heed adjurations in Zeus’s name (Vit. Aes. 135, 138). 5451. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 457 (citing, e.g., P.Lond. 121.242); the second- or thirdcentury c.e. Jewish inscription in Kotansky, “Remnants”; cf. the use of oaths in PGM 1.80–82, 167; 36.307, 347–48; 39.19–20; Test. Sol. 11:6; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 375; even our English word “exorcise.” Bruce cites PGM 574.3018–20 (Commentary, 390; idem, History, 328n38). In the second century, Lucian Lover of Lies 16 satirizes a Palestinian (perhaps Christian) exorcist who “adjures” (ὅρκους ἐπάγων) the demon. Shauf, Theology, 208, protests that the term appears much more widely than in exorcism contexts; while his objection is technically true, this is an exorcism context. 5452. See, e.g., PGM 3.420; 4.1231–36 (in the context of 4.1227–64); 83.14–15; for the persistence of magic in Christian Egypt, see Lewis, Life, 97. Cf. the fourth-century Christian interpolation in PGM 13.289–93 by a member of “the newly Christianized criminal class” (Betz, Magical Papyri, 180n68). Ghosts of those who died violently might be considered particularly useful in magic (cf. Eve, Miracles, 336), since their corpses were (PGM 1.248–49; 2.49–50; 4.342–43, 1390–95, 1402–3, 2211–17; 57.5–6; 58.5–9; 67.21; 101.1–3), and these ghosts were more malevolent (Plut. Cimon 1/6; 6.5–6). 5453. Achtemeier, “Miracle Workers,” 160 (citing Origen Cels. 1.6, 60; 2.50; 6.40); cf. Eve, Miracles, 347. See Matt 7:22. Bede Comm. Acts 19.13 (Martin, Acts, 237) suggests that sometimes God allows even the wicked to cast out demons with the right name, so as to honor the name. 5454. See, e.g., Smith, Magician, 62–64. Jesus’s name also appears on a Jewish incantation bowl (Levene, “Name”), though some think by an opponent of a Christian (Shaked, “Jesus”). Gospel of Philip 56 opines that “Jesus,” unlike “Christ,” was the same in every language and hence constituted a “hidden name.” 5455. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 41 (Martin, Acts, 237), who notes that Sceva’s sons acted secretly but were shamed publicly: “The name has no power,” he opines, “unless it is spoken in faith.” Formulas that are more

2847

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 551

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

indicates that Jesus’s Jewish followers continued to use his name for healings, though most rabbinic leaders disapproved.5456 S ce va’s S e ve n S ons ( 1 9 : 1 4 )

Whether Sceva’s sons constituted the entire group of exorcists in 19:13 or were simply its most notable examples for Luke’s purpose could be debated (though clearly those invoking Jesus’s name were a subgroup of the larger category of Jewish exorcists). “Scaeva” is a Latin cognomen;5457 although some members of Jerusalem’s priestly aristocracy may have been Roman citizens (even equestrians), Latin names would be more common in the Diaspora, especially in the West.5458 A number of Ephesian Jews, and Jews of some other cities in the region, were Roman citizens ( Jos. Ant. 14.228).5459 If Sceva headed a guild of exorcists, they might not be his “sons” literally, at least not all of them (cf. esp. Luke 11:19);5460 their relationship might also be fictitious if Sceva’s (and hence their) priesthood was.5461 Roman priesthoods, in contrast to those in the Greek East, formed colleges or brotherhoods of priests.5462 The number “seven” might be a special number (as in Acts 19:7), which the exorcists chose for their guild because it was a significant number in antiquity (even in magic);5463 see comment on Acts 6:3. The number could just as easily be coincidence (had it been six or eight, commentators might still have been tempted to uncover significance!);5464 but the number is significant in 6:3, and Luke is more explicit here than in 20:4. The claim that Sceva was a “high priest” strikes many commentators as suspicious. like written prayers (perhaps PGM 128.1–11) might have been acceptable on analogy with the sweat cloths of Acts 19:12. Some have argued that even some errant Pauline Christians may have used Jesus’s name magically (Winter, Left Corinth, 164–83), but this argument depends on reading “Jesus” as vocative in 1 Cor 12:3a when a nominative is more likely (the accusative variant would also be against it). Smith, Magician, 62–64, notes later use of Jesus’s name in magic but anachronistically treats it as much earlier. 5456. See t. Ḥul. 2:22–23; Urbach, Sages, 1:116; Herford, Christianity, 103–11; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 40; Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 96–97. Bruce, Acts1, 358, cites t. Ḥul. 2.22–23; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 27b; y. Šabb. 14:4; Abod. Zar. 2:2. 5457. E.g., Plut. Caes. 16.2; Appian Bell. civ. 2.9.60; Dio Cass. 56.16.1 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 649); also Hor. Ep. 1.17.1. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 241, point out the Greek form of the Latin name in CIG 2889. On cognomens as personal names in the East, see comment on Acts 13:9; whether Sceva was a Jewish Roman citizen is hard to say. The occasional suggestion of the Latin “Scaevus” as a nickname (“Left,” “Unlucky”) and the Greek Σκαιός (“Left-Handed,” which had negative connotations; cf. Aratus Phaen. 6, 8; Plut. Rom. Q. 78, Mor. 282EF; Iambl. V.P. 28.156; Eccl 10:2; 4Q266 10 II, 13–14; Test. Ab. 12:10, 12 A; b. Ber. 61a; Sanh. 107b, bar.; Matt 25:33; Court, “Right”; in later Ethiopia, Pankhurst, Chronicles, 62) seems less likely (Σκεῦος would be easier). Others suggest the Hebrew “Sheva,” perhaps for one born on the seventh day (Le Cornu, Acts, 1055–56). 5458. The cognomen could mark a Roman citizen, but to be certain, we would need his nomen (Hemer, Acts in History, 234). 5459. See Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271, arguing persuasively that the directives in Jos. Ant. 14.228–40 presume a significant number of them. 5460. “Sons” here could mean “apprentices” or “disciples” (cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 177; on disciples as “sons” of their teachers, see, e.g., Porph. Marc. 1.6–8; 4 Bar. 7:24; Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4). Gordon, Civilizations, 252 (citing Hom. Il. 4.193–94, 204, for physicians), suggests that members of some ancient guilds may have been “sons of ” an early practitioner of the trade; this is clearly attested for physicians (see Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.14; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.44) but not clearly for all trades. Shirock, “Exorcists,” makes a good case in favor of the classical Christian view that the “sons” are Jesus’s disciples; but Pharisees would hardly be persuaded by a self-evident appeal to disciples’ exorcism, and early Christians had polemical reasons to interpret as Shirock does. Jesus may thus mean members of the critics’ circle. 5461. Munck, Acts, 191, questions whether they were necessarily brothers. An itinerant Egyptian cult’s priesthood could function as hereditary (see the example in Klauck, Context, 63–64). We should not doubt their sonship because of their number, however, since many sought to have large families (Le Cornu, Acts, 1057). 5462. North, “Priests,” 1245. 5463. E.g., the use of the seven vowels (Demet. Style 2.71). 5464. Luke need not invent the number; contrast, e.g., Philip’s four prophetic daughters (Acts 21:9) when seven might have served better (or three to match Job 42:13)!

2848

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 552

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Luke, like other writers, uses the term to refer to members of the priestly aristocracy5465 (see comment on Acts 4:6); on the narrative level, this claim would serve Luke’s purpose by reflecting badly on the priestly aristocracy that opposed Jesus and his movement in Jerusalem.5466 Many members of Jewish priestly families in the Diaspora retained their title,5467 though in the Diaspora the full title, “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς), applies only to a pagan office in pagan inscriptions.5468 Many scholars suggest that these exorcists might have exploited the claim to high priesthood purely fictitiously to advance their own reputation.5469 This might well be the case with the Jewish “high priestess” mentioned by Juvenal (Sat. 6.544), although the title may simply reflect Juvenal’s ignorance (since she is likely fictitious, a representative character).5470 Since the exorcists were not from Ephesus originally, Ephesians would not be able to ascertain easily the veracity of their claim.5471 Whether or not the exorcists genuinely belonged to the high-priestly family, the claim would have suited their alleged role. The ancient Mediterranean world knew many mendicant priests, some of whom earned their living by entertaining spectators.5472 Egyptian priests5473 had an especially firm command of magical practices,5474 and during the Roman Empire, as temple priesthoods declined, more of them became itinerant or freelance ritual experts. Their priestly title increased their exotic status as magicians abroad.5475 “High priests” held a highly respected role in Ephesus.5476 Members of the Jerusalem priesthood might further claim special knowledge of the highest God’s secret name (on the “Most High” God, see comment on Acts 16:18). We can well imagine such Jewish “high priests” as analogous to some itinerant Gentile fortune-tellers of this period (e.g., those ridiculed in Juv. Sat. 6.548–64) or later centuries, or recalling again Juvenal’s xenophobic depiction of a Jewish “high priestess . . . , a trusty go-between of the highest heaven” (Sat. 6.544–45): she obtains less money than a spokesperson for Isis, “for a Jew will tell you dreams of any kind you please for the minutest of coins” (6.546–47 [LCL, 127]). The De m on ’s R etort ( 1 9 : 1 5 )

Some scholars think that this demon practices the widely valued Greek practice of the witty retort.5477 Exorcists typically asked a demon’s name before driving 5465. A possible sense here (Fitzmyer, Acts, 649). Fitzmyer also suggests a Jewish apostate serving as a priest in the imperial cult in Ephesus, but it is most unlikely that a Jew would obtain this position (or if, like Tiberius Alexander, he did achieve local prominence, that Luke would have called him Jewish). More plausibly, Arnold, “Sceva,” 10, suggests a descendant of Zadokites. 5466. The high priests had opposed Jesus’s name (Acts 4:17–18; 5:28, 40–41; 9:14); now some who claim to belong to such lineage try to manipulate his name. 5467. E.g., in Rome, CIJ 1:271, §346; 1:272, §347; 1:291, §375; 2:42, §785; in Syria (in Aramaic), 2:72, §824; a priest from Egypt (though found in Judea), 2:136, §930; see further 1:c–ci. 5468. See CIJ 1:c (though cf. 1:369, §504, ἱερευσάρχων, which Frey renders gérousiarque). In Asia Minor, see, e.g., MAMA 4.4, 67; “high priest of Asia,” 4.66; “great high priest,” 4.235. 5469. Munck, Acts, 191; Dunn, Acts, 259; also Johnson, Acts, 340 (as one possibility). Pervo, Acts, 477n19, opines that Luke either was misled or misrepresented them. 5470. Barrett, Acts, 909, thinks that Luke would know better than Juvenal here. Ancient documentation concerning women “priests” may refer to women of priestly descent with special honors and rights in the synagogue (see Brooten, Women Leaders, 73–99, esp. 95). 5471. Noted by Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 241. 5472. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 26 (citing Apul. Metam. 8.3–6). 5473. The learned leading priests in Egypt in the Jewish Let. Aris. 6 are probably Egyptian (Let. Aris. 140). 5474. Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 123, 125; Ritner, Mechanics, 220–22; cf. Frankfurter, “Curses.” One should test with water an ass before buying it in Alexandria, in case it was actually a board (b. Sanh. 67b). 5475. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 226, 234, 236–37. Cf. the Egyptian priest in Apul. Metam. 2.28–30 (emphasized by Mastin, “Scaeva,” who also points to Jewish magicians’ high reputation). 5476. See esp. Tilborg, Ephesus, 101–7. 5477. E.g., Pelikan, Acts, 149; cf. González, Acts, 223 (noting the sarcasm).

2849

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 553

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

it out; here, by contrast, the demon ironically demands their name and drives them out.5478 The spirit’s words contain another irony. Subdued by magic, spirits sometimes revealed supernaturally obtained information to their inquirers.5479 Here, by contrast, we find an “adversative oracle,” a form that parodies a “recognition oracle”:5480 instead of speaking well of inquirers, the spirit denies knowledge of them, quite probably in an insulting manner. To deny knowing a person or where the person was from constituted an insult and a repudiation of any relationship (cf. Luke 13:25).5481 Later Jewish traditions could portray destructive forces as knowing about, yet not having met, some famous people. Thus destruction or Gehinnom declared that they had heard Moses’s name but never met him.5482 The present statement more closely resembles another later Jewish story, however, where Beelzebul insultingly counters Solomon’s summons by denying any knowledge of him, until Solomon’s authority is revealed by his ring.5483 By its parallel with demons recognizing Jesus’s identity in the Gospel and Paul’s in Acts 16:17,5484 the passage both maintains a consistent perspective on the demonic world’s supernatural access to knowledge and testifies that that sphere was well aware of the agents of the kingdom. Jesus and Paul might remain obscure and insignificant to many political entities, but they were quite well known in the “spiritual” world where dramatic effects of their ministries occurred first. Ca st ing O u t the E xorcist s ( 1 9 : 1 6 )

The exorcists who try to use Christ’s name without genuine authorization are defeated.5485 The informed reader approaches this text in light of the rest of the context of Luke-Acts. Those lacking proper faith cannot cast out demons (Luke 9:40–41); inadequate exorcisms, in the end, do more harm than good (11:19, 26). But whereas demons might normally cooperate with exorcists for strategic reasons, Satan’s kingdom is here divided, in a sense (cf. 11:17–18), because of the invasion of God’s kingdom (11:20).5486 Thus it is hardly surprising that here the exorcists, rather than the demon, are cast out! Demons caused a demoniac to go naked in 8:275487 and also gave him 5478. Witherington, Acts, 581n93. A demon does use Jesus’s name in Luke 8:28, but the only parallel to the current situation is that spirits know Jesus’s identity (here Acts 9:15); it is Jesus (in Luke 8:30) who demands the demons’ names. The “house” here might evoke the house to which an exorcised spirit returned in Luke 11:24 (though οἶκος appears some fifty-five times in Luke-Acts); for literal houses in Roman Ephesus, see George, “Architecture.” 5479. For magicians gaining knowledge, see PGM 1.175–77; Aune, Magic, 45. Spirit mediums are used in many cultures in order to divine truth (see the excursus at Acts 16:16). 5480. See Aune, Prophecy, 61–62, 269. In modern Christian exorcisms in Brazil, a spirit’s refusal to exit is often attributed to moral failures in the exorcist ( Johnson, “Authority,” 106), but that perception might be based on this text. 5481. Cf., e.g., 1 Sam 25:11 (defined as an insult in 25:14); John 9:29; Mark 14:71; Matt 7:23; 25:12; comments in Keener, Matthew, 254, 598, 654–55; cf. m. Šebu. 8:3, 6. 5482. Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12 A. 5483. Test. Sol. 3:2; for the use of rings with the divine name in the Solomon tradition, see also b. Giṭ. 68a; for rings like Solomon’s, Jos. Ant. 8.47. The claim not to know Solomon is probably worded as a deliberate insult against his dignity (cf. Exod 5:2; expressing skepticism of paternity, 1 Sam 25:11; though cf. Mark 14:71). 5484. Ancient interpreters could also notice the parallels; see Chrys. Hom. Acts 41. For demons’ knowledge of supernatural truth without accompanying obedience, see Jas 2:19; for a demon learning of a rabbi’s skill in the law, cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 150 (though I do not find his citation). 5485. Cf. Simon being humbled: he moves from thinking he can purchase God’s power to be like Peter and John (Acts 8:19) to asking them to pray for him to be spared judgment, in lieu of depending at all on his own prayer (8:22–24; Job 42:8–9); though partial in Exod 8:28; 1 Kgs 13:6; 1Q20 XX, 28; Philo Abel 69. 5486. It is striking that the demon’s response and unwillingness to play along seem to display elements of individual personality, not fitting modern attempts to theologize ancient demonization reports as purely symbolic projections of cosmic evil (though the cosmic dimension of evil also appears in ancient sources). 5487. In perhaps another reversal of that narrative, the exorcists, rather than the swineherds, “flee” (Luke 8:34, though using φεύγω rather than ἐκφεύγω; but Luke probably uses these terms interchangeably, cf.

2850

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 554

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

supernatural strength (8:29);5488 here the demon may provide supernatural strength, but it is the exorcists whom he strips (the sort of subtle reversal Luke also observes elsewhere, as in Acts 7:58).5489 (Possibly a further irony here, as in the Jewish foils for Paul’s monotheistic preaching in 19:33–34, is the Jewish, and hence supposedly monotheistic, identity of the magical exorcists [cf. 8:9; esp. 13:6]. In the Gospel, Jesus casts out a demon in a religious place, a synagogue [Luke 4:33–35], immediately after the narration of Jesus being cast out of a synagogue and town [4:28–29], which in turn followed Jesus’s testing by the devil [4:2–13].) Unusual demonstrations, such as overturning water, sometimes confirmed the veracity of ancient exorcisms;5490 here a violent act confirms the demon’s refusal to leave. (In contrast to this passage, the violent acts of the demonized were sometimes against themselves, as Luke knew.5491 But violent acts were not limited to the demonized themselves.)5492 Although the paragraph might seem to end with the demon’s victory, it triumphs only over the attempted exorcists; the demon essentially admits that it would submit to Jesus and Paul.5493 In the long run, even this confession brings Jesus’s greater glory in a city being exposed to him (19:17–20). The term (ἐφάλλομαι) for the demoniac’s “springing upon” the exorcists often carries a hostile sense of assailing, as here.5494 That spirit possession could generate strength and violence would be known to Luke’s audience (Luke 8:29).5495 Later tradition speaks of a demon threatening to attack an exorcist but restrained by God’s authorization of the exorcist.5496 Anthropological studies have demonstrated such phenomena associated with spirit possession in a variety of genetically diverse cultures5497 Luke 21:21, 36). On the shame often associated with nakedness, especially in Jewish circles, see comment on Acts 7:58. 5488. Supernatural strength can also come from God (e.g., Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; Test. Jud. 2:1–7; perhaps 1 Sam 11:6–7). 5489. Cf. Pervo, Profit, 63, remarking on Luke’s humorous irony here: “Even the demons know better than to allow such shenanigans.” Idem, Acts, 478, compares “the boisterous climax” with the violent humor in Plaut. Casina 758–954. For humor here, see also Shiell, Reading Acts, 182–84; for the “reverse” exorcism here, see also Talbert, Acts, 169; for stripping in ironic reversal, cf. Keener, “Inverted Guilt.” Green, “Acts,” 758, compares exorcists’ invoking Jesus as “Lord” (19:13) and the demonized man “lording over” (a cognate term) them. 5490. E.g., Jos. Ant. 8.48; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20 (cf. a different confirmation in 4.10). Many note these outward demonstrations in ancient sources (e.g., Alexander, Possession, 144–46, though doubting them for Jesus). In some cultures, spirits exiting the possessed can thereupon infect a bystander (in Sri Lanka, see Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 253). 5491. Cf. Luke 9:42; Mark 5:5; for insanity, cf. Hdt. 6.75 in Alexander, Possession, 79; in some ancient cults, see Sen. Y. Dial. 7.26.8; Lucian Lucius 37; 1 Kgs 18:28 (and perhaps Roberts, “New Parallel”; also sources cited in Monson, “Kings,” 79); comment on the Galli at Acts 8:27. This also appears in some examples of possession observed in anthropological sources today, e.g., in Lee, “Sociology,” 42, 47 (among !Kung Bushmen); Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145 (in Sarawak, Borneo); Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185 (among the Cochiti, in New Mexico); Jochim, Religions, 154 (spirit mediums at the Ma-Tsu festival in Taiwan); Mbiti, Religions, 106, 225–26 (various cases of African spirit possession, though sometimes without injury); Morton, “Dawit,” 221 (in an Ethiopian wuqabi cult group; verbal and emotional abuse). 5492. In anthropological literature, there are modern examples of the possessed being dangerous more generally (e.g., Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, among the Shona; Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 251; see further discussion at Acts 16:16). 5493. With Klauck, Magic, 100. 5494. The lxx employs the term positively of God’s Spirit coming on someone (1 Sam 10:6; 16:13), sometimes to provide supernatural strength (11:6). If one could construe the “spirit” as the verb’s subject, “both of them” might refer to the spirit overpowering both the demoniac and the exorcists, but the subject is clearly ἄνθρωπος. 5495. That Mark (Luke’s source) betrays no special interest in the violence that he reports probably suggests that it does not stem simply from literary interests (Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 382–83). 5496. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57 (citing b. Pesaḥ. 112b–113a). 5497. See, e.g., Keener, “Possession,” 231–33; idem, Miracles, 797–98.

2851

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 555

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(e.g., among traditional religions on Saint Lawrence Island, Alaska).5498 (The fear that possessing spirits can be transferred to exorcists or bystanders, however, is not relevant here; it is “the person” who jumps on them, not the spirit.)5499 Since Luke mentions “seven” sons of Sceva in Acts 19:14,5500 some commentators have found puzzling the mention of “both” (ἀμφοτέρων) suffering here. It is possible that the seven exorcists did not all work in concert at the same site; Luke’s usual abbreviation technique may have simply omitted this explanation. It is also possible that one or two exorcists in a group would take the lead and that Luke assumed his audience’s knowledge of this. It should also be noted, however, that later Greek uses this term for “all,” a usage with which Luke is evidently familiar (23:8).5501 (2) Jesus’s Triumph over Magic (19:17–20)

The climax of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus is the response to Sceva’s sons, framed by the spreading message of the Lord (19:17, 20). Instead of Sceva’s sons exploiting Jesus’s name for magic, the incident of their expulsion (19:13–16) demonstrates the supremacy of Jesus’s name and that only his genuine agents are authorized to use it. This section about Paul’s signs in Ephesus (19:11–20) concludes like the preceding one about Paul’s intellectual ministry (19:8–10): the Lord’s message spread through the entire province of Asia (19:10) and now spreads more deeply. After his summary in 19:17, Luke provides the most noteworthy example of the word’s effect (19:18–19) and then returns to the point: as in 19:10, the Lord’s message grew (19:20). H onor ing Je su s’s Na me ( 1 9 : 1 7 )

That the message spread among both Jews and Greeks (19:17) fits Luke’s ideal pattern (14:1; 18:4; 20:21; cf. Rom 3:9; 1 Cor 1:22, 24; 10:32; 12:13) as well as what we can reconstruct of Asian churches from Paul’s (or on more common views, his follower’s) letter traditionally called Ephesians. It also provides a partial inclusio with Acts 19:10 (completed in 19:20). Fear falling on a crowd recalls the ministries of Jesus (Luke 7:16) and Peter (Acts 5:11, 13).5502 If word of the confrontation spread, it probably did so for one of two reasons. Perhaps there were bystanders, or Sceva’s sons had invited witnesses to observe their feat. Alternatively, perhaps at least some of these exorcists afterward recognized that Paul’s exorcistic “competence” was in a league quite different from their own or that Jesus’s name functioned differently from what they expected. Just as the success of Solomon’s name in exorcism caused his name to be honored ( Jos. Ant. 8.49), so here the name of Jesus, which is uniquely successful and cannot be manipulated by those without divine authorization to use it (cf., e.g., Acts 3:6, 16), is glorified. 5498. Murphy, “Aspects of Shamanism,” 58; for strength making restraint impossible, see also Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 208; Field, “Possession,” 5; Oesterreich, Possession, 22–23; Filson, “Study,” 154; Betty, “Evidence,” 16, 20; Koch, Zulus, 45, 191; for destructiveness, Eliade, Rites, 71; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, 170; Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145; Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227; Matt 8:28; for self-laceration, see Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185; Ising, Blumhardt, 174, 326–27. Possession trance can also yield such violent behavior among less mature !Kung Bushmen (Lee, “Sociology,” 41–43, 47). See further examples in the excursus on demons and spirit possession at Acts 16:16, in the section on possession behavior. 5499. Pace the apparent reading in Chance, Acts, 347. For spirits transferred to others during exorcisms, cf., e.g., Obeyesekere, “Possessed,” 253 (noted above). 5500. Perhaps the guild maintained seven members because of the number’s mystical significance in antiquity (see comment on seven at Acts 6:3), but as noted above, it may also be coincidence. (Certainly, they cannot be related to the Seven of Acts 6:2–3 the way the twelve of 19:7 evoke the initial twelve apostles. The twelve of 19:7 are not among Paul’s traveling companions, and the seven here are certainly not righteous.) 5501. Haenchen, Acts, 564; Witherington, Acts, 581n94 (citing P.Lond. 336.13 and other texts). 5502. For the idiom of fear falling, cf. Gen 15:12; Exod 15:16; 1 Sam 11:7; Job 13:11; Dan 10:7; Rev 11:11.

2852

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 556

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Jesus’s “name” that was being magnified5503 refers to his honor (cf. Jesus’s name in Acts 5:41; 15:26; 21:13), as “name” often did (especially with reference to God’s name, 2 Sam 7:26; cf. Pss 34:3; 69:30).5504 Yet in this context it is undoubtedly also connected to the use of Jesus’s name in 19:13; Jesus was no mere spirit whose name could be invoked and controlled magically for the magicians’ will. It may be no coincidence that in a letter Paul5505 later wrote to believers in Asia, including Ephesus,5506 he notes that Jesus’s name is above the name of every spirit that is invoked (Eph 1:21). The impressiveness of Paul’s message is not difficult to fathom here. Just as Paul’s arguments outstripped the philosophers of Athens, his power is revealed to be greater than the magic most respected in Ephesus. This impressiveness fits biblical models. Moses had outdone Pharaoh’s magicians (Exod 7:10–12; 8:18–19; 9:11); Joseph (Gen 41:8) and Daniel (Dan 2:27–28; 4:7–9, 19–28; 5:8, 17–28) had outdone other dream interpreters. (Nor is the impressiveness surprising from a sociological standpoint. Missiologists have often reported people movements or mass conversions after “power encounters,” successful confrontations with indigenous spiritual expectations.)5507 C on f e s sing Se cr ets Op enly ( 1 9 : 1 8 )

The most dramatic example of conversion from magic occurs among those already converted to Christian faith (the perfect tense πεπιστευκότων indicates that they had begun and continued to believe).5508 Perhaps they resemble Simon, who “believed” but was in danger of failing to persevere because he retained his magical worldview (Acts 8:19–23).5509 Whether the practitioners of magic who destroyed their books in 19:19 should be identified with the believers in 19:18 is uncertain, but the use of πραξάντων (19:19) so soon after its cognate noun (19:18) probably suggests that the believers of 19:18 were confessing some involvement with magic, and not simply sins in general.5510 5503. The imperfect probably suggests continuing action here, hence a cascading effect as the message continued to spread. For μεγαλύνω for praising God, see Luke 1:46; Acts 10:46 (otherwise, Luke 1:58; Acts 5:13; Luke has more than 60 percent of nt uses of the term; in the Apostolic Fathers, it appears only in 1 Clem. [three times]). 5504. Cf. also 1 Chr 17:24; Neh 9:5; Pss 86:9, 12; 148:13; Isa 12:4; 24:15; 25:1; Rom 15:9; 2 Thess 1:12; Rev 15:4. Luke elsewhere employs this same verb for praising God (Luke 1:46; Acts 10:46) and honoring his agents (Acts 5:13); for God’s “magnifying” human names, see Gen 12:2; 1 Kgs 1:47. 5505. Or at least someone knowledgeable from his circle. But against many scholars (many deny Pauline authorship, e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 182; Bornkamm, Paul, 86; Nineham, “Authorship”; Kirby, Ephesians, 165; Mitton, Ephesians, 4–11, 38; Johnston, Ephesians, 4–5; Lincoln, Ephesians, lix–lxxiii; Mealand, “Extent”; neutral but relatively favorable, see Cadbury, “Dilemma”), a strong case can be made for Paul’s authorship of Ephesians, with or without freedom for an amanuensis; see Hoehner, Ephesians, 2–61, 114–30 (with a ­thorough argument); Sanders, “Authorship”; Roon, Authenticity, 37–44 (for external evidence); Barth, Ephesians, 1:3–6; Burkitt, Church and Gnosis, 18–19; Robinson, Redating, 63; Arnold, “Ephesians,” 240–42; Wright, Paul, 56–61. (As Heil, “Believers,” 80, notes, an increasing number of scholars affirm Pauline authorship, and opinions are “more evenly balanced” than some critical scholars concede.) Some who doubt Pauline authorship allow for a reworking of Pauline material (e.g., Williams, “Catechesis,” 96). If Ephesians has nearly a hundred “non-Pauline” words ( Johnston, Ephesians, 5), Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, xlix–li, list nearly a hundred unique to 1 Corinthians in the nt. Ephesians certainly diverges less from typical Pauline style than some of Tacitus’s or Lucian’s generally accepted works diverge from some of their others. 5506. As noted earlier, if Ephesians was a circular letter to a region, the manuscript evidence at Eph 1:1 indicates that the audience included at least Ephesus, which was probably also the most significant city addressed. 5507. E.g., De Wet, “Signs,” 1–2, 89, 110–11, 114–15, 119–21 (and passim; on Acts, p. 51); Tippett, People Movements, 80–84, 164–67; Johnson, “Growing Church,” 54–58; Pothen, “Missions,” 308. On the usefulness of people movements in missions, see, e.g., Pothen, “Missions,” 308–11. 5508. As noted by most commentators, e.g., Polhill, Acts, 405; Dunn, Acts, 260–61; Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” 40n47 (in my version). 5509. So also Eve, Miracles, 336. 5510. Cognates do not always carry the same sense, but it is likelier than not; no such connection appears with Luke’s other use of the noun (Luke 23:51).

2853

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 557

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

In view of his larger apologetic, Luke’s frank admission that new converts required further conviction is not likely his invention. Although the admission may surprise us,5511 it appears consonant with the adoption of new religion in most cultures. When Christianity first came to Egypt, for example, it viewed spirits as either wholly benevolent or malevolent, against the more ambiguous use of spirits in Egyptian tradition. In the fourth century, however, the rapid influx of many partially assimilated Christians brought the traditional ambiguity into Christian practice, so that Athanasius complained in 370 c.e. that people were seeking oracular counsel from spirits previously exorcised at the shrines of martyrs.5512 Dependence on traditional rituals, including curses and amulets for protection from curses, can remain quite popular among first- and second-generation converts to Christianity, especially in private.5513 The third-century Testament of Solomon, if not a Christian work, contains Christian interpolations showing its use by Christians. In either case (probably the latter), it seems to be written by someone who knows more about magic than about some other elements of Jewish tradition.5514 In many newly evangelized regions in more recent history, locals continued to depend on local shamans while outwardly practicing Christianity,5515 because the theological system of Christianity that the Western missionaries taught was often void of power for supernatural activities, in contrast to local pre-Christian concerns.5516 Once locals reappropriated a Christian conception of signs and wonders, indigenous Christianity often flourished, and often at the expense of its local competitors. The relative weakness of supernatural engagement in Western Christianity may stem as much from the Enlightenment’s non-Christian bulwark against supernaturalism as from traditional Western Protestant objections to supernaturalism. The first Christian leaders’ views, extant in our nt, accepted magic’s frequent efficacy but opposed its use, as did many other Jews.5517 Some scholars have argued that the new converts’ “confessing” and “announcing” their “deeds” (πράξεις) refers to divulging their spells (on the spells, see 19:19). None of the terms bears an exclusively magical meaning, but in a magical context such as the present one, they might well bear a magical sense (cf. πράξεις in PGM 1.276; 4.159, 1227).5518 5511. Conzelmann, Acts, 164, appears to view Luke’s wording as problematic. 5512. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 277, citing (370) Athanas. Fest. Let. 42. Even 1 Corinthians might attest magical use of Jesus’s name among Christians (Winter, Left Corinth, 164–83), but this interpretation is unlikely (see comment on Acts 19:13). 5513. Although this can be amply documented, it is common knowledge in many regions; I have observed it and have also heard these observations from many colleagues from West and Central Africa, including from my wife. Such practices usually remain more popular especially in rural areas where less contrary teaching is available. Cf., e.g., Christian spirit mediums in Firth, Ritual, 295, 303 (and other accommodations, 327–28); some Christians’ attraction to spirit possession in Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 125. 5514. But the confusion may be limited to certain sections (e.g., Test. Sol. 18) that may represent sources inadequately redacted when incorporated into the work. The work mentions Artemis (Test. Sol. 8:11). For the magical use of Scripture in PGM, see Judge, “Magical Use”; on magical syncretism, see further comment at Acts 8:9–11. 5515. For new Christians struggling with fetishes, see, e.g., Thomas, Walls, 115; cf. Jenkins, New Faces, 110–13; syncretism in Kassimir, “Politics,” 257; Danfulani, “Conflict”; Dasuekwo, “Charms”; MacPhail, “Path,” 187–99; Ma, “Santuala,” 66; similar struggles with syncretism or Christopaganism in Luzbetac, Church and Cultures, 218, 239–48; my wife and some of my associates also have firsthand knowledge of such activities. For syncretism in some other religions, see, e.g., Adeniyi, “Interaction,” 60; Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 213; Williams, “Bwaya,” 122–25; Giles, “Spirits,” 61–62, 71; Nicolini, “Notes,” 121; Butler, “Materialization”; Accoroni, “Healing Practices,” 7–11. 5516. On failure to engage local traditions of power leading to syncretism, see Ranger, “Dilemma,” 364–65; cf. discussion in Hiebert, “Excluded Middle,” 39. 5517. Later, cf., e.g., Aug. Tract. Jn. 6.17.2 (complaining about some Christians’ secret use of astrology). 5518. See Fitzmyer, Acts, 651 (though he concludes that “confession” refers to confession of sins); Conzelmann, Acts, 164; Sim, “Relevance Theoretic Approach,” 28.

2854

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 558

6/18/14 10:25 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

In the immediate context, a form of the cognate verb πράσσω5519 in Acts 19:19 is used for “practicing” magic.5520 Moreover, spells were to be kept secret, and “divulging” them stripped them of their power.5521 By “confessing” their spells, the converts would thus be negating the formulas and relinquishing any dependence on them.5522 As promising as this interpretation appears, it is not certain; none of these terms usually bears such a restrictive meaning, or bears such a sense anywhere else in the nt, with the exception of the cognate verb in 19:19. Even if the context grants πράξεις a technical sense, the same can be argued only with some difficulty for the verbs, on which the case for “divulging” spells would rest. Ἐξομολογέω can refer more generally to “confessing” any sins, as Luke will know from the gospel tradition (Mark 1:5; cf. 1 John 1:9).5523 In this case, they are confessing that they were wrong to follow magic, not divulging spells that they now regard as worthless whether divulged or not. But since magic was done in secret, even openly confessing their practices constitutes a significant repudiation of such practices. On the basis of later church practice, some scholars believe that the converts confessed their sin in the churches;5524 the alternative would be that they were “coming” where “many brought” their magic books—that is, in public (Acts 19:19). But Luke’s report is so condensed that the events might not be simultaneous, despite their association; the imperfect verb for “coming” (associated with two present participles) could suggest a continuing action of public repentance whereas the participle συνενέγκαντες, “bringing,” is aorist, possibly suggesting a single event. If the venue remains obscure, the actions are nevertheless fairly clear. Often people were ashamed to “confess” their wrongdoing;5525 but for confession of sin in traditional Jewish understanding (which greatly informed early Christian usage), see comment on Acts 7:60 (especially under “Confessing Others’ Sins”).5526 Bur n ing t he M ag ic B o oks ( 1 9 : 1 9 )

Whether the practitioners of magic who destroyed their books in 19:19 should be identified with the believers in 19:18 is uncertain.5527 Witherington suggests that 5519. By itself also not technical, as it appears nineteen times in Luke-Acts, and only here in a magical context. But the noun appears only twice in Luke-Acts, and only here in immediate proximity to the verb. 5520. Significant only because of its proximity, since Luke’s other seventeen uses of the verb are nonmagical (none appears in Luke’s other accounts of magicians) and the magical use is clear here only because it is specified (cf. Gal 5:21). 5521. See the evidence in Egyptian magic in Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 233. Magic must be kept secret (PGM 1.192–94; also Klauck, Context, 230, citing PGM 130–31; 141; Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 64, citing PGM 1.130–32; cf. Reitzenstein, Religions, 33, on magicians’ trade secrets); cf. the need for privacy in Ovid Metam. 7.255–56; Apul. Apol. 53; perhaps even a superstition regarding medicines in Pliny E. N.H. 28.5.28 (if this is the meaning). It was dangerous for one who saw a goddess drinking blood to ever divulge this (PGM 4.2474–90). In Jewish tradition, some demons (probably modeled after Prometheus) divulged some heavenly secrets for magic (1 En. 9:6–7; 64:2; 65:6). 5522. Bruce, Commentary, 391; idem, History, 328 (including n. 39); Schnabel, Acts, 799. Cf. references to the rejection of fetishes in Keener, Miracles, 846n407, 847, 848n419, 850n433, 851n438, 851n443 (appendix B). 5523. Luke himself uses the term elsewhere only in Luke 10:21 (for praise) and 22:6; he uses the cognate ὁμολογέω for openly affirming allegiance to Christ (12:8; Q material as in Matt 10:32), as in Pauline (Rom 10:9–10; 1 Tim 6:12; cf. Acts 24:14) and Johannine literature (1 John 2:23; 4:2–3, 15; 2 John 7; Rev 3:5). Ἀναγγέλλω is a fairly common term that nowhere else in the nt bears a specialized magical sense (fourteen times, five times in John; five times in Acts, including here). See comment on Acts 7:60. Against a magical reading of the vocabulary here, see more emphatically Shauf, Theology, 227–28. 5524. Conzelmann, Acts, 164 (citing Did. 4.14; less pertinently, 2 Clem. 8.3; Barn. 19.12); Dunn, Acts, 260. In many parts of the world, Christians still employ this text as a model for renouncing occult connections (e.g., Bottari, Free, 66–70, esp. 67). Johnson, “Authority,” 102–6, reports that in Brazil, those leaving occult groups for Pentecostalism must renounce their former ties; usually they are thought to be delivered from demonic ties immediately, but sometimes the demon must be expelled; it cannot, however, possess Christians. 5525. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 2, p. 38.16 (ὁμολογεῖν). 5526. See especially Keener, Acts, 2:1460–61. 5527. Garrett, Demise, 96, argues that the book burners have become converts, since the section is framed with the church’s growth. Shauf, Theology, 229–30, is correct to observe that the magic practitioners of 19:19

2855

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 559

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

lower-status, poorer Christians confessed their practices whereas wealthier Christians, who could own their own magic books (worth fifty thousand silver pieces) brought their books for burning.5528 This is possible;5529 grammatically, however, nothing indicates the degree of overlap between the two groups.5530 Luke’s point is not to provide us all the details but to emphasize the magnitude of turning to God that was involved in these events, despite Paul’s later troubles in Ephesus (19:23–40). Scholars have long noted the reputation of Ephesian magic suggested by the so-called Ἐφέσια γράμματα—that is, “Ephesian writings” or “Ephesian letters.”5531 Many have applied the term to rolls of magical formulas.5532 More recent scholarship, however, applies the designation more specifically to six special magical terms that could be spoken as charms or inscribed on leather and worn as amulets.5533 (People typically wore amulets on a chain or cord around the neck, but they could also inscribe the terms on rings or bracelets or attach them to buildings.5534 Amulets often contained voces magicae, meaningless strings of letters, or Egyptian or Jewish divine names.)5535 These charms were used in exorcism or as magical prophylaxis.5536 These Ephesian letters are attested as early as the fourth century b.c.e. (as far away as Crete) and were considered particularly efficacious; one Ephesian wrestler won repeatedly by wearing them on his ankles, but he lost repeatedly once they were discovered and removed.5537 Their name does not suggest an exclusive association with Ephesus but, reportedly, derives from their being found on Artemis’s statue in Ephesus.5538 The magical books burned here thus were not technically “Ephesian writings” themselves (too small to constitute “books” [τὰς βίβλους] by themselves), but they very likely contained them as well as other incantation material.5539 Magical papyri contain many of the same curse formulae found in defixiones, lead tablets inscribed constitute only part of the group confessing in 19:18. Nevertheless, they appear significant, as the only ones specified. 5528. Witherington, Acts, 582. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 107, suggests that some of these wealthy members may have begun as Paul’s customers if he worked with expensive fabrics (Acts 18:3; 20:34). 5529. Certainly, it was more difficult for the illiterate to practice magic (Lucian Lucius 11). 5530. The price may suggest the number of people who burned the books and the sacrifice this required of them (since they did not try to resell them), rather than the wealth of the owners. Practitioners of magic would spare no expense to obtain it, since magic itself was thought to yield wealth (or other benefits). 5531. E.g., McCown, “Ephesia Grammata”; Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Bruce, Documents, 89; Conzelmann, Acts, 164; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 180; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 149; Barrett, Acts, 913; more generally for mysterious speech, Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:19, forthcoming (courtesy of Witherington). Scholars find the expression in Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.15; 5.8; Plut. Table 7.5, Mor. 706DE (Bruce, Apostle, 291, also suggests Athen. Deipn. 12.548c; Fitzmyer, Acts, 651, adds Menander frg. 371). 5532. Filson, “Ephesus,” 78; Bruce, Commentary, 392; idem, Apostle, 291. 5533. Arnold, Power, 15–16; Trebilco, “Asia,” 314; Graf, “Ephesia Grammata”; cf. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28. The words were ἀσκιον, κατασκιον, λιξ, τετραξ, δαμναμενευς, and τα αἰσια or αἰσιον (Fitzmyer, Acts, 651; Graf, “Ephesia Grammata”). 5534. Aune, “Amulets,” 113. For amulets to protect against magic, see, e.g., Grattius Cyneg. 404–7. 5535. Aune, “Amulets,” 114; cf. Klauck, Context, 230; a different approach in Frenschkowski, “Zauberworte.” Pliny E. N.H. 28.4.20 complains about the gibberish. 5536. Graf, “Ephesia Grammata.” 5537. Arnold, Power, 15. 5538. Graf, “Ephesia Grammata” (citing Pausanias ap. Eustath. Commentary on Odyssey 19.247); cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 157. Some question the sufficiency of the evidence linking the texts with Ephesus (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95, suggesting a different derivation for the expression, and noting that iconography does not support the inference of Pausanias the lexicographer in the second century c.e.). Most of these texts were probably produced in Egypt, but most scholars still think that the verbal link with Ephesus was significant (Klauck, Magic, 101). 5539. Trebilco, “Asia,” 314.

2856

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 560

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

with curses intended to harm others.5540 Diaspora Jews sometimes warned against magic books: “Make no potions, keep away from magical books [μαγικῶν βίβλων]” (Ps.-Phoc. 149).5541 Such magic books may resemble collections that have survived (such as in PGM).5542 Shorter charms were common; we may sample here a later Jewish charm:5543 For those possessed by daemons, an approved charm by Pibechis. Take oil made from unripe olives, together with the plant mastigia and lotus pith, and boil it with marjoram (very colourless), saying: “Jōēl, Ōssarthiōmi, Emōri, Theōchipsoith, Sithemeōch, Sōthē, Jōē, Mimipsōthiōōph, Phersōthi AEĒIOYŌ Jōē, Eōchariphtha: come out of such an one (and other usual formulae).” But write this phylactery upon a little sheet of tin: “Jaēō, Abraōthiōch, Phtha, Mesenpsinaō, Pheōch, Jaēō, Charsōc,” and hang it round the sufferer: it is of every daemon a thing to be trembled at, which he fears. Standing opposite, adjure him. The adjuration is this, “I adjure thee by the god of the Hebrews . . .”5544

Some terms were gibberish; others reflected dependence on sacred or esoteric languages, such as Hebrew or Egyptian. The characters of Egyptian hieroglyphs, considered sacred but often no longer intelligible, were often recycled for spells.5545 Although spells and collections became dominant in the third century c.e. and later, we know numerous spells from the first century or earlier.5546 Sacred books of pagan religion were also widespread,5547 though it is not clear whether the earliest Christians would have regarded such works as similarly dangerous. The term περίεργος would not suggest magical associations in ordinary contexts (1 Tim 5:13; LSJ), but this meaning is common enough in magical settings to indicate this sense in a magical context such as the present one.5548 Works could be suppressed without being burned. In 213 b.c.e., Romans suppressed foreign cults, simply confiscating their books of prophecies, prayers, and sacrificial rituals (Livy 25.1.11–12). Spartans likewise banished a poet’s works because they thought such works would damage children’s character (Val. Max. 6.3.ext. 1). A fictitious convert to Judaism ground up her idols (Jos. Asen. 10:12/13). 5540. Harder, “Defixio,” 175–76. Defixiones appear as early as the sixth century b.c.e. but are more complex by the empire (ibid., 176). Archaeologists have also found “dolls that could be pierced with nails for purposes of cursing or revenge” (Klauck, Context, 226). 5541. Translation, van der Horst, OTP 2:579; Greek text, Diehl and Young, 107. 5542. With, e.g., Deissmann, Light, 254; Bruce, Commentary, 391; Johnson, Acts, 341; Barrett, Acts, 913. Fitzmyer, Acts, 651, cites PGM 3.424; 13.739. 5543. The text is in Deissmann, Light, 259–60; I have cited only a sample of it. 5544. For some other examples of magical texts, see conveniently Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 331–32 (including the drowning of a cat to invoke spirits in PGM 3.1–164). Magic was in widespread use for curses against one’s rivals in sport, romance, law, and business (Winter, Left Corinth, 165; many traditional cultures in Africa also associate witchcraft with jealousy). To obtain a sense of the fears often involved: in traditional Yoruba culture today, charms are a common form of defensive magic to repel witchcraft attacks (Fape, Powers, 96–101, 111–12). 5545. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 254–56. 5546. Arnold, “Magical Papyri,” 667–68, cites a text from the late fourth century b.c.e. (mislabeled c.e. in the collection, PGM 40), others from the first century b.c.e. (PGM 20; 117; 122) and first century c.e. (PGM 16; 111), as well as 1,500 lead curse tablets, some from as early as the fifth century b.c.e. Aramaic ostraca and other sources would increase the count. Egyptian amulets sought to ward off disease demons and other dangers even before the Hellenistic period (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 275). 5547. See, e.g., Guthrie, Orpheus, 39; cf. Diod. Sic. 1.44.4 (cited by Fitzmyer, Acts, 651). Luke and most other nt writers may prefer βίβλος (cf. Acts 1:20; 7:42; Luke 3:4; 20:42) for a sacred text to βιβλίον (cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 243; though cf. Luke 4:17, 20). Yemenite Jews in modern Israel have used “sacred books (Sipre hefetz)” in exorcisms (Hes, “Role,” 375). 5548. See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 505. Boring, Berger, and Colpe, Commentary, 330, cite Plut. Alex. 2.7–8, but this seems to refer more to the Mysteries than to magic.

2857

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 561

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

But burning objects to repudiate them had a venerable history,5549 including in Jewish circles. Israelites sometimes burned idols or items associated with them (Deut 7:5, 25; 12:3; 2 Kgs 10:26; 23:6; 1 Chr 14:12; cf. Josh 6:24; 7:15, 25); strict Jewish pietists apparently preserved this ideal.5550 In one story, the Israelites burned some idolaters but set aside the idolatrous books (which would not burn naturally), and God consumed them with lightning (L.A.B. 26:3).5551 One Judahite king burned Jeremiah’s scroll of prophecy to suppress his prophecy ( Jer 36:23), though this may have simply been the most convenient way to destroy it (36:22; there is no thought of publicly repudiating it); Israel’s enemies later sought to capture and burn its Torah scrolls (1 Macc 1:56; cf. Jos. War 2.229). Seneca the Elder complains that a new punishment originated in the first century b.c.e. with the burning of Titus Labienus’s books: “It was an unheard of novelty that punishment should be exacted from literature” (Controv. 10.pref. 5).5552 But this practice was not entirely new, nor did it remain novel.5553 Some burned the works of a philosopher because he was an agnostic;5554 senators under Tiberius ordered burned the books of one accused of favoring the republic;5555 Nero ordered burned the books of one accused of libeling senators;5556 Romans also burned books considered subversive to traditional Roman religion.5557 During Domitian’s reign of terror, the senate ordered a man’s books burned, though his wife salvaged them (Pliny Ep. 7.19.6). Catullus even hopes facetiously for bad poetry to be burned (Carm. 36.6–8, 18–20).5558 Later Christian emperors engaged in this practice against anti-Christian writings.5559 In Acts 19, however, no censors seize and destroy others’ works (“as . . . in virtually all the accounts from the Graeco-Roman period”), but the owners voluntarily destroy their own books “at great personal loss.” 5560 Repudiation by 5549. Commentators most often cite Livy 39.16; Suet. Aug. 31.1–3; Lucian Alex. 47 (burning Epicurus’s works); Diog. Laert. 9.52 (Bruce, Acts1, 360; Trebilco, “Asia,” 315; Witherington, Acts, 582); probably most English language commentators derive these sources from Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 243, though Lake and Cadbury note that Wettstein cited additional sources. 5550. Whereas Jacob merely buried the idols in Gen 35:4, the idols are burned, crushed, and only then buried in Jub. 31:2. For the view that Israelites sometimes first smashed and then buried idols during the settlement in Canaan, see Albright, Yahweh, 194–95; cf. Bright, History, 127 (for the rareness of male idols in Israelite sites, see Wright, Archaeology, 118; idem, “Temple,” 179n7). Cf. the analogy with mandatory herem in Park, Herem, 129. 5551. The deep likewise would swallow the idolatrous stones (L.A.B. 26:4). Later rabbis allowed books of the minim (possibly Christian Scriptures; see Schiffman, Jew, 62–64; Moore, “Canon,” 101, 112–13; cf. Urbach, “Self-Isolation,” 2:290–91; but cf. b. Ḥag. 15b; Sanh. 90b; perhaps 4 Ezra 14:45–47) to burn (t. Šabb. 13:5; cf. Herford, Christianity, 155–57), and eventually even urged the burning of law scrolls written by minim (perhaps expected to falsify them; b. Giṭ. 45b; cf. Herford, Christianity, 157–60). 5552. Trans. Winterbottom in LCL, 2:357. The decree came from the senate (Sen. E. Controv. 10.pref. 8) and led to his suicide (10.pref. 7); Seneca opines that it was good that such a penalty had not yet existed in the days of great writers such as Cicero (10.pref. 6–7). 5553. For lengthy discussions of ancient examples of book burning, Talbert, Acts, 169, and Pervo, Acts, 480, cite Pease, “Book Burning”; Forbes, “Books.” Apart from human intention, books and even libraries were extremely vulnerable to fire (see, e.g., the report in Galen Grief 4–5, 7, 12b–18, 29–30). 5554. Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 7 (via Nepotianus; he says Pythagoras but means Protagoras, as in Diog. Laert. 9.52). 5555. Tac. Ann. 4.35 (noting that copies survived and later became popular). 5556. Tac. Ann. 14.50 (noting that his books became most popular when banned, and forgotten once legal). 5557. Livy 40.29.11–14; Val. Max. 1.1.12. 5558. For Catullus’s other complaints about books of inferior poetry, see Carm.14 (or a book containing a speech, 44.10–21). 5559. Cook, Interpretation, 125 (Porphyry’s anti-Christian works, 448 and 536). In recent mass-conversion accounts (undoubtedly influenced by Acts), magic books were burned (Pothen, “Missions,” 189). 5560. Trebilco, “Asia,” 315; cf. also Klauck, Magic, 101–2.

2858

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 562

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

b­ urning could extend also to other papers,5561 artistic representations of defeats,5562 or an enemy’s property.5563 Most estimates of the books’ price5564 cannot account for the difference in buying power of currency in antiquity, but estimates such as fifty thousand days’ wages for an average worker5565 appear to come closer to the mark in real value.5566 The cost of the books recalls the money that could be made in magic and religion, which Luke critiques (see comment on Acts 8:20; cf. Luke 12:13–48, esp. 12:41), often by mentioning “silver,” as here (Luke 9:3; 22:5; Acts 3:6; 8:20; 20:33). It also fits Luke’s emphasis on the secondary value of money and on the gospel’s impact on entrenched pagan economic interests (Acts 16:19; 19:25; cf. 24:26). The sacrifice of these converts truly devoted to the living God also contrasts starkly with the cynical business calculations of the silver workers in 19:25, to which Luke may draw attention by mentioning “silver” in both places.5567 The contrast with the earlier use of wealth in Acts is also instructive: Christians might sell most kinds of possessions to care for the needy (2:45; 4:34), but cursed possessions, with clearly pagan associations, were under the ban and to be destroyed (Deut 7:26; 13:17; Josh 6:17–18). The Wor d Sp r e a d s (1 9 : 2 0 )

Jesus gave his apostles authority over evil spirits (Luke 10:19), but having names written in heaven was to be the greater focus of joy (10:20).5568 Salvation is an important basis for joy in Luke (15:7, 10) and coheres with Luke’s ultimate focus here: the good news is spreading. That the Lord’s message was growing reflects other summary statements in Acts (Acts 2:47; 5:14; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; see esp. comment on Acts 6:7)5569 and forms an inclusio with 19:10, 17, underlining the especially dramatic spread of the message in Asia. That the Lord’s message spread with κράτος might evoke God’s mighty deeds in Luke 1:51 and hence his title as the mighty one in 1:49.5570 5561. Claudius burned records against people (Dio Cass. 60.4.5). 5562. Hannibal in Sil. It. 6.716. 5563. Clodius, against Cicero (Plut. Cic. 33.1). 5564. E.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 179 (whose estimate is by now outdated by inflation, in any case). Luke’s estimate may be general, since ancient estimates of figures were not always accurate (see, e.g., Scheidel, “Finances”), but here Luke specifies that the number was counted, which would be plausible in such a setting. Ehling, “Anmerkungen,” suggests that the coins were really bronze asses that Luke has reported as silver to exaggerate the response, but this is speculative, since we cannot know the number of books burned or to whom the books had belonged. 5565. Haenchen, Acts, 567; cf. Schnabel, Acts, 799 (a year’s wage for 137 workers). The coins were not precisely a day’s wage, but the comparison communicates accurately enough to provide the general sense. 5566. Cf. Perkin, “Money,” 406; White, “Finances,” 232; Betlyon, “Coinage.” Yet if Frier, “Annuities,” is correct, the average per capita income in the early empire was about 380 sesterces, which translates (cf. Perkin, “Money,” 407) into about a quarter denarius per day. The value of a denarius shifted over time because of inflation. 5567. If the Ephesian “coppersmith” in 2 Tim 4:14 represents reliable tradition, one might even suspect Luke of emphasizing silver here to underline the literary connection in this passage; but see comment on Acts 19:25. More likely, Luke uses here his general designation for money (Luke 19:15, 23; Acts 7:16), though elsewhere he sometimes employs a more specific name for a coin (Luke 15:8; 21:2). 5568. Presumably, this refers to the Book of Life; see 1 En. 108:3; Jub. 30:21–23; 36:10; 4Q504 1–2 VI, 13–14; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; probably Dan 12:1; 1 En. 104:1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:3; perhaps Exod 32:32–33; Ps 69:28. 5569. For the word or the people “growing,” see specifically Acts 6:7; 7:17; 12:24; this is Luke’s only use of ἰσχύω in a summary statement, though he employs the verb often (fourteen times). That signs reports draw increasingly large crowds fits modern observations (see, e.g., Lindsay, Lake, 26, 29; comment on Acts 5:14–15; 9:35, 42). 5570. For the supreme God as “almighty,” in addition to the ot (more than one hundred times in the lxx) and other early Jewish sources (e.g., Wis 7:25; 2 Macc 6:26; 3 Macc 5:7; Let. Aris. 185; Sib. Or. 1.66; 3 Bar. 1:3; Test. Ab. 8:3; 15:12 A; b. Šabb. 88b; Yebam. 105b; Yoma 12a; cf. the charm in Goodenough, Symbols, 2:179), see Greek sources, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 816; Seven 255; and, more commonly, Roman sources,

2859

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 563

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul’s years of suffering and patient endurance were now bearing fruit; the barriers to the Gentiles had broken down, and Paul was seeing his greatest successes yet. Luke provides a positive portrayal, even though it is possible that the following events (Acts 19:23–40) turned out so badly that Paul could not again enter Ephesus in person (cf. 20:16). Whether or not this is the case, however, Luke was undoubtedly right about the growth of the Jesus movement in Ephesus: it was the Lord’s message that spread, and it would continue to spread after Paul’s departure. Strong evidence for a flourishing church in the province by the end of the first century (continuing in subsequent centuries) provides eloquent testimony to this growth (see comment on Acts 19:10; for the rapid spread of ideas and information in urban antiquity, see also comment there). (3) Plans for Jerusalem and Rome (19:21–22)

The brief notice in 19:21–22 shifts the narrative’s focus toward Rome, preparing for Paul’s Roman custody in Acts 21–28, just as Luke 9:51–52 shifts the Gospel’s focus toward Jerusalem, preparing for Jesus’s passion. Paul’s movements earlier in Luke’s narrative may suggest that Paul was interested in Rome earlier, but here the narrative turns explicitly toward this goal. P l a ns for R o m e ( 1 9 : 2 1 )

“Once these things had been fulfilled” (19:21) prepares for a chronological transition to a new phase in the story (cf. 24:27),5571 though Luke neither uses the phrase often nor regularly provides such transitions (contrast the completion of speech in Matt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).5572 As Acts 1:8 sets out the geographic program for the book as a whole, so 19:21 sets out the geographic program for Acts 20–28, and it also emphasizes that Paul’s plan to visit Rome came from God, not from an apparent failure in Ephesus.5573 Paul’s plans to visit Macedonia and Achaia again (which Luke surveys in 20:1–3) fit the pattern of his ministry elsewhere, both in Acts (14:21–23; 15:36; 16:4–5) and in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 4:18–21; 16:3–7; 2 Cor 12:20–13:2; 1 Thess 2:17–18; 3:1, 5, 10–11). Luke here provides an itinerary for the rest of Acts, though it is as asymmetric as his outline in Acts 1:8: Macedonia and Achaia (20:1–4), Jerusalem (21:15–23:30), and Rome (28:16–31), with the necessary activities between. There are, granted, major sections omitted from the present summary, which is incomplete (especially in Asia, 20:5–38; and Caesarea, 23:31–26:32), but the direction is clear enough: after revisiting his churches, Paul must go to Rome via Jerusalem. In theological, interpretive terms, Paul must go to the heart of the empire by way of the heart of Judaism; he must fulfill the mission from the center of the faith’s heritage; the rejection of much of Israel again promotes the mission to the Gentiles. Luke’s subsequent narratives show that he is not much interested in the later journey to Macedonia and Achaia (despite the likelihood that Luke knew Philippi e.g., Val. Flacc. 3.249; Virg. Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25, 206, 220; 6.592; 7.141, 770; 8.398; 9.625; 10.100, 668; 12.178, 791; Georg. 2.325; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304, 401, 505; 3.336; 9.271; 14.816; Statius Theb. 3.471; Sil. It. 3.163; 7.372; 11.122; 17.385; PGM 48.6; in Ephesus, see I. Eph. 1262. The concept appears, however, independently in some unrelated societies (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 40–41). 5571. Cf. Gen 25:24; Num 6:13; 1 Chr 17:11; Sib. Or. 3.645; 2 Bar. 30:1; 4 Ezra 4:36; 14:45; Test. Jud. 9:2. 5572. Cf. also (regarding speech) the phrasing in Gen 18:33; Exod 34:33; Deut 32:45; Jer 26:8; 43:1; 1 Macc 2:23; 3:23; Jdt 5:22; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; 2 Bar. 55:1; 4 Ezra 7:1; As. Mos. 12:1; Ahiq. 3.1. 5573. We may be fairly certain that Paul’s ministry in Ephesus elicited considerable criticism; it is possible that Luke’s audience may have known of this (cf. Acts 24:5; 2 Tim 1:15). Even today some authors suppose Paul’s work in Ephesus a failure (e.g., Günther, “Gescheiterte Mission”), though I believe this runs against the grain of our extant first-century testimony (see comment on Acts 19:10, 17).

2860

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 564

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

best), but he is committed enough to his sources and perhaps to his audience’s locale not to omit such a major journey. His focus, however, is clearly Jerusalem and Rome. (Even Caesarea is in a sense part of the mission to Rome as well as a geographic transition from Jerusalem to Rome; it is the seat of the Roman governor.) In the context, Paul feels free to move on because he has sufficiently completed his work in Asia, a matter Luke repeatedly emphasizes (19:10, 17, 20); Paul’s letters also portray an apostle eager to move on and counting even initial, representative evangelization of a location as fulfilling his calling there (Rom 15:19–23; cf. 16:26; Col 1:23). Luke’s wording is ambiguous: does Paul resolve in his spirit (cf. Acts 17:16) to travel the itinerary described in this verse, or is it “by the Spirit”—that is, God’s Spirit—that he resolves to do so? Grammar cannot settle the question either way, but Luke’s theology and usage strongly favor the latter interpretation, which most scholars consequently prefer.5574 That Paul “must” (δεῖ) see Rome is probably the language of divine necessity, implying God’s purposes.5575 The Spirit’s central mission in Acts is to empower the witnesses to testify to the ends of the earth (1:8); here the Spirit begins pointing Paul toward the heart of the empire.5576 The Spirit had been guiding the church into broader engagement (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 16:6–7), sometimes in dramatic ways (8:39). The Spirit was responsible for Paul’s earlier missionary journey (13:2, 4). The Spirit gave Paul a revelation about his protection in Corinth (18:10) some eighteen months before his persecution there (18:12). The Spirit provided prophetic warnings concerning Jerusalem (20:22–23; 21:11). “The Spirit” is also ambiguous grammatically in 18:25 and 20:22, but probably the former instance and certainly the latter one refer to God’s Spirit; this is the usual meaning of “the Spirit” in Luke-Acts.5577 Thus the rest of Acts happens according to God’s plan, which Paul deliberately follows because he is led by the Spirit. Thus Paul will resist warnings about Jerusalem that are based on the Spirit (21:4, 11–12), because he knows God’s will more fully (21:13–14), because he, too, has been guided by God’s Spirit (20:22; here, 19:21). That the Spirit seems to point in two different directions (an ambiguity in his tradition that Luke does not resolve) shows the difficulties faced by charismatic communities when multiple individuals are charismatically endowed, yet early Christians’ experience of the Spirit was too central for them to minimize it (2:17–18). In Paul’s theology, all prophecy is partial (1 Cor 13:9); how prophetic details fit into God’s larger schema is not always available to the prophets (cf. Luke 7:20). Given the ancient expectation that oracles were often ambiguous, Luke’s first audience may have found this tension less troubling than we do. Luke’s apologetic for Paul, however, may invite him to clarify that Paul’s subsequent suffering no more means 5574. E.g., Bruce, Acts1, 361; Arrington, Acts, 200 (noting “supernatural guidance” throughout the mission); Kee, Every Nation, 233; Dunn, Acts, 262. The verb ἔθετο occurs with the Spirit again in Acts 20:28, though apparently in an unrelated sense (as also in Isa 63:11 lxx). 5575. So usually in Luke-Acts (in Acts, see 1:16, 21; 3:21; 4:12; 5:29; 9:6, 16; 14:22; 16:30; 17:3; 20:35; 23:11; 27:24, 26; cf. wrong views of divine necessity in 15:5; 26:9; though, for exceptions, see 19:36; 24:19; 25:10, 24; 27:21). See esp. Tannehill, Acts, 239; Burfeind, “Muss nach Rom”; less firmly, Mittelstadt, Spirit, 122–23. Δεῖ functions in Acts as a rhetorical authenticating device (Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 185–212), particularly where the narrative could risk straining credibility (97). On δεῖ for divine necessity in Johannine literature, see Keener, John, 590. 5576. His movements may suggest an interest in Rome already (see comment on Acts 17:1), but Luke makes this goal, and the Spirit’s affirmation that Paul should pursue it, clear only here. 5577. See Luke 2:27; 4:1, 14; Acts 2:4; 5:9; 6:3, 10; 8:18, 29; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 21:4. An exception for a demonic spirit (Acts 16:18) is clear from the context, and a human spirit is always clearly identified in its very rare uses (Luke 1:47; 23:46; Acts 7:59; 17:16).

2861

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 565

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

that he was not led by God than that Jesus’s passion, predicted by Jesus in advance, means that he was not led by God.5578 Luke’s own narrative structuring clarifies that Paul’s plan here is God’s plan for him. Just as Jesus set his face to go to Jerusalem, providing the geographic goal of much of Luke’s Gospel narrative (Luke 9:51), Paul here begins a mission pointing toward Rome.5579 In both cases, Luke provides an important geographic structuring cue and foreshadows (or, more precisely, overtly predicts) the future course of his narrative. In both cases, the protagonist also begins a journey to his “passion”: Jesus to his arrest and execution, Paul to his arrest and trial.5580 Luke mentions Paul’s intention here before the riot of Acts 19:23–41, emphasizing that Paul did not leave Asia simply because of trouble there (trouble that Luke does not deny, though it may have included more serious local repercussions than he reports). Trouble from Asia nevertheless follows Paul to Jerusalem (21:27–29). Ancient historians were not averse to reporting unseen thoughts of characters; even the sober historian Tacitus sometimes indulges in reporting characters’ thoughts and fears (e.g., Hist. 2.74)—indeed, probably more often than does Luke. These travel plans are Lukan theology, but the thoughts Luke attributes to Paul here were authentically the historical Paul’s. Paul certainly had plans to go both to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 16:3) and to Rome (Rom 1:11, 13; 15:23–24; cf. 2 Cor 10:16). He would go through Macedonia first and then, he hoped, to Achaia (1 Cor 16:5–6; cf. Rom 15:26), after leaving Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8); then he would travel to Judea (2 Cor 1:16). He planned to go to Rome as soon as he finished in Jerusalem (Rom 15:24–25, 31–32), though he knew Jerusalem’s dangers (Rom 15:31). His plan to visit Rome may also be suggested by the migration of his colleagues Aquila and Prisca, who were with him during much of his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19) but perhaps a year later were already leading a house church in Rome (Rom 16:3). This is one of the few segments of Paul’s life for which his letters provide a secure sequence, and the sequence here and in following chapters fits Paul’s letters precisely where there is overlap. Neither source includes every detail found in the other (if they did, we would need to suspect dependence),5581 but they confirm each other on the points where they overlap.5582 A fuller table is provided at Acts 20:1–3. 5578. On a smaller scale, cf. Acts 16:9–10 with 16:22–24; 17:5–8, 13. In predicting his passion, Jesus also invites his disciples to share it (Luke 9:22–26). 5579. Widely noted, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 357; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 536; Witherington, Acts, 589; Puig i Tàrrech, “Voyages à Jérusalem.” For suggested parallels between the journeys following these statements, see, e.g., Moda, “Paolo prigioniero.” On proposed backgrounds for Jesus’s “setting his face” in Luke 9:51, see, e.g., Leaney, Luke, 172 (plausibly citing the lxx expression); more narrowly, Tiede, Prophecy, 61, compares Isa 50:7 (cf. Feuillet, “Deux references,” finding other features of the text in Isa 53:8); Evans, “Face,” compares not only ot prophecy but Ugaritic parallels. See 2 Kgs 12:17; especially prophetic usage in lxx Jer 21:10; Ezek 6:2; 13:17; 14:8; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 38:2; Amos 9:4. 5580. The trial’s outcome may be less fatal in the short run than most scholars think, but most of Luke’s audience is probably aware that Paul was eventually martyred. Coupled with the parallel with the Gospel’s passion narrative, this apparent destiny builds suspense, which is surprisingly alleviated by Luke’s “happy ending” (perhaps leaving his work more marketable but fitting the comic upturn that the resurrection provides the Gospel narratives). 5581. Luke’s omissions of Titus and the collection are major differences that must reflect Luke’s concerns, even if we cannot satisfactorily explain them. Perhaps the most difficult question is when Paul’s second visit to the Corinthians occurred (2 Cor 13:2; cf. 2:1); the reference to that visit should not be simply dismissed as figurative usage for Paul’s surrogates visiting them. Did it occur before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, early in Paul’s two-year stay in Ephesus and too brief to warrant Luke’s mention? (Or, less likely, after an interval away from Corinth during his eighteen months there?) If we place it after 1 Cor 16:3–8, Luke may have collapsed the two visits together, which is entirely possible (see Hemer, Acts in History, 188) but is not the simplest solution. 5582. See Riesner, Early Period, 233, here adapted and expanded; Witherington, Acts, 447–49; cf. also Dunn, Acts, 262; more briefly Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Fitzmyer, Acts, 652.

2862

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 566

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41) Paul’s Letters Paul teaches the “Galatians” about the collection (1 Cor 16:1)* Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8) Many events while Paul is in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8) a. Visitors: members of Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11); Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, with a gift (16:17); someone (probably Stephanas’s group) with a letter (7:1) b. Wrote 1 Corinthians c. Apparently a painful visit, an aborted visit via Macedonia, and possibly Paul’s second, potentially painful, visit to Corinth (briefly alluded to in 2 Cor 2:1; 12:14; 13:2), if this was not deferred until the period of Acts 20:2–3† Apollos is known to the Corinthians as a strong preacher and is with Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:12) Paul plans to visit a. Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5)‡ b. Then Achaia (1 Cor 16:5–6; cf. 4:18–21) c. Judea (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 1:16) d. And finally Rome (Rom 1:11–13; 15:23–25; cf. 2 Cor 10:16)

Acts Paul strengthens “the disciples” throughout Galatia and Phrygia (18:23) Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20) Paul’s stay in Ephesus lasts more than two years (19:8, 10; 20:31) The summaries are too brief (esp. 19:10), with a few examples added that are germane to Luke’s points about the gospel spreading (19:10–20) and persecution (19:23–20:1); he has addressed the Corinthian church’s inner life too little for us to expect comment on the Corinthian correspondence from Ephesus Apollos earlier left Ephesus for Corinth, where he preached for a period of time (18:24–28) Paul plans to visit a. Macedonia b. Achaia c. Judea d. Rome (in this sequence; 19:21)

*He writes as if the Corinthian Christians knew of this journey. †Riesner, Early Period, 299, appears to think of Paul’s second letter as a surrogate visit, taking 2 Cor 2:1 figuratively in its context of abandoned travel plans. Given Luke’s summary of “two years” in a verse in Acts 19:10 (though adding afterward an anecdote), however, we should not count Luke’s silence against an interim journey noted only in 2 Corinthians. ‡One planned visit was aborted at least temporarily, but the sequence of the journey would be similar on other occasions, since Paul would visit both Macedonian and Achaian believers whenever possible. For a planned Macedonian visit, cf. also Phil 2:24; but unless this was written during an Ephesian imprisonment (which I doubt; cf. the likeliest sense of 4:22), it involves later plans (as also 1 Tim 1:3).

S e n ding M e sse ng e r s A he a d ( 1 9 : 2 2 )

Immediately after Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:51), he sent messengers ahead of him (9:52a; cf. also 10:1; 19:29; 22:8; perhaps 3:4); likewise, Paul, having determined to see Rome after Macedonia (Acts 19:21), sends messengers on ahead to prepare his way to Macedonia (the closest parallel Luke has available for this period, 19:22). That these disciples are sent as a team of two fits Jesus’s instructions in the Gospel (Luke 10:1; cf. 22:8) and Paul’s usual practice (Acts 13:2; 15:40);5583 the exceptions of 17:14–16 and Paul’s detention are occasioned by necessity and occur only after Paul has matured in his apostolic ministry (like Peter in 9:32–43; 10:9–48, though at least in the latter case he also had colleagues [10:23; 11:12]). That they “ministered” to him5584 could mean financially (Luke 8:3) but probably refers to service in practical details that left Paul freer for his ministry (cf. table service, Luke 4:39; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:27; esp. Acts 6:2). This is probably similar to the help that Mark had once provided (Acts 13:5); it probably also follows a model for helpers of men of God in Scripture, the helpers normally being men of God in training (Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 2 Kgs 3:11). Paul’s letters attest that he originally sent Timothy (1 Cor 4:17) from Ephesus (16:8) and planned for him to organize the collection journey,5585 possibly even in his own stead and certainly before him (16:10–11, in the context of 16:5–9).5586 The 5583. Additional helpers (Acts 13:5; 16:10) did not always count in the number. This might partly reflect Luke’s conforming the accounts to the mission in the Gospel (cf. two partners in 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1)—even Luke increases the number when necessary (cf. Acts 20:4; 21:29), though he mentions “Timothy” alongside Silas (17:14–15; 18:5) especially when Paul has left, perhaps lest Silas be viewed as alone. 5584. If we take αὐτῷ instead as “with him,” this would be ministry of the word, but this does not fit Luke’s normal usage. 5585. On the collection, see comment on Acts 20:1–4 and esp. 24:17. 5586. Paul wanted Apollos to come as well, but he preferred not to do so (1 Cor 16:12). Paul later plans to send Timothy to Philippi, but probably during his imprisonment in Rome (Phil 2:19). For the connection

2863

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 567

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Corinthian church knew Timothy well (2 Cor 1:1, 19), and Timothy was with Paul when he later stayed briefly in Corinth (Rom 16:21). The more difficult question is the identity of Erastus (see also comment at Acts 18:8). We know of an Erastus from Corinth who was a city officer (Rom 16:23), and some scholars suggest that the two be identified.5587 Both are related to Corinth (though only one explicitly through being sent there), and early Christian literature never mentions an Erastus not associated with Corinth in some way. Erastus could have been from Corinth, traveled for Paul, and later returned to Corinth to become a city officer (16:23). If we identify the two, it bears mention that many scholars identify the city official Erastus in 16:23 with a city official by this name found in a Corinthian inscription. Some doubt the identification; an οἰκονόμος (16:23)5588 was normally of lower social status than an aedile, and some date the inscription significantly later.5589 Others support the identification, including J. H. Kent, the editor of the three volumes of Corinthian inscriptions.5590 Although an οἰκονόμος was usually of lower status than an aedile (because the former was a much more common office), it was also one of the Greek terms used to translate the Latin title aedilis.5591 Winter notes that the inscription is from Nero’s era and that Erastus was a rare name in Corinth.5592 It is also unlikely that the oath of office would need to exclude Christians, any more than (some argue) it necessarily excluded nonapostate Jews in Roman Alexandria (for frequent neutrality on secondary issues, cf. Acts 18:12–15).5593 If this is the same person as in Paul’s letter, he was quite wealthy. Candidates for this office offered pledges of the funds they would provide the city if elected; election required both many supporters and considerable financial resources.5594 Still, the inscription’s Erastus may have status inconsistency: although aediles could be either freeborn or freedmen, some scholars contend that the evidence of the inscription might favor a freedman.5595 Yet the name was also consistent with status. It was relatively uncommon in Greece,5596 though some note that it is far from unique.5597 between 1 Cor 4:17 and 16:10, see comment in the table on p. 2948 and on Acts 20:1–5. Cf. also Witherington, Acts, 589; Hanson, Acts, 195; but Luke’s visit of Timothy may refer to a second one (Hemer, Acts in History, 188). On the collection, see comment on Acts 24:17. 5587. Hanson, Acts, 195; Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 38 (from Witherington); Theissen, Setting, 76; Brookins, “Name,” 515. A different inscription may involve a second-century Erastus, which would not be relevant (Clarke, “Erastus Inscription”). 5588. Household managers were often servants or freedmen (1 Cor 4:1–2; Luke 12:42; Lucian Affairs 10; Char. Chaer. 3.7.1; cf. Treggiari, “Jobs in Household,” 49; Stambaugh, City, 149; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 66), though not always (e.g., Luke 16:1–3, since he can be fired; see Bailey, Poet, 92). 5589. Cadbury, “Erastus”; Hemer, Acts in History, 235n40; Friesen, “Wrong Erastus,” 236–49; cf. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus.” A second Erastus who is attested in Corinth seems much later (Winter, Welfare, 192). 5590. See further Winter, Welfare, 180–81, 191; Yamauchi, Stones, 116, 118; Koester, “Silence,” 339–40; further sources regarding this view (and its detractors) at Acts 18:8. 5591. Winter, Welfare, 185–87. He might be manager of the Isthmian Games in this case, but the Roman audience would simply take it as Corinth’s leading administrator (190–91). 5592. Ibid., 180, 191–92; cf. now Brookins, “Name,” 510–13. 5593. Winter, Welfare, 192–95. Christian conversion might have motivated benefaction, though one who followed the ideals of Paul or Luke would have provided it more readily for the church than for the city. It should be noted, however, that the Alexandrian official Tiberius Alexander was in fact apostate ( Jos. Ant. 20.100), despite his continued respect for Jewish practice (War 2.220). 5594. Winter, Welfare, 182–83. Erastus’s promise was, apparently, the paving of a street (184). 5595. Ibid., 181–82. Many freedpersons settled Corinth (Grant, Paul, 19); but cf. Brookins, “Name,” 513–14. 5596. E.g., McRay, Archaeology, 332; most conclusively, Brookins, “Name,” 511–13. 5597. E.g., Witherington, Acts, 589–90; see esp. Meggitt, “Status of Erastus,” citing CIL 3.2840, 9052; 4.179, 4614, 4641, 5820; 5.6821, 7232; 6.695, 1300, 1914, 1934, 5232, 5858, 7513, 8518, 8875, 9759, 9865, 9915; SEG 11.622, 994; CIG 1241, 1249, 6378; IG 22.1945, 1968, 1973, 1985, 1990, 2030, 2059; and many other references, nearly eighty in all. “Common” is, of course, a relative term.

2864

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 568

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

In any case, others doubt that Luke’s Erastus is the Erastus who lived in Corinth (Rom 16:23).5598 Against the identification of the two would be the surmise of some that Erastus might be a public slave,5599 who therefore could not travel freely.5600 Against it also might be the likelier surmise that, as a person of status, he would have patronal obligations in Corinth, which could reduce freedom to undertake a journey of such duration.5601 Such patronal obligations would not preclude travel altogether (cf. even Rom 16:1). Especially if this Erastus later became an aedile as well (as in the inscription), he might have leisure to travel, but it is unlikely that he would have stayed away from Corinth for extended periods; a visit with other delegates and a swift return (cf. 1 Cor 16:15–18) is possible, but Paul’s journey to Syria via Macedonia and Asia does not seem swift. Another possible argument against identifying the two is that Paul’s lack of a specific Christian designation for Erastus in Rom 16:23 allows the possibility that Erastus was merely a patron (cf. comment on Acts 19:31), not a full-fledged member of the Christian community5602 (in contrast to Luke’s Erastus). Each of these arguments depends on other hypotheses, but they do warn that identifying the two persons named Erastus also presupposes a particular reconstruction of the evidence. It is possible that Paul in Romans greets him by a title that he acquired in previous service; perhaps he was a public slave freed at the end of his service, whereupon he acquired more mobility (though it seems likelier that he was not a public slave, and if he was one, it was a temporary servitude before and after a year of service). The identification between both Erastuses could seem especially plausible if Erastus were part of the delegation in 1 Cor 16:15–18, perhaps sent back at this time. In this case, he might bear the Latin surname or nickname of either “Achaicus” or “Fortunatus” (16:17); a Roman name alongside his Greek one fits the slight probability that the aedile Erastus was a freedman and the certainty that he was a Roman citizen and citizen of Corinth.5603 Still, if Erastus has multiple names, one might expect Paul to select more consistently the names he will use for him; a Roman name could have made sense in writing to Rome (e.g., Tertius or Gaius in Rom 16:22–23). Whatever the case in the above discussion, however, some do identify Luke’s Erastus with Paul’s coworker Erastus who reportedly later settled at least temporarily in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20). This tradition might independently5604 suggest that a Pauline coworker named Erastus had earlier acquired familiarity with the church in that city.5605 5598. So Hemer, Acts in History, 235; Dunn, Acts, 262; idem, Romans, 911; Le Cornu, Acts, 1070. 5599. Malherbe, “Life,” 12, notes that city treasurers were often slaves or freedpersons (though he cites in support Rom 16:23); Meeks, Urban Christians, 58, notes that they were sometimes public slaves. For highstatus slaves of the state, cf. Barrow, Slavery, 131; Jones, Empire, 243. Goodrich, “Quaestor,” 93–95; idem, “Responding,” 588–92, acknowledges esp. S. Friesen’s evidence for public slaves filling civic manager positions, but offers evidence for many free persons of status filling the positions as well (CIG 2811; SEG 26.1044; TAM 5.743; IAphrodMcCabe 275; ISmyrna 24.761, 771, 772; IStratonikeia 22.1). 5600. Winter, Welfare, 196, argues that Erastus was not a slave and hence was free to travel. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160, believe that he was an aristocrat. 5601. This would be the case especially if he was an aedile at this time (Witherington, Acts, 589–90, who also argues that Erastus was a common name), but the office was only for a year (Winter, Welfare, 184). During his term, he would decide monetary cases involving the city and was in charge of keeping up the agoras, streets, and city-owned buildings (184). 5602. For questions, see also Friesen, “Economics,” 41n41, citing idem, “Wrong Erastus.” If a Christian, Paul’s Erastus may have also been one of the problematic high-status members of the church presupposed in many current reconstructions of the background of 1 Corinthians. 5603. See Winter, Welfare, 182. The first two names of Erastus are missing in the extant part of the inscription, but there is space for them ( Jewett, Romans, 982). 5604. If 2 Timothy depends on Acts, it is difficult to understand why it makes no attempt to harmonize the travel plans. They can be harmonized, but only by supposing (plausibly) that Paul revisited churches and planted others between two Roman detentions, not by virtue of any attempt to harmonize in 2 Timothy itself. 5605. Since Trophimus was from Ephesus according to Luke (Acts 20:4; 21:29) and remained near there in Miletus in 2 Tim 4:20, it is possible to surmise that Erastus also settled near his home. But the argument

2865

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 569

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

c. Hostility in Ephesus (19:23–41) Luke emphasizes that Paul’s conflicts in Ephesus, as elsewhere, stemmed from external hostility to his message, not from any seditious activity on Paul’s part (pace the accusation in Acts 24:5). Paul’s monotheistic message appears as a threat, but only because his message is spreading.5606 Because Paul’s role in Acts also serves as a missionary model, this narrative encourages believers that they must be ready to face hostility for preaching Christ in environments unfriendly to their message.5607 Robert Stoops has argued plausibly that Luke’s presentation fits “a pattern of apologetic argument developed among diaspora Jews,” in which the rioting of one’s opponents invites Roman confirmation of the rights of one’s own group.5608 If Rome held a Jewish community responsible for a disorder, that Jewish community would suffer harsh treatment; whenever Jews could show their opponents responsible for the disorder, however, they had their rights publicly reaffirmed.5609 Philo used Gaius Caligula’s “refusal to accept this logic” to show “Gaius’ depravity” (Embassy 335–36).5610 Because Christians belonged to Judaism, they were to receive the same rights other Jews would.5611 Because Roman authorities were not pacifists, the critical issue was which group initiated the conflict. Despite his pro-Jewish apologetic, Josephus admits the justice of punishing a Jewish community when it initiated the conflict (War 2.487–98).5612 i. Luke’s Report and Historical Conflict in Ephesus

Luke exploits dramatically the events of this section to the fullest extent possible, but he does not invent them. To invent a riot associated with Paul’s activity would weaken Luke’s own apologetic case. Given Luke’s apparent lack of as much information here as in the “we” sections, the accuracy of his local details also goes beyond what we would expect for pure invention (though by themselves such local details do not carry the case for authenticity). Paul also speaks of public conflicts with people hostile to his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8); although these events probably precede the time of his departure depicted by Luke (we lack Pauline correspondence relevant to the precise time that Luke depicts), they suggest that, if anything, Paul suffered much worse in Ephesus than Luke indicates (a suspicion not diminished by Acts 20:16). (1) The Riot and Luke’s Apologetic

Although Luke’s storytelling skills are conspicuous in this section, the events he depicts are hardly his invention.5613 Luke would not invent an account that would lend credibility to the charge that Paul stirred riots (24:5); he defends Paul from such charges is, at best, a supporting one, since the mention of Erastus and Trophimus together does not demand parallels in all particulars. Some also suggest a possible connection between 2 Tim 4 and Acts 19 because both note Timothy (Lee, “Erastus”). Second Timothy 4 is clear, however, only that Timothy knows Erastus (and others). 5606. Such a scenario is inherently plausible; much opposition to Judaism in Rome apparently stemmed precisely from Jewish success in attracting Roman converts (see Gager, Anti-Semitism). 5607. See Carter, Empire, 76. 5608. Stoops, “Riot,” 73. 5609. Ibid., 79. Stoops notes that “mob violence led to a confirmation of the rights of the victimized Jews” in Jos. Ant. 14.244–46; 16.58–60; 19.284; War 7.107–11. 5610. Stoops, “Riot,” 79. 5611. Ibid., 73, 81. See the section on apologetics in Keener, Acts, 1:441–58, esp. 450–53, 455–56; idem, “Apologetic.” 5612. Stoops, “Riot,” 80, noting that Greeks started violence in another case and hence Claudius confirmed Jewish rights ( Jos. Ant. 19.284–85); cf. the governor of Syria in Ant. 19.311. 5613. See Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Fitzmyer, Acts, 655; esp. Trebilco, Ephesus, 157–69; pace Haenchen, Acts, 576–79.

2866

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 570

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

by denying that he started the riot,5614 but were Luke completely free from the demands of history or the dangers of refutation, he could have accomplished his purpose more readily by denying that the Ephesian riot involved Paul even by way of accusation.5615 That Luke could not deny Paul’s involvement suggests that there were people who recalled that the unrest there related to his missionary activity (cf. 21:27–28). Given his apologetic considerations, it is far more likely that Luke indeed toned down the repercussions of the incident than that he created it.5616 (A case in point is Luke’s possibly selective explanation for Paul’s circumventing Ephesus in 20:16; see comment there.) Most scholars agree that the riot is, in fact, far less severe than descriptions of sufferings in Paul’s letters, but paradoxically this restraint has also been viewed as a novelistic feature, just as excess dramatization would have been. Pervo wrongly accuses Luke of novelizing because he omits too much suffering here5617 (whereas Pervo elsewhere complains that Luke overly dramatizes Paul’s life). Luke covers most of Paul’s two years in Ephesus in summary statements and a few anecdotes, not in detail, but Luke is well aware that Paul faced there opposition other than the dramatic incident that he details (20:19, which fits Luke’s pattern but is not narrated in his account). Luke is hardly obligated to report every hardship that Paul faced; constrained by his apologetic purpose, he has every reason to report less suffering than he does, not more.5618 The question is whether Luke invented suffering for Paul, not whether he narrated all of it; and clearly Luke, far from inventing it, narrated only a portion of it (cf. 2 Cor 11:23–27).5619 To keep to his point, a good historian was expected to know what to omit and what to treat in cursory fashion, as well as what to develop (Lucian Hist. 6). (2) Paul’s Own Letters

Paul’s letters confirm that his large ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8–9) led to many enemies (16:9) and to life-threatening opposition there (15:32; 16:9; 2 Cor 1:8–10).5620 Well before the riot depicted here, Paul already faced false accusations, probably in Ephesus (2 Cor 6:8). That is, Luke’s central point (Paul’s persecution for his successful ministry in Ephesus; cf. 1 Cor 16:9) is confirmed by Paul’s letters regardless of the extent to which Luke could have dramatized this particular event.5621 Probably none of the accounts in 1 Corinthians refer to Luke’s riot, which Luke narrates at the end of Paul’s ministry there; we have no letters of Paul from the close 5614. Luke is surely right on this point: given the context of Paul’s ministry approach (esp. 1 Cor 9:21; cf. Rom 2:22), it is quite unlikely that he would have deliberately started the riot. 5615. See Keener, “Apologetic.” By contrast, Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” thinks that Luke transforms a minor incident into a major riot. 5616. Cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 164 (citing Pauline evidence); Dunn, Acts, 263; Johnson, Acts, 351–52; on opposition being greater than depicted in Acts 19, see also Trebilco, Ephesus, 102. See comment on Acts 20:17; comments on Luke’s apologetic for Paul, with special respect to riots, in Keener, “Apologetic.” 5617. During the riot, Paul is simply “sipping sherry with the high priests of the imperial cult” (Pervo, Profit, 10; cf., much more restrained, Dunn, Acts, 263). Pervo complains that Luke plays down the significance of Paul’s conflict there by claiming that Paul was planning to leave anyway (Acts 19:21); this is partly true, but the epistolary Paul was planning to leave anyway (1 Cor 16:3–8). 5618. Luke’s apologetic purpose calls for positive precedents with Rome; he would not wish to lend the slightest credibility to the charge (reported in Acts 21:28; 24:5). 5619. Cf. similarly Hanson, Acts, 195. It was the character of his narrative, an action-packed account in a single volume, to focus on the outstanding events, such as the conflict (rather than merely hostilities leading up to it). 5620. Contrary to some other proposals, the likeliest source of affliction in 2 Cor 1:8 is “severe persecution” (Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 116–17; see also Theodoret Comm. 2 Cor. 291 [Bray, Corinthians, 197]). 5621. In view of usual historiographic approaches in antiquity, the local color, details of names such as “Demetrius,” etc., also suggest that Luke builds on substantial information beyond the bare minimum of information that I contend for here.

2867

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 571

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he was still writing from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8). But these hints do suggest a context that could have led to climactic public opposition such as Luke narrates. The riot, which would have embarrassed his supporters (see comment on Acts 19:31), could have led to official banishment or strategic departure; it is doubtful that mere danger to his life (as he reports in the Corinthian correspondence) would have forced him to leave (cf. 1 Cor 15:30–32; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:20–21), and in fact it had not done so (1 Cor 16:8). It is, however, possible that Paul faced such dangers as Luke reports sometime before the end of his stay in Ephesus (so that Luke’s riot coincides with Paul’s descriptions); in this case, Paul stayed on a bit longer, and Luke merely places the most dramatic confrontation at the end of his Ephesus narrative for reasons of narrative climax (cf. comment on Acts 20:1). It is possible that Ephesus was also the location where Priscilla and Aquila were also in danger, intervening to rescue Paul (Rom 16:4), since they were in this city with him (1 Cor 16:19; Acts 18:26).5622 Such suggestions, however, cannot be much more than speculation; Luke’s narrative is the only narrative of the events that we have. (3) An Ephesian Imprisonment?

That Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus5623 is possible5624 (perhaps even more than once; it would help account for some or at least one of the “many imprisonments” of 2 Cor 11:23; cf. 6:5) but somewhat speculative.5625 Luke might well have reason not to mention it, since he cannot mention everything and focuses on positive precedents (cf. comment on Acts 18:2).5626 But if Paul’s case ended up in court, banishment from the city was more likely than imprisonment, and even this penalty would require the decision of the proconsul.5627 Luke’s silence cannot count against Paul’s Ephesian imprisonment, since Acts clearly 5622. Riesner, Early Period, 213; Witherington, Acts, 573–74. 5623. See Duncan, Ephesian Ministry; see now the careful study of Omerzu, “Spurensuche” (Pauline evidence in 295–314; hints in Acts 19 in 317–22). Duncan also attributes Paul’s “captivity epistles” to this period, which I think dubious (cf. Phil 1:13; 4:22, which I think better fit a Roman than Ephesian or Caesarean provenance; but for a contrary argument, see, e.g., Hyldahl, Chronologie, 18–51; followed by Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 312n2; against their Ephesian composition, see Gielen, “Gefangener”; for a Roman provenance as the majority view, see Still, “Macedonian Believers,” 38–39; cf., e.g., Nock, Paul, 221; Meeks, Urban Christians, 63; Dunn, Beginning, 1009–10). Imprisonments were often overnight or for short stays (Hemer, Acts in History, 272); whereas 1 Cor 16:8–9 suggests ministry as well as enemies, Phil 1:13–21 suggests a long-term captivity with potentially lethal consequences. Based on Phil 2:25–26, some (e.g., Dibelius, Paul, 81) think that Paul must have written from near Philippi, but in fact travelers moved between Rome and Philippi more frequently than between Philippi and Ephesus (cf. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105). The Onesimus connection between Col 4:9 and Phlm 10 does lean toward an Asian detention (Watson, Gentiles, 141; cf. Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 122; Omerzu, “Spurensuche,” 306) but not, I think, enough to outweigh the other evidence. 5624. Arnold, “Ephesus,” 252, notes that the view is widely held today. Some doubt the possibility of the imprisonment on the basis of Paul’s high-status friends (Acts 19:31; Conti, “Paolo ad Efeso”), but it would be easier for them to intervene for his release than to prevent an unanticipated detention. Cf. also “the tradition of Paul’s imprisonment on the western end of the wall built by Croesus” and later Christians’ pilgrimages to that site (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319–20). 5625. Some (e.g., Johnston, Ephesians, 2) think that the case against it is strong. As noted above, I do not think it the source of the captivity epistles. Many note the lack of evidence, sometimes in contrast to the clear evidence for the Roman imprisonment (e.g., Knox, Gentiles, 179; Dodd, New Testament Studies, 99; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 116–17; Smith, “Letters,” 308–12). 5626. Cf. Jos. Ant. 3.95–99, omitting the sin of the golden calf; Luke, writing only a single-volume monograph, has a much better excuse to omit material that does not further his point. 5627. See Hemer, Acts in History, 272. More likely, if Paul embarrassed his patrons (see Acts 19:31), they may have deemed it politically necessary for him to leave the city for the sake of their honor as well as for his safety; the less further said, the better.

2868

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 572

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

has gaps5628 (which Luke himself sometimes fills in his other summaries, e.g., Acts 20:19– 20). If Paul was imprisoned, he may have been unable to return (cf. 20:16) because he was released illegally through a bribe,5629 through the patronage of embarrassed former public supporters who wanted him out of town as quickly as possible (see comment on Acts 19:31). If these events occurred during the interregnum after the proconsul’s death (no later than December of 54 or January of 55 c.e.), when three deputies remained in charge, instability could have facilitated Paul’s release.5630 But ultimately all such discussion is speculation; unless more information comes to light, we cannot be certain even that Paul was imprisoned in Ephesus. That he faced opposition there, however, is clear. (4) Local Color

Scholars have also pointed to various genuine elements of local color.5631 Since Luke had access to such accurate information, it is just as reasonable to suppose that he had it in connection with Paul’s ministry there, about which he would have at least this much knowledge (cf. 20:15–17), as that he had it from some source unrelated to Paul. Luke appears to assume knowledge of a wider body of information than he reports, mentioning Alexander the Jew and Paul’s relation to the Asiarchs as if they were known. Thus many scholars, while stressing Luke’s style, affirm that he depends on a report of an authentic event.5632 Such elements reflecting the spirit of Ephesus include the following: 1. On two other known occasions, Ephesus as a city publicly defended the Artemis cult; the city had never taken lightly insults to the Artemis cult (cf. the execution of 45 Sardians in I. Eph. 2).5633 2. A century after Paul’s ministry there, Ephesus’s city council, with the proconsul’s backing, acted to make certain that the month of Artemision remained sacred to Artemis (I. Eph. 24).5634 3. Asia Minor’s cities had many riots and much unrest in this period.5635 4. Economic concerns for the temple were of special concern in this period (see comment on Acts 19:25). 5. Luke’s use of forms of ἡ θεά and ἡ θεός in the mouths of the Ephesians fits local Ephesian usage and was extremely rare outside Ephesus (see comment on Acts 19:27, 37).5636 5628. With Riesner, Early Period, 214. 5629. Which Luke would not be inclined to emphasize, since he would not approve of it (Acts 24:26); but apparently, he does not believe that Paul would have allowed this either (24:26). Bribes were politically feasible in this period (Riesner, Early Period, 216, who even thinks a bribe could have been paid by the church). 5630. Riesner, Early Period, 217. Cf. comment on Acts 19:38. 5631. See, e.g., Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen”; Sherwin-White, Society, 85ff.; Trebilco, Ephesus, 104–7 (citing esp. Oster, “Commentary”; idem, “Artemis as Opponent,” 24–44; idem, “Ephesus as Center”); cf. also Weiss, “Aufruhr” (citing a particular case). Ephesian elements are so compelling that Koester thinks that Acts’ author wrote from Ephesus (“Ephesos in Literature,” xviii; given the greater focus on historical details for a single incident in Acts 16, I think this less likely), though he has also argued that it reflects the author’s day better than Paul’s (Introduction, 2:114, based on Pliny Ep. 10.96; but in view of the scarcity of our evidence, we dare not assume that Christians’ negative economic impact on local idolatry occurred only in a single generation). 5632. Conzelmann, Acts, 164–65 (noting that Alexander remains unexplained in the narrative); Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen”; Lampe, “Acta 19.” 5633. Trebilco, “Asia,” 331; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 155–56; see esp. Sokolowski, “Testimony on Cult.” 5634. Trebilco, “Asia,” 332. 5635. Ibid., 338. A later novel probably emulating social reality portrays Ephesians nearly stoning their governor over minor conditions (the temperature of the baths; Toner, Culture, 36, citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.16.4). Riots were, of course, not limited to Asia Minor; they seem to have been frequent in the empire (see discussion of the imperial ideology concerning them in Kelly, “Riot Control”). 5636. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability”; noted also in Trebilco, Ephesus, 105–6.

2869

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 573

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

6. The silversmiths’ shops (Acts 19:24–25) may have been located on the road from the harbor to the theater (or perhaps near the busy market) and (even more likely) were relatively close to the theater (see comment on Acts 19:29). 7. Whereas γραμματεύς had a wide semantic range, it was the precise designation for Ephesus’s city clerk (see comment on Acts 19:35).5637 Cumulatively, such details have persuaded many scholars that Luke had substantial information, at least about Ephesus. As the Oxford Classical Dictionary points out, Luke here “gives a vivid picture of the Artemisium’s religious and economic importance for the Roman city.”5638 Historian Fergus Millar observes, concerning Luke’s report of this incident, that “no text illustrates better the city life of the Greek East, its passionate local loyalties, its potential violence precariously held in check by the city officials, and the overshadowing presence of the Roman governor.”5639 Because eastern Mediterranean urban life was cosmopolitan, however, the earlier elements cited above were widely known, appearing even in Greek novels. The later elements in the list are more compelling, but intimate knowledge of Ephesus does not mean that Paul himself was part of the danger involved in the events. The local color therefore becomes only a subsidiary factor for consideration; it is the agreement with Paul’s writings and the logistical challenges the narrative poses to Luke’s own apologetic that are most important here. (5) Questions and Objections

Many scholars are skeptical that Paul would have generated such a commotion in a city of this size, leading to an illegal assembly that could have endangered Ephesus’s free status (19:40). Although Luke has undoubtedly tightened and dramatized the account, as many Greco-Roman historians dramatized their narratives, we should not doubt the plausibility of such a violent reaction. A random source indicates that, not long before this, Claudius had expelled a number of Jewish people from Rome over issues possibly related to Christ (Suet. Claud. 25.4; see comment on Acts 18:2). Rome had also reacted violently to Jewish proselytism when it was publicized as exploitive (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.82–83). Although we know less about reactions against monotheistic cults in Ephesus, a hostile reaction to alleged threats there is no less plausible; indeed, the Artemis cult was more central to Ephesian identity than any of the reported xenophobic incidents were central to Rome. Judaism was established in Asia and might often be difficult to accuse of attacking other cults; Paul’s movement was more aggressive, making the charge more plausible. Certainly, at some point the Christian movement became a major and controversial force in Asia (see Pliny Ep. 10.96–97); why should we not accept the witness of our earliest sources that Paul had something to do with this advance? Some think that Luke has reedited an anti-Jewish riot,5640 given that Paul is not central in the action (cf. the similar argument of some other scholars concerning some of the storm scenes in Acts 27). But this proposal is unlikely; if Paul had nothing to do with the riot, why would Luke use this one at all (given the frequency of urban riots and even some anti-Jewish ones elsewhere) instead of either fabricating from whole 5637. Some scholars also find suggestions of reliability in Luke’s unusual plural ἀνθύπατοι (Acts 19:38), though it could be a generalizing plural. 5638. Calder et al., “Ephesus.” 5639. Millar, Empire and Neighbours, 199; quoted in Gill and Gempf, “Preface,” xiii. In the same passage, Millar compares an “inscription from Ephesus of a few years earlier.” 5640. See Stoops, “Riot,” 74–75, 81; fuller comment on Acts 19:33–34.

2870

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 574

6/19/14 2:14 PM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

cloth or (more likely for a historian) simply dramatizing some genuine persecution that Paul did in fact face? Paul escapes immediate capture, as in Acts 17:10, 14; but as we have noted, we know from Paul’s letters that he was facing even potentially fatal troubles in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8), and Paul seems unwelcome in Ephesus afterward (though Luke appears anxious to avoid reporting this plainly; see comment on Acts 20:16). As in Acts 27, Paul is not the direct subject of most of the action; as Luke’s apologetic emphasizes, Paul is certainly not the cause of the riot (any more than of the storm in Acts 27). Most important, needlessly inventing Paul’s association with a riot would run counter to Luke’s apologetic (cf. Acts 24:5 and comment there). Instead, Luke must explain and minimize Paul’s association with a riot that Luke cannot afford to ignore. The riot in Ephesus may have offered the foundation for some of the initial charges against Paul (cf. 19:33–34; 21:27, 29; 24:5). ii. The Artemis Cult in Ephesus

Like other ancient cities that were not predominantly Jewish, Ephesus hosted many pagan cults, including the cult of the emperor. The most distinctive cult for which Ephesus was widely known, however, was clearly the Artemis cult. Some scholars have even noted specific elements in which Luke may covertly highlight the Christian God’s superiority to Artemis of Ephesus, showing that the Christian beliefs’ threat to Artemis worship in Ephesus was in fact a real one.5641 (1) The Emperor and Ephesus

Like all other major cities of the Greco-Roman world outside Judea, Ephesus worshiped a traditional pantheon of deities.5642 For comment on other deities worshiped in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 19:26. Naturally, the emperor was worshiped there as well.5643 Ephesus was the leading center of Asia’s emperor cult, eventually possessing six or seven imperial temples (though, at most, five at one time): one each to Roma and Julius Caesar, two to Augustus,5644 one (later) to Domitian,5645 and two to Hadrian.5646 The first temple to Augustus, likely the one standing in the state agora’s center, may date to Augustus’s era; the small temples to Julius and Roma, found north of the state agora, date to 29 b.c.e.5647 The cult was now woven into the fabric of Ephesian culture, without resistance. In many ancient cities, citizens with the most wealth bid for the honor of becoming priests in the imperial cult (Suet. Calig. 22.3). In Ephesus, one could not honor Artemis while dishonoring the emperor and vice versa; early in Augustus’s reign, a sanctuary to Rome and Augustus was built within the sacred space of the Artemis 5641. See Brinks, “Artemis.” 5642. For the variety of cults in Ephesus, see Strelan, Artemis, 114–18 (including worship of Hestia, 115); also Oster, “Ephesus” (esp. sect. d.1.b, esp. on Hestia, Serapis, Zeus, and Cybele). 5643. See esp. Harland, “Honours”; Trebilco, Ephesus, 30–37; Strelan, Artemis, 98–105; cf. Filson, “Ephesus,” 77; Aune, Revelation, 154; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 193; for imagery from Trajan’s time (with application to Revelation), see Oster, “Emperor Veneration.” This cult was, however, most pronounced during Domitian’s reign (Friesen, “Ephesus”; Strelan, Artemis, 94–95; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 27–28). A later source claims that Ephesus was willing to overlook Domitian’s incestuous marriage (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.7; Domitian himself was aware of his misdeed, 8.5). 5644. These “made it the chief city in the province”; but Tiberius allowed his own temple in rival Smyrna (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 151). 5645. The later temple to Domitian was demolished after he died, but another was built for Hadrian a few decades later (see McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319). The Domitian temple (50 by 100 m.) lay on a large terrace at the upper end of Curetes Street (Yamauchi, Cities, 84–85). Domitian’s statue was four times human size (85). 5646. Aune, Revelation, 154. 5647. McRay, Archaeology, 256; the Augustus temple was 36 by 20 feet.

2871

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 575

6/19/14 2:14 PM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

temple.5648 On the relationship between the imperial cult and the cult of Artemis in first-century Ephesus, see further comment on Acts 19:31, 40. (2) Ephesus and Artemis

Throughout the empire, however, people recognized the Ephesian Artemis as the city’s primary cult (and a major religious export; see comment on Acts 19:27).5649 Much evidence attests her prominence.5650 Thus one prays to “Artemis, goddess of Ephesus” (Xen. Eph. Anthia 2.11) or binds another by an oath to “Artemis,” the goddess of the citizens’ ancestors (3.5). Artemis was so central in the life of the city that many Ephesian parents named their children after the goddess.5651 Non-Christian texts from the first century b.c.e. through the fourth century c.e. contain 524 references to Ephesus; if one subtracts 175 that are incidental, one-third of these references relate to the Artemis cult.5652 Even more than Athens’s devotion to Athena and perhaps more than any other Mediterranean city’s devotion to its patron deity (excepting Jerusalem), Ephesus was devoted to Artemis, its patron deity.5653 For discussion of the temple, see comment on Acts 19:27; for discussion of the month and festivals dedicated to Artemis, see comment on Acts 19:24. Ephesians were fiercely loyal to their patron goddess.5654 This is not surprising, considering the centrality of local cults to the self-image and perceived status of cities.5655 The Ephesians had once reportedly dedicated their city to Artemis when Croesus was attacking them, by connecting their city’s wall to her temple with a rope (Hdt. 1.26).5656 Archaeologists have found two enormous statues of Artemis near the theater (see comment on Acts 19:29);5657 she appears in other statues and on coins.5658 It appears that Ephesus hosted even a mystery cult in Artemis’s honor,5659 though most attested worship of her there was public.5660 That traditional Ephesians would tolerate no opposition to Artemis is suggested by an incident several centuries earlier, in which Sardians who interrupted an Artemis festival were condemned to death (I. Eph. 1a.2).5661 (It was known that Ionians in general, celebrating ancient traditions, were not easily persuaded to surrender them.)5662 We know of the popular defense of temples in Egypt in the Ptolemaic and 5648. Ramsay, Letters, 231; Yamauchi, Cities, 83. 5649. E.g., Tac. Ann. 4.55 (Romans noting that the city was virtually exclusively devoted to this deity). Apollo and Artemis were also popular elsewhere in Ionia, at oracular shrines at Clarus and Didyma (see comment on Acts 16:16); for the massive Artemis temple in Lydia’s Sardis, see, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 264. 5650. See Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”; Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85–98; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 32–37; Trebilco, Ephesus, 27–30; Rives, Religion, 108–10 (illustrating with Acts 19 on 109–10). 5651. In various compounds, about one hundred such names are attested there so far (Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 142). Of course, Artemis-compounded names appear elsewhere as well (see, e.g., Titus 3:12), but not with the same frequency. 5652. Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85. 5653. See Oster, “Ephesus as Center,” 1728 (quoted in Witherington, Acts, 593, which brought the source to my attention). On the strength of the cult in this period, see Strelan, Artemis, 37–40. For the cult’s history, see 44–46 (perhaps associated with Ephesus as early as the eleventh century b.c.e., p. 44). 5654. See evidence in Trebilco, “Asia,” 326–31. 5655. See Pearson, “Civic Cults.” On the rivalry of cities, see comment on Acts 21:39. 5656. Croesus reportedly dedicated the temple (Plut. Alex. 3; Taylor, “Artemis,” 252). 5657. McRay, “Archaeology,” 99. 5658. See, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34. 5659. See R. A. Kearsley in Llewelyn, Documents, 6:196–202, §29. 5660. Religious activity in the empire’s cities was usually public, with a maximum of participation (Trebilco, “Asia,” 320). See discussion of the Artemisium at Acts 19:24. 5661. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 155–56; Trebilco, “Asia,” 331; see esp. Sokolowski, “Testimony on Cult”; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 655–56. Those executed included a priest, a craftsman, and a slave, among others. Also in an earlier period, the Ephesians quickly rose against her temple’s plunderers (Arrian Alex. 1.17.11). 5662. Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.531.

2872

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 576

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

especially the Roman periods, including against Christian aggression in the fourth century c.e.5663 Ephesian identity was no less deeply connected with the Artemis cult than most Egyptian locales were with their local deities.5664 It is difficult to doubt that traditional Ephesians would resent Paul’s alleged criticisms of other gods. Ephesians approached Artemis as a “savior” (e.g., I. Eph. 1255, 1265),5665 though they also applied this title to Tyche (Fate; I. Eph. 1238) and Zeus (I. Eph. 1243). Many scholars argue that the zodiac necklace on her statue in the temple symbolized her power to protect from Fate, which ruled by means of the stars.5666 (For the connections between fate and astrology, see the excursus on astrology at Acts 2:9–11.)5667 Apparently, she was worshiped more often “with food, libations, and incense” than with blood sacrifices.5668 According to one line of tradition, Leto gave birth to Artemis near Ephesus (Strabo 14.1.20).5669 Demetrius made silver shrines, but statues and other artwork concerning Artemis were even more common. She is normally portrayed with legs together, her upper arms alongside her upper torso with forearms protruding forward.5670 Ephesians washed, dressed, crowned, and carried such Artemis statues in many festival processions;5671 likewise, sculptures and paintings on Artemis’s temple depicted her myths.5672 (3) An Anatolian Fertility Deity?

The cult of the “Ephesian Artemis” was distinct from that of the traditional Greek goddess Artemis, although, in view of the city’s long Greek history and from the perspective of most of the cult’s participants, she would not be viewed as a different goddess. Scholars have traditionally often associated the Ephesian Artemis with the earlier Anatolian fertility cult of the mother goddess adopted by Ephesus’s Greek settlers,5673 a position we must explore before examining alternatives that would qualify it. Pausanias attests that Greeks adapted the local goddess to fit their pantheon (Paus. 7.2.6). In an early period, she “was only the fertility goddess whose old temple had been annexed to a Greek city,” with a high priest called the Megabyzus (the King Bee) and a temple as “a state within the state till Lysimachus gave the temple administration to a Greek board, and removed the bee from Ephesus’s coinage.”5674 Although statues of Artemis in the Greek form are not unknown in Ephesus, most statues in public places and in representations on coins follow a distinctly Anatolian 5663. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 66–70. 5664. Cf. again Oster, “Ephesus as Center,” 1728. 5665. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150, cite Strabo 14.1.22; Ach. Tat. 7.13–8.14. 5666. Witherington, Acts, 587; Arnold, “Acts,” 414. On her cosmic role, see also Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150; Arnold, Power, 21; Trebilco, “Asia,” 317–18 (though contrast Strelan, Artemis, 157–58). On fate and astrology, see the excursus on ancient astrology at Acts 2:9–11 (Keener, Acts, 1:837–39). 5667. Keener, Acts, 1:837–39. 5668. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254. 5669. More commonly, the birth was on Delos, as in Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Lucian Dial. S.-G. 315–16, ¶2. Others doubted also the Delos tradition (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 439.8–12), some preferring Lycia in southern Asia Minor (439.13–16, following Homer). 5670. Strelan, Artemis, 73. 5671. Ibid., 74; for such treatment of other cult images, see, e.g., Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Sites,” 210 (citing CIL 2.3386; 14.2215); outside Greco-Roman tradition, Murray, Splendor, 183–84; Gurney, Hittites, 149–50; Egyptian ritual in Rives, Religion, 69; on Greek processions, see Price, “Procession”; sources in Keener, John, 722n177. 5672. Strelan, Artemis, 74. For myths of the Ephesian Artemis, see 53–57. 5673. E.g., Taylor, “Artemis,” 253; Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 100–101, 103–4; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 149 (citing Paus. 7.2.6–8 on the pre-Greek deity). 5674. Tarn, Civilisation, 140.

2873

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 577

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

form.5675 Her headdress and bulbous appendages (traditionally interpreted as breasts) in artistic depictions and the characteristics of her priesthoods and festivals continued to evoke the “Asiatic” mother goddess.5676 The association with a mother goddess is understandable, given the latter’s prominence. Ephesians honored Meter, the divine “mother,” in cultic settings (e.g., I. Eph. 1214–27); she is the “Phrygian Mother” (I. Eph. 1217, 1218) and Rhea (I. Eph. 1269);5677 such honor could occur at the Artemisia (I. Eph. 1225). (On Cybele and her associations with Anatolia, see further comment on Acts 14:12, 15.) The blending of goddess figures characterized Hellenistic syncretism, which was a natural result of cosmopolitan polytheism;5678 Isis was also approached as a breast-feeding mother goddess.5679 Recent scholarship, however, has questioned or qualified the traditional consensus. Various views exist as to the bulbous appendages on her breast, which appear on her images over a wide area after the second century b.c.e.5680 Traditionally, most argued that the appendages were breasts (hence her title Artemis Polymastus, or, in Latin, Diana Multimamma, the Many-Breasted).5681 Macrobius claims that breasts covered Isis’s entire body, which suggests her motherly role.5682 Against this view, some scholars argue that the appendages were not likely breasts, this interpretation appearing only in polemical Christian sources such as Minucius Felix and Jerome.5683 Arguing that Zeus Labraundenus of Tegea wore a comparable apron, some question the suitability of the breast interpretation.5684 Yet whether or not one accepts the breast interpretation, the evidence for fertility at first appears wider once placed in its larger religious context. Artemis is not the only cult figure from the Hellenistic and Roman period with such appendages.5685 Suggesting that the appendages were “breasts, or bulls’ testicles which were hung on the statue after their sacrifice,” David W. J. Gill points out similar goddesses elsewhere in the East5686 and notes, “The use of bulls’ genitalia is also found within the cult of the goddess Cybele which was common throughout Anatolia.”5687 Another 5675. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34. 5676. Taylor, “Artemis,” 253. Fertility rituals were common to numerous traditional Greek festivals (Mikalson, “Festivals”). 5677. For the mother goddess in Ephesus, see also I. Eph. 107, 108, 109. Note also Demeter (I. Eph. 1210) with Kore and Pluto (I. Eph. 1228). Ramsay particularly emphasized the mother goddess cult in Asia (Luke the Physician, 130–31, 178). 5678. On evidence for syncretism among goddesses, see esp. Reeder, “Mother of Gods”; also comment on Acts 8:10. 5679. See Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 60. Isis is assimilated to Artemis in Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.13–15. For a wide assortment of maternal goddess figures, cf., e.g., Bernabé Ubieta, “Esposas.” But such associations were not limited to mother goddesses; Nike is associated with Artemis in I. Eph. 504 and probably 505. Some scholars also argue that many of the various mother goddesses, from Celtic to Indian regions, may have arisen independently (Borgeaud, “Mother Goddesses,” 237–38), presumably because of common human experience. 5680. The “detailed representations” date from 200 c.e. or later and may include accretions (Godwin, Mystery Religions, 158); but borrowings from Anatolian sources are probably early. Many images have been recovered, as far away as Palestine, and portrayals of the statue also appear on coins (cf. Trell, “Architecture on Coins,” 9, cited in Yamauchi, Cities, 106); for a Seleucid Ephesian statue with these appendages, see, e.g., in Cornfeld, Josephus, 17. For various views, see Yamauchi, Cities, 106–7. 5681. E.g., Sobol, Amazons, 110–11. Even breasts need not signify fertility if they represented Amazons’ offerings of their right breasts, but the myths connected this procedure with their infancy (Strabo 11.5.1). 5682. Heyob, Isis, 75 (citing Macrob. Sat. 1.20.18). 5683. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319; Grant, Gods, 28 (citing Min. Fel. Oct. 22.5; Jer. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians prol. [PG 26:270BC]; Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos, 74–88, who finds no explanation compelling). 5684. Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. 5685. See esp. thoroughly Fleischer, Artemis von Ephesos. 5686. Gill, “Religion,” 88 (citing Ramsay, “Sketches,” plate iii). 5687. Gill, “Religion,” 88 (citing Vermaseren, Corpus). (Strelan, Artemis, 89, critiques another writer’s bull testicle interpretation as based on the explicit but polemical criticism of Artemis’s temple in Passion of

2874

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 578

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

goddess reportedly claimed she was covered with testicles, supporting the idea that these were the testicles of sacrificed bulls.5688 Others have suggested bee eggs5689 and, more recently, ostrich eggs5690 or, perhaps more plausibly, fruits.5691 Most seem to agree that whatever the appendages were, they represent fertility. 5692 Still, the very potential for different interpretations suggests a lack of clarity as to their meaning in Ephesus in this period.5693 For good reason, however, many today doubt even the connection with fertility; the myths of the Ephesian Artemis do not address fertility.5694 Many scholars today are skeptical even of fertility associations in ancient religion in general;5695 whatever the evidence concerning this point,5696 however, such fertility need not be attached to Artemis. If anything, Artemis might be associated with ascetic, not orgiastic, behavior.5697 The statue preserves ancient tradition, probably older than beliefs now associated with it; by contrast, common belief was shaped by the dominance of Greek culture in Ephesus even before the time of Alexander, and it reflects much less emphasis on fertility than scholars have inferred from the statue.5698 As one scholar puts it, “The cult of Artemis at Ephesus . . . includes Asiatic elements; but this does not make Artemis an eastern goddess.”5699 Perhaps we need not altogether rule out some associations with fertility symbolized by the mother goddess, probably especially influential on perception of the St. Symphorianus from ca. 180 c.e. France.) Such imagery had different uses elsewhere; cf. the tradition that a conqueror inscribed male genitals for brave races and female for dishonorable ones (Manetho Aeg. frg. 35.3); in Test. Sol. 9:4, 6, the headless demon Murder sees through its breasts and attaches to itself the heads of its victims. 5688. Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. 5689. Ramsay, cited by Strelan, Artemis, 92, who finds the bee interpretation more plausible than the breasts or testicles interpretation. Ephesus’s coins contained bee images from at least the seventh century b.c.e., and Artemis’s priestesses were from an early period called bees (Mussies, “Artemis,” 95). 5690. Wotschitzky, “Ephesus,” 209. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Syrians used these eggs to depict “the generation and endurance of life”; their fragility and rareness made them expensive “luxury items” (Briese, “Ostrich Eggs,” 290). Carthaginians employed them in graves through the second century b.c.e. and exported them to the western Mediterranean (ibid., 290–91). An association even with pre-Roman Ephesus, however, seems less strongly established. 5691. For fruits, see Grant, Gods, 28. Could they represent a grape cluster? (For the importance of viticulture in the vicinity, see, e.g., Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 41.) 5692. Arnold, Power, 25 (after noting various theories); cf. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 205–6 (also after noting various theories). 5693. Some have argued that the appendages are astronomical bodies, emphasizing Artemis’s rule over fate (e.g., Heinzel, “Kult der Artemis”; Oster, “Artemis as Opponent”). Others have noted pierced amber teardrop beads that may have once adorned the early statue (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 150); this might be used to suggest that the bulbous appendages represent simply an extravagant necklace. 5694. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319–20; pace the connection with sacred prostitution in the sources cited in Arnold, Power, 183nn129–30 (to p. 27). 5695. Lanci, “Stones,” 206–10, notes the debate about their existence in the ancient Near East (though perhaps questioning too much [212–14] textual evidence, including Athen. Deipn. 13.573; Strabo 8.6.20–21; esp. Hdt. 1.199). Certainly many types of cult prostitution are questioned; see, e.g., Bird, “End,” 75–77, as cited in Monson, “Kings,” 105n273. 5696. Most scholars have argued for fertility associations with much of ancient religion (“The Telepinus Myth” [ANET 126–28]; “Poems about Baal and Anath” [ANET 129–42]; Bright, History, 118–19; Dunand, Religion en Égypte, 77–78, 91–92; Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 37–46; Gasparro, Soteriology, 29, 43–49; cf., in old Greek, as opposed to Roman, Corinth, Merker, Sanctuary, 311); it is difficult to suppose that ancient farmers did not at least seek the blessings of agricultural deities (e.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.21.12)! Supposed features such as the “sacred marriage,” however, are highly questionable (see Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Term”; Renger, “Hieros Gamos”; Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Greece”). 5697. Strelan, Artemis, 91 (agreeing with Oster, “Ephesus,” 548). 5698. Her festival was associated with young men and women finding spouses (at least in Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2; on annual dances to Artemis, cf. also Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], line 266), but this is not the only festival with such a distinction (Lam. Rab. proem 33; cf. Judg 21:19–21). 5699. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Artemis,” 184 (citing Bammer, Heiligtum).

2875

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 579

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

deity in an earlier period. Nevertheless, fuller identification of Artemis with Cybele is problematic;5700 despite some linkage of the two in Asia, they remain mostly distinct in Ephesus, with different titles and distinct portrayals.5701 In any case, nt scholars who play down the more dominant Greek elements for this period are certainly wrong, depending more heavily on inference from the traditional artistic portrayals than on explicit literary testimony to the common understanding from the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Thus, for example, Haenchen claims that the Ephesian Artemis “was not the chaste huntress of the Greek myths, but essentially the Near Eastern mother-goddess, the symbol of fertility.”5702 Other writers wrongly describe her as “Oriental rather than Greek”5703 or complain that “far from being a virgin-goddess, she was a local manifestation of the great mother of gods and men.” 5704 Although she retained maternal fertility elements, these were not erotic but were domesticated to make her guardian of marriage and family.5705 The conjunction of remnants of an earlier fertility cult with veneration of a virgin is hardly unknown in the history of religion.5706 The retention of a fertility deity/mother goddess in artistic portrayals, the meaning of which could be ambiguous or polyvalent, would not have reduced explicit literary associations with the classical Greek goddess, especially since the era of Hellenistic syncretism (see comment on Acts 8:10).5707 As Strelan notes, Greeks had been in Ephesus close to a thousand years by Paul’s time, “and it is most likely that in most cultic practices, it was the Greek-influenced Artemis who dominated the minds of people, even if some of the symbolic forms of Artemis (such as images) remained traditionally Asiatic.”5708 Before the Roman period and in the second century, the Ephesian Artemis appears “on coins as the Huntress with stags,” fitting the Greek understanding.5709 Portrayals of Artemis as a virgin emphasize not her morality but her freedom from male constraint.5710 Her temple in Ephesus was “sacred for virgins and maidens”;5711 also, only men and virgins (not married women) were allowed to enter.5712 Greek novels portrayed Ephesian 5700. Though understandably common; cf., e.g., Caird, Revelation, 29; Kroeger, “Classicist’s View,” 228. Even the mother goddess cult of central Anatolia was hellenized, although retaining the mother’s centrality (Roller, “Great Mother”). 5701. Strelan, Artemis, 90–91. 5702. Haenchen, Acts, 575 (depending on Taylor, “Artemis,” 252); cf. Caird, Revelation, 29. For Diana as goddess of the hunt, see, e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.6.3. 5703. Filson, “Ephesus,” 75. 5704. Bruce, History, 328–29 (like Filson, emphasizing the many breasts). See also Murray, Stages, 80; the first-century b.c.e. setting in Tarn, Civilisation, 173. 5705. LiDonnici, “Artemis and Worship.” Although a fertile, welcoming mother goddess (with or without erotic connotations) seems not to comport well with a somewhat misandrous virgin huntress, we should remember that syncretism did not value consistency (see, e.g., Orphic Hymns and PGM, passim). The suggested Lukan contrast (Grassi, “Matrix”) of Artemis as mother with Jesus’s mother, Mary, fails on both historical (regarding Artemis) and literary (Luke does not identify Artemis as “mother,” nor Mary as “from heaven,” etc.) grounds. 5706. See Wolf, “Virgin of Guadalupe”; accessibly, see in Lessa and Vogt, Reader, 114; cf. Irvin and Sunquist, History, 32. For connections between Asia’s mother goddess and the earliest attested veneration of Mary there, see Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 131. At Ugarit, see Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 154 (although Anat’s “virgin” title there is, in fact, contradicted by her activity in myth as well as function). 5707. Despite syncretism, Artemis and Cybele could be portrayed as distinct; cf., e.g., in Sardis, Hanfmann, and Waldbaum, “Kybele and Artemis”; Yamauchi, Cities, 68–69. 5708. Strelan, Artemis, 45 (emphasizing that her festival is on the Greek Artemis’s birthday). 5709. Trebilco, “Asia,” 320; Strelan, Artemis, 45. For the Hellenistic or classical image of Artemis the huntress in addition to the apparent fertility associations, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 254–55. 5710. Strelan, Artemis, 48–49. She is a virgin (Mart. Epig. 10.92.8) comparable to Minerva (Athena; 9.23.1). 5711. Strelan, Artemis, 72 (citing Aristoph. Clouds 598–601; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.5.1). 5712. Strelan, Artemis, 72 (citing Ach. Tat. 7.13.3; Artem. Oneir. 4.4). A prostitute dreaming that she entered the temple was freed and left that profession (Artem. Oneir. 4.4); a married woman dreamed that she entered, and hence died (the penalty for married women entering; 2.12) (73).

2876

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 580

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Artemis as a virgin huntress (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2), a virgin whose arrows protected virgins (Ach. Tat. 6.21.2).5713 Writing in the late empire, Libanius depicts Ephesian Artemis as a virgin who helps women in childbirth and in procuring husbands.5714 The emphasis on her virginity fits the traditional Greek portrayals of Artemis.5715 In contrast to ancient reports of fertility cults such as Aphrodite’s prostitutes in old Corinth (themselves debated by some scholars today), Artemis’s priestesses were committed to chastity (like Vestal virgins).5716 Some ancients considered virgins the appropriate priestesses for virgin goddesses.5717 The Artemis temple traditionally had eunuch priests and virgins serving (Strabo 14.1.23), though practices apparently were changing even in Strabo’s day (the first century b.c.e.),5718 inviting the sort of prestigious priesthoods that in the Roman period most often would have been filled by married men of status who could afford them. Eunuch priests would comport better with the traditional cult of Cybele—in which priests in a frenzy castrated themselves—especially associated with the interior of Asia.5719 It was widely known that Greeks colonized Ionia centuries (reportedly even a millennium) before Paul’s time.5720 Ephesus had been an Ionian Greek city all this time, and Greek culture predominated particularly after Alexander’s conquests; these factors shaped local and international interpretation of the cult. Around 400 b.c.e., a Greek military expedition set aside one-tenth of its plunder for Artemis of Ephesus.5721 Later, Xenophon built a smaller temple for Artemis in Greece modeled after the larger one in Ephesus, complete with a wooden image modeled after the golden Ephesian one (Xen. Anab. 5.3.12). Although earlier scholars dismissed the Greek elements of Artemis found in later novels, these elements not only appear in novels but pervade ancient literature, which sometimes (influenced undoubtedly by the writers’ own milieu) ignore Anatolian aspects of the image. Greek elements appear even in the iconography of Ephesus; Greek and Anatolian elements in the cult were therefore mixed.5722 5713. Already about 125 b.c.e. Antipater of Sidon portrayed Ephesian Artemis as a virgin (Mussies, “Artemis,” 94). The protection of virgins fits earlier Greek tradition about Artemis: the Danaids entreated Artemis to prevent them from being forced to marry (Aeschylus Suppl. 1030–32), but Fate could not be thwarted (Suppl. 1048–51). 5714. Libanius Or. 5 (summarized in Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150); some of the imagery (especially hunting and capturing men) recalls the Amazons. 5715. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 2.9; 9.6 (παρθένος; also a huntress); Callim. Hymns 3 (to Artemis), lines 4–6; cf. “chaste” (ἁγνή) in Hom. Od. 20.71. For Artemis in Greek religion, see Burkert, Religion, 149–52; Guthrie, Greeks and Gods, 99–106. 5716. See, e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 48, from late antiquity; at a different Artemis temple, cf. Sen. E. Suas. 3.2; cf. Barthell, Gods, 27; cf. also chastity (i.e., no immoral sex) for Isis’s worshipers, Apul. Metam. 11.19. Against proposals of cult prostitution in Ephesus, see Baugh, “Cult Prostitution” (also doubting it in Corinth). Although some priestesses (and priests) served purely honorary roles, R. A. Kearsley, in Llewelyn, Documents, 6:26, §1, shows that some were more active. On the spiritual value that some attached to virginity, see comment on Acts 21:9. 5717. Sen. E. Suas. 3.2. 5718. Still, see also Pliny E. N.H. 16.79.213–15 in the first century c.e. Inscriptions show married priestesses (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36), which better suits the high status associated with the position. LiDonnici, “Megabyzos Priesthood,” argues that the eunuch priesthood existed only briefly in the late classical period; noting the limitation of sexual abstention to one year in Paus. 8.1.3, Mussies, “Artemis,” 95, suggests that Hadrian’s anticastration decree (Dig. 48.8.4.2) initiated the change. Callim. Hymns 3 (to Artemis), lines 4–6, shows the ideal of virginity for Artemis’s followers. Kearsley, “Neokoros,” 206, shows that this requirement cannot have applied to priests in the imperial cult. 5719. On these, see comment on Acts 8:27 (under “Castration and Status”). 5720. Men. Rhet. 1.2, 355.16–17; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.574. See Borchert, “Ephesus,” 116, citing Strabo 14.1.4; 1.21; for the perspective of Ephesus as a traditionally Greek city in the novels, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 83–84. 5721. Xen. Anab. 5.3.4 (though not in the temple per se, 5.3.9). 5722. Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 85–98.

2877

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 581

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(4) Artemis’s Cult and Women?

Some have emphasized feminine participation in the Artemis cult to explain some Pauline passages about women (Eph 5:22–24; 1 Tim 2:9–15),5723 but the evidence appears more ambiguous than is often supposed.5724 According to tradition, Amazons founded Ephesus and Smyrna (Strabo 11.5.4; Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115) and named both (Strabo 12.3.21).5725 Traditions also attributed the original shrine and statue of “many-breasted” Artemis to the Amazons.5726 It was said that Amazon statues remained in Artemis’s temple (Pliny E. N.H. 34.19.53). (On Amazons more generally, see comment on Acts 8:27.) Whereas Artemis and other goddesses are prominent in statues from Ephesus,5727 male deities appear less so.5728 “Most of the male gods of the Greek pantheon receded into the background in a city dominated by a mighty goddess.”5729 But Artemis was not a feminist liberator in practice.5730 The role of goddesses and women in myth need hardly translate into equality for women;5731 Athens exalted its patron deity Athena (see comment on Acts 17:15, 16), yet the literature of classical Athens5732 typically provides the extreme of women’s subordination by which scholars exonerate other ancient Mediterranean cultures as a bit more moderate.5733 Though there were priestesses associated with the cult,5734 we also know of influential male priests, such as C. Iulius Atticus (I. Eph. 1265). From an earlier period, both virgins and eunuch priests called the Megabyzi served the temple of Artemis (Strabo 14.1.23).5735 Although some goddess cults employed only female priestesses,5736 the mother goddess Cybele preferred male Galli (see comment on Acts 8:27), and Apollo at Delphi preferred a virgin (see comment on Acts 16:16). Artemis’s use of both genders for some purposes would not then appear problematic to most people in antiquity. The cult of Artemis did not make Ephesus a stronghold of ancient feminism; women probably experienced greater mobility in Macedonia and Rome. 5723. Barth, Ephesians, 2:661; cf. Kroeger, “Classicist’s View,” 227–29, 233. 5724. Though we do learn of high priestesses in Asia who served independently of their husbands (Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis”). 5725. They supposedly founded the Artemis sanctuary and served as its first priestesses (Paus. 4.31.8, noted by Trebilco, “Asia,” 333n193). Amazons also allegedly fled Ephesus from Dionysus (Plut. Gk. Q. 56, Mor. 303DE; Paus. 7.2.7). We read of a person named (or nicknamed) Ἀμαζόνος in I. Eph. 941. 5726. See Sobol, Amazons, 110. 5727. Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 252–55, for Artemis; 255–64 for other goddesses. Photos of Artemis statues appear in Ephesus guidebooks, e.g., Gökovali, Guide, 62–65. 5728. Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 264–69. 5729. Ibid., 264. 5730. Strelan, Artemis, 93 (noting her as a patron of both virgins and young men). 5731. Mortal women also could be prominent in some myth and drama without its affecting women’s roles in the larger society (cf. Willner, “Oedipus Complex”; Foley, “Conception”). 5732. Though the speeches probably overrepresent women’s repression; for an evaluation of the various sources, see Gould, “Position in Athens.” 5733. See, e.g., Pomeroy, Goddesses, 57–119, though Fleming, “Dames,” 78, notes that Pomeroy uses Athens as the extreme patriarchal foil for everything else (Skinner, “Dames,” critiques Fleming in turn); further discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:606, 608. 5734. Strabo 14.1.23; Apoll. K. Tyre 48; Riesner, Early Period, 215; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36; see esp. Kearsley, “Asiarchs, archiereis” (who shows that the title was not always honorary). Cf. the priestess of Hestia (if I correctly understand the inscription) in I. Eph. 508. On women and priesthoods in the East in general, cf. also Gardner, Women, 67–68; Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 259–62, 279–80. In the West, the empress probably served as the primary model for priestesses in the imperial cult (Hemelrijk, “Empresses”). 5735. Though North, “Priests,” 1245, is right that Greeks (unlike, mostly, Romans) used both female and male priests (cf. also Kearns, “Women in Cult,” 1625), North’s association of priests with deities of their own gender is overstated. 5736. E.g., the temple of Ceres in Cic. Verr. 2.4.45.102. But all Rome’s shrines of Diana except one admitted male worshipers (Plut. Rom. Q. 3, Mor. 264C).

2878

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 582

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

iii. Demetrius’s Charge (19:23–27)

Luke portrays Demetrius as a rabble-rousing demagogue, the perfect way to depict an enemy of Paul if Luke wishes to dissociate Paul from being the cause of the riots. Paul’s preaching of aniconic monotheism has rankled economic interests (as in Acts 16:19), but he has not in fact denounced Artemis (19:37). Luke provides us with the setting (19:23–25a) as well as a brief speech (19:25b–27). (1) The Setting : Stirring Silver Workers (19:23–25a)

It is helpful here to explore questions about the timing (19:23), Demetrius’s status, silver shrines, silver workers, suggested attestation for Demetrius, artisans and trade guilds, economics and the Artemis temple, and the dangers in challenging economic interests. The Ti m ing (1 9 : 2 3 )

Acts 19:23 signals the transition to this new section. Some scholars have suggested that the riot may have occurred during the month that Ephesians called Artemision (because Ephesians believed that Artemis was born then), when devotion to Artemis ran especially high.5737 The leading festival of Artemis, the Artemisia (Ἀρτεμίσια), occurred at the beginning of this month, near the spring equinox. The festival’s central feature “was a great procession” that included all the sanctuary’s cult objects. “For this festival, and for the equestrian, gymnastic, and musical contests that accompanied it,” all of Ionia gathered; “following the ceremony there were often deliberations of a political nature.”5738 Reportedly, all the local young women and men marched in the procession from Ephesus to Artemis’s temple almost a mile distant, with many visitors as well as most Ephesians present.5739 One could thus hardly oppose the Ephesian Artemis without appearing also to oppose Ephesus itself. Although this proposed linkage with the Artemisium or Artemisia is possible, it is by no means necessary; devotion to Artemis remained strong throughout the year. Even if a festival were the necessary backdrop, another festival, the Thargelia, celebrated Artemis’s nativity in May or June;5740 monthly or even twice-monthly processions went to and from the temple;5741 and in any case, no festal connection is necessary. Unrest and even riots were common in this period in the cities of Asia Minor, not limited to festivals; Asian inscriptions use ταραχή (like τάραχος here) and στάσις (as 5737. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 181–82; Bruce, Commentary, 398. On this festival, see Strelan, Artemis, 57–61; Mussies, “Artemis,” 96. Ephesus was not idiosyncratic in its practices; Athens had a special festival and month (cf. discussion in Stallsmith, “Thesmophoria”; some in idem, “Thesmophoros”; Nilsson, Folk Religion, 24–26). 5738. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254. On holy days honoring Artemis, see esp. R. Oster in Horsley, Documents, 4:74–82, §19; on sacred processions in this cult (and archaeological evidence), see Knibbe, “Via Sacra”; on the cult and burial along the Processional Way, see Thür, “Way”; for earlier Ionian festivals, see Graf, “Ionian Festivals.” 5739. See Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2 (cf. the scene in Char. Chaer. 1.1.4–5). Against the Greek street grid, the older Curetes Street is diagonal, belonging to the traditional procession route to Artemis’s temple (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 189). 5740. Trebilco, “Asia,” 321, on the sixth of Thargelion (cf. Englhofer, “Birthday,” 671); see Strelan, Artemis, 61–65. This fits the Greek Artemis’s birthday (45) and places it close to Athens’s traditional date for the Thargelia, a summer festival of Apollo also celebrated in some Ionian cities (Graf, “Thargelia”; Nilsson, Folk Religion, 27–28; after purification on the sixth [Cohoon in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 1:382–83n2], Apollo was worshiped on the seventh of Thargelion, the twelfth month; cf. Burkert, Religion, 226–27, 265); Apollo was the Greek Artemis’s twin brother. Cf. the Spartan Artemis festival on the sixth of Boedromion (Sourvinou-Inwood, “Artemis,” 183), a month sacred to Apollo in the Attic calendar (the fourth month; Parker, “Boedromia”; Burkert, Religion, 226), though Athens had two other months dedicated to Artemis (Burkert, Religion, 226). On days sacred to various deities, cf. Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67. 5741. Klauck, Magic, 104. Such long-distance processions also appear elsewhere, e.g., the 30 km. between Eleusis and Athens (Price, “Procession,” 906).

2879

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 583

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

in 19:40) in connection with such incidents.5742 (Luke is careful to note in this and other cases of ταραχή that Paul’s opponents, rather than Paul himself, instigated such incidents [e.g., 17:8, 13]. Such an observation was important, especially in view of charges against Paul [16:20; 24:5].) We cannot know if they happened near one of these festivals, but if these events occurred in Artemision (March–April), they may have happened shortly before Paul planned to leave anyway (after Pentecost, 1 Cor 16:8), which would fit Acts 19:21. This leaves a gap of time before Paul’s stay in Corinth (Acts 20:3), probably during winter (cf. 1 Cor 16:6),5743 shortly followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6). Perhaps this gap involves several months in Macedonia, including negotiations with the Corinthian church (Acts 20:1–2; cf. 2 Cor 1:15–2:1).5744 De m et r iu s’s S tatu s ( 1 9 : 2 4 )

Luke’s informed audience is ready for this narrative, especially in view of his summary of Paul’s philosophic preaching in a pagan context in 17:22–31. While Luke respected honest trades (18:3), the sort of “craft” here (19:24, 38) evokes that in 17:29. Paul has already challenged silver workers who make idols (Acts 17:29); those responding to the gospel have abandoned silver expended on magic (19:19); and Jesus’s true agents disdain silver (3:6; 20:33; cf. Luke 9:3), in contrast to evildoers (Luke 22:5; Acts 8:20). As for making of “shrines” (here ναούς), Luke’s only other use in Acts proclaims that God does not dwell in them (Acts 17:24).5745 Those writing speeches were to attend to issues of local color (Quint. Inst. 3.7.24), which Luke accomplishes well here with his emphasis on Artemis, the cult’s impact on the economy (Acts 19:25), and the temple (19:27) and its cheaper imitations (19:24). Guilds were expected to honor the civic religion.5746 Each guild had its own patron deity; these artisans making silver shrines obviously had Artemis as theirs.5747 On the nature of such guilds and the status of artisans, see extended comment on Acts 18:3. According to Luke’s portrayal, rabble-rousers of low station bypassed the courts (19:38) and used ignoble means to cause trouble for a respectable sage (see comment on Acts 19:9); this required intervention from a member of the “respectable” class (19:35), which supported Paul (or would have done so had it remained politically feasible, 19:31). People of status in this culture would not think highly of any movement originating among the “masses,”5748 and they viewed most artisans as comparatively lowly (see extended comment on Acts 18:3). Theophilus’s circle (his clients and associates) may not include highly respected artisans, which may be one reason Luke does not emphasize Paul’s work (18:3) until he uses it to challenge patronal ideology (20:34). (Luke does acknowledge Paul’s work as an artisan and does not 5742. Trebilco, “Asia,” 339. Moreover, as we shall note further below, courts would not literally “be in session” (19:38) if the festival were in process. 5743. If Acts 20:1–3 does not represent the same visit as 1 Cor 16:5–6 (so Rapske, “Travel,” 5; cf. 2 Cor 2:1; 13:1; but contrast Hemer, Acts in History, 188), at least it suggests the same travel pattern (avoiding winter travel; cf. Acts 27:9), and 20:1–3 may fulfill the hope of a winter stay abandoned on an earlier trip. 5744. If they happened during the later Artemis festival (May–June), the gap would be less. If they did not happen during a festival, the grounds for speculation grow thinner. 5745. In the Gospel, he is more favorable toward the ναός in Jerusalem (Luke 1:9, 21–22), but even in the Gospel, 23:45 may suggest judgment. Although God deigns to dwell in Israel’s temple (1 Kgs 8:27), sin could banish God’s presence (Ezek 9:3–11:23; cf. Sipra Qed. pq. 8.205.2.1; par. 4.206.2.6; Sipre Deut. 258.2.3; 320.2.1; see further early Jewish discussion in Keener, John, 410). 5746. See Strelan, Artemis, 140–43. 5747. Judge, Pattern, 40; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 142. Normally, however, Hephaistos was naturally patron deity of smiths (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K92.9–13); each craft was consecrated to some deity (Poet. 5, K48.27–28). 5748. See comment on Acts 4:18–22; or Keener, John, 732–33. For another example of elite disdain toward artisans, see P.Oxy. 51.3617 in Toner, Culture, 140 (about a weaver).

2880

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 584

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

oppose artisans; his real audience would undoubtedly include many of them. Nevertheless, he recognizes that just as matters of status affect the outcome in courts, they also have an impact on how his contemporaries will receive his apologetic message. Luke would not wish to invent their opposition, any more than that of elites [13:50], but rabble-rousers of this sort might not surprise his audience.) Artisans divided into two classes, those skilled in fine arts being “free” and craftsmen such as metalsmiths being “lowly” (Men. Rhet. 1.3, 360.25–27). Many people called Antiochus Epiphanes insane because, though he was a ruler, he conversed with commoners such as silversmiths and goldsmiths (Polyb. 26.1.1–3).5749 Commensurate with the mostly economically determined, rising new upper class in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 18:19),5750 it is not surprising that some silversmiths did achieve exceptional status, which may have increased their influence in Ephesus.5751 Further, producing skilled likenesses (here of Artemis’s shrine) was undoubtedly a higher form of labor than simply forging metals more generally.5752 But unless they had lived in Ephesus, most of Luke’s audience would assume the silversmiths to be conventional low-status artisans,5753 albeit with significant economic interests. Still more important for Luke’s monotheistic target audience, all who disrespected idols would disrespect Demetrius’s particular profession.5754 Demetrius’s economic status is a different question from his social status. Dealing in silver, as Lydia did in purple (Acts 16:14), he would have high overhead costs (assuming, as the text suggests, that he headed his own business) and may well have had other workers and apprentices. Luke suggests that Demetrius was influential in the guild, bringing profit to the entire association (see the end of 19:24).5755 (Demetrius’s bringing much business to the workers is precisely parallel to the demon-possessed slave girl’s bringing much profit to her owners in 16:16; Luke portrays the world as permitting religious exploitation because of vested economic interests.)5756 Craftsmen as groups held little political power, but entrepreneurs could prosper.5757 Excavations show many shops in Ephesus;5758 on the city’s prosperity in this period, see comment on Acts 19:25. 5749. Members of the elite viewed smiths as typically rude (Libanius Or. 15.77, as quoted in Toner, Culture, 142, in his comments on the popular frequency of vulgarity and coarse swearing, which Luke’s audience might have imagined accompanied the silversmiths’ speech in Ephesus). 5750. Wealthy and prominent artisans in Ephesus include a silversmith (I. Eph. 2212), a fisherman and/ or fish dealers (I. Eph. 14, 803, 984, 1008, 1387), a linen worker (I. Eph. 2446), and shippers (I. Eph. 946, 1487–88; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 114–16). 5751. Cf. Marcus Antonius Hermeias (Crocker, “Silversmiths”) and comments on (another?) Demetrius below. On crafts in the Roman world, including silverwork, see Evans, “Crafts.” Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1 seems to assume that artisans were numerous in Ephesus. 5752. For Roman views on the proper treatment of likenesses in art, see Perry, “Diligentia.” Apparently by the early second century, even Roman law took interest in the quality of skilled workers’ products, holding them responsible for their work (Martin, “Imperitia”). 5753. Even some higher-status artisans might be supposed to have questionable values; Lucian Phal. 1.11–12 speaks of a skilled coppersmith (but notes him as a bad man). 5754. Cf. even Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.20 (criticizing the selling of gods). 5755. Schnabel, Acts, 803, suggests that he may have been “the master of the guild of the silversmiths” (following Selinger, “Demetriosunruhen,” 245); see also Trebilco, “Asia,” 341 (as a possibility; following Ramsay, Church in Empire, 128). “No little profit” is litotes for much profit; on the figure litotes, see, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 128; on understatement in rhetoric, Rhet. Her. 4.38.50; cf. Caird, Language, 134, who notes that litotes is a familiar Greek figure, not a Hebrew one. Luke uses the figure often (or not rarely; e.g., 1:5; 12:18; 27:13–14, 20). 5756. Cf. Chrys. Hom. Acts 42: their interests were economic, with religion as a pretext. Human behavior has not changed much; one might compare religious broadcasting stations today that permit broadcasters who set dates for Christ’s return, denounce fund-raising rivals, etc., but bring funds to the station. 5757. Spawforth, “Artisans.” 5758. See, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, 88.

2881

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 585

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

S ilve r Shr in e s (19 : 2 4 )

Scholars generally agree that Luke refers to miniature silver shrines of Artemis, probably models of the temple. They debate, however, the strength of the evidence for silver shrines of Artemis, depending on the standard of evidence they employ. Very little ancient history could survive the most rigorous standard of evidence—in this case, meaning the recovery from Ephesus of silver shrines of Artemis that had not been later melted down. Conversely, we lack much evidence for specifically silver shrines anywhere.5759 Thus Lake and Cadbury note the use of miniature terra-cotta temples but object that “there is a complete lack of evidence that they were made of silver.”5760 When we consider the overall paucity of surviving evidence from antiquity, however,5761 the existence of makers of silver shrines for wealthy customers is plausible, although makers of cheaper shrines presumably predominated. The evidence is as follows:5762 1. Craftsmen produced small terra-cotta temples;5763 such miniature copies of temples have been found elsewhere.5764 2. Such shrines could exist in more expensive material, though few have survived: a. Archaeologists have discovered a more expensive, “miniature marble temple of Artemis.”5765 b. Expensive metals were often melted down for reuse in later centuries, leaving fewer surviving samples.5766 3. An abundance of silver statuettes of Artemis have been recovered and are mentioned in texts (see comment below). 4. It is reasonable to assume that if we have silver statuettes of Artemis (as noted above), a smaller number of miniature shrines of the same material existed: a. An image of Artemis appears in a niche of the same material.5767 b. Statues were sometimes connected with miniature shrines.5768 c. Archaeologists have uncovered a bronze matrix from second- or first-century b.c.e. Smyrna, portraying Artemis in her temple; images were mass-produced from such molds.5769 d. In some portrayals from antiquity, Artemis wears “a miniature of the ναός on her head.”5770 5759. At least by John Chrysostom’s day, they appear rare enough that Chrysostom himself adds “perhaps” when comparing them with small copies of temples (Hom. Acts 42.1, Armenian catena 346, in Haenchen, Acts, 572). But we do have some evidence for such shrines (below). 5760. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 245. 5761. Because objects in silver and gold were often later melted down for reuse, evidence in these metals is naturally scarcer than terra-cotta evidence (Witherington, Acts, 590). 5762. See, e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 572; esp. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336–37. 5763. Fleischer, Artemis, 27–34, also provides an inventory of terra-cotta statuettes of Artemis. 5764. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 246; Conzelmann, Acts, 165 (citing also Artem. Oneir. 2.33). Roman Egypt also mass-produced “terracotta altars and figurines” (and shrines) “for domestic display” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54); for terra-cotta figurines of deities there, see 132–34. For figurines in general (perhaps medallions, but probably statuettes, given the context about statues), see Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.48. 5765. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336, citing Oberleitner, Funde aus Ephesos, 56 no. 20. 5766. Trebilco, “Asia,” 337; cf. Sherwin-White, Society, 91 (noting, “It is not surprising that no models in precious metal have survived from antiquity”). We read of extravagant heavy silver dishes (Pliny E. N.H. 33.52.145) but do not expect many to have survived. 5767. For terra-cotta images of Artemis in a niche, see IGRR 1.467 (Hemer, Acts in History, 121). The domestic niche statue in Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 34, is in the traditional Greek form. The Artemis temple was sacred because it housed Artemis’s image (Strelan, Artemis, 73). 5768. Many figurines recovered in Egypt bear “miniature shrines” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54). 5769. Witherington, Acts, 590, following Reeder, “Mother of Gods,” 424–28. Syncretism blended various feminine deities (Reeder, “Mother of Gods”). 5770. Trebilco, “Asia,” 337 (following Seltman, “Wardrobe of Artemis,” 44–47).

2882

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 586

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

5. Silver working was an important and well-attested trade in Ephesus and was at least sometimes connected with Artemis (see discussion below). 6. Even apart from silver often being melted down,5771 we need not assume that silver shrines were abundant even to begin with, since a. only Demetrius is specified as a maker of them; b. the other guild members belong to his more general trade, which Luke specifies only as “silversmith” (19:24; many of the others may have been engaged in forging silver images of Artemis or serving the tourist industry or the Artemis temple in other respects);5772 c. silver being more expensive than terra-cotta and bronze,5773 the market could have supported the production of fewer “silver shrines” than of the other kinds. 7. Specifically silver shrines were not common anywhere, and the specialty is rare enough to render it doubtful that Luke would have selected these particular artisans as Paul’s opponents unless this (or something like it) appeared in his source. Some scholars argue for the shrines as souvenirs and amulets;5774 others think that most were votive offerings in the temple.5775 Evidence suggests both uses. Both statues and model shrines would have important domestic uses, often in wall niches in homes; such figures provided private shrines even in comparatively impoverished Egypt.5776 The variety of figurines available in Egypt (where we have the most abundant extant evidence) suggests that buyers had some measure of choice.5777 Craftsmen forged or framed “some lamps and figurines” as a “miniature temple” both in and before the Roman period; this image would symbolize continuity between the home altar and the great temples, and “the common image of a god emerging from his or her temple or posed in its doorway . . . would recall and even invoke the festival appearance of the temple image” for sacred processions and the like.5778 Such shrines, altars, and figurines were probably used in homes to confer the fertility of the temple procession.5779 Given the monthly or twice-monthly processions to the temple, such objects could prove highly profitable to their sellers,5780 especially if the articles were made of precious metals. People also prayed and sometimes sacrificed to statuettes (Apul. Apol. 61, 63). 5771. Perhaps in the pre-Christian period, the deity statues, besides being more common than the shrines to begin with, would have been melted down more rarely than the shrines because of religious scruples. 5772. He could be calling all the other shrine makers (in view of the economic threat posed by Paul’s preaching), but if the guild here is that of silver workers (note “our wealth,” Acts 19:24) or of metalworkers more generally, concerns about the religious-tourist industry would still affect their overall work. 5773. For bronze statues of deities, see, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 34.9.15. For a range of metal deity images from the ancient Near East, Monson, “Kings,” 104n254, cites Negbi, Gods, esp. 199; Roaf, Atlas, 76–77; Baines and Málek, Atlas, 212–19. 5774. Haenchen, Acts, 572; Conzelmann, Acts, 165. 5775. For evidence for votive use, see Reeder, “Mother of Gods”; sources in Trebilco, “Asia,” 338; esp. IGRR 1.467 (Hemer, Acts in History, 121; Trebilco, “Asia,” 337); Kauppi, Gods, 94–101 (including on votive offerings generally); for votive offerings more generally, see Frateantonio, “Votive Offerings”; in the ancient Near East, see Renger, “Votive Offerings.” 5776. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 134–36 (some home altars may have also been used for offerings, 137–38). 5777. Ibid., 140. Further west, wealthy Apuleius claims that he gave a skilled woodworker the choice of what to make (Apol. 61). 5778. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 140–41. 5779. Ibid., 55. 5780. Klauck, Magic, 104.

2883

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 587

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

At least some people or groups could afford expensive statues. Some ivory statues of Artemis have been found dating to about 700 b.c.e.5781 About half a century after the incident described here, in 103/104 c.e., the Roman official Vibius Salutaris presented thirty-one gold and silver statuettes to Ephesus for public display, including nine statues of Artemis.5782 Silver statues were not uncommon in antiquity,5783 even though the silver in most was ultimately melted down for reuse. Silve r Wor k e r s ( 1 9 : 2 4 )

Silver working, Demetrius’s primary trade, was an important profession in Ephesus, with its own guild. The term ἀργυροκόπος, used by Luke here, appears in many Ephesian inscriptions; at least seven inscriptions in Die Inschriften von Ephesos mention this trade, and an eighth source has been published since then. 5784 The guild or assembly of the silversmiths is explicitly linked with the temple in I. Eph. 636.9–10: τὸ ἱερὸν συνέδριον τῶν ἀργυροκόπων.5785 One of these silver workers was of unusually high status, being a νεωποιός—that is, on the board of wardens for the temple of Artemis.5786 In general, metalsmiths were viewed as working in disgusting and uncomfortable settings, often in propped-up shanties, bowed down over their work because of low ceilings.5787 Silversmiths’ work may reflect a higher overhead cost and hence greater capital and better conditions. In addition to normal metalwork, silversmiths used some minerals to polish the silver (Pliny E. N.H. 35.58.199). Luke does not explicitly claim that making silver shrines was a common occupation; he explicitly claims “silver working” as Demetrius’s business, with perhaps a personal specialty in making these silver shrines (Acts 19:24). Nevertheless, the others who share his trade (as silver workers or, perhaps more generally, metalworkers) also risk economic loss from disrespect for the temple (19:25–27), and so it seems likely that a significant number of silver workers were engaged in work involving the goddess, which makes sense given Ephesus’s devotion to Artemis and even well-to-do tourists who knew her reputation. Although Demetrius probably began with the silver workers, mobilizing this influential guild (see comment on Acts 19:25), he may well have appealed also to members of allied guilds residing in nearby districts (including copper workers who made shrines).5788 If his colleagues include metalworkers who formed idols and not just silver workers (presumably not all of whom did produce deity images), it is easier to imagine a large market for such shrines and greater popular indignation.5789 5781. Yamauchi, Cities, 88. Cf. also the terra-cotta statuette of Artemis from fifth-century b.c.e. Boeotia (Klinger, “Statuette”). 5782. Deissmann, Light, 112–13. The incident is regularly cited; e.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 107; idem, Stones, 118; Bruce, History, 328; Thompson, Archaeology, 398; Trebilco, “Asia,” 349–50n257; cf. Finegan, Light from Past, 267. 5783. See Pliny E. N.H. 33.54.151; Paus. 1.5.1. 5784. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 142–43; Crocker, “Silversmiths”; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336; and Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 113, cite I. Eph. 425.10; 547 (1, 2); 585–86; 636.9–10 (mentioning the temple); 639.9–10; 2212a.6–7, 17; 2441; cf. also Hemer, Acts in History, 235; Strelan, Artemis, 137. For discussion of I. Eph. 6.2212, see Horsley, Documents, 4:7–10, §1. 5785. Trebilco, “Asia,” 341. 5786. I. Eph. 2212a.6–7 (in Hemer, Acts in History, 235–36; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336). For other connections between silverwork and Artemis, see Pliny E. N.H. 33.154; I. Eph. 586 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 337). 5787. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.9 (possibly exaggerating to excuse having torn these down for his building projects). 5788. Admittedly, we cannot be sure who were organized by Demetrius and who just heard as word spread, since word quickly spread beyond his initial audience (Acts 19:29). 5789. Witherington, Acts, 591, thinks of “workers in lead, marble, and semiprecious stones” as well as silver workers.

2884

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 588

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Another Pauline tradition mentions an enemy of Paul in Ephesus who is a copper worker (2 Tim 4:14).5790 Virtually all guilds and associations in the Greco-Roman world engaged in religious activity.5791 These guilds’ banquets almost always included libations or sacrifice to a deity.5792 When one guild of Syrian merchants in Delos naturally chose Poseidon (the chief sea deity) as their patron deity, they called themselves “the association of the Poseidoniasts of Beirut.”5793 Sometimes, especially if the guild or association had a specifically religious purpose, it even met within a temple’s precincts.5794 Guilds and associations often included a component of veneration toward the imperial family.5795 At te station for De m et r iu s? ( 1 9 : 2 4 )

We know of a Demetrius, son of Menophilus, who was also one of the wardens of the temple, probably in the mid- or late first century c.e. (I. Eph. 1578a). Some scholars have proposed that this might be the same individual that Luke mentions.5796 In favor of identifying the two, we know that Luke’s Demetrius was very influential in the guild (Acts 19:24, end); he obviously cherished ties to the Artemis temple (19:27) and achieved at least informal leadership among silver workers who shared the same commitments (19:25, 28). Twelve νεωποιοί were appointed each year, and they supervised both votive offerings and (suggesting a measure of wealth) repairs in the temple.5797 At least some of them were benefactors who used the post “as a stepping-stone in a civic career.”5798 In a city where the nouveau riche were advancing into the ranks of the older aristocracy (see comment on Acts 18:19), it would be conceivable for an artisan (or former artisan) to hold this rank. If a silver worker could also be a νεωποιός,5799 it is possible that the silver worker is our Demetrius. If the same Demetrius is in view, Luke may not have chosen to emphasize how close to the power structures of the city the opposition originated. Most scholars, however, are not persuaded, in part because the inscription’s date is debated (it may be later than the incident reported here).5800 The date would not be a compelling problem so long as the inscription is not later than the first century; if Demetrius was young in 19:24, he would likely be even more influential a few decades later, especially if he could ride popularity achieved as a supporter of the city’s beloved Artemis temple. The more compelling problem is that Demetrius was a common name in Ephesus; that we should know of one who happened to share the name Demetrius, among many who held this office, may well be no more than coincidence.5801 Certainly, the 5790. That he is in Ephesus is implied in 2 Tim 4:15 (since Timothy is apparently still located there; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12). Cf. the bad coppersmith in Lucian Phal. 1.11–12. Coppersmiths are also attested in Ephesus; see I. Eph. 2.554 (McRay, Archaeology, 259). 5791. Harland, Associations, 61–74; Strelan, Artemis, 140–43; cf. Dionysus in theatrical associations (Harmon, “Technitai,” 202). 5792. Harland, Associations, 77. 5793. Smith, Symposium, 105. 5794. Ibid., 103–4. 5795. See Harland, Associations, 115–60; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 29, 123–41. 5796. Bruce, Apostle, 293 (citing Hicks, “Demetrius the Silversmith”). 5797. Haenchen, Acts, 571–72n2. 5798. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143–44 (citing T. Flavius Pythio in I. Eph. 5.1578a.11–12). 5799. I. Eph. 2212a.6–7 (in Hemer, Acts in History, 235–36; Trebilco, “Asia,” 336). 5800. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 165; Trebilco, “Asia,” 338n210; cf. Haenchen, Acts, 572n1; some follow Ramsay, Church in Empire, 112–45. Cf. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 144: the connection is, at best, “entirely speculative.” 5801. See, e.g., I. Eph. 876; 898; 904a.7; 1261; 3258; references consume nearly two full columns in the index to I. Eph. (vol. 8.2, pp. 54–55). Brookins, “Name,” 511, counts 1,838 in antiquity.

2885

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 589

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

early argument (originally used to connect the two) that Luke misinterpreted “temple warden” (νεωποιός or ναοποιός) in his source as “maker of shrines” (ποιῶν ναούς)5802 is open to challenge,5803 since we do know of shrine makers. In the final analysis, the current state of our data does not allow certainty in either direction. A rti s a ns a n d Tr a de Guilds ( 1 9 : 2 5 )

Gathering the silversmiths together would have required far less effort than most modern readers imagine. Members of various trades typically lived in particular sections of town, sections that often took their names from the trades that worked there.5804 In Ephesus, the silversmiths’ shops were situated on what was later called Arkadiane Street (I. Eph. 547), a street that ran from the theater (see comment on Acts 19:29) to the harbor.5805 Despite some economic competition,5806 members of trades met together regularly for common meals (which invoked their patron deity, in this case Artemis) and other common interests (see discussion at Acts 18:3).5807 Local associations of artisans often lobbied or used patrons to apply political pressure to protect their business interests in a city; one historian who emphasizes this activism employs the example of Acts 19 as a case in point.5808 Troubles in cities sometimes originated with guilds, which could organize workers; this was the case with the linen workers of Tarsus (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21–23).5809 By the early second century, even some voluntary fire brigades in Asia were believed to have disturbed the peace, requiring punitive action (Pliny Ep. 10.34.1).5810 About a century after Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, the bakers’ union in a nearby city apparently went on strike, probably for economic reasons, and held meetings that led to riots and a city short of bread. The proconsul warned that he would punish any similar activity in the future (cf. Acts 19:38, 40).5811 Metalsmiths could also appear in such conflicts (cf. 2 Tim 4:14, suggesting other hostile metalworkers in Ephesus). Dio Chrysostom, whose city building projects replaced and improved what he considered unpleasant workshops for metalsmiths, aroused serious criticism from some of those metalsmiths (Or. 40.8–9). Rome sometimes restricted associations, including guilds, “because they were suspected of fomenting the kind of unrest described” here.5812 Thus these craftspeople provide enemies useful for Luke’s apologetic. (This is not, however, to suggest that they are fabricated, since Jewish accusers would have fit the larger pattern of Luke’s narrative better. Nor is Luke, though interested in Theophilus’s class, ready to sacrifice his narrative’s appeal to all laborers [cf. Acts 9:43; 18:3; 20:34–35; Luke 5:2–10].) The elite usually looked down on artisans (though apparently less so in Ephesus than in some other cities; see comment on Acts 18:3, 19), but artisans sought upward 5802. Hicks, “Demetrius the Silversmith”; cf. idem, “Postscript” (replying to Ramsay). 5803. Ramsay, “Paul at Ephesus”; idem, Church in Empire, 112–45; see Trebilco, “Asia,” 338n210. 5804. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 69–73, 129–35; Neh 3:8, 11; see also comment on Acts 18:3. 5805. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 98. The temple was said to be near the harbor though it was actually northeast of the city (see comment on Acts 19:27). Some earlier reports placed the silversmiths’ shops in the agora (MacKendrick, Stones, 422), closer to the theater. 5806. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.3–4; see further discussion at Acts 18:3. 5807. MacMullen, Social Relations, 77, 82; Meeks, Urban Christians, 31–32; Stambaugh, City, 150; Harland, Associations, 74–83 (though the degree of the religious element varied, it was always present, p. 77). 5808. MacMullen, Social Relations, 74–76, esp. 74; for guilds’ collective activism, see also Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 120; Cooper, “Crafts,” 906 (for erecting a statue); for guild activity here, see also Johnson, Acts, 347. 5809. Noted, e.g., by Trebilco, “Asia,” 340; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 142. 5810. Trebilco, “Asia,” 341–42. 5811. Ibid., 338–39. Some think that the inscription was originally from Ephesus, but Trebilco argues reasonably that it could be from the city where it was found, despite the proconsul’s intervention. 5812. Stoops, “Riot,” 83.

2886

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 590

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

mobility; the resulting status inconsistency may have accordingly increased their sensitivity to economic challenges.5813 Economic complaints of some guilds would become serious for the entire city, however, if connected with the temple of Artemis (see comment on Acts 19:27), which had close ties with the upwardly mobile Asian city’s economy.5814 E cono m ics in E p he su s

Economic interests were particularly important in Ephesus, the most prominent city of what may have been the wealthiest province in the empire (see comment on Acts 18:19). Around 86 b.c.e., the aristocrats of Ephesus were forced to pay for Sulla’s troops (an estimated 120 million drachmas) in addition to other monetary punishments.5815 Interest payments required by Italian bankers drove their indemnity to 720 million drachmas in just thirteen years; many bankrupt provincials turned to piracy (cf. I. Eph. 5), and local economies were drained.5816 The Augustan era, however, offered new prosperity and a building boom.5817 By the late 60s of the first century, Asia was notably wealthy (Tac. Hist. 2.6), and by the late first century, its wealth was attracting exploitation by corrupt Roman administrations (Tac. Agr. 6).5818 Ephesus was growing rapidly, and some native-born Ephesians perhaps resented immigrants such as Paul (though perhaps not often, since immigrants added to the workers’ prosperity); what is clear is that the citizens would resent a new teacher challenging local traditions for which the city was famous. E cono m ics a n d t he A rt e mis Te mp le

A significant portion of the city’s wealth was connected to the Artemis temple,5819 which Baugh calls “the central economic power in the city.”5820 Temples often held deposits for safekeeping, as ancient banks;5821 they were considered particularly safe because of their inviolability, and most people expected serious divine judgments against temple robbers (see comment on Acts 19:37).5822 Artemis’s temple was also 5813. So Witherington, Acts, 593. 5814. On ties between the temple of Artemis and the local economy, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 324–26. 5815. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 23–24 (following, on the price estimate, Broughton, “Asia Minor,” 517). Both sides in the war drained Asia’s resources (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189). 5816. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 24–25. 5817. Ibid., 27. Caesar’s allowance for local tax collection instead of publicani (48 b.c.e.) and the city’s new role as “the assize center for the region” helped it economically (26, 28–29). Trade, including the slave trade, also advanced the economy (44–46). Ephesus did not experience serious economic decline until the third century (30–31). 5818. On Asia’s trade and prosperity, see further Levick, “Economy”; see signs of luxury in McRay, Archaeology, 88. A later philosopher also condemned the city for its idleness and entertainment, as such philosophers were wont to do (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2). 5819. It seems to have generated more revenues than any other source in the province (Parsons, Acts, 274, citing I. Eph. 1a.18). Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 70, argues that commerce was declining by the mid-first century c.e., furthering dependence on pilgrims connected to the Artemis cult. 5820. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39. 5821. Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54; Caesar C.W. 3.33, 105; Juv. Sat. 14.260–62; Cic. Fam. 5.20.5; Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 9.3; Hdn. 1.14.3; Lucan C.W. 9.515–16; “Interest,” 851; Millett, “Banks,” 232; Rosenberger, “Temple Economy,” 264–65; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 126; Koester, Introduction, 1:90; cf. Dan 1:2; for Jerusalem’s temple, see 2 Macc 3:6–7; 4 Macc 4:3–7; Pesiq. Rab. 10:1. For temples as cultural repositories (museums), see Shaya, “Temple”; for banks other than temples, see, e.g., Andreau, “Banks.” The wealthy probably kept some money in their homes, but they deposited most to gain interest ( Jeffers, World, 23). Some reported that the Artemis temple also lent money (Nicolaus of Damascus frg. 65), though Dio Chrysostom denied it (Mussies, “Artemis,” 94). A temple giving Apollonius money because of his closeness to the gods (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.17) is fictitious. 5822. For the Artemisium, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–99. On divine punishment for any violation of temples’ sanctity, see comment on Acts 19:37. But Roman law treated theft of purely private property from a temple as merely theft, not sacrilege (Robinson, Criminal Law, 31).

2887

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 591

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

a bank (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54) on which many people throughout the province depended.5823 The very prominence of Ephesus’s Artemis temple attracted not only local but also international depositors, including kings and nations.5824 In the rest of the city as well, bankers were prominent; thus we read of the “Portico of the Bankers” (I. Eph. 3065); elsewhere, whereas three toilets were reserved for bankers, only one each was reserved for other guilds (I. Eph. 454).5825 The temple also owned both “land and water estates in the city’s extensive territorium,” most of the income from which was used to pay officials and keep up the temple.5826 It controlled about seventy-seven thousand acres of farmland and probably more whose boundary stones have not yet been found;5827 wine may have been a major produce item there.5828 The temple even had a rent office, probably for sacred lands (I. Eph. 1577A, 3050); a fishing customs office, possibly though not certainly associated with Artemis, was also built in the 50s (I. Eph. 20).5829 By the mid-second century c.e., fees were five thousand drachmas per priestess of Artemis per year.5830 Naturally, the temple became wealthy,5831 and this revenue provided an economic boon to the city. The temple’s revenues went mostly to the temple itself but also could be used to pave streets (as in 23/22 b.c.e., in I. Eph. 2.459);5832 when other benefactors were unavailable, the temple also underwrote the cost of a local gymnasium.5833 The temple drew tourist trade and generated income for those providing votive offerings and other paraphernalia related to the cult. Given the temple’s connection with the local economy, Paul’s adverse effect on the local religious-souvenir or votive industry would have larger implications in the city,5834 implications that could eventually embarrass his patrons (Acts 19:31). The temple had a board that supervised its maintenance, festivals, and offerings.5835 Unlike Rhodians, the officials of the Ephesian temple kept records of its deposits (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54); the Ephesians would rather strip the ornaments from Artemis’s 5823. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39; Strelan, Artemis, 76–79; Taylor, “Artemis,” 254; Trebilco, “Asia,” 325; Rosenberger, “Temple Economy,” 264; Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. Cf. Strabo 14.1.22, which mentions money on deposit in the Ephesus temple at various times. Cohoon in Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 3:60–61n1, on Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54, cites also CIG 2.2953b; Plaut. Bacch. 312; Caesar C.W. 3.33; Aristides Or. 42.522; and moneylending in Nicolaus of Damascus frg. 65. 5824. Taylor, “Artemis,” 254; Thompson, Archaeology, 398; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150; Arnold, Power, 20–21; Trebilco, “Asia,” 324–26. 5825. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 39–40. 5826. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143 (citing I. Eph. 7, 2.3501–12); cf. also Arnold, Power, 21. The property also contained “sacred fish and herds of deer” (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54; Strabo 14.1.29). 5827. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 40; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 77. 5828. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 41, suggesting that much of it may have been sold in the city, in the market of “Sacred Wine Tasters” (citing I. Eph. 728, 2076; SEG 35.1109). For economic reasons, however, much of Asia’s wine went for export (Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 66–67; Bauckham, Climax, 362); Domitian’s later attempts to restrict Asian viticulture appear to have been unsuccessful (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.520). 5829. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 42; Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 8–9. 5830. Riesner, Early Period, 215. 5831. The Artemis cult was probably the city’s “most distinct source of prestige and revenue” (Filson, “Ephesus,” 75). Some vows to the Ephesian Artemis were carried out not in the temple but in sacrifices offered to her on other plots of land bought and devoted to her (Xen. Anab. 5.3.4, 9, though these officers would hardly soon feel welcome again in Asia). For the wealth of other temples, see, e.g., Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54. 5832. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143. 5833. Ibid. 5834. With, e.g., Reicke, Era, 230–31. 5835. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 143, citing I. Eph. 1a.28; 2.419a; 3.945, 951, 966. Ionian cities traditionally had officials expected “to keep the streets and sanctuaries clean and free from obstructions” (Gomme and Rhodes, “Astynomoi”).

2888

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 592

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

statue than touch those sacred deposits (31.55, 65). This reputation for trustworthiness was one reason the financial improprieties that came to light about a decade before Paul’s ministry there were so scandalous. In this episode of 44 c.e., the proconsul criticized the Artemisium for inappropriate expenditures from Artemis’s treasury, including “rearing slave infants at the goddess’ expense by consecrating them to her.”5836 He criticized the temple especially for impropriety in the sale of priesthoods; the problem was not simply selling priesthoods (a common enough practice)5837 but doing this “without regard to blood-stock: the highest bidder will be successful even if he is not from the right sort of family.”5838 Amid calls for reimbursement of the mismanaged funds for the priesthoods, the temple treasury was thus a matter of public concern,5839 and devotees of the goddess would have special reason in this period to zealously guard the temple’s reputation. The proconsul had acted to guard the honor of the goddess and her temple,5840 and Demetrius now may have sought to adopt a similar role. C h a lle ng ing E cono m ic Int er e st s ( 1 9 : 2 5 )

When the early Christian movement, by preaching or lifestyle, challenged vested economic interests, it stirred hostility. Later a Roman governor is concerned with the negative impact the spread of the Christian movement is having on local temples and the sale of fodder for sacrificial animals (Pliny Ep. 10.96.9–10).5841 The same phenomenon of pagan opposition due to the gospel’s economic impact appears in Acts 16:19 (the only other passage in Acts employing ἐργασία; for Luke’s narrative emphasis, see comment there).5842 Befitting Ephesus’s prestige, however, this riot takes the opposition to a more dramatic level. In later apocryphal accounts as well, pagans whose own interests are jeopardized act against the gospel (Acts Paul 3.15, when Thamyris’s fiancée, Thecla, chooses celibacy).5843 Similarly, pagan Meccans later feared that Muhammad was making converts, threatening their economic position by reducing the wealth they received from the annual pilgrimage to the Kaaba;5844 the church hierarchy reacted fiercely to Luther’s challenge to the practice of indulgences, by which German peasants helped foot the 5836. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 148 (on I. Eph. 1a.17, 18, 19a, 19b). 5837. See, e.g., Horster, “Professionals,” 331. Like other civic offices, civic priests were often expected to provide expenditures from their own resources as civic benefactions (see, e.g., North, “Priests,” 1245). 5838. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 148 (citing I. Eph. 1a.17, 18, 19a, 19b); on the mismanaged funds, see also Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 159–63. On the rapid transition from hereditary aristocracy in Ephesus to the nouveau riche, see discussion at Acts 18:19. 5839. Cf. Weiss, “Aufruhr.” Treasurers of temples had long been public offices in Ionian cities; see MacDowell, “Tamiai,” for classical Athens. The temple treasurer was a high-status role for which someone might temporarily leave his duties in the courts (Pliny Ep. 10.3A.1). Violating temple treasuries generated anger ( Jos. War 2.175–76; cf. Life 199; Suda, in Sherk, Empire, 75), as did misdirection of any funds from public treasuries (App. C.W. 2.6.41; Lysias Or. 25.19, §173; 27.7, §178; 27.16, §179; Plut. Cic. 17.2; Caes. 35.2–4). 5840. Grant, Gods, 27. About 160 c.e., changes in religious fashion had again caused decline, again inviting a proconsul to encourage the cult (SIG 867; Grant, Gods, 27). Strelan, Artemis, 79, suggests some decline and loss of some independence to the city from ca. 200 b.c.e. to ca. 100 c.e.; nevertheless, Artemis’s cult remained strong throughout this period (ibid., 37–40). 5841. The comparison is often cited; e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247; Munck, Acts, 197; Grant, Gods, 27; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 165. Governors could intervene in cities’ finances, certainly by Trajan’s time (cf. Burton, “State”). 5842. This fits Luke’s emphasis; his Gospel challenges the economic interests of a religious elite (Luke 16:14; perhaps 19:45–46; 21:2–4) and perhaps implies even the vested economic interests of the empire (23:2). 5843. Cf. also later accounts where pagan husbands could threaten to betray Christian wives to the government. 5844. Guillaume, Islam, 31.

2889

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 593

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

bill for Renaissance art in Italy.5845 Challenges to indigenous religious structures’ economics have generated objections in missionary situations in recent centuries.5846 Although, for Luke and his audience, such pecuniary motives may appear base, they would be aware that Rome took such economic matters seriously.5847 For many, economic interests run deeper than religious commitments; when economic interests are inseparably intertwined with religion, resistance will be intense.5848 Certainly no line in antiquity forced a separation between commerce and religious devotion.5849 Probably without knowing Paul firsthand, Demetrius may have heard enough from some who had heard him or heard of him (Acts 19:10, 17, 20). Local patriotism, economic interest, and religious zeal could combine to breed resentment against Paul and his status as an accepted local sage as well as against the intellectual climate that tolerated him. Because the city clerk has some understanding of how the riot started (19:38), Demetrius may have already approached city leaders about their toleration of a local teacher whose “philosophy” countered religious devotion (alternatively, Paul’s allies knew the source, presumably from Demetrius’s history of complaints). Demetrius may have felt that direct action on the streets could force a change,5850 and he may have been right: public officials who counted on popular support for their own political careers would not want to openly sponsor Paul after such a riot (see comment on Acts 19:31). (2) Speech Defending Artemis (19:25b–27)

Luke presents Demetrius as a rabble-rouser in this speech but also presents the speech as containing an element of truth. Paul does deny that handmade deities are true. Still, this no more makes him a blasphemer than it made other Jews blasphemers (19:37). Nor are Demetrius’s economic concerns purely paranoid; Luke believes that Paul’s ministry is flourishing, and is optimistic that the gospel will spread enough to have an impact on local religion. Indeed, it would eventually even become a serious threat to the hegemony of Artemis and other deities, but only long after Luke’s own day. De m et r iu s’s S p e e ch ( 1 9 : 2 5 –2 7 )

Tannehill rightly points out that the structure of the narrative invites comparison between Demetrius’s speech and that of the town clerk. Demetrius’s “speech incites the riot”; the clerk’s speech “ends it.” Demetrius considers Paul a danger to the Artemis cult; the clerk denies it, indirectly answering Demetrius. In a sense, Demetrius takes Paul and his faith more seriously than the clerk’s words do. Conversely, the clerk’s view coincides with the narrator’s when he declares Paul’s companions innocent and the riot unjustifiable (cf. 17:5–9; 24:5, 12). Neither Demetrius nor the clerk fully 5845. Chadwick, Reformation, 46–48; Bergendorff, Lutheran Reformation, 37–41; for the theses themselves, see conveniently Luther, Selections, 489–500. Erasmus and others within the church had already critiqued the abuse of indulgences (e.g., Chadwick, Reformation, 38). 5846. E.g., Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 173; Yohannan, Revolution, 145. 5847. Stoops, “Riot,” 84. 5848. Economic and political interests often find religious justification (noted by González, Acts, 231; cf., e.g., religious resistance to outlawing the slave trade in nineteenth-century Morocco in Gordon, Slavery in Arab World, 164–65; Lewis, Race and Slavery, 3, 58; and in the Arabian peninsula in Lewis, Race and Slavery, 80–81); likewise, cf. the British’s colonial resistance to Prophet Braide for challenging their rum industry in West Africa (Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83); other illustrations at Acts 16:20–21. Although there are many exceptions, tolerance often accompanies prosperity (a pattern that generally fit Christianity’s acceptance in Roman Asia), but economic threats often produce scapegoating of minorities (cf., e.g., the rise of fascism in the Weimar Republic, bankrupted by vengeful Allies; Kantowicz, Rage of Nations, 291–308). 5849. Cf. religious iconography on a shop façade in Potts, “Piety.” 5850. Assemblies could compel the council’s attention by shouts expressing its sentiments (see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357; Jones, Chrysostom, 97).

2890

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 594

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

represents the narrator’s views, but each represents a part.5851 Neither Luke nor his audience would have yet recognized the historic irony that Demetrius proved correct: the spread of Paul’s movement ultimately did supplant the worship of Artemis of Ephesus. Christians in later centuries even erased Artemis’s name from some local inscriptions.5852 Luke indicates at the end of 19:24 that Demetrius had influence with his fellow craftsmen because of his economic contributions to their trade.5853 This may have involved some patronage for the guild or perhaps the sort of publicity for the trade that he is portrayed as offering here (19:25–27). Guilds generally handled their own business, including membership qualifications and leadership selection.5854 Although craftsmen and guild members rarely entered the ranks of the elite (at least in most ancient cities), they represented “a range of possibilities of wealth and status.”5855 Whether based on direct knowledge or on natural assumptions about an artisan that provide verisimilitude, Luke’s portrayal of Demetrius’s speech is reasonable.5856 Demetrius’s speech betrays little rhetorical sophistication, and its agendas suit what ancient readers expected from demagogues.5857 Even if Demetrius was well-to-do, he probably lacked significant rhetorical training5858 and may well have had less than Luke (who was at least educated).5859 Appeal to pecuniary interests rather than truth might fit rhetorical interest in pathos, but philosophers attributed such interests to stereotypical sophists, whom they despised. Demetrius appeals to local religious feeling while, like some populist rhetoricians, avoiding the inconvenience of offering proofs for Paul’s guilt (apart from the assumption that his monotheism demands it). (Then as today, rhetoric appealed to religious feelings when useful, e.g., Quint. Decl. 323.1–2.) Yet not only demagogues but more conventional forensic orators were often ready to whip up indignation against their targets when it was useful for their cause.5860 A later source reports that some orators sought to learn the distinctly “Ionian” form of declamation (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.619), which was concentrated especially at 5851. Tannehill, Acts, 243–44. 5852. E.g., I. Eph. 7, 1.3263.7–9; 2.508–9. 5853. Possibly, he was even the guild master that year (Trebilco, “Asia,” 341; cf. Witherington, Acts, 591; D. Williams, Acts, 338), though this is not clear. 5854. Cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 125. Some even allowed professional guilds to fix prices for their merchandise (e.g., t. B. Meṣiʿa 11:23–25). 5855. Harland, Associations, 41. For the possibility of exceptional advancement of the newly wealthy in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19. 5856. Rhetorically trained historians could portray the sort of leader who stirred troops to battle readiness without concern for prudence (Tac. Hist. 4.71); even supporters of Artemis might have viewed Demetrius according to this impetuous “character type.” 5857. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 585n112, 591; but see Pervo, Acts, 493, for “alliteration and assonance” (especially the four words in Acts 19:25 beginning with ἐ- and “seven with a smooth vowel”). Even some upper-middle-class homes in Ephesus reveal appreciation for classical learning (see the wall paintings displaying scenes from Euripides and Menander in Yamauchi, Cities, 97), but if an upwardly mobile silver worker wished to flaunt any learning, it might still sound silly to better-educated aristocrats (cf. Trimalchio in Petron. Sat. 35, 48, 52 [confusing Medea with Cassandra!], 55–56). 5858. In Lucian Prom. 5, Prometheus opines that an artisan should be a good speaker, but Hephaistos (the artisan) recognizes his limitations and defers to Hermes, an orator. 5859. Cf. Rothschild, Rhetoric of History. For Luke as a physician, see the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:410–16, although, given lack of regulation, not all physicians were equally educated (e.g., some midwives and others may have learned only as apprentices). Even if, with the tradition, he was a Greek physician, increasing the likelihood (though not providing certainty) that he was a freedman, he might have had more rhetorical knowledge than a craftsman (albeit not tertiary training). It is the text of Acts, however, that offers the most convincing evidence that Luke was educated; although its rhetoric is not elite, it far exceeds the ordinary capacity displayed in most extant papyri. 5860. See Hall, “Delivery,” 232, citing Cic. De Or. 2.185–90, and offering among his examples Verr. 2.1.40–54, 64–70; 2.4.26–54; 2.5.160–63; Rosc. Am. 145–46; Clu. 199.

2891

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 595

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Ephesus and considered inferior to Attic rhetoric (2.18.598). But Demetrius’s speech fares no better in this form of rhetoric than in any other. Of course, Luke’s presentation of an inferior speech hostile to Paul favors Luke’s narrative purposes. Ignorant men, some ancients complained, spoke with peculiar force, lacking the nuance derived from concern for facts.5861 The question of who might have reported to Luke Demetrius’s speech (or, more likely, its gist) is the sort that ancient readers may have asked about academic historians (who often specify their sources) but less often about popular historians such as Luke.5862 Nevertheless, if someone did ask the question, two of the most likely guesses to be inferred from Luke’s narrative would be that, given the rapid spread of the Christian message in Ephesus (Acts 19:10, 17, 20), a hearer may have been later converted or that, as word had reached the town clerk, the gist of Demetrius’s complaint would have also become available to Paul’s patrons or other contacts. Another possibility is that the charges eventually came to the courts; that Paul faced legal conflict in Ephesus is probable despite Luke’s avoidance of the issue at 20:16 (see comment there). On the historical level, if Paul was forced to leave Ephesus for reasons that resembled the charges in 17:7 (for which he fled Thessalonica, 17:10), his forced departure may have involved charges in which Demetrius was one of the accusers, or delatores. Historically, it is unlikely that Paul openly attacked the Artemis cult (Rom 2:22), but it is not implausible that the complaint raised by Demetrius here was later officially submitted to a court (Acts 19:37–38). The question of Luke’s source here is a reasonable one for modern readers with historical interest: in antiquity, even academic historians could craft speeches as they believed most plausible, but they normally depended on sources for the basic gist or agenda where such sources were available to them.5863 That Paul blasphemed the goddess (cf. 19:37) may have been part of the charge leading to his trouble in the city; the economic motives may be inferred from Demetrius’s profession. For “men” (especially common in Acts),5864 see comment on Acts 2:14. Demetrius’s “you know” was a familiar expression (see comment on Acts 20:18) and one frequent in speeches in Acts (10:28, 37, 38; 15:7; 20:18, 34). (Though the verb appeared most recently in the speech of an evil spirit, the frequency of Luke’s use of the verb precludes the assumption of a connection.) De n y ing H a n d m a de Deit ie s ( 1 9 : 2 6 )

The dismissal of all deities whose images were formed by human hands (cf. also Paul’s language in 17:24) challenged all the cults of Ephesus (see introduction to this section for these cults), though it is the cult of Artemis that Demetrius finds most relevant. Ephesian inscriptions attest the worship of Zeus,5865 Apollo (I. Eph. 1203),5866 Asclepius (105; 1253–54), Athena (1260), Demeter (1210), Dionysus 5861. Pliny Ep. 4.7.3, developing a saying in Thucyd. 2.40.3; cf. also Prov 21:29; 29:9. 5862. See the discussion of Luke’s historiography in Keener, Acts, 1:90–220. 5863. See Keener, Acts, 1:258–319, esp. 271–319, for discussion, details, and sources. 5864. The address “men” is exclusively Lukan in the nt (not including addresses to husbands specifically, Eph 5:25; Col 3:19; 1 Pet 3:7), though only Luke includes set speeches; and only in Acts (some twenty-nine times). It does appear in the lxx (e.g., 1 Esd 3:24; 4:2, 12, 32) and 1 Clement (conjoined with “brothers” in 16.17; 37.1; 43.4; 62.1). 5865. I. Eph. 1239–41; possibly 1262; Zeus Sabazios, 1242; Zeus Soter, 1243. 5866. Also an oracle fragment of Apollo of Didyma, I. Eph. 1252, though he appears less than Zeus and less than one might expect in a city dedicated to his sister Artemis. Zeus and Apollo appear together in I. Eph. 101–2. Ephesus claimed that, against majority Greek opinion, Apollo and Artemis were born not at Delos but at their Ortygian grove (Tac. Ann. 3.61). For sacred groves, see, e.g., Deut 16:21; Ovid Fasti 2.67; 6.9; Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; Paus. 5.10.1; 8.38.2, 5; Lucan C.W. 3.399–425; Libanius Description 2.8; see also Baudy, “Tree Cult,” 887; Keener, “Nativity Cave,” 64–66; reportedly among British Druids (Tac. Ann. 14.30); Germans

2892

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 596

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

(106; 1211; 1267–68; 1270), Hygeia (1212), Isis and Serapis (1213),5867 Pan (520), Poseidon (1229), and Tyche (Fate, 1237). The inscriptions also reveal knowledge of Attis (I. Eph. 516A) and Hermes (515). The city included many statues of Meter (the mother goddess)—that is, Cybele—and of Hecate and abundant examples of Aphrodite.5868 Sometime in the first century c.e., Ephesians built their prytaneion, a sort of city hall, probably near or over an earlier one. In this building, Ephesians kept “the sacred fire of Hestia Boulaia, goddess of the hearth.”5869 Demetrius’s mention of turning away people “not only in Ephesus but rather in nearly the whole province of Asia” is hyperbole (cf. 17:6);5870 compare the wording of one novel: “Everyone in Ephesus sought his company, and in the rest of Asia as well.”5871 But it is understandable hyperbole: Luke has already informed his audience that Paul’s message has reached all Asia (cf. Acts 19:10, 20). For appeal to eyewitness testimonies such as “you see and hear” (cf. also “you know” in 19:25), see comment at Acts 2:32–33; 4:18–22. Even before this time, Paul’s ministry has been subject to slander (Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8); but while Demetrius puts a slant on his information, it includes truth. Although Paul has not desecrated Artemis’s temple (Acts 19:37), Demetrius feels that he has blasphemed Artemis and spoken against the temple. One may compare Jesus’s challenge to the temple establishment in Luke 19:45–46; the charge that Stephen blasphemed against God and the temple (Acts 6:13–14); and the charge that Paul desecrated the Jerusalem temple (21:28).5872 The difference in this Ephesian case is that Paul does not believe in the deity in question. Even critique of a system’s abuse could lead to charges of opposing it, and Paul regarded the core of pagan religion, not merely its abuse, as dishonoring the true God. But centuries of earlier Diaspora Jewish apologists had provided him the vocabulary to critique paganism without slandering it and to invite people to the true God without inciting violence against temples (see comment on Acts 19:37). In public debate, it was often wiser to avoid openly mocking one’s opponent with derogatory titles, instead depicting his behavior in such a manner as to invite reproach on him (Tac. Germ. 9); possibly in Scythopolis (Nieto Ibáñez, “Grove,” interpreting Jos. War 2.466–71) and in the ancient Near East (Monson, “Kings,” 60); in traditional religions, see Mbiti, Religions, 67; Numbere, Vision, 203. Deities and spirits were thought to live in groves (Ovid Am. 3.1.1–2; 3.13.7–8; Fasti 3.295–96); people could pray in (Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2.6) or even invoke (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.2) groves. People sometimes decorated trees with sacred bands (Hurschmann, “Tainia”). Groves could be dedicated to Zeus (Eurip. Hyps. frg. 752h.10, 14), Clementia (Statius Theb. 12.491–92), the hero Achilles (Philost. Hrk. 54.9), or, more relevant here, Apollo (Paus. 1.21.7, in Athens; Athen. Deipn. 8.333DE, in Lycia). Different trees were sacred to different deities (Phaedrus 3.17.1–4; cf. also Ramsay, Other Studies, 241; Baudy, “Tree Cult,” 886; Eitrem, Croon, and Dietrich, “Trees”), e.g., the oak to Jupiter and myrtle to Venus (Phaedrus 3.17.1–4); the olive to Athena (Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; cf. Androtion Atthis frg. 39; Lucian Anach. 9; Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.259; Hermog. Progymn. 7 [On Encomion].18); and most relevant here, the bay (a kind of laurel) to Apollo and Artemis (Ovid Metam. 1.553–67; Pliny E. N.H. 12.2.3; Phaedrus 3.17.3; Hünemörder, “Laurel,” 301; cf. also apples in Lucian Anach. 9). 5867. For the Serapis temple, see I. Eph. 1230. 5868. For Meter, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 255–57; for Hecate, 257–60; for Aphrodite, 260–62. 5869. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 187. 5870. Useful for stirring indignation rhetorically; Luke’s audience might imagine here a common gesture for indignation: the hand raised, with fingers together and pointed toward the mouth (though not necessarily near it; Shiell, Reading Acts, 63). The expected inflection for indignation would be shrill, intense, and quick (Cic. De or. 3.58.217–18; Quint. Inst. 11.3.63; 6.2.27–28; all in Shiell, Reading Acts, 88). For gestures of reproach and refutation, see 69–71. Dividing up a charge into components (cf. “not only” here and in 19:27) allowed one to rhetorically augment charges (Hermog. Inv. 1.2.101–2). 5871. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.1 (CAGN 128). 5872. Ironically, the charge in Jerusalem is offered by the very witnesses who know that he was charged in Ephesus with attacking the Artemis temple by preaching monotheism (Acts 21:27–29, because he embraced Gentiles).

2893

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 597

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441b.16–20).5873 But speaking diplomatically does not necessarily leave one’s convictions unclear; preaching monotheism implies a view inconsistent with polytheism, even if the preacher remains gracious to all. In contrast to Jewish defenders of the Jerusalem temple, Demetrius may rightly understand an element of Paul’s message: Paul indeed did preach against idols (Acts 14:15–17; 17:24–25, 29). (This is also true of the Paul of the epistles.)5874 Pace some interpreters, Luke portrays Paul’s apologetic at Athens not as a mistake but as a successful model that he has developed more successfully in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 19:9).5875 Although Demetrius states Paul’s opposition to images negatively, his statement reinforces the positive view of Paul for Luke’s ideal audience.5876 Although Demetrius exaggerates Paul’s success (see discussion below), his words inform Luke’s audience that Paul’s monotheistic mission, working on a small level in 14:15–17 and 17:22–31, is now impacting a major cultural center. Luke also, however, portrays Demetrius as obfuscating to present Paul the critic as if he were Paul the temple defiler (cf. 19:37), when the primary basis of Demetrius’s critique is his own economic self-interest. For Luke’s audience, Demetrius’s own words convict him:5877 no pagan intellectual would have described miniature shrines (or even idols) as gods themselves, in the pejorative language of “gods made with hands.”5878 In Luke’s speech, Demetrius adopts the apologetic language of his gods’ monotheistic critics5879 and so furthers Luke’s perspective (cf. 7:41, 48; 17:24; see discussion at those passages). Thr e ate n ing the A rt e mis Cult ( 1 9 : 2 7 )

The biblical hapax legomenon ἀπελεγμός can mean “criticism pertaining to discreditable behavior” or “ill-repute” (the cognate verb, ἀπελέγχω, can mean “refute thoroughly”).5880 Demetrius warns of a threat to honor arranged “in an ascending hierarchy of values”: the metalworkers’ trade, the temple, and Artemis herself. By connecting his guild’s interests and honor with the honor of Artemis, Demetrius appeals “‘to higher loyalty,’ a common tactic in legal argument.”5881 His rhetoric at this 5873. Ancients, admittedly, debated the boundaries between criticism and slander; if it was illegal for a comedy to mock anyone by name, was it also illegal simply to provide actors with masks alluding to the people (Hermog. Issues 88.12–14). 5874. See esp. Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:4–6; Gal 4:8; 1 Thess 1:9, though Paul’s letters do not denounce specific cults any more than he does in Acts. (The claim that his “tolerance” of idol food in 1 Cor 8 suggests otherwise misreads that chapter; see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 395; Keener, Corinthians, 73.) People in Ephesus could speak of the highest god (θεὸς ὕψιστος, I. Eph. 1234–35), but this claim did not carry the element of exclusivism (see comment on Acts 16:18). 5875. With Witherington, Acts, 591. 5876. With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 347; Padilla, Speeches, 182 (emphasizing irony: invective at the textual level that functions as encomium at the subtextual level). In Luke’s optimistic view, many intellectuals respected monotheism, though the masses resented it (Stoops, “Riot,” 83; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 137–38 [perhaps including Strelan’s application of Heraclitus Ep. 4 to Ephesus, though the epistle is almost certainly inauthentic]; see introduction, above, to Acts 17:22–31). 5877. For convicting people by their own mouths, cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 20:40; Luke 19:22; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.219; b. Giṭ. 56b–57a; Num. Rab. 16:21; Xen. Anab. 1.6.9; Cyrop. 3.1.1–12; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 311, §101. 5878. See comment on Acts 14:15–17; also Keener, “Monotheism.” 5879. Conzelmann, Acts, 165, notes that Demetrius’s character in the narrative world “naively identifies the temple replicas with the gods (is Luke intentionally portraying him as stupid?).” Given frequent Jewish mockery of idolatry (cf. comment on Acts 14:15; 17:18), the answer is likely yes. One might describe statues as “gods we created” (e.g., Alciph. Court. 1 [frg. 3; Phrynê to Praxiteles]), but the Jewish and Christian tradition would always view this pejoratively (e.g., Isa 31:7). 5880. See BDAG; LSJ, s.v. For the verb, see 2 Macc 4:33; 4 Macc 2:11; Jos. Ant. 3.9; 4.89; 10.133; 11.56; 12.20; 14.287; War 2.351, 620; Philo Eternity 107; Flacc. 141; Migr. 225; Spec. Laws 2.26; Virt. 213; Worse 10, 71. 5881. Spencer, Acts, 187, citing Malina and Neyrey, “Conflict,” 109, 119–20. In persuasion theory, labeling A as part of B because one’s audience thinks favorably of B remains a common technique, unethical (at least

2894

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 598

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

point likely stirs indignation.5882 From an ancient polytheistic perspective, failure to maintain deities’ cult could compromise their goodwill (see, e.g., Symm. Ep. 1.46.2). Though Demetrius is hardly a reliable character from Luke’s perspective, his claim would be effective in Ephesus. In a culture where honor and shame were primary values and threats to Artemis’s honor were punished harshly (see introduction to this section), Demetrius’s warning would stir hearers.5883 One may compare the secondcentury c.e. hexameter oracle in which Artemis’s priests warn of judgment on the city if it neglects the temple.5884 Artemis is here called θεά, “goddess,” as we would expect,5885 but the mixed form ἡ θεός in 19:37 was employed in Ephesus even more frequently (see comment on Acts 19:37). Whereas the Ephesians usually called Artemis ἡ θεός, they used θεά most often in the sort of formulaic phrase that appears here; Luke thus gets the language precisely right, reflecting accurate knowledge or a minimally altered source.5886 The phrase “great goddess Artemis,” used here (cf. also “great is Artemis” in 19:28, 34), reflects conventional language in Ephesus (cf. also comment on Acts 19:28), for example, in I. Eph. 27.12–13 (using the masculine noun).5887 The phrase appears outside the Ephesian inscriptions in Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.5, but again from an author who knew Ephesus well firsthand.5888 The claim that not only Asia but also “all the world” worshiped the Ephesian Artemis reflects accurately the perspective of an Ephesian worshiper of Artemis. The evidence for worship of the Ephesian Artemis throughout the Mediterranean world is considerable.5889 Even by the late nineteenth century, scholars knew of thirty-three sites for the cult from Syria to Spain.5890 If Pausanias can employ the hyperbole of “all cities” worshiping the Ephesian Artemis (Paus. 4.31), we can perhaps excuse Demetrius for making the same claim.5891 Already in Hellenistic times, Mysteries of the Ephesian Artemis were spreading in central Asia Minor.5892 as sometimes used; McLaughlin, Ethics, 146–47) but conventional in modern politics. (The logic is flawed: if A = B, then by the transitive property of equality, if B = C then A = C; but if A is merely part of the set B, or merely portrayed as B, then the equation with C is illogical and its assertion deceptive.) 5882. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 76–77 for gestures of aversion; but more likely, here are gestures of indignation, on which see 62–65, 88. 5883. Witherington, Acts, 592. For honor/shame, see, e.g., Robbins, Texture, 76–77. 5884. Riesner, Early Period, 215. This religious tactic for fund-raising was not new; cf. fund-raising at ancient Mari (cf. Paul, “Prophets,” 1160). But CIG 2954 does not refer, as earlier suggested by some, to Artemis’s being dishonored (see Oster, “Acts 19:23–41 and Inscription”; it actually speaks of her being honored). 5885. It is common Greek, e.g., in eastern Asia and western Galatia (MAMA 4.142, 165, 272) and in Phrygia and Caria (6.3, 53, 66, 249, 392). 5886. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability”; cf. earlier Bruce, Acts1, 367. The title is not, of course, unique to Artemis of Ephesus; cf., e.g., Demeter in Menander Sikyonioi 187, 224. 5887. Trebilco, “Asia,” 319. Most of the relevant inscriptions use μεγίστη. Strelan, Artemis, 57, 144, suggests that the cry was shorthand for the entire mythology of the cult (on which myths, see 53–57). Although such a claim may be stated too strongly, the Ephesian Artemis would surely evoke such broad associations to Ephesians. It may also be shorthand for the hymns to Artemis (see, e.g., Philost. Ep. Apoll. 67). 5888. Commentators have long noted the use of this phrase in inscriptions and sometimes in Xenophon as well (Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 279; Bruce, Acts1, 364; Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Hemer, Acts in History, 121; Witherington, Acts, 592; Fitzmyer, Acts, 658). 5889. See Taylor, “Artemis,” 251; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 150 (citing Libanius Or. 5.29); Grant, Gods, 28; esp. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 153–55. This does not include other shrines of Artemis not labeled “Ephesian” (cf., e.g., Val. Flacc. 2.7, 301). Some argue that the Ephesian Artemis influenced even Nabateans (so Kampen, “Cult”; but the Essene connection is extremely tenuous). 5890. Bruce, Commentary, 399n59; Trebilco, “Asia,” 332, citing Wernicke, “Artemis,” in 1896. 5891. Such hyperbole was common; cf., e.g., Eunapius Lives 493 (Proharesius “filled the οἰκουμένην with his rhetorical reputation”); or, to a more restrained extent, Luke himself in Acts 19:10, 17, 20 (see comment on Acts 19:10). 5892. Graf, “Artemis,” 65.

2895

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 599

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul probably knew about “the Ephesian Artemis” in Corinth, long before his arrival in Ephesus; her statue stood along with some other deity statues in Corinth’s marketplace (2.2.6). The statue had been there for a long time; Pausanias attributes the cult of the Ephesian Artemis in Achaia to distant antiquity, earlier than Pindar’s attribution to the Amazons (7.2.6–7).5893 The cult spread deliberately, through “missionary” merchants devoted to promoting their goddess’s distinctive cult. Centuries before Paul, the classical military leader and historian Xenophon took the cult back to Greece with him (Xen. Anab. 5.3.12). More explicitly, Artemis in a dream commanded one of her devoted women to travel with the Phocaeans, who founded Massilia; the woman then became priestess of the Ephesium, the temple of Ephesian Artemis at Massilia (Strabo 4.1.4). Although the Artemis cult was by no means monotheistic or exclusivistic the way early Christians were, Trebilco may be right to speak of the inevitable clash “between two expansionist religions.”5894 Although Demetrius’s hyperbole about the goddess being known throughout the world may be understandable, it passes understandable bounds when he presents Paul’s teaching as threatening that the world, which now worships Artemis, will soon regard the cult as worthless.5895 Later Christendom had precisely this effect, but even Luke’s own optimistic eschatology and vision of the future could not have anticipated it happening before Jesus’s return. The patent exaggeration in Demetrius’s claims provides a foil for Paul’s own rhetoric in the book. Whereas Luke repeatedly presents Paul’s logic as brilliant, his adversaries use emotionally charged hyperbole to stir crowds: Paul’s circle “turns the world upside down” (Acts 17:6), leads to the world despising the Artemis temple (19:27), or stirs up Jews to sedition around the world (24:5). The baselessness of such charges, exposed by the context of Luke’s narrative, undercuts the opposition’s charges by a sort of reductio ad absurdum.5896 Underlining the charges’ absurdity is important for Luke (cf. 24:5), especially if Demetrius later did bring charges in court (19:38).5897 No one would be surprised by such rhetoric, however; orators could deceive with their audience’s complicity if audiences (like Demetrius’s fellow silver workers) profited from the deception (Hermog. Method 19.435). The Te m p le of A rt e mis

Artemis’s temple in Ephesus, known as the Artemisium (Ἀρτεμίσιον), had been famous half a millennium before Paul,5898 and its recognition continued in the first century and later.5899 The shrine was so well known that a later writer with an audience outside Ephesus could simply mention “the temple” near Ephesus and expect his audience to know that he meant Artemis’s temple (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.605). An inscription from about 44 c.e., about a decade before Paul’s arrival, is representative 5893. For Artemis and the Amazons, see also Paus. 4.31.8 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 333n193); Pomeroy, Goddesses, 5. 5894. Trebilco, “Asia,” 336. 5895. Pliny the Younger’s later complaint to Trajan (Ep. 10.96) is also hyperbolic, but not at all close to the same extent. Still, cf. spiritually displacing a cosmic ruler in Luke 10:17–18. 5896. On this technique, see, e.g., Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 43; for examples, see Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 83.9; 113.20; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 218 (on Rom 3:8); cf. Heath, “Invention,” 93–94. 5897. Though the charges may not have seen trial (see comment on Acts 19:38–39), Demetrius may have tried to save his honor by at least threatening to bring them. 5898. See, e.g., Xen. Anab. 5.3.12; Livy 1.45.2 (reporting its fame in the mid-sixth century b.c.e., if accurate). 5899. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2; Macrob. Sat. 5.22.4 (van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 227); Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.15; Apoll. K. Tyre 48. On this temple, see more fully Strelan, Artemis, 68–76; for a survey of archaeological work on it in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 150.

2896

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 600

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of the general attitude: Artemis’s temple is the supreme adornment of the province of Asia.5900 Short lists of the ancient world’s most famous shrines typically associated that of Artemis with Ephesus.5901 Apparently, work on the Artemisium began in the late eighth century b.c.e., but contributions from much of Asia (with Persian help as well) in the mid-sixth century b.c.e. expanded it significantly.5902 The temple was first designed by an architect named Chersiphron, then expanded (Strabo 14.1.22). When a certain Herostratus burned it, the citizens refused Alexander’s offer of money, wanting to use their own resources to rebuild it (14.1.22).5903 They used the architect who built Alexandria, and they filled the altar with expensive art (14.1.23). 5904 The temple was destroyed and rebuilt repeatedly. The new prosperity that Augustus’s reign provided for the province spurred the construction of many new monuments in the first century.5905 Cities sacrificed to produce splendid temples for the cities’ honor,5906 but apart from Jerusalem, no city in the eastern empire had a temple like Ephesus’s Artemis temple. With a platform about 130 by 70 meters,5907 the Artemisium was around “four times the size of the Parthenon in Athens.”5908 It had 127 marble columns, sixty feet high and more than six feet thick; 36 of them were sculptured and overlaid with gold.5909 It is not surprising, then, that it was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, as most commentators note.5910 In its center was a colonnaded rectangle 31 by 43.5 feet (9.5 by 13.3 m.), in which archaeologists discovered a pre-Roman hoard of jewelry.5911 5900. Trebilco, “Asia,” 323, citing I. Eph. 17–19, esp. 18b.1–3. Many in Luke’s ideal audience had probably never seen the temple, but they might think of Ionic temples (Vitruv. Arch. 3; for temple architecture in general during the empire, see Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 213–30; for Greek temples, see Höcker, “Temple”; for Roman, Nielsen, “Temple”). 5901. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; Lucian Icar. 24. 5902. Hdt. 1.92 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 657). Taylor, “Artemis,” 252, emphasizes the mid-sixth-century beginning (citing Livy 1.45; Pliny E. N.H. 16.213); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319, has the seventh century. For the early coin hoard discovered there, see, e.g., Williams, “Coins,” 143. 5903. A legend claimed that the temple burned on the day Alexander was born, portending harm for Asia (Plut. Alex. 3.3–4); it is possible that the year at least was the same (356 b.c.e.). Timaeus remarked that Artemis was then away from the temple, attending Alexander’s birth (so Cic. Nat. d. 2.69 in Laistner, Historians, 7). The person burned the temple to seek fame for himself (Lucian Peregr. 22). 5904. Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95–97 reports all Asia Minor building the temple for 120 years and (36.21.97) a miraculous completion that kept the architect from suicide. 5905. See Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 151. 5906. See, e.g., Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 104–5. 5907. Trebilco, “Asia,” 322–23. Cited figures vary slightly depending on what is counted, what era, and when the book was published: the raised platform, approached by steps, was 418 by 239 ft., 127 by 73 m. (Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Yamauchi, Cities, 103) or 425 by 225 ft. (Witherington, Acts, 587; his ultimate source is probably Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95); the temple proper, 343 by 164 ft. (Thompson, Archaeology, 400; Yamauchi, Stones, 118; Thompson follows Parvis, “Ephesus,” 67ff.) or 361 by 180.5 ft. (Yamauchi, Cities, 103, who follows Keil, Ephesos, 49). The altar was 20 ft. square and the sanctuary 70 ft. wide (Thompson, Archaeology, 400). 5908. Trebilco, “Asia,” 322–23. It did have rivals, however—namely, the Heraeum at Samos and the 358-by-167-foot Apollo temple at Didyma, especially under Hadrian; the latter had 108 columns more than 64 feet in height (Clarke, “Spaces,” 263). 5909. Pliny E. N.H. 36.21.95 (often mentioned; e.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 103, following Bammer, Architektur, 21). The altar was found in 1965 (Cities, 104). For comments on the earlier (sixth century b.c.e.) Diana temple’s columns, see Pliny E. N.H. 36.56.179. 5910. Fitzmyer, Acts, 657 (citing Strabo 14.1.20–23; Ach. Tat. 8.2–3); McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319; Brodersen, “Seven Wonders”; Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1025; Grant, Gods, 28 (“first among the Seven Wonders of the World”); Pervo, Acts, 492; Mussies, “Artemis,” 94. The Seven Wonders continued to be mentioned in the first century (see, e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 11.1.1), though their specific content varied among authors (Höcker, “Wonders,” 724). 5911. Bammer, “Ephesus,” 252.

2897

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 601

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

The Selinus River flowed past it (Strabo 8.7.5),5912 and in a general way it was said to be near the sea (14.1.20, near the harbor Panormus; Pliny E. N.H. 2.87). It was about a mile and a half northeast of the city proper,5913 and so a later benefactor built a stoa from the city to the temple lest worshipers be deterred by inclement weather such as rain (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.605).5914 For its wealth and its role as a bank, see comment on Acts 19:25. iv. A Riot for Artemis (19:28–34)

Demetrius’s speech, portrayed as demagoguery, achieves its desired effect: rallying not only the silver workers but ultimately also a larger proportion of the population against Paul’s religiously “subversive” activity. But although most of the crowd know they are defending Artemis, not many of them know anything about the particular accusations against Paul and his monotheistic colleagues (19:32). (1) Acclaiming Artemis (19:28)

Whether or not Demetrius considered his speech finished within the narrative world, it is complete for Luke’s purposes. Like some other ancient authors, Luke often uses the technique of intentional interruption (cf. Acts 4:1; 7:54; 17:32; 23:7; 26:24; esp. 2:36; 10:44; 22:22).5915 He earlier depicted another lynch mob as full of θυμός (Luke 4:28, his only other use of the term). What begins as an incendiary speech (Acts 19:25–27) quickly escalates into mob violence (19:29).5916 Urban mobs were a frequent novelistic device,5917 but novelists could use them to good effect precisely because they reflected social reality.5918 Cicero recognized that Greeks could easily be stirred to unrest, and he distrusted the Hellenistic Asian conduct of public assemblies as capitulation to the mob and the shouts of the ignorant.5919 Scenes of mobs and violence are just as characteristic of Hellenistic historiography as they are of novels; scholars provide many examples from relevant sources.5920 Josephus reports an assembly that nearly became a riot in Tiberias but was dissolved by the Sabbath (Life 279). Paul himself experienced public sufferings before this incident, though his letters do not specifically distinguish mob actions from listed actions by officials or private individuals (1 Cor 4:9–13; 2 Cor 1:9; 4:9–11; 6:4–5; 11:23–26; Gal 5:11; 1 Thess 2:2). Many joined in the shouting to defend Artemis’s honor without exact knowledge of the issue at hand (Acts 19:32).5921 That a disturbance would spread so quickly, and 5912. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.115 says that two streams, both named Selinus, encompassed it. Hemer, Letters, 50, suggests comparisons with the portrait of paradise in Revelation. 5913. Bruce, Commentary, 364; cf. Strelan, Artemis, 69; for its being outside the city, see also CIG 2963c (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247). Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2 estimated less than a mile; the map in Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1027–28, also suggests less than 1,000 m. 5914. The same text in Philostratus also mentions construction of a new banquet hall. 5915. See Aune, Environment, 127, for ancient parallels to the technique; also Keener, Acts, 1:970–71; esp. Smith, Rhetoric of Interruption. 5916. Being “filled with anger” (Acts 19:28) gives way to the city’s being “filled with confusion” (19:29), though the connection may not be deliberate (Luke employs these cognates thirty-five times). 5917. Pervo, Profit, 34–35; Johnson, Acts, 348; Gaventa, Acts, 273, citing Heliod. Eth. 4.19.5; 7.8–9; 8.9; 10.8, 17; Char. Chaer. 1.5.3; 3.4.4–18; in Ephesus, Ach. Tat. 7.9. 5918. Ramsay, Enemies, 163–92; Gaventa, Acts, 273. 5919. Strelan, Artemis, 152, citing Cic. Flacc. 17–19. Likewise, Dio Chrysostom felt that public assemblies of the δῆμος, “the people,” easily degenerated into mob rule (Or. 3.47–49). 5920. Johnson, Acts, 348; Witherington, Acts, 592n146; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 160; they cite, e.g., Philo Embassy 243; Jos. War 2.402; 5.420; 7.42 and esp. War 7.46–62, esp. 57 (all earlier than the novelistic uses cited above). See most thoroughly Trebilco, “Asia,” 350. 5921. The Western text adds, “and running into the street,” along with a number of other concrete details in Acts 19:25–37 that do not alter the meaning and may simply follow the rhetorical practice of amplification.

2898

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 602

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

with such confusion, is not surprising in this rapidly growing city. The population density of the insulae, or tenements, of Rome has been estimated at two hundred people per acre; it may have been less in Ephesus, but the figures illustrate the sort of crowded conditions that would contribute to rapid reactions in the case of unrest.5922 This population density appears in the modern West only in industrial slums.5923 The sort of disorder that could occur in ancient cities could occasionally even turn deadly; when a later emperor was throwing golden cups for people to catch, some trampled others to death (Hdn. 5.6.10).5924 Luke reports positive acclamations in Luke 2:14 and 19:38 but a negative mob cry in the passion (“Crucify him,” 23:21); the acclamation here is positive in form, but its object is pagan and its function is hostility against God’s agents. Four times Luke describes Artemis as “great” (μεγάλη), twice (here and in Acts 19:34) in acclamations, where it was in common use.5925 The cry that Luke attributes to the crowd fits what we know of ancient shouts of acclamation in general;5926 particular acclamations applied to particular deities.5927 A leader might shout out a slogan, such as “Down with the Christians!” to which the assembly might respond with a prepared response (such as “Down with the Epicureans!”).5928 Acclamations could be spontaneous, or they could be formulaic as in the cultic acclamation here.5929 Shouting in unison, as here, “was often political and could be arranged through guilds.”5930 The particular acclamation here also fits rather precisely the local evidence for Ephesus. An Ephesian author could portray an Ephesian woman as crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.5).5931 The epithet “of the Ephesians” specified Artemis as she was worshiped and mythologized in Ephesus in particular;5932 the title “Artemis Ephesia” appears elsewhere (OGIS 455) and might even be used to personify the city.5933 (The use of the article with Artemis here and in Acts 19:34 is probably not just to specify the Ephesian Artemis; it sometimes appears in other acclamations—for example, “Great is [ὁ] Asclepius!” in Ael. Arist. Or. 24.)5934 The people of the crowd shout and chant the acclamation for two hours in Acts 19:34. 5922. Witherington, Acts, 593n150 (on the density, following White, “Development,” 40–48). 5923. Meeks, Urban Christians, 28–29. 5924. For trampling due to panic, see, e.g., Livy 24.39.5. 5925. Cf. Ael. Arist. Or. 1.467, 471 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 247); Bel 18 (Bruce, Acts1, 365); applied to God, see 1 Chr 16:25; Pss 48:1; 96:4; 145:3; 147:5; Bel 41 (cf. the abuse in Acts 8:10). “Great” also could mean “greatest” in Koine (Matt 5:19; 22:36; Mussies, “Greek,” 1042), but since they were uttered by polytheists, the sense of the acclamations usually would not be superlative. For acclamations toward emperors and others, see Badian, “Acclamation”; Hurschmann, “Acclamatio.” 5926. Partisan political acclamations occurred in public assemblies (Dio Chrys. Or. 40.26–27; also Welborn, Politics, 12–13; on partisans for guilds, 13–14); here, of course, the cries were not “partisan,” since the vast majority of Ephesians would have concurred. 5927. The typical Dionysiac acclamation was εὐοῖ (Lucian Dion. 2, 4, 5); at marriage celebrations, Hymen was acclaimed (Catull. Carm. 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60, 117–18, 137–38, 142–43, 147–48, 152–53, 157–58, 162–63, 167–68, 172–73, 177–78, 182–83; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25, 31, 38, 48, 66; Ovid Her. 12.143); elsewhere, e.g., ἰή ἰή (Athen. Deipn. 8.363B). 5928. Lucian Alex. 38. 5929. See Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 1. If the gesture resembled that for adoration, people could lift their hands above their heads, “toward the right” (Shiell, Reading Acts, 67–69, esp. 67). The corresponding gentle voice, however (Quint. Inst. 11.3.64, in Reading Acts, 88), is not likely in a setting of public outcries of acclamation. 5930. Stoops, “Riot,” 87 (following MacMullen, Enemies, 170, 339n10). 5931. Hock, “Novel,” 139. 5932. Localized forms of deities had a long history; see, e.g., Jer 2:28; Gordon, Civilizations, 233. 5933. Strelan, Artemis, 46. 5934. Conzelmann, Acts, 165. These occurrences might fit a broader pattern if we take “great” as a predicate adjective (cf. predicate nominatives in Metzger, “Translation,” 125), but in any case, one should not read too much into the article.

2899

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 603

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

(2) The Mob in the Theater (19:29)

That word spread quickly should not surprise us (cf., more positively, 19:10, 20); the population density was high, and conversation with neighbors could spread word quickly in the cities.5935 Moreover, the silversmiths apparently worked in a business district that ran between the harbor and the theater, undoubtedly thronged with people during the workday.5936 For the rapid spread of rumors, see further comment on Acts 19:10. Though urban and somewhat diverse, many of Ephesus’s people probably remained sufficiently “collectivist” in their sentiments to support other citizens with a serious grievance regardless of the confusion.5937 That the crowd acted with one mind (ὁμοθυμαδόν), albeit confused (19:32), contrasts them with God’s church (see comment on Acts 2:46; cf. ἐκκλησία in 19:32). It connects them much more explicitly with the enraged Jewish mob who killed Stephen; 7:57 is the only other use of ὁρμάω in Acts (it also appears in Luke 8:33), and its occurrence alongside Luke’s other usage of ὁμοθυμαδόν for a violent action is not likely coincidence. This connection builds suspense but also implies a Lukan theological point: violent opponents of the Christian movement, whether monotheists or polytheists, are acting irrationally. E n R ou te to t he The at e r

Given our basic (though quite limited) knowledge of the layout of ancient Ephesus, the unrest may have started not far from where Paul’s companions were or the theater was. A major street ran from the harbor east to the theater; it is today called Arkadiane (or Arcadius) Street after the later emperor who restored it, but it follows the same course as the Hellenistic street.5938 Arkadiane Street was more than 1,700 feet (500 m.) long; the street itself was 36 feet (11 m.) across; in its later, finished form, it also had lighted 16-foot (5 m.) colonnades on each side.5939 Given the shops along this street, it is not impossible that the silversmiths began their meeting here and moved east to the theater.5940 Arkadiane Street runs to the north of the theater, in front of which runs Marble Street. Aside from whatever members of a crowd they may have recruited on this busy street, they would have needed only a brief detour to gather more. An earlier suggested venue for the silver workers’ meeting—that the silversmiths’ shops lay in the agora itself—would also have fit the scenario in Acts 19.5941 If the shops were located in the commercial agora, they were not far from the theater—on the northeast corner of the agora. But the agora was not a long walk, in any case, from any point along the street between the harbor and the theater. It has also been proposed that the site of Tyrannus’s hall, where Paul taught, was the auditorium,5942 on the agora’s southeast corner, providing easy access to Paul’s traveling companions. The distance from the auditorium to the edge of the theater was only about the length of the theater itself, and so it would have been easy enough 5935. Meeks, Urban Christians, 28–29 (citing, as an example, Philo Flacc. 25–43); cf. Jeffers, World, 31. Popular culture used gossip as a means of social regulation; cf. Toner, Culture, 139. 5936. The theater faced the harbor, though a long distance from it, and is visible from the site of the old harbor even today. 5937. With Malina and Pilch, Acts, 140 (for their understanding of “collectivist personality,” cf. idem, Letters, 343–47). 5938. Finegan, Apostles, 163–64, noting that the street’s harbor gateway has Hellenistic foundations. 5939. Ibid., 164; McRay, Archaeology, 252–53. In its final form, the street included gymnasia and bath complexes (MacKendrick, Stones, 422). 5940. At some point, there were shops on this street (I. Eph. 547) near the agora. 5941. MacKendrick, Stones, 422, brought to my attention by McRay, Archaeology, 258. MacKendrick apparently follows Miltner, Ephesos. It is possible that some silverwork was produced and sold there, perhaps especially for tourists, without this being the primary location of the silver workers. 5942. Hemer, Acts in History, 121n53; idem, “Audeitorion,” 128.

2900

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 604

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

to seize Paul’s traveling companions Gaius and Aristarchus from Paul’s well-known lecture place, right by the commercial agora. As in Acts 17:6, however, the mob could not find Paul himself—which perhaps spared his life. But it now seems likely that the auditorium was used as a courtroom;5943 with the right patrons (see comment on Acts 19:31), Paul might have used it during hours when it was not in public use, but in our current state of information, it seems safer not to presume that we can know where the hall of Tyrannus was located (see comment on Acts 19:9). The auditorium was only one of many ancient buildings and is not the most probable site for Tyrannus’s hall. More certain and thus more relevant here, the crowded commercial agora was just west of Marble Street;5944 wherever the unrest started, the agora near the theater was an ideal location for recruiting large numbers of people.5945 It starts about fifty meters south of the south end of the theater, on the other side of Marble Street. Marble Street passed the agora to the north, very quickly reaching the theater.5946 The theater was perhaps 250 meters across the front, and it was less than 250 meters from Arkadiane Street to the commercial agora.5947 That a crowd stirred in the agora would be pulled into the nearby theater is the most plausible explanation for how they could end up at the site for public meetings; many of those who gathered might assume that those gathering them did so legally, as an emergency meeting of the city assembly (cf. 19:32).5948 But even when crowds lacked the official right to gather, they “often behaved as though they were meeting in assembly” when they gathered in theaters. 5949 Some suggest that the theater, in addition to hosting plays and civic assemblies, could have hosted periodic guild meetings.5950 Even more important for explaining the influx of Ephesians outside the silversmiths’ guild, it would also be a natural venue for worshipers of Artemis to gather.5951 An inscription at the theater’s south entrance traces the route of the yearly procession from Artemis’s temple into Ephesus.5952 The temple was nearly 2 kilometers northeast from the theater if one traveled in a straight line; but the route from the Artemis temple was more roundabout (perhaps to cover more of the city or to make the line longer and accommodate more people). The procession entered Ephesus’s Magnesian Gate, more than 2 kilometers south of the temple; it would then follow a street for 1.5 or perhaps 2 kilometers to the theater on the northeast. Afterward the procession would leave the Coressus Gate to head back to the Artemis temple, about 2 kilometers to the northeast. In the second century, processions accompanied all civic events, that is, roughly every two weeks; after the imperial images, the processions included nine groups of statues, each one including Artemis.5953 5943. Trebilco, “Asia,” 311–12. Perhaps a critic could not absolutely rule out “Tyrannus’s hall” as a nickname for a judge’s courtroom, but this is not a likely title for a courtroom, and identification as a judicial site does not support the conjectural association with Paul’s teaching. 5944. Finegan, Apostles, 163, noting that Augustus and Nero improved the earlier, Hellenistic marketplace. It was 360 ft. (110 m.) on each of its four equal sides, was surrounded by shops and double stoas, and was full of statues of hundreds of famous people (163; McRay, Archaeology, 253). 5945. Even residential neighborhoods might yield many people, though fewer than this; cf. the insula-type plan documented already in Ionian Miletus (Owens, City, 54). 5946. Finegan, Apostles, 163. 5947. See, e.g., the map in McRay, Archaeology, 251. 5948. Some of Luke’s audience might know that Ephesus’s civic assemblies met in the theater (Stoops, “Riot,” 84–85, noting Sherwin-White, Society, 87; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 248). 5949. Stoops, “Riot,” 84 (citing MacMullen, Enemies, 171–72). 5950. Schnabel, Acts, 806, lists this as one of the possible uses for the theater. 5951. Theaters were partly to exhibit plays during festivals for the gods (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.1); for a range of various public functions, see, e.g., Apul. Flor. 5.1–2 (cf. 18.4). 5952. Finegan, Apostles, 158. 5953. Rives, Religion, 114.

2901

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 605

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)  1  2  3  4  5  6

Schematic of Ephesus N

35

34

➔

33

Mount Pion

5 6 7

26

8

1 3

27 31

17

21

15

28

30

4

16 18

22 29

13 11

2

10

23 32

25

20

12

9

14

19

24

Mount Koressus 36

24 25 26 27

 7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Temple of Serapis (?) West Gate of Agora Theater Gymnasium

28 Verulan Hall 29 Palestra of harbor gymnasium 30 Harbor baths

31 32 33 34

Church of Mary Arcadius Street Meat market Stadium

20 21 22 23

State (civic) agora Temple of Augustus Fountain Pollio fountain Odeion (bouleuterion) Temples of Divus Iulius and Dea Roma Town hall Basilica Temple of Domitian Memmius Monument Fountain Curetes Street Nympheum of Trajan Private houses Temple of Hadrian Scholastica baths Latrine Brothel Auditorium (Lecture hall of Tyrannus?) Celsus Library Marble Street Stoa of Nero Commercial agora

35 Vedius gymnasium 36 Harbor

Reproduced from Archaeology & the New Testament by John McRay (© 1991), published by Baker Academic.

The The ate r

Ephesus’s theater was the city’s official meeting place (cf. 19:39 and comment there).5954 In free cities, a public assembly (ἐκκλησία; cf. 19:32) could gather in the theater (τὸ θέατρον) to decide an issue.5955 Such theaters would be used for official gatherings, including for publicly reading imperial edicts.5956 Greek assemblies did not all meet in theaters, but Athens, which had long used the theater of Dionysus as its place of assembly, provided the standard model.5957 Because Greeks, unlike Romans, sat in assemblies, theaters offered a useful location, often the only one with sufficient seating capacity.5958 The location of Ephesus’s theater is significant, at a cross section between commercial and political interests.5959 Apparently, two large statues of Artemis stood in the nearby town hall,5960 and she was undoubtedly honored no less in the theater, where we have the record of statues of Artemis being fitted on inscribed bases in 103 or 104 c.e.5961 Most relevant is that the silversmiths’ shops were along 5954. Hemer, Acts in History, 121, citing, e.g., OGIS 480.8–9 (104 c.e.); I. Eph. 28.9–10 (Latin), 19–20 (Greek); 29.19–20. For other cities, Trebilco, “Asia,” 349n252, cites Cic. Flacc. 16; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.24; 40.6; Tac. Hist. 2.80. For Greek theaters, see Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2; Isler, “Theatre,” 383–87; for differences between Greek and Roman theaters, Vitruv. Arch. 5.7.1; for Roman theaters and amphitheaters, see Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 271–89; in Rome, see Pliny E. N.H. 36.24.113–20; for theaters in Roman Syria, Retzleff, “Theatres.” For the historic development of theaters’ structure, see Tomlinson, “Theatres.” 5955. Char. Chaer. 3.4.4 (the reference to the assembly is 3.4.3). 5956. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349, cites SIG3 883.26–27. 5957. Rhodes, “Ekklesiasterion.” 5958. Ibid. The stepped seats were, ideally, in stone or even marble (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.3). For a popular performance, a theater might not easily seat all the residents who came (Apul. Flor. 16.11–13). 5959. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99, indicates that a sort of town hall abutted the theater (perhaps relevant for Acts 19:35, 38–39). But the courts themselves would be in the state agora farther east, as would be the effective city hall for state business (McRay, Archaeology, 253–54). 5960. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99. 5961. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350n257. The theater also included 120 statues of Cupids and Nike (“Victory”; Yamauchi, Cities, 94–95).

2902

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 606

6/19/14 2:10 PM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Arkadiane Street near the theater (I. Eph. 547).5962 This street, paved with marble, was 36 feet (ca. 11 m.) wide and extended 1,735 feet (ca. .33 mi., or well over .5 km.) from the theater to the harbor; the colonnade on each side of the street housed shops.5963 The claim of confusion helps emphasize the demagogic nature of Paul’s opposition (an important apologetic point; cf. 24:5).5964 That the “city” was filled with confusion and rushed into the theater is hyperbole; the highest estimates of the theater’s seating (see below) would accommodate only a quarter (and the likelier estimates, only one-fifth) of the estimated residents in Ephesus at this time. It may have accommodated most of the citizens (who were by definition also male and free) able to vote, but this is not a lawful assembly gathering to vote but a mob gathering in the largest venue near the town hall. Though it is possible that more crammed in than could be accommodated by the usual seating capacity (many would have been standing), we read of no one being trampled, and if the stage had already supplanted part of the orchestra area,5965 there was less space below the seats to stand (otherwise the speakers might not have prevailed from the platform). It is not even clear that the theater was full; the mob was likely several thousand, gathered as the artisans moved down Arkadiane Street toward the theater or gathered especially in the nearby agora, but need not have directly and literally involved a majority of the population. Most scholars estimate the seating capacity of the theater at 24,000 or 24,500, with three tiers, each including twenty-two rows.5966 The capacity may have been slightly lower (perhaps about 20,000) during the events described here; the theater’s expansion was not completed until the early second century.5967 It was already being expanded in this period, however, perhaps during the time Paul was there.5968 This construction occurred under Nero to match the city’s growing population.5969 When complete, its expansion made it “the largest theater in the ancient world.”5970 In that final form, the theater was 154 meters (ca. 500 ft.) wide and its auditorium 38 meters (ca. 125 ft.) high; it “was built into the western slope of Mt. Pion.”5971 At some point the orchestra area was reduced, advancing the stage area closer to the audience,5972 whose vast size would have otherwise made hearing difficult. “Impromptu” gatherings also could occur in theaters, where people were wont to gather (Philo Flacc. 41); Philostratus later claims such a gathering in Ephesus (Vit. 5962. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349n257; Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 98; McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99. 5963. Thompson, Archaeology, 400. 5964. Philo, defending the Jewish cause in Alexandria, similarly blames an anti-Jewish crowd for causing universal confusion during a time of unrest (Embassy 120; noted by Stoops, “Riot,” 84). Luke’s Scriptures often portrayed confusion or panic in the enemies of God’s servants (e.g., Exod 14:24; 23:27; Deut 7:23; 1 Sam 5:9, 11; 14:20; Ps 48:6; Zech 14:13). 5965. Greek theaters normally had a ground level for the orchestra (where the chorus was; Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2). 5966. Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Finegan, Apostles, 162. The rounder estimate of 25,000 is frequent (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 248 [“nearly 25,000”]; Kurzinger, Apostelgeschichte, 73; Bruce, History, 328; idem, Acts1, 365; idem, Commentary, 399; Yamauchi, Stones, 118; higher in Schille, Apostlegeschichte, 387). For an aerial photograph, see, e.g., Finegan, Light from Past, photo 116. 5967. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026. 5968. McRay, “Archaeology and NT,” 99. 5969. Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 8 (also noting “its monumental shape,” I. Eph. 2.411; 7.4123). 5970. Segal, “Theaters,” 199. 5971. Trebilco, “Asia,” 348. By way of comparison, the arenas of most amphitheaters (most larger towns built these in the first two centuries c.e.; more than two hundred remain) were only ca. 2,000 sq. m. (Nielsen, “Amphitheatre,” 609). 5972. Segal, “Theaters,” 199.

2903

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 607

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Apoll. 4.10).5973 In an inscription from Cnidus, the people were confused and spontaneously rushed into the theater.5974 Chariton depicts an entire crowd, functioning as a single character, gathering to the public assembly (ἐκκλησίαν) in the theater (θέατρον) (Chaer. 8.7.1). Although theaters were used for assemblies (see comment on Acts 19:39), they were also used for riots; for example, some cities had witnessed Jewish-Gentile conflicts escalating into violence in theaters.5975 A riotous gathering, however, was punishable (see comment on Acts 19:40). In a letter that he wrote from Ephesus before the time depicted here (1 Cor 16:8), Paul compares his own suffering to being exhibited as the last act in the theater, an act reserved for the deaths of condemned criminals (4:9).5976 He also writes of having fought wild beasts in the theater in Ephesus (15:32). Although originally built to display drama, theaters expanded their repertoire to include musical and athletic contests, and by this period, they catered also to the tastes of those who desired real blood.5977 Wild-beast shows were standard fare in such theaters.5978 Paul almost certainly speaks figuratively of his own conflicts with such beasts, however; those who fought them as condemned criminals normally did not survive to write letters about it afterward.5979 “Beasts” was a familiar derogatory title that intellectuals gave to those ruled by their passions or otherwise not living in accordance with reason and what is right;5980 the designation was an obvious one because humans were supposed to be smarter than animals.5981 Because Paul wrote this letter 5973. Trebilco, “Asia,” 349, citing also, for “impromptu gatherings” in theaters, Diod. Sic. 16.84; Char. Chaer. 3.4.3–4; 8.7.1. 5974. Conzelmann, Acts, 166 (citing PWSup 2.1564–78; also comparing Char. Chaer. 1.5.3, though there it is the marketplace into which the populace rushed, shouting). 5975. Stoops, “Riot,” 84 (citing Jos. War 2.487; 7.47, 106; Philo Flacc. 41, 74, 84, 95, 173; and MacMullen, Enemies, 341n2). 5976. So, e.g., Baird, Corinthian Church, 49; Witherington, Corinthians, 143; cf. Pucci, “Arenas,” 113; Fitzgerald, Cracks, 140. A theater was emblematic of a public place; to be ridiculed there was particularly shameful (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.16, ἐν θεάτρῳ λοιδορηθείς). 5977. See Boatwright, “Theaters.” 5978. E.g., Suet. Jul. 10.1; Calig. 27.1; Claud. 34.1–2; Nero 12.1; Marc. Aur. saying 6 (from Dio Cass. 71.29.3); Hdn. 1.15.2–6; 3.8.9; Jos. Ant. 14.210; Friedländer, Life, 2:62–74; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 162; Pucci, “Arenas,” 111; idem, “Circuses,” 210; Shelton, Romans, 351; on the capture of animals for these spectacles, see Pliny E. N.H. 8.24.64–8.25.65; Epplett, “Capture”; Weeber, “Environment,” 1007. Specifically in Corinth’s amphitheater and theater, see Dio Chrys. Or. 31.121; Romano, “Planning,” 40; Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 96; Winter, “Imperial Cult,” 95; Grant, Paul, 20; at Ephesus, Yamauchi, Cities, 92–94; cf. Arnold, “Festivals.” Not everyone approved (Cic. Fam. 7.1.3; Lev. Rab. 13:3); this included Christians (Athenag. Plea 35; cf. Tert. Spect. passim). 5979. With, e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 770–71 (others also object to its being literal, on the basis of Paul’s Roman citizenship, e.g., Strachan, Second Corinthians, 51; Héring, First Corinthians, 172; Johnston, Ephesians, 2; Bruce, History, 330; for exceptions, Moffatt, First Corinthians, 254–55). Being condemned to the beasts was intended as capital punishment (e.g., Diod. Sic. 36.11.3; Val. Max. 2.7.13; Suet. Calig. 27.3; Claud. 14; Apul. Metam. 10.29; Schiemann, “Decollatio”; O’Rourke, “Law,” 174; cf. Dig. 48.8.11.2, in Sherk, 236, §178B), later used to kill Christians (Mart. Pol. 3.1; 4.1; 12.2). There were occasional exceptions, where popular demand led to the criminal’s freedom (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.2; cf. Gaius Inst. 1.13; perhaps Lucian Lucius 52). 5980. E.g., Polyb. 1.67.6; 1.81.7; Cic. Mil. 12.32; 31.85; Pis. 1.1; Sest. 7.16; 33.71; Rosc. Amer. 22.63; Ovid Her. 10.1; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.31; 103.2; Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 78.27–28; 14, p. 92.21; 18B, p. 116.14, 18; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7, 9; 2.9.5; 4.1.127; 4.5.21; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.14–15, 21; 32.26; 77/78.29; Plut. Bride 7, Mor. 139B; Statecraft 5, Mor. 802E; R. Col. 2, Mor. 1108D; Demosth. 26.4; Alex. 22.2; Cic. 46.4; Philod. Crit. frg. 52.2–3; Diogenes Ep. 28; Max. Tyre 15.2; 33.7–8; Marc. Aur. 3.16; 4.16; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.2; Porph. Marc. 29.463–65; Eunapius Lives 472; Sipre Deut. 306.28.2; cf. Xen. Mem. 2.3.4; Hiero 7.3; Malherbe, Philosophers, 88–89; idem, “Beasts.” This included tyrants (Cic. Att. 5.16; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30; 4 Macc 12:13; cf. Lysias Or. 2.19, §192) and informers (Philost. Hrk. 4.4); for the body, cf. Max. Tyre 7.5; 33.8. Application to “Judaizers” (Osborne, “Wild Beasts,” 229) appears implausible. 5981. Reason (Polyb. 6.6.4; Cic. Tusc. 1.33.80; Off. 1.4.11; Stoics in Cic. Fin. 2.14.45; 2.33.109–10; Epict. Diatr. 2.9.3; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 403, §137D; Max. Tyre 6.1–4; Stoics in Diog. Laert. 7.1.85–86), education (Iambl. V.P. 8.44), rational speech (Ael. Arist. Panath. 2, 150D; Def. Or. 379, §126D; 398, §135D; Libanius

2904

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 608

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

sometime before leaving Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8), it is extremely unlikely that he refers even figuratively to the incident depicted in this chapter. His comment does, however, both reveal that Paul had been facing dangerous opposition in Ephesus and indicate that when Paul wished to enter the theater (Acts 19:30), he was well aware of what crowds were capable of relishing there. S e i z ing Paul’s C o m pa n ions

Luke does not pause to clarify how the crowd came by possession of Gaius and Aristarchus.5982 It is possible that Demetrius’s colleagues found them near the school of Tyrannus (or some other place that Paul and his school were known to frequent) before the incident erupted into a riot. (Accusers in private lawsuits might have to ensure that the accused showed up for court, though it does not appear that Demetrius has a court date, and the charges concern public rather than private interest.) It is also possible that some of those who knew that the charges were against Paul grabbed his companions (again, possibly from a place they were known to frequent). Again it is possible, though probably less likely, that the two tried to intervene in the riot as Paul tried to do later (19:30–31). Luke’s other most relevant use of the verb συναρπάζω (6:12) suggests deliberate, violent apprehension5983 (though this might not completely rule out seizing one already present).5984 This implication fits Luke’s portrayal of the entire assault on Paul’s ministry in Ephesus. Luke portrays the motives of Paul’s detractors as particularly mercenary (19:24–25) and as not sincere. When people resorted to violence and assault rather than the due course of law, it seemed natural to assume that they knew they were wrong (see Lysias Or. 23.12, §167). Desecration of a temple was a serious offense, but given the Christians’ innocence (see comment on Acts 19:37), the seizure of Paul’s companions might appear ironic. Artemis was considered compassionate, and her sanctuary was well known as a place of asylum, although the sacred privilege of sanctuary it offered there was not always honored.5985 For example, even a slave could take refuge from a slaveholder there (Cic. Verr. 2.1.33.85). Augustus had restricted the area of refuge because criminals had abused this privilege (Strabo 14.1.23).5986 Declam. 36.35), or marriage versus promiscuous copulation (Dion. Hal. Epid. 2.262; cf. Xen. Mem. 1.2.30) distinguished humans from animals. 5982. They might be perceived as Paul’s accomplices; for “accomplices” in Roman law, see Robinson, Criminal Law, 19–20. These were only a small part of Paul’s ministry “staff ” in Ephesus (see 1 Cor 16:10, 12, 15; Koester, “Ephesos in Literature,” 121). 5983. Cf. 4 Macc 5:4; Prov 6:25; perhaps the cognate ἁρπάζω in Acts 23:10. Sometimes something not human does the seizing (cf. Luke 8:29; Acts 27:15; 2 Macc 3:27; the cognate in Acts 8:39), or what is seized is not human (2 Macc 4:41). In the nt, the term appears only in Luke-Acts. 5984. From reports from my Nigerian friends who have lived through various supposedly spontaneous mob actions in several different cities of northern and middle-belt Nigeria, it appears that those who wished to slaughter pastors already knew precisely where they lived. 5985. See the account in Jos. Ant. 15.89; Dio Cass. 48.24.2; also Appian Bell. civ. 5.9, although he confuses the city; in a novel, some cite Ach. Tat. 7.13. In 88 b.c.e., Ephesians slew Romans who took refuge in the temple, clasping images of the goddess (Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23). Cf. the later complaint, in Philost. Ep. Apoll. 65, of robbers and kidnappers residing there, perhaps related to the issue of refuge. For this temple as an asylum, see Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–106. 5986. Cf. Tac. Ann. 3.60, 63 (on abuse); Suet. Tib. 37.3 (on Tiberius’s abolition of many asylum privileges; cf. Nock, “Developments,” 495). On shrines, sanctuaries, and sometimes statues for asylum, see, e.g., Exod 21:14; 1 Kgs 2:28–29; Hesiod W.D. 327; Aeschylus Suppl. 83–85, 509, 750–52; Eurip. Herc. fur. 48; Heracl. 61–62, 69–72, 77–78, 123–25, 364–66; Andr. 253–54, 260, 411–12, 565, 859; Aristoph. Knights 1311–12; Xen. Hell. 4.3.20; Thucyd. 3.81.5; Polyb. 9.29.4; Diod. Sic. 11.89.6–8; 16.58.6; 17.41.8; Cic. Sest. 38.80; Corn. Nep. 4 (Pausanias), 4.4–5; 5.2–3; 17 (Agesilaus), 4.6; Livy 35.51.1–2; 45.5.3–8, 11–12; Vell. Paterc. 1.9.4–5; Quint. Decl. 265.13; Libanius Refutation 2.1, 12; Confirmation 3.8; Appian Hist. rom. 12.1.7; 12.4.23; 12.8.53; Quint. Curt. 4.4.13–14; Tac. Ann. 3.61–63 (Ephesus’s Artemis temple is 3.61); Plut. Demosth. 29.1, 5; Alex. 42.1; Sulla 31.5; Arrian Alex. 2.24.5; Tac. Hist. 1.43; Lucian Peregr. 19; Philost. Hrk. 31.4; Men. Rhet. 2.1–2,

2905

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 609

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Luke describes Paul’s fellow workers as συνέκδημοι, which technically means “fellow travelers,” but which Paul applies to his colleagues also in 2 Cor 8:19.5987 Perhaps it implied “traveling colleagues,”5988 of whom at least one and possibly both were on Paul’s impending mission to take the collection to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4).5989 Aristarchus later accompanied Paul to Rome when Paul was a prisoner, as both Acts (27:2) and Paul’s letters (Col 4:10; Phlm 24) attest. Jewish disciples customarily traveled with teachers, teachers typically teaching on the way,5990 though those whom Paul takes with him may work alongside him as well as learn from him. Aristarchus was from Thessalonica, where his name was fairly common.5991 Gaius was one of the most common names, attested among early Christians in Roman Corinth (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14) and in 3 John 1; the Gaius mentioned here was among Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia5992 and so possibly different from the one from Derbe in Acts 20:4 (though the matter has invited debate as early as the Western text; see comment at Acts 20:4).5993 Gaius could be a citizen name, but it was often adopted by noncitizens as well.5994 In several cities of the empire, uneasiness over foreign Jews contributed to mistreatment of local Jews.5995 Although being foreigners could count against them in a xenophobic riot,5996 the temple of Artemis was known to welcome Greeks, barbarians, and slave and free alike under normal circumstances.5997 (3) Restrained from Entering the Theater (19:30–31)

Even at the risk of his life, Paul would never miss an opportunity to preach the gospel to many people (cf. 21:39–40). But both disciples and Paul’s “friends,” apparently patrons who sponsored some of his activity, prevented him from entering the theater. 375.15–17; Hermog. Issues 33–34; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.4; Jos. Ant. 20.165–66; also at the family hearth (Lysias Or. 1.27 [On the Murder of Eratosthenes]; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.1.4); even imperial statues could provide such sanctuary (Pliny Ep. 10.74.1; Suet. Aug. 17 [disregarded]; Tac. Ann. 3.36; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.15). To drag people from, or slay people at, altars or temples was an atrocity (Polyb. 9.29.4; Jos. Ant. 20.165; Vit. Aes. 134, 139; cf. also Nieto Ibáñez, “Grove,” on Jos. War 2.466–71) and could invite divine judgment (e.g., Eurip. Tro. 69; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.8, 16). Thus at least in declamations any injury to another in a temple could be punished severely (Quint. Decl. 265 intro.), and a priest could remit one sentence (Quint. Decl. 284 intro.). 5987. Cf. Danker, Corinthians, 131 (comparing OGIS 494.13–14). Perhaps, in 2 Cor 8:19, Paul had the cognate ἐκδημέω fresh in his mind (in the nt only at 2 Cor 5:6, 8–9), though this assumes the unity of at least most of 2 Cor 3–8. 5988. With Barrett, Acts, 929, who compares similar uses in Jos. Life 79; Plut. Otho 5 (and perhaps IG 12 [8].186.9). On the term’s use for traveling companions, see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 605 (citing OGIS 494.13; SIG 657.9 = SIG3 1052.9). 5989. If so, they were much less easily deterred from service than Mark had been (Acts 13:13; 15:38). 5990. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 231. 5991. We know, e.g., of an Aristarchus son of Aristarchus who was a politarch (Cadbury, Acts in History, 54n21), though Paul’s Aristarchus was certainly not a politarch, given Paul’s banishment from there (Witherington, Acts, 507n163). There were also some earlier famous men by this name (in Samos, see Toomer, “Aristarchus”; in Samothrace, Lockwood, Browning, and Wilson, “Aristarchus”; in Tegea, Brown, “Aristarchus”). 5992. An inscription mentions “Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia” (Milligan, Thessalonians, 134), not surprising because, again, both were common names. 5993. If they are the same person, it is more likely because Luke speaks too concisely for full clarity (i.e., Gaius joined Paul’s mission from Derbe [cf. Acts 14:6, 20; 16:1] but came to Ephesus by way of ministry in Macedonia, alongside Aristarchus) rather than from the accuracy of the Western text in 20:4. 5994. See, e.g., Jeffers, World, 206. It was among the four most popular praenomens (Stambaugh, City, 94). 5995. Stoops, “Riot,” 85 (citing Jos. War 7.47; Ant. 16.59; 18.81–84; Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85). 5996. For the importance of citizenship in Greek cities, and Ephesus in particular, see Strelan, Artemis, 31–34 (though [p. 34] noncitizens may have constituted 80 percent of a polis’s population). Strelan, 144, cites Cic. Moral Duties 1.34 to the effect that foreigners were welcome so long as they did not interfere with local religion and custom; although Ephesus had a more cosmopolitan mentality than Cicero’s first-century b.c.e. Rome, the sentiments touching the Artemis cult would have proved similar. 5997. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 67.

2906

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 610

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

R e st r a in e d by t he Di scip le s ( 1 9 : 3 0 )

Paul wanted5998 to enter partly to clear up misconceptions both for the sake of his apprehended friends (19:29) and for his gospel. Even when his friends were seized by a mob (17:6), it was sometimes safer for everyone if Paul simply left town (17:10; cf. 9:25, 30).5999 A mob would not necessarily respond to attempts to reason with it, and trying to do so could provoke increased hostility (19:33–34). Why, then, does Paul seek to enter the assembly at such great risk? Even if it entailed danger to his life, Paul could not resist an opportunity for a hearing of his message by so many people; this becomes evident when he is not restrained from speaking in 21:39–40 (cf. 26:27–29).6000 (Although the δῆμος refers to the citizen assembly here as normally in ancient literature,6001 Luke’s portrayals of the masses through this term are hardly flattering [cf. 12:22; 17:5; 19:33, the only other nt uses].)6002 Some assemblies that heard Paul offered a divided response (17:32–34; 23:7–9), but Paul was not to be heard here. Luke’s report of Paul’s reason for not entering the assembly is perhaps to guard his honor.6003 Elsewhere Luke reports that Paul refused to flee after facing hardship (14:20; 16:40; 18:18), and possibly Luke omits a less “honorable” reason for Paul’s avoidance of Ephesus in 20:16 (see comment there); here Paul refuses to appear because disciples or others would not allow it (as in 17:10, 14).6004 While the disciples who restrained Paul did so partly for his safety (the Asiarchs in 19:31 may have had other considerations) as in 21:4, 12, their attempt fits a pattern of well-meaning disciples restraining a master from his task. Jesus’s disciples tried to restrain parents from bringing children (Luke 18:15), and a blind beggar from distracting Jesus on the road to Jerusalem (18:39); they also sought to protect Jesus from capture (22:49–50). The next time Paul’s companions (including the narrator) seek to restrain Paul from danger (Acts 21:12), he refuses to be dissuaded (21:13) and is apprehended in a riot over another temple (21:27–22:24). “The disciples” could mean his students (cf. “his disciples” who protected him in 9:25) but normally in Acts refers more generally to followers of Jesus (adherents of the Jesus movement or school). These may have been Paul’s students (the house churches may have grown partly from Paul’s “school,” see comment on Acts 19:9) and likely included recent converts (as in 14:20; 16:1; 18:23), but Luke’s use of the term 5998. Since Paul appears as a sage (Acts 19:9), we may assume that his wish (βουλομένου) here is understood as rational (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b10, p. 24), even if its lack of fulfillment proves providential. 5999. Although retreat was often viewed as dishonorable, it was sometimes wiser than pretending useless courage (e.g., Babr. 1). 6000. Paul had sought to disseminate his message with smaller audiences (Acts 19:9–10), but addressing public assemblies was especially important for those wishing to address public beliefs and actions (Dio Chrys. Or. 32; see Winter, Philo and Paul, 45). Serving the communal good was a criterion for judging the value of philosophy (Plut. R. Col. 33, Mor. 1126E), a criterion by which Paul’s accusers fail miserably (see Acts 19:40). 6001. See Judge, Pattern, 14; comment on Acts 12:22. It appears regularly in provincial inscriptions (in Asia Minor, e.g., MAMA 4.5, 15, 52, 64, 66, 122, 124, 128, 131, 133, 137, 146, 147, 150, 158, 159, 165, 267, 276, 296, 301, 315). But as here, Dio felt that public assemblies of the δῆμος, “the people,” easily degenerated into mob rule (Or. 3.47–49; Luke also applies this term to mobs in Acts 17:5; 19:30, 33; excepting only 12:22). 6002. The only use in the Apostolic Fathers, Mart. Pol. 10.2, is also less than positive. 6003. Retreat and especially individuals’ flight in battle were viewed as dishonorable (e.g., Lysias Or. 14.5–6, §140; Polyb. 6.37.10–13; 6.38.1–4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.9.4; 9.9.9; Sil. It. 10.7; Plut. Luc. 15.7; Suet. Jul. 60, 62; Max. Tyre 3.8; 15.10; 33.3; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.9; Eph 6:13–14); cf., e.g., those who abandoned their shields in battle (Aeschines Tim. 29; Polyb. 18.26.5; Val. Max. 2.7.ext. 2; Tac. Germ. 6; Suet. Jul. 67; Max. Tyre 3.7; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.24.528); shields were well known in Ephesus (I. Eph. 2039, lines 8–9) and connected with heroism (I. Eph. 3803 frg. b, line 9). Fleeing public trial could also be construed as admission of guilt (e.g., Quint. Decl. 249.5). 6004. Malina and Pilch, Acts, 140–41, compare typical Middle Eastern behavior in which a person may wish to act spontaneously but companions are expected to intervene and prevent harm.

2907

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 611

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

does not by itself specify these connotations. Historically they could even include Priscilla and Aquila, who at some point before Paul’s Achaian sojourn in Acts 20:2–3 “risked their necks” for him (Rom 16:3), although they could have done so earlier in Corinth or Ephesus in incidents not reported by Luke (cf. 1 Cor 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8). Some scholars have suggested that Paul is under the authority of the local church there,6005 but we should not infer any official subordination even if Paul submits to their corporate wisdom and local sensitivity. Those who help him escape in Acts 9:25 are said to be “his” disciples; likewise, new converts in Thessalonica and Beroea send Paul off by night (17:10, 14), without any assumption that these new believers hold rank over Paul. That Luke makes Paul cooperative with local believers in emergency situations does not reduce his authority or status among them (cf. 20:17–18). I de n t i t y of t he A si a rch s ( 1 9 : 3 1 )

The Asiarchs who were Paul’s “friends” are probably his patrons, sponsors of his public teaching activity (perhaps by covering his expenses at the hall of Tyrannus, 19:9). (I use “patrons” here in the common sense rather than the most technical political sense from the Roman republic, in which a patron is accompanied by dependents. Nevertheless, Roman usage abundantly illustrates the more general principles involved for reciprocity in benefactor-dependent relationships, and hence does significantly inform the discussion here. See the lengthy excursus on patronage, including comment on the attendant obligation of beneficiaries to honor patrons, at Acts 16:15.) In return, these benefactors expect public honor. For Paul to be associated with this riot or with charges of subverting Artemis’s honor would have diminished their honor, so they do not want him to enter the assembly and thereby draw attention to his role in the matter at hand.6006 The mob was primed to react angrily, and matters were better handled by the elite after tempers cooled and the benefactors’ honor could be recouped. Luke’s apologetic message for his audience includes not only the economic or class status of the Asiarchs but also their regional respectability; if Asiarchs, prominent officials of Asia (in contrast to Demetrius and his fellow artisans), support Paul, outsiders should rest assured that he was not genuinely harming the Artemis cult. Asiarchs were chosen from among the highest elite of Asia’s cities for a yearly office; most major cities boasted several who had held this office, with Ephesus probably boasting several in Paul’s day.6007 More than 200 Asiarchs are known, and 106 of them are associated with Ephesus.6008 The office belonged to the province, not to the town,6009 but their holding the office brought honor to their respective cities. As in this passage, these individuals were also concerned with their own honor. In Asia, people often purchased their priesthoods as a way to further augment their status, acquiring, for example, special seats in the theater.6010 Because the title was valid both for those currently passing their year in office and, “like any of the titles familiar in the Roman cursus honorum,” for those who had held it previously, Luke’s Asiarchs may have been present or former bearers of the office.6011 It is particularly worthy of mention for Luke because it was the highest ­office a citizen 6005. Strelan, Artemis, 145. 6006. See also Keener, “Asiarchs,” esp. 135–39. 6007. Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 256; Cadbury, Acts in History, 42–43; Thompson, Archaeology, 402. 6008. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 137. 6009. Mehl, “Asiarchy.” 6010. Klauck, Context, 31–32. 6011. Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 258. Some men held the office more than once (Kearsley, “Asiarchs [1994],” 365–66). In Rome, the pontifex maximus appointed priesthoods for life (Lintott, Romans, 133).

2908

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 612

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

could achieve in Ephesus.6012 Luke’s pool of “Asiarchs” for Paul’s friends thus need not include only current officeholders. Luke would presumably employ the title “Asiarchs” for those elected in the past; they would retain the status the office had bestowed on them; in some cities, all ex-officials became members of the city senate (Pliny Ep. 10.79.1). Some other regions named only one official—for example, one Lyciarch (Lycia), one Pontarch, and one Bithyniarch—but there was a plurality of Asiarchs in Asia. As Sherwin-White notes, “If the author of Acts had not known the peculiarities of the organization of Asia, he might well have made an error.”6013 Luke’s correctness does not mean that he or his source was necessarily from that province, but it is a correct feature of local color. New Testament scholars have traditionally identified the Asiarchs with priests of the provincial imperial cult or at least noted that this was where current evidence seemed to point.6014 (On the imperial cult in Ephesus, see comment at the introduction to Acts 19:23–40.) Some speculate that their connection with pagan religion would explain their presence during the “festival of Artemisia, where they would represent the Emperor,”6015 but even if this festival was occurring and the connection is upheld, as Paul’s “friends” (patrons), they were probably Asiarchs (present and former) who lived in Ephesus.6016 (Because courts would probably not be open during festivals [Libanius Descr. 29.9], no festival is underway if Acts 19:38 is intended literally.) More recent studies have emphasized that Asiarch and high priest of the imperial cult were separate offices, at least in the late first and early second centuries.6017 Nevertheless, it remains accurate to say that the Asiarchs and imperial priests were usually chosen from the same elite pool of candidates 6018 and that the individuals filling these roles overlapped in many cases. Further, both would, by virtue of their office and simply their status, be expected to participate publicly in all events of civic religion, both those honoring the emperor and those devoted to Artemis. The status required for the cult’s high priesthood6019 would probably make many of its holders also Asiarchs. (The high priest of the imperial cult in Achaia was called primus, which is equivalent to Strabo’s remark [Strabo 14.42] that the Asiarchs are “the first” in rank in their province.)6020 Paul’s R e l at ions w i th A si a rch s ( 1 9 : 3 1 )

That Luke reports Paul’s contacts with some Asiarchs, whose position required participation in civic paganism, shows that neither Luke nor his understanding of 6012. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 138–49. For an example of their prominence, see, e.g., Mart. Pol. 12.2. 6013. Sherwin-White, Society, 90. 6014. E.g., Taylor, “Asiarchs,” 258 (though noting [262] the title’s use before the imperial cult began); Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 193–94; Yamauchi, Cities, 109; Mehl, “Asiarchy.” I was also among them (Keener, Background Commentary, 380). More nuanced, some argue that the priests were selected from among the Asiarchs (Bruce, Commentary, 400), as in Dio Chrys. Or. 35.10. 6015. Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56; cf. Bruce, Documents, 84. 6016. Strabo 14.1.42 notes that many well-to-do people lived in Ephesus and that some of its citizens were always among the Asiarchs (McRay, Archaeology, 255). 6017. R. A. Kearsley, in Horsley, Documents, 4:53–55, §14; Kearsley, “Asiarchs (1994),” esp. 366; cf. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 138; on Asiarchs, cf. also Kearsley, “Asiarchs (ABD).” One distinction is that women were sometimes high priests (cf. also Klauck, Context, 318–19), but we know of no women Asiarchs from Ephesus and only one from elsewhere. 6018. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 35.10, where Asiarchs apparently rule the priests of the imperial cult (in Yamauchi, Cities, 109). For portrait statues of one imperial priest from later (second-century c.e.) Ephesus, see Dillon, “Portraits.” 6019. On this office, both in the East (as ἀρχιερεύς) and in the West (as flamen or sacerdos), see Ferguson, Backgrounds, 164. They would supervise religious banquets (e.g., CIL 3.550, in Sherk, Empire, 165, §125). 6020. West, Inscriptions, no. 68, line 9 (who also notes that πρῶτος was a title for officials in Asia, citing, e.g., OGIS 528, 544, 545, 549, 652).

2909

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 613

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Paul is sectarian (in contrast to, e.g., John 15:18–25 or Revelation).6021 Sectarianism is often a minority’s natural response to alienation from a larger culture, however, and was probably unnecessary at this point; it appears doubtful that there was any official Roman hostility to Christians yet.6022 It is more to Luke’s point, however, to note that Paul knew people of high status in Asia (as elsewhere, e.g., Acts 13:12; 17:4, 12, 34), a matter that would interest and welcome Theophilus’s circle (1:1).6023 Some scholars suspect that Luke’s claim in this case may be his “invention”;6024 but emphasizing facts that suit one’s case is not the same as creating them. Paul’s own letters provide evidence of his contacts with the elite; certainly the position described in Rom 16:23, which apparently is held by a believer, is no mean office.6025 How might Paul have come to know people of such high status in Ephesus? Three factors appear paramount; of these, the third may be most significant. First, Paul was a Roman citizen (see comment on Acts 16:37), which may have motivated some Asiarchs to make his acquaintance (or at least welcome his inquiries). This is the least significant of the three factors,6026 but it is not insignificant.6027 Roman citizenship did not belong only to the elite in Ephesus, but it was also not a common franchise in a “free” Greek city such as Ephesus, as it was in Rome or colonies such as Corinth and Philippi.6028 A number of Asiarchs did achieve Roman citizenship by virtue of their exalted local status and hence would have appreciated and been interested in the status. Moreover, they would have learned that Paul was a citizen the moment anyone used his tria nomina, his three names (which could have been used to advertise his “school”; cf. Acts 19:9), but his name would indicate that his family received the honorary franchise before they had, signifying high status (22:28).6029 Paul’s interest in Rome (Acts 19:21; Rom 1:13; 15:22–24) would also have motivated him to make connections for future benefit where possible. 6021. On these implications and a contrast with the Qumran scrolls, see Ladd, Young Church, 93–94; cf. Keener, John, 1017–18 (cf. 149–52). Cf. similar pictures of positive relationships with members of Gentile religious establishments in Gen 41:45, 50; Exod 3:1; 18:17–24; Dan 1:17. For Christian connections with non-Christians in Acts, see, e.g., Tannehill, Shape, 222–37. 6022. With McRay, “Ephesus and New Testament.” Matters were quite different a century later, when one apologist complains that Christians are the only group whose customs are not tolerated (Athenag. Plea 1). 6023. Cf. also Johnson, Acts, 349. Lentz, Luke’s Portrait, 92–93, rightly noting that Luke mentions the connection to emphasize Paul’s status, supposes that Luke engages in rhetorical σύγκρισις (comparison) here. But while some kinds of comparison honor one by putting one in a more prominent category (cf., e.g., Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Men. Rhet. 2.14, 427.1–3) and Luke often uses comparison, the image is more that of patrons in this passage. 6024. Meeks, Urban Christians, 62 (though not denying that any of Luke’s claims of high status might be true). 6025. Gill, “Élites” (esp. in Corinth, and esp. Rom 16:23, pp. 111–12). Meeks himself finds contacts with persons of relatively high status in Paul’s epistles (Urban Christians, 55–61). Trebilco, Ephesus, 167–68, compares Sergius Paulus in Acts 13:4–12 (a passage whose reliability he defends). The Asiarchs could represent part of what Paul means by an open door for his ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8–9a), along with his “many adversaries” (16:9b). 6026. Although the wealthy flaunt their tria nomina on inscriptions, poorer citizens do not use their full name, perhaps suggesting that not everyone there emphasized this status marker (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 180–93). 6027. Others also count it a factor: Llewelyn, Documents, 6:155, §20 (along with Paul’s being a teacher); Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155–56; Witherington, Acts, 585. 6028. Witherington, Acts, 595, argues that because Asiarchs promoted the imperial cult (albeit not necessarily as priests; see below), they would view the relatively small number of Roman citizens as “their core constituency.” Apparently, Roman names, at least, eventually became more popular in Ephesus (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 71). 6029. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155–56. Baugh opines that this would make Paul of higher status; this claim is true so long as one refers to the nature of his citizenship (and not his standing in Ephesus!). One Asiarch whose name we know from 55 c.e. was Titus Claudius Hiero (Riesner, Early Period, 215).

2910

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 614

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Second, Paul, as a “sophist” or philosopher (see comment on Acts 19:9), would have possessed some status6030 beyond what his artisan trade could have provided (cf. comment on Acts 18:3); since he was a relative newcomer to the city, his acquired reputation as a teacher would count more than any previous credentials.6031 As noted at Acts 19:9, Ephesus was a center of rhetoric, hosting some prominent sophists and many students of rhetoric; many of the sophists even held office.6032 It was argued above (at Acts 19:9) that Paul would have been viewed more as a teacher of philosophy than as a teacher of rhetoric, but in any case his role as teacher conferred on him significant status. Third, if Paul functioned as one of the city’s more popular teachers (as Luke certainly implies, Acts 19:10, 17, 20), his popularity would have made him attractive as a special object of benefaction.6033 Asiarchs belonged to the wealthy provincial elite and were elected “with the expectation that they would personally finance public games and festivals”;6034 inscriptions reveal that some Asiarchs acted as benefactors by supporting lectures and teachers.6035 It was known that philosophers were often associated with local elites; although this connection could present dangers for their reputation, it was generally considered “worth the risk.”6036 The more adherents and admirers Paul had, the greater the honor from the larger number of people his benefactors would acquire.6037 Paul’s Be n e factor s H er e

On benefactors and the honor they were to receive, see comment on Acts 4:9. Although this discussion here mingles the language of patronage and benefaction, Paul was not a “client” in the most technical, traditional Roman sense.6038 Although the princeps himself had assumed the ultimate patronal role during the empire, conventional clients still followed their patrons in public. They reached their patron’s home at sunrise and followed him in procession to the forum two hours later and as 6030. See most fully Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 119–30. 6031. Even his previous credentials could be counted significant (see Acts 22:3), especially if Jewish wisdom, like its Egyptian and Babylonian counterparts, was counted exotic because not universally available (and cf. the Jewish reputation in magic, 19:13). Unlike most other Jews, he was making his Jewish wisdom available to Gentiles without requiring any publicly visible commitments to ethnic Israel, even attending a synagogue. 6032. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 126–28. He rightly notes (128–30) that Paul’s letters display rhetorical skills, but we may doubt that they reveal a professional teacher of rhetoric. 6033. Perhaps in addition to the fact that, being new, he was not already supported by other patrons. Those seeking office in republican Rome would seek “friendship” with all the prominent people (Cic. Handb. Elec. 29–30; Strelan, Artemis, 146). Popularity with the masses was no more stable and predictable then (when historians portrayed them as fickle, e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.29) than it often is in political-opinion polls in democracies today. 6034. McRay, Archaeology, 255. 6035. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 154–55, citing, e.g., I. Eph. 2065. Some doubt that Paul would have patrons, given his work in Acts 20:34 (Strelan, Artemis, 271). Probably, Paul did work to support himself and his colleagues, at least during part of his time in Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:3, 5), but did accept support for other aspects of the mission, such as rent for the school of Tyrannus in 19:9. The term ὑπηρετέω in 20:34 can be translated “serve” or “assist” and need not indicate that Paul’s labor paid all the expenses. The specific term “patron” was sometimes avoided for the sake of the client’s honor (cf. Chow, Patronage, 25). 6036. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 155, citing Plut. Phil. Power, Mor. 776–79. One may take Seneca’s fate for a worst-case scenario, but more often high connections proved profitable. 6037. Observers evaluated people’s status on the basis of the retinues accompanying them (Tac. Agr. 40). Paul’s impact in Ephesus in Acts 19:10–20 is comparable to that of Jesus as indicated by the Gospel’s descriptions of Jesus’s “entourage,” which can be understood in patronal terms (see deSilva, Honor, 135). 6038. Ephesian architecture (probably even for Romans living there) did not readily accommodate the exact patron-client relations typical in Rome; cf. Trümper, “Environment of Households,” 41–42 (though allowing that Romans simply adapted themselves to the local architecture). Architecture was important to the patron-client system in Rome (Balch, “Paul, Families, and Households,” 265).

2911

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 615

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

he conducted financial and sometimes legal business. Around midday they would retire to the baths, and often they would follow the patron home for dinner; the entire routine often lasted until 3:00 p.m., and in the case of a banquet, it could last into the night. The physical presence of such clients demonstrated the patron’s political support, encouraging the political favor of other members of the elite. In effect, they were the patron’s paid retainers, supporting him politically.6039 Paul could never have functioned as a client in this sense, whether out of conviction or out of the simple need for time; apparently he continued working in Ephesus (20:34). Other forms of benefaction, however, followed many patterns of patronage in its narrower sense. Many members of the elite sponsored their own teachers to lecture at banquets, flaunting in a different manner the patron’s benevolence and interest in liberal education.6040 Paul would not have accepted this form of support (attachment to a household); both in his epistles and in Acts, he prefers to work or accept gifts from other congregations (1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 11:7–9; 12:13; 1 Thess 2:9; Acts 20:34).6041 But, having learned more about potentials for patronage when he was in Corinth (cf. 18:7), he may well have accepted sponsorship for the rent of Tyrannus’s facilities or for other costs associated with his ministry. In any case, the central principles of patronage apply (see discussion of “friendship” below). “The proper conduct” for the person receiving benefaction “was to acknowledge and advertise his benefactor’s generosity and power.”6042 Paul’s “friends” would expect repayment in honor—that is, public acknowledgment for their sponsorship.6043 Appealing to a patron’s friendship consumed a portion of the limited supply of favor available (e.g., Pliny Ep. 1.17.1); one could not borrow such favor beyond what one could hope to reciprocate in honor. That Demetrius’s riot potentially damages their own honor explains why they must restrain Paul from entering the theater and being identified as the one who has dishonored Artemis; the crowd’s confusion (Acts 19:32) is far better than clear knowledge of the accused person’s identity. That Paul was a monotheist would not have been a matter of serious concern to his pagan sponsors;6044 Judaism had a good reputation in much of Asia Minor, though it would not have been as prominent in Ephesus as in Sardis.6045 Most immigrant groups and “private associations . . . depended on benefactors, either within their own community or from interested outsiders”; that Jews did so is what we would expect.6046 Many Gentiles in Roman Asia and elsewhere served as patrons for Jewish communities.6047 For example, a Gentile in mid-first-century c.e. Acmonia built 6039. Winter, Left Corinth, 188–90; Lintott, “Cliens,” 451 (citing Suet. Vesp. 2.2; Mart. Epig. 2.18; 3.46). “Political” support involved honor; the specifically political element was less important politically now than during the republic. 6040. Cf. Lucian Posts 35–36; Hock, Social Context, 58; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 24. 6041. To pay another in cash, rather than by giving gifts or honor, demeaned him as an employee (Marshall, Enmity, 32; cf. Apoll. K. Tyre 10) and hence would not be useful to Paul’s ministry. 6042. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149. 6043. This pattern characterized honorary inscriptions, which were pervasive (e.g., CIL 14.409; ILS 6146, in Sherk, Empire, 240, §182; Jewett, “Shame,” 554–55); for honoring patrons, see further Engels, Roman Corinth, 87; deSilva, Honor, 20n2; Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148. 6044. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 163, attributes this to the elite’s using priesthoods for their own benefit (thus the mismanagement of the Artemisium’s funds noted above). Although this factor may be true, lack of piety is not the issue; polytheists could accommodate other gods and in Asia were mostly accustomed to Jewish practice. 6045. On Sardian Judaism (though most of the evidence is later), see, e.g., Kraabel, “Judaism in Asia Minor,” 198–240; Meyers and Kraabel, “Remains,” 184–92; Seager and Kraabel, “Synagogue.” 6046. Meeks, “Aliens,” 131 (for Jewish groups, citing esp. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs). 6047. Trebilco, “Communities,” 568; Rajak, “Synagogue within City” (noted by Winter, Left Corinth, 204–5). The donors in Ostia in White, “Synagogue in Ostia,” 53–66, esp. 62, may be Gentiles. Riesner, Early

2912

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 616

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

a synagogue for the local Jewish community;6048 Luke provides another example of such benefaction in Palestine (Luke 7:5). By explaining the highest God without demanding circumcision or traditional Jewish cultus, Paul might have appeared far more culturally universalistic to his patrons than was much of the synagogue community. So long as Paul was not attacking other gods, thus bringing dishonor on his patrons with the pagan majority, they could achieve honor among the large numbers positively touched by Paul’s ministry. Once Paul had open enemies, however, this criticism of his monotheistic exclusivism could cause problems for his supporters. The Roman patronage system was a network of alliances and enmity relationships; the enemies of one’s friends became one’s enemies.6049 It is relevant to Ionian Ephesus that enmity networks constituted a Greek as well as Roman political practice; thus some in classical Athens allegedly became a person’s enemies (Lysias Or. 9.10, §115) because he became friends with another person of status (9.13, §115). Paul had numerous enemies before the riot (1 Cor 16:9),6050 but the riot made them public. Patronage rested more on letters of recommendation from other persons of honor than on careful research into the potential client’s beliefs; if he had passed muster at his initial rhetorical “performance” (see comment on Acts 19:9) and gained some honorable supporters, potential patrons would lack reason to investigate him more carefully. What this would mean, however, was that if Paul turned out to be discreditable, the public reputation of everyone who had recommended him would suffer. “Fr ie n d s hip” a s Patronag e

Luke recognized the social demands of “friendship” (cf. Luke 7:6; 11:5–8; 14:10– 12; 23:12).6051 The language of friendship here probably indicates patronage or benefaction, as some scholars have suggested.6052 Because the ancient world recognized various forms of friendship, it is helpful to survey these here.6053 “Friendship” was a regular ancient topic of discourse,6054 the subject of numerous essays.6055 There were, however, a variety of different perspectives on and kinds of friendship, both in the philosophers and, more broadly, throughout Greco-Roman Period, 215–16, thinks that Asiarchs helped to protect Jewish rights for the emperor (citing Jos. Ant. 14.227, which does not mention Asiarchs) because of the emperor’s involvement in the issue (16.165), but this perspective may overstate the evidence. 6048. Trebilco, “Communities,” 568; Das, Debate, 75 (on the priestess in the imperial cult in CIJ 2, §766). 6049. For enmity networks, see, e.g., Aeschines Tim. 54–57; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.1; Pliny Ep. 2.11.8; 3.9.25; Hdn. 1.13.6; Iambl. V.P. 35.248–49; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 67–69; for partisan strife, e.g., Sall. Jug. 73.5; Cic. Fam. 1.8.1–2; 8.14.1; Plut. Cic. 3.1–2; Suet. Jul. 72; Aul. Gel. 6.19.6. Enmity networks reflected friendship networks, which appear even more frequently (e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.4.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.1). 6050. This might also help explain how the city official knows Demetrius’s name in Acts 19:38; if the information was supplied by Paul or his colleagues by means of the Asiarchs (a plausible speculation), Paul’s supporters probably recognized or knew the name of their opponent because it was not his first act of opposition. 6051. Johnson, Acts, 349. 6052. Keener, Background Commentary, 380; Witherington, Acts, 595; Parsons, Acts, 369 (following Keener, “Asiarchs”). On “friendship” language for patronage, see, e.g., deSilva, Honor, 96–99; Keener, “Friendship,” 381–82; discussion in idem, “Asiarchs.” 6053. I have treated friendship at greater length in Keener, John, 1004–15; idem, “Friendship”; cf. earlier idem, “Pneumatology,” 350–63; see further discussion in Culy, “Friend,” 55–108 (cited in Parsons, Luke, 73); Fitzgerald, Friendship; Gehrke, “Friendship”; Reibnitz, “Friendship.” The material here is adapted from Keener, John, 1006–9. 6054. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.28–29; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.42; 12.76; Epict. Diatr. 2.22; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5e, pp. 30–31.5–6; 2.7.5g, pp. 32–33.3–4; 2.7.11k, pp. 84–85.26–27; 2.7.5 L, pp. 34–35.20; 34.30–37.1; 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.13–18; Iambl. V.P. 16.69–70; 33.229–36; Libanius Anecdote 1. On types of friendship, see Marshall, Enmity, 24–32; Keener, “Pneumatology,” 351–55. 6055. E.g., Arist. E.E. 7.1234b–1246a; N.E. 8–9; Plut. Many Friends, Mor. 93A–97B; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.94–115; Cicero De amicitia; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 3 (“On True and False Friendships”); 9 (“On Philosophy

2913

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 617

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

and Jewish society. “Friendship” could signify a relationship of dependence or of equality, of impersonal alliances or of personal bonds of affection. Although some of these divisions can be expressed by opposing Roman and Greek conceptions, there was sufficient interpenetration of the two by the time of the early empire that a hard-and-fast categorization along these lines is not useful for the purposes here.6056 One frequent use of “friendship” in our literary sources refers to political dependence on a royal patron.6057 This usage applies to tyrants of the classical period,6058 to the intimate circle of Alexander of Macedon,6059 to a high office in Hellenistic Syria,6060 to friendship with Caesar in the Roman imperial period,6061 and to other rulers.6062 Some insisted that true friends of a ruler ought to have freedom to speak frankly, as opposed to the flatterers with whom tyrants surrounded themselves (Max. Tyre 14.7). In one of its most common uses in ancient literature, “friendship” (φιλία) applied to alliances, cooperation, or nonaggression treaties among peoples; this usage appears in Homer and Virgil6063 and in other works of rhetoric and literature6064 and naturally predominates in military biographers6065 and historians.6066 “Friendship” could likewise apply to personal and familial relationships undertaken for political expediency.6067 Romans felt no shame in openly acknowledging this; Pliny praises and is eager to help one who sought his friendship because of Pliny’s status and Friendship”); Lucian Toxaris; Theophrastus (according to Aul. Gel. 1.3.10–11). See Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 85, 144; Sevenster, Seneca, 172–77. 6056. Plutarch, e.g., weaves together both Greek and Roman traditions of friendship (see O’Neil, “Plutarch on Friendship”). 6057. In ancient Israel, see, e.g., 2 Sam 15:37; 16:16–17; 1 Kgs 4:5; 1 Chr 27:33; perhaps 13:3. 6058. Diog. Laert. 1.54 (Pisistratus, offering a position to Solon). 6059. Diod. Sic. 17.31.6; 17.39.2; 17.100.1. For friends of Cassander, see 18.55.1. 6060. Diod. Sic. 33.4.4a. 6061. Vell. Paterc. 2.90.1; Epict. Diatr. 4.1.45–50; Mart. Epig. 5.19.15–16; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; 1.18.3; 3.5.7; Tac. Ann. 3.30; 4.31, 34, 39–40; Suet. Aug. 66; Horace 2; Hdn. 4.3.5; inscriptions in Deissmann, Light, 378; cf. Friedländer, Life, 1:70–82; 4:58–74. For this designation’s broad (and fictitious) application to the ruling class, see Pliny Panegyr. 42.3; Lintott, “Cliens,” 452. Of Jewish tetrarchs and rulers, only King Agrippa I adopted this title in his coins; see Meyshan, “Coins.” The probably late and fabricated evidence of CPJ 2:71–72, §156a; 76, §156b, nevertheless reflects earlier custom. 6062. 1 Macc 10:20; 15:28, 32; 2 Macc 7:24; Let. Aris. 40–41, 44, 190, 208, 225, 228, 318; Jos. Ant. 12.366 (though cf. 12.391); 13.146, 225; Life 131; Corn. Nep. 9 (Conon), 2.2; 18 (Eumenes), 1.6; Char. Chaer. 8.8.10; cf. Sipre Deut. 53.1.3; Gen. Rab. 34:9. Cf. perhaps Sib. Or. 3.756 (probably second-century b.c.e. Alexandria); Deissmann, Studies, 167–68. The Roman title “Friends of the People” reflects an office advocating for the people but of less rank than that of being a leader in the senate (Cic. Sest. 49.105; Prov. cons. 16.38). John 19:12 probably refers to this position of honor; see Sherwin-White, Society, 47; also many commentators (Brown, John, 2:879; Barrett, John, 543; Michaels, John, 309; Stauffer, Jesus and Story, 133). 6063. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.93, 256; 4.17; 16.282; Virg. Aen. 11.321. 6064. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.2, §192; Aeschines Embassy 30, 39; Demosth. Navy 5; Fals. leg. 62; Ep. 3.27; Strabo 8.5.5; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8, 11; 39.2; 40.16, 23, 26, 36–37; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.109 (but cf. similar interests in 1.111); 2.83; Libanius Anecdote 1.6; cf. Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Max. Tyre 35.7–8; Philost. Hrk. 35.4. 6065. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 3.2.23; Arrian Alex. 1.28.1; 4.15.2, 5; 4.21.8; 7.15.4; Plut. Pel. 5.1; 29.4; Plut. S. Kings, Epameinondas 17, Mor. 193DE; Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa 4.6; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 4.7; 5.3; 7.5; 14 (Datames), 8.5; 23 (Hannibal), 10.2; Jos. Life 30, 124. 6066. E.g., Polyb. 1.62.8; 14.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.28.7; 3.51.1; 5.26.4; 5.50.3; 6.21.2; 6.95.1; 8.9.3; 8.36.3; 15.7.2; Diod. Sic. 14.30.4; 14.56.2; 17.39.1; 17.54.2; 19.66.6; 19.67.1; 21.12.6; 31.5.3; 32.16.1; 33.28b.4; 40.1.2; Livy 6.2.3; 27.4.6; 43.6.9; 45.12.6; Sall. Jug. 14.17; 102.6; Tac. Ann. 4.26; Suet. Jul. 11; Hdn. 4.7.3; 4.15.8; 1 Macc 12:1, 3, 8; 14:40; Jos. Ant. 18.101; cf. 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Macc 11:14. For further discussion in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, see Balch, “Friendship.” 6067. Often in Plutarch (e.g., Ages. 23.6; Pomp. 70.4; Statecraft 13, Mor. 806F–809B; Phil. Power 1, Mor. 776AB; Old Men 6, Mor. 787B); but also elsewhere (e.g., Jos. Ant. 19.341; Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Fronto Ad am. 1.8; Apul. Flor. 16.36–37; 17.4; Ach. Tat. 4.6.1–3). Contrast the older Stoic values of Chrysippus in Diog. Laert. 7.7.189; later, Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11c, pp. 64–65.26–30; but cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 74. Even among Greeks, whereas Aristotle notes friendships based on goodness, pleasure, or utility (E.E. 7.2.9–13, 1236a; 7.10.10, 1242b; N.E. 8.13.1, 1162ab), he assigns most to utility (E.E. 7.2.14, 1236a).

2914

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 618

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

and thereby recognized Pliny’s honor.6068 Although Greek and Roman practices had influenced each other by this period, the Roman ideal of amicitia was traditionally more political and utilitarian than the Greek idea of friendship.6069 To say that Romans “were rather incapable of a heartfelt friendship”6070 is an exaggeration based on the one-sided portrayal of the literature of the social elite6071 and I believe an exaggeration even there. Cicero’s letters of friendship contain political elements, including implicit negotiations with other political figures and letters of recommendation,6072 but one cannot escape the clear impression of affection that pervades much of his correspondence. Nevertheless, the generalization does reflect the importance of political connections in the urban Roman conception of friendship. Especially in (but not limited to) the Roman sphere, “friendship” did not always imply social equality of the parties concerned; both the royal and some of the nonroyal political images of friendship are probably related to the use of the word for patron-client relationships. Patrons were called the clients’ friends,6073 and clients were called friends of their patron.6074 Romans might categorize friendships according to greater, equal, or lesser friends and (lesser still) clients, according to their available resources.6075 A patron could be viewed as a “generous friend.”6076 (Clients sometimes exploited their understanding of this “friendship” to challenge some inequities in the patrons’ understanding of the relationship.)6077 Friendship was generally conditional, often including “obligations and expectations,”6078 whether formally or informally. Not all ancient Mediterranean conceptions of friendship, however, reflected this hierarchical sort of relationship, even where reciprocity was anticipated. In the eastern Mediterranean, societies of friends could include fellow members of one’s guild,6079 or “friends” could consist of one’s age-peers.6080 Although age-group societies may have declined in the Hellenistic and Roman periods,6081 among the wealthy the classical Greek image of friendship tended to be companionship based on groupings of the 6068. Pliny Ep. 6.18.2; cf. 3.11.8–9; 6.6.5. One anxious for another’s friendship might thereby merit it (7.31.1). It was appropriate to honor friends (7.28.1–3). 6069. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29, going on to note the use for clients. Cf. Judge, Pattern, 33–34 (in the context of imperial friendships): “Not simply a spontaneous relationship of mutual affection. It was a status of intimacy conferred on trusted companions.” Amicitia also affected the Judean elite (Avidov, “Peer Solidarity”). 6070. Friedländer, Life, 1:225. 6071. Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 29: “It is doubtful that any but those with some wealth and leisure could attain either the Greek or the Roman ideal of friendship.” 6072. E.g., Cic. Verr. 1.7.18 (one must be careful what one says about friends of rank); for his letters of recommendation, see, e.g., Fam. 7.5.2–3; 13; on friendship in his letters, see Fiore, “Theory.” 6073. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 1; Val. Max. 7.8.7; Tac. Ann. 16.32; Philost. Hrk. 4.3; 10.2; Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, line 5; cf. AE 1912.171 (in Sherk, Empire, 235); Symm. Ep. 1.28; 1.30; 1.37.1; 1.106. Iambl. V.P. 22.101; 33.230 admonishes respect for benefactors in a friendship. I include here examples of benefaction beyond technical patronage. Cf. cities’ “friends,” though these might not be benefactors (Libanius Anecdote 1.7). 6074. Mart. Epig. 3.36.1–3; 3 Macc 5:26; Symm. Ep. 1.29; 1.103; 1.106; probably P.Oxy. 2861 (in Stowers, Letter Writing, 63); cf. Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 98.5–6; deSilva, Honor, 99. See also, e.g., a magician dependent on a spirit (PGM 1.172, 190–91). 6075. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149, citing Pliny Ep. 2.6.2; 7.3.2; Sen. Y. Ep. 94.14. 6076. Val. Max. 7.8.7 (LCL, 2:185). Friendship entailed generosity toward friends (Apul. Apol. 23), whatever the status relationship. 6077. See Konstan, “Patrons.” 6078. Meeks, Urban Christians, 30; cf. Aune, Environment, 166–67; esp. and most fully Marshall, Enmity, 1–24. See, e.g., Alciph. Farm. 12 (Cotinus to Trygodorus), 3.15; Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7; most fully and helpfully Evans, “Friendship,” 202, on mutual obligation in private letters. Seneca regarded the bestowal and receiving of favors as society’s primary bond (Ben. 1.4.2, in deSilva, Honor, 96). 6079. See Horsley, Documents, 4:17–18, §3 (from Saittai, close to Ephesus). 6080. Iambl. V.P. 31.188. 6081. See Stowers, Letter Writing, 30.

2915

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 619

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

same sex and age, which constituted political parties.6082 Among the Greek schools, the Epicureans in particular emphasized friendship,6083 regarding it as a source of pleasure.6084 Although Roman patronal friendship made only the vaguest pretense to equality, if any pretense at all, this Greek image of friendship, even when related to benefaction, demanded equality. Plato applied the title “friendship” to affection for peers and equals, though he also applied it to the affection of the poor for the rich who could meet their needs, which could also generate “love” (Plato Laws 8.837AB). More relevant, Aristotle cited an earlier saying, “Friendship is equality” (ἰσότης ἡ φιλότης),6085 and is said to have “defined friendship as an equality [ἰσότητα] of reciprocal goodwill, including under the term as one species the friendship of kinsmen, as another that of lovers, and as a third that of host and guest.”6086 The motif of friendship as equality also prevailed in the Neopythagorean writings.6087 The notion of friendship as equality was, however, hardly limited to Greek philosophers. As early as Homer, a leader could honor a special friend above his other companions, regarding him as “equal” (ἶσον) to himself.6088 Alexandrian Jewish writers also adopted this notion; in Let. Aris. 228, the highest honor is to be shown to parents, but the next honor to one’s friends, for a friend is the “equal of one’s own soul.” 6089 Thus one papyrus letter recommends a friend (amicum) by exhorting the receiver to view him “as if he were me.”6090 In Greek thought, a friend was like a “second self,”6091 meaning that one would care about one’s friend the way one would care for oneself.6092 The Asiarchs’ warning Paul against entering the theater could be construed in terms of Greek friendship’s concern for the other person; indeed, one ideal of such friendship was to die for or with a friend.6093 But Luke’s original audience, though undoubtedly pleased with Paul’s significant marks of status vis-à-vis the average resident of the eastern Mediterranean world (Acts 16:37; 21:39; 22:28), will nevertheless not confuse his rank with that of the Asiarchs. One might envision them as his disciples,6094 hence allowing a relationship based on reciprocity of benefits. It is far more likely, 6082. See ibid., 28–30, 39, 60; cf. Gould, Love, 143–45; perhaps Cic. Amic. 5.18. Plut. Table 4.intro., Mor. 660A, advocates befriending only the good while showing goodwill toward all. Age-group associations appear in other cultures as well (cf. the Masai; Mbiti, Religions, 165–66). 6083. Culpepper, School, 101; Stowers, Letter Writing, 66; Meeks, Moral World, 57; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 143; Smith, Symposium, 58; Dorandi, “Epicurean School,” 1074. 6084. Diog. Laert. 10.120; 148.27–28; Cic. Fin. 1.20.65–70; cf. Philod. Prop. 24.27–29. The view of the Epicurean Lucretius in Nat. 5.1019–23 sounds like later social contract theories. Stoics, by contrast, valued friendship for its own sake (Cic. Fin. 3.21.70). 6085. Arist. E.E. 7.9.1, 1241b. Nevertheless, Aristotle treats friendship in especially political terms (for relations in a classical polis); see Schroeder, “Friendship,” 56 (for the Peripatetic tradition, cf. 45–56). 6086. Diog. Laert. 5.31 (Hicks, LCL, 1:478–79; cf. Arist. Rhet. 2.4.28, 1381b33, from LCL note). Any kind of friendship could exist either between equals or with one as a superior (Arist. E.E. 7.3.2, 1238b; 7.10.10, 1242b; N.E. 8.7.1, 1158b; 8.13.1, 1162ab); Aristotle further defined “equality” more proportionately than quantitatively (N.E. 8.7.2–3, 1158b). 6087. See Thom, “Equality”; Iambl. V.P. 29.162; 30.167. 6088. Hom. Il. 18.81–82. 6089. Hadas, Aristeas, 189. 6090. P.Oxy. 32.5–6 (second century c.e.); cf. Phlm 17–19. 6091. E.g., Diod. Sic. 17.37.6; Cic. Fam. 7.5.1; 13.1.5. 6092. E.g., Cic. Fin. 1.20.70; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 95.63. 6093. For dying for one another, see Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2, 6); Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Libanius Anecdote 1.22 (cf. risking lives in 1.19–20); cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.235–36; Diog. Laert. 10.120; for dying together, see Eurip. Orest. 1069–74, 1155; Iph. Taur. 674–86; Char. Chaer. 4.3.5; 7.1.7; cf. Sent. Syr. Men. 406–7; Syr. Men. Epit. 22–23; cf. dying with lovers in the romances (e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; 2.1, 7; 3.5; 4.5; 5.4). See more extensive comment in Keener, John, 1004–5. 6094. The usage of friendship language for benefaction relationships may have influenced the use of friendship language in the relationship between philosopher and disciple (Diog. Laert. 6.2.36; Iambl. V.P. 31.187; Stowers, Letter Writing, 39).

2916

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 620

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

however, that Luke’s audience would have recognized that these Asiarchs were not only citizens of the Greek East but members of the high elite, presumably Roman citizens. They were benefactors, who displayed their benefactions in return for honor. The relationship is thus more like the patron-client, hierarchical relationship than one of intimate6095 equality. The A s i a rch s’ A ct ions H er e

In Ephesus, the imperial cult was connected in some respects, for matters of prestige, with the cult of Artemis (see discussion at Acts 19:40). The local politics of Artemis and her honor was related to the international politics of the emperor and his honor and hence could be imbued with more ominous political implications.6096 Probably many priests and priestesses of Artemis in this period, and certainly civic magistrates charged with administrating the cult and its resources,6097 came from the same social stratum as the Asiarchs and overlapped with them. For their dependent to be condemned for speaking against the goddess would embarrass Paul’s patrons and violate the expected duties of a client or other dependent to bring only honor to one’s benefactor.6098 For Paul to be accused yet not condemned was better, but if there was any possibility of his being condemned or of public hearings dragging out the matter, it was best for their own reputation6099 if he left Ephesus quietly and was quickly forgotten. If the matter came to court, Paul might be vindicated, but unless this vindication happened quickly, supporters of Demetrius would be strengthened, rumors would spread, and the situation would reflect negatively on the Asiarchs’ patronage. The worst case, however, was for Paul to appear before the current unofficial “court” (of immediate public opinion), which would certainly condemn him—a mob already primed to reject anything that might appear to dishonor “the great goddess Artemis” (19:28, 33–34). It is possible that the Asiarchs who urged Paul not to make matters worse by speaking publicly sought help privately from the city clerk (19:35), which would explain the clerk’s knowledge of the case (19:37–38). If so, they solicited a favor from members of their own social class; since relationships required reciprocity, humbling themselves 6095. In the Greek and Jewish ideal, one could trust one’s friends with one’s secrets (Sir 6:9; 22:22; 27:17 [on Sirach’s specifically Jewish adaptation of the Greek friendship ideal, see Corley, “Caution”]; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.207; cf. Isoc. Demon. 24–25; Philo Sobr. 55) and could speak the truth rather than flattery (Isoc. Ad Nic. 28; Sen. Y. Dial. 10.15.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.82; Plut. Flatt. 17, Mor. 59A; 24, Mor. 65AB; Educ. 17, Mor. 13B; Lucian Posts 1; Max. Tyre 14.6). For the ideal of intimacy in friendship, see more fully Keener, John, 1009–11. Affection was a heavy emphasis in the classical conception of φιλία, including what we mean by friendship (Konstan, “Friendship”). 6096. Cf., e.g., the sycophancy that the emperor cult could engender (Caesar as greater than other gods, Val. Max. 1.pref.). In the Augustan period, the cults of Artemis and Augustus both probably lay in the political area north of the temenos (Scherrer, “Ephesos from Roman Period,” 5–6). 6097. The χρυσοφόροι, the board of wardens or trustees (νεοποῖαι), and the college of curates in Ephesus all helped administer the temple and its wealth (Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 36). (Another spelling is νεωποιοί.) Neōpoioi administered temple property and finance (Cheesman, “Neopoioi,” 648), a range of meaning that might overlap with neōkoros in this period (cf. Williams, “Neokoros,” 639). 6098. In forensic polemic, association with someone charged with a crime could implicate one (e.g., Quint. Decl. 307.6). More generally, moralists advised avoiding the company of the disreputable, including those convicted of a crime, whether in traditional Greek (Theophr. Char. 29.2; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.16, 21–22; Crates Ep. 12; Socratics Ep. 24; Diod. Sic. 12.12.3; 12.14.1; Diog. Laert. 1.60; Babr. 9–12) or in Judean (Ps 1:1; Sir 6:7–12; 12:13–18; 13:1; Let. Aris. 130; Ps.-Phoc. 134; m. ʾAb. 1:6–7; 2:9; Sipre Deut. 286.11.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 16, §36 B; Luke 5:30) culture; see discussion in Keener, Matthew, 297. Pervo, Acts, 495–96, complains about these Asiarchs’ nonintervention in the (consequently implausible) narrative but seems to miss the honor element here; their behavior makes perfect historical sense given their role as Paul’s (patronal) “friends.” 6099. In response to my “Asiarchs,” Richard Fellows has plausibly suggested to me (personal correspondence, June 3, 2007) that this embarrassment is why Luke leaves them anonymous, when otherwise their names (had Luke known them) could have been helpful (cf. Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1; 13:7, 12).

2917

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 621

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to seek a favor obligated them further to their friends in office. It could represent a further indication that supporting Paul was not worth the political risk. In principle, patrons and clients were to demonstrate fidelity (πίστις) by remaining true to each other even in hard times; in practice, old political alliances were regularly abandoned for new ones.6100 This is not to say that the Asiarchs would publicly repudiate Paul (which would entail embracing the shame of admitting they had supported him); they might even write private letters of recommendation for him in another city. For the sake of their own honor they might guard his case if it came to court to ensure the discrediting of Demetrius’s charge.6101 It is possible that Paul may have remained on acceptable terms with them; for all we know (we have no means of knowing), he may have even remained on affectionate terms with some of them if he knew them personally. But Paul could not expect their open, public support in the city any longer. From the standpoint of Luke’s account, this portrayal underlines the apologetic point: Paul’s opponents were the rabble (19:24–29), but his supporters were people of status (19:31, 35, 37). Since it was the testimony of people of status that counted most in courts, Paul may have had relatively little to fear from the courts. This datum supports Luke’s picture of positive Roman legal precedents favoring Paul’s mission (along with Luke’s omission of his martyrdom). Although Paul might have disregarded his friends’ warning (see comment on Acts 19:30), he was morally constrained to heed the message sent by the Asiarchs who had publicly supported his teaching.6102 He valued opportunities to communicate his message more than he valued his life and safety (cf. 21:40–22:21), but he could not risk embarrassing the Asiarchs further. Aside from the question of honor obligations to benefactors, Paul had to be concerned with the long-range status of the church in Ephesus, a matter that could only be adversely affected if he incurred his former patrons’ hostility.6103 (4) The Confused Assembly (19:32)

Shouting was common in assemblies.6104 Unruly or riotous assemblies in theaters and other public assembly halls were common in antiquity and were hardly restricted to novels (see comment on Acts 19:28).6105 Dio Chrysostom reports that the shouts of one angry mob in a theater were so great that they nearly knocked him over.6106 The confusion described here does not prevent the mob from being “united” in their folly (cf. 19:29, 34);6107 it resembles the state of the similar mob in Jerusalem in 21:27, 31.6108 6100. For fidelity in patron-client relationships, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Fam. 13.46.1; Tac. Dial. 10 (cf. Tacitus’s outrage in Ann. 16.32); Suet. Calig. 16.4; Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, line 7; cf. Crook, “Loyalty”; deSilva, Honor, 115–16; on loyalty to friends, see, e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.86; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; Panegyr. 42.2; Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 3.4; Sir 6:7–12; cf. (lamenting its failure) Dio Chrys. Or. 66.28; Pliny Ep. 6.10.5; Phaedrus 3.9.1; Sent. Syr. Men. 282–84. 6101. Patronage could help a person in court (Chow, Patronage, 75). Friendships with the imperial family sometimes even placed persons above the law (e.g., Tac. Ann. 1.75; 2.34; Suet. Tib. 33; Chow, Patronage, 77), but Asiarchs could not provide that much favor. Even Pliny as governor “had to act cautiously when prosecuting some of the strong men” (Pliny Ep. 2.11; cf. 3.9; 5.4, 13; Chow, Patronage, 78). 6102. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 182, suggests that “their advice amounted to a command” because they “presided over the theatre.” 6103. Cf. the similar concern for believers left behind in Acts 16:37–40. Rousseau similarly had to leave France, not only for reasons of safety but “partly to avoid embarrassing his patrons” (Brown, Thought, 297). 6104. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350, cites Dio Chrys. Or. 40.3, 29; 47.18–20; 48.2, 10. 6105. Trebilco, “Asia,” 350, provides numerous examples (Livy 31.15.2; 34.50.4; Jos. War 7.46–48; Ant. 19.24; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.25; 46.10; 48.3; Tac. Ann. 1.77; 6.13; 11.13; Hist. 1.72; Hdn. 1.12.5). 6106. See Dio Chrys. Or. 7.25–26; Jones, Chrysostom, 21, 58 (in Yamauchi, Cities, 81). 6107. Is Satan’s kingdom here divided (Luke 11:18)? 6108. Employing the term συγχέω; cf. Acts 19:29, employing σύγχυσις; more positively, συγχέω in 2:6; 9:22.

2918

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 622

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

The term ἐκκλησία was a common term for citizen or other assemblies6109 in, for example, Rome,6110 Antioch,6111 Jerusalem,6112 and (particularly relevant here) Ephesus.6113 This body, composed of male adult citizens (or a smaller group based on property qualifications), was the primary organ of public decisions in Greek states following the old Athenian model; details such as spheres of authority and meeting times varied among cities.6114 If this is not a legally constituted “assembly” (but, rather, a “crowd,” as in 19:35; cf. 19:33), ἐκκλησία here and in 19:40 may be somewhat ironic (contrast 19:39).6115 Some scholars argue that the incident indeed involves a regular meeting of the assembly and not just a mob that stormed the theater; how else would Paul or Alexander suppose they could receive a hearing?6116 In this case, the reason the plaintiffs dragged in Paul’s companions would be to make sure that they could be charged (cf. 17:5–6), and the problem with the meeting (19:40) was not its timing but its conduct. This proposal would explain the use of ἐκκλησία here; it could represent one of the city’s regularly held extra meetings, nevertheless distinct from the “regular assembly” (19:39; see comment there). Luke might well have an apologetic reason to emphasize the unruly behavior of the accusers; this would not be the only occasion where some scholars think that his narrative seems to send mixed signals about a dangerous hearing’s venue (cf. 6:12; 7:1, 58). It is reasonable that the silver workers were bringing a complaint (and two of its suddenly seized objects) to an extra meeting that subsequently went out of control; this would explain the theater venue. But one wonders how this matter would get on the docket of the public assembly, the time of which was precious, rather than be addressed first in the courts, where it belonged (as the clerk rightly suggests in 19:38). Further, why contrast the “regular assembly” with an additional assembly? It is also possible that many of those who gathered thought that it was a suddenly called, irregular, but official meeting when in fact official channels had been circumvented. One can read the narrative either way, but it does seem plausible that this is a riot (see comment on 24:5) rather than a public judicial action. That the mob did not know why it was assembled provides humorous irony (cf. again 21:34; 23:6–9),6117 again reinforcing Luke’s consistent portrait that Paul’s enemies in Ephesus were demagogues and Paul was the scholar (cf. 19:9). Ancient thinkers could employ mobs to symbolize uncontrolled passions, in contrast to pure contemplation (Max. Tyre 11.10; 27.6). Claiming that the multitude did not know the purpose also leaves the primary blame on those who stirred up the trouble, diminishing the image of popular hostility against Paul; one may compare the multitudes’ ignorance of the purpose of the public assembly called by Josephus’s opponents in 6109. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 34.21 (cf. 45.15, convened by a proconsul); Lucian Peregr. 15; Diogenes Ep. 9; Char. Chaer. 8.7.1; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.38 (using the verb); Libanius Anecdote 3.13; see Gomme, Cadoux, and Rhodes, “Ekklēsia.” It could apply even to an army assembly (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.94.1; Philost. Hrk. 33.10, 13; 48.6, 8). Public speech in the assembly could be contrasted with the less civic speech in the agora (Dio Chrys. Or. 51.2; Lucian Indictment 8). For the lxx use for Israel, see comment on Acts 7:38. 6110. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.87.1; 7.17.2; 11.50.1. 6111. Jos. Ant. 13.114. 6112. Jos. War 1.550, 666; 4.162, 255. 6113. Cf. the Salutaris inscription cited earlier and comments in Deissmann, Light, 113. 6114. Rhodes, “Ekklesia,” 868. 6115. Witherington, Acts, 596. Believers might also hear an ironic contrast with the churches, although adult Greek-speakers would have known the civic sense of the term first. 6116. Strelan, Artemis, 149. 6117. Pervo, Profit, 61. Bruce, Commentary, 400, finds here “Luke’s Greek sense of humour” (cf. idem, Acts1, 366; Pelikan, Acts, 149). For misinformed mobs today, cf., e.g., Shortt, Christianophobia, 146.

2919

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 623

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Tiberias ( Jos. Life 280). Likewise, a political biographer complains that Aristides was banished for a few years and that many who voted against him did not even know the charge (Corn. Nep. 3 [Aristides], 1.4). Luke might wish, for apologetic reasons, to portray the crowd as not knowing that Paul was the object of their furor, but he could well be right on this matter, since Christians in Ephesus seem to have grown unhindered after his departure.6118 As to the humor, mingling humor with serious subjects was a useful rhetorical technique.6119 (5) Anti-Jewish Outcry (19:33–34)

Here (as perhaps in Acts 18:17 in Corinth) Luke names a leading member of the synagogue community (probably) opposed to Paul,6120 as if this information had remained important to some Pauline churches in his era. It is possible that this is Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 4:14);6121 but the synagogue may have had members of higher status than an artisan to put forward (despite relevance to the current situation—Acts 19:24–25, 38), and Alexander was a common name both among Diaspora Jews (see comment on Acts 4:6) and among all residents of Ephesus.6122 The name was so common that on several occasions we read of “Alexander, son of Alexander.”6123 The Alexander mentioned here might be among the later accusers of Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27); because he is not named there, however, we can only infer that he belonged to the same group of Ephesian synagogue members that was alienated from Paul. Whether or not Luke expects his audience to recognize the name, it probably suggests that Luke depends on a larger pool of prior information than what he is able to report.6124 De f e n ding Je w i sh R ig h t s

Josephus reveals that Asian Jews preserved records of legal precedents and decrees in their favor.6125 (On the Jewish community in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19; 19:8–9.) Rome had guaranteed synagogues in Asia the right to assemble,6126 but 6118. There is no hint of persecution in Ephesians or the depiction of Timothy’s own ministry in the Pastorals. Moreover, Rev 2:1–7 omits mention not only of persecution but even of any challenge from the strong local imperial cult. 6119. See Cic. Brut. 93.322; Pliny Ep. 8.21.1; for examples, see Cic. Fam. 9.25.2; Pliny Ep. 1.21.1–2; for praise of humor or wit, e.g., Cic. Fin. 4.26.73; Brut. 43.158; Suet. Vesp. 23.1–4; Fronto Fer. als. 3.5. 6120. Some argue that Alexander was a Jewish believer in Jesus rather than a representative of the synagogue with which Paul had been in conflict in Acts 19:8–9; I view this proposal as less consistent with Luke’s narrative (our only extant source), but see comment below under “Luke’s Source?” 6121. So (as a probability) Lightfoot, “Third Notebook on Acts,” 38 (from Witherington). This Alexander could instead be the false Christian teacher of 1 Tim 1:20 (his apparent colleague Hymenaeus claims Christian faith in an errant form in 2 Tim 2:17–18); but again, the name is a common one. Strelan, Artemis, 148, rightly critiques the identification of Luke’s Alexander with that of 2 Tim 4:14. It is likelier that the two hostile Alexanders of the Pastorals should be identified than that either should be identified with the one in Acts 19 (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 216; cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 67–68, 593; Fee, Timothy, 22). The “harm” of 2 Tim 4:14 could involve, as perhaps with Luke’s Alexander (cf. Acts 21:27–29), legal accusation (cf. Fee, Timothy, 244–45), but the terminology does not imply this (see BDAG). 6122. E.g., I. Eph. 17.68; 597; 898.3, 4; 1977a; 1987; 2018; 3031; 3429 (the full list consumes nearly three full columns in the index of I. Eph. [vol. 8.2, pp. 9–10]). Cf. the metropolitan named Alexandros (son of) Demetrios (I. Eph. 3429.25). Brookins, “Name,” counts 1,443 individuals so named in antiquity. 6123. E.g., I. Eph. 614.18; 1020.7 (perhaps six passages). 6124. Stoops, “Riot,” 86, doubts that the name is simply from a source: “The surprise is intended to direct the reader’s attention to the issue of Jewish rights.” Alexander does perform this narrative function, but this need not explain his unexplained, sudden appearance, which probably stems instead from Luke’s compression of too much of his material in too little space. 6125. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:452–53 (esp. Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights; Rajak, “Charter,” 112–14). 6126. Trebilco, Communities, 13. For Jewish privileges in Ephesus, established by the Seleucids and continued by Rome, Hemer, Acts in History, 122, cites Jos. Ant. 12.119, 125–26; 14.225–30, 263–64.

2920

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 624

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

various cities had sometimes “challenged or withdrawn” these rights as recently as the first century b.c.e.6127 The rights were barely challenged in the first century c.e., but the communal memories of potentially persecuted minorities preserve warnings over long periods. Leaders in the Jewish community would be anxious to preserve their community’s favorable status and reputation. If they knew enough of the charge to realize that it concerned Paul’s preaching of monotheism to Gentiles (19:26; after two more hours at least, the city clerk knew the lead accuser’s identity, 19:38), they must therefore have wished to dissociate themselves from Paul, who was certainly no longer part of their synagogue (19:8–9).6128 They were willing to live as a peaceful, uncontentious minority within the city; Gentiles could live as Gentiles so long as Jews could live as Jews. In an earlier time, some Ionians had protested some Jewish people being local citizens when they refused to participate in civic religion, the worship of local deities (Ant. 12.125–26).6129 With this communal memory, local Jews might hope especially for tolerance of their own nonparticipation rather than significant conversion of polytheists. It was the outsider Paul, not the official synagogue, who was actively seeking to convert Gentiles (and their fellow Jews) to his views.6130 The synagogue adherents’ attempt to distinguish themselves from Paul, however, backfired; if many in the crowd knew nothing except that their shouts defended the sanctity of Artemis, they might view as instigators of the trouble Jews who denied the reality of gods made with hands (19:26). Alexander may intend to dissociate the synagogue from Paul; the crowd may expect instead a defense of monotheism, perhaps under the guise of a defense of Jewish rights. In a legal setting, one could protest that one should not be tried for what another did (Hermog. Issues 44.7–9); but this is a mob, not a courtroom. Although local Jews probably did not vocally challenge the cultural status quo (they were tolerated, and they probably tolerated in turn),6131 it would be well known that Jews did not believe in Artemis.6132 Normal toleration often gives way in mob settings, and some members of this crowd, much of it unaware of the nature of the alleged assault on Artemis’s dignity (Acts 19:32), assume that the Jewish speaker authored the assault.6133 In several cities of the empire, uneasiness over foreign Jews contributed to mistreatment of local Jews.6134 Such circumstances were less likely in mid-first-century Ephesus, but it was still a genuine risk. Five or six decades before the present incident, Greeks in Ephesus apparently stole money intended for Jerusalem, tried to force Jews to court on the Sabbath, and sought to steal holy books and other sacred items 6127. Trebilco, Communities, 183–84. 6128. Cf. Judge, Patterns, 41; Bruce, Commentary, 400. 6129. For brief discussion, see Barclay, Jews in Diaspora, 271. 6130. Dunn, Acts, 264, doubts that they would dissociate themselves from Paul’s anti-idolatry teaching (reading the split of Acts 19:8–9 as far more amicable than the text seems to allow [258]; also Parsons, Acts, 276); but there is a difference between holding a belief and “rocking the boat” by preaching it to outsiders whom it might offend. 6131. Cf. how fully local Jews of nearby Smyrna became part of civic life there (e.g., Gibson, “Inscriptions of Smyrna”). 6132. Cf. the prediction of the demise of Ephesus’s Artemisium in Sib. Or. 5.293–94 (probably from late first- to early second-century c.e. Egypt). 6133. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 96–97, doubts that Ephesus had the sort of long-term anti-Judaism found in Alexandria and argues that even if it did, it does not reflect the Jewish community’s normal status there (e.g., Dio Chrysostom held high status in Prusa yet caused unrest, Or. 46). Although he is likely right about long-term anti-Judaism, negative stereotypes can still flare in a mob situation. 6134. Stoops, “Riot,” 85 (citing Jos. War 7.47; Ant. 16.59; 18.81–84; Suet. Tib. 36; Tac. Ann. 2.85).

2921

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 625

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

from synagogues ( Jos. Ant. 16.160–64).6135 We lack reason to suppose that Luke exaggerates the danger here. Elsewhere, in another theater about 70 c.e., an apostate or traitorous Jew in Antioch accused Jews of planning to burn the city; the crowd burned the accused alive (War 7.47–48)—an event much more dramatic than the incident that Luke reports.6136 The C on te x t of A ct s

Earlier in Acts, apostles bore the brunt of pagan anti-Judaism (Acts 16:20–21); in Corinth and Ephesus, however, attempts of some Jewish leaders to dissociate themselves from Paul (if this is the point) lead to more trouble for them rather than for Paul (cf. 18:17).6137 Many in the synagogue, already split through Paul’s activity there (19:8–9), probably held Paul’s “intolerant” preaching responsible for their embarrassment. (They were already opposing him in Ephesus in the summary of 20:19, although Luke focuses at length only on the pagans’ riot for Paul’s opposition there.) Thus it is not surprising that Asian Jews visiting the temple, perhaps for Pentecost, later oppose Paul (21:27–28) and leave behind the charge that he stirs unrest in Jewish communities (24:5). Luke’s report, however, is ironic: Asian Jews accuse Paul of preaching against their people and law and temple to Gentiles (21:28), whereas the reader knows precisely the opposite: the charge in Ephesus was that Paul preached against pagan gods and would turn the world from honoring a pagan temple (19:26–27). U na ble to Be H e a r d

When Alexander signals with his hand, he is trying to attract the crowd’s attention. Sometimes in Acts, hand motions are rhetorical gestures for speeches (13:16; 26:1), but on other occasions, they probably indicate that the speaker seeks attention visually, unable to procure it verbally because of noise (12:17; 21:40).6138 The situation here was not unusual (cf. comment on Acts 18:17). When individuals began shouting instead of taking turns as they normally would, the people could not understand what was being said (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.15.4). One who wished to speak had to either silence the disorganized noise in an assembly (9.48.1, with rival factions) or wait for it to quiet down (6.88.1). In novels we read of assemblies crying out with such clamor that it was difficult to hear or be heard (Heliod. Eth. 1.13). But this was the nature of uncontrolled assemblies in historical works as well. People cried out in the senate, shouting their disapproval (Diod. Sic. 40.5a.1). One assembly was reportedly so unruly that it stoned attempted speakers to death without waiting to see whether they supported or challenged the rabble-rousers (Polyb. 1.69.10–13). On that occasion, the only phrase the various rioting groups recognized was, “Stone him” (1.69.12). Nor was it unusual for a crowd to react with hostility to a speaker once they knew his identity. A crowd could not hear one Phocion because of the rioters’ noise, seeing only his gestures even when he called loudly. The mob listened to the opening words of his friends, but when it became clear that they were speaking for the defense, they 6135. Strelan, Artemis, 150. 6136. Ibid., 150–51n40. 6137. For the same principle of irony, cf. John 11:48 (see Duke, Irony, 87–88; Keener, John, 855; on irony, see Cic. Brut. 292; Rhet. Alex. 21.1434a.17–19, 27–29; Duke, Irony, 8–12; O’Day, Revelation, 12–19; Anderson, Glossary, 39, 108; Rowe, “Style,” 128–29; Keener, John, 223). 6138. Although there were specific gestures for quieting a crowd (see comment on Acts 12:17), Shiell, Reading Acts, 148–50, thinks that the intensity of the mob setting here required instead (149) the gesture starting an exordium (extending the hand, with the middle finger and thumb pressed together and the others outstretched).

2922

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 626

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

were driven away.6139 A crowd’s selective self-control was evident on other occasions; on one such occasion, a crowd listened to its leaders but drowned out the decemvir’s voice with noise (Livy 3.49.4). So common were interruptions such as jeering that some earlier Greek rhetoricians instructed speakers how to handle these situations.6140 If an opponent interrupts the speech toward the beginning, the speaker should complain that it is unfair that, despite the law granting one a right to a speech, his opponent refuses to let the audience hear even that (Rhet. Alex. 18, 1432b.35–40). If a few interrupt later in the speech, the speaker should demand that they allow the speech so that other jurors can make up their own minds (1433a.14–18). If most of the hearers clamor, the speaker should admit that he was wrong and beg the judges to hear him out; usually, the handbook advises, this will restore attention (1433a.19–25). A mob would not respond, however, to any of these tactics, especially if Alexander could not make himself heard. As Edwin Judge points out: “Another outlet through which the citizen body could make its opinions plain was in the unofficial but organized demonstrations that are a feature of Hellenistic city life. If not constitutionally valid, they often gained their point in a rough and ready way. The mass chanting of a crowd was difficult to resist.”6141 After an exceptionally persuasive speech, even a dignified assembly might clamor so thoroughly against another attempting to reply that the latter never was able to be heard (Pliny Ep. 9.13.19–20). Did the two-hour cry consist of chanting in unison or simply repeated individual shouts continuing amid the confusion?6142 In a theater holding some twenty thousand people (though fewer may be gathered here), it would not be difficult for individuals to catch the rhythm, once one group’s voices began to dominate sufficiently, to chant in unison.6143 It is not likely that anything but such a preexisting chant (on its use, see comment on Acts 19:28)6144 could unite the audience, and once begun its recitation could function as an act of religious fervor. Many ancient orations lasted two hours,6145 and so it is not unlikely that a mob, once aroused, could shout so long, until its fury was largely spent. L uk e’s S ource?

Some scholars think that Luke’s source referred to only an anti-Jewish riot, or an anti-Christian riot involving other Christians but not Paul. Lampe suggests that the account reflects a genuine riot and that Alexander, who is known to Luke’s audience, is a Jewish Christian,6146 but this may be too much to infer from the absence of τις (a 6139. Diod. Sic. 18.67.1–2. They proved unable to defend themselves (18.67.3–4). 6140. The verb for interruptions in the following citations from Rhet. Alex. is θορυβέω, which generally refers to making an uproar in the assembly by either cheering or jeering (LSJ), the latter being the clear sense in the passages (cf. Acts 17:5). Such a “tumult” (Lucian Indictment 12) could even lead to denunciations and, indeed, “choking” (Indictment 13). 6141. Judge, Pattern, 26–27. 6142. We are uncertain, for instance, how the acclamation “Sweet is the truth” was conducted at the Egyptian festivals of Thoth (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53–54, citing Plut. Isis 68, Mor. 378B). Pervo, Acts, 486, observes that “Artemis failed to respond”; it is not clear that anyone expected Artemis to do so, but if some did, one might think of 1 Kgs 18:26, 29. 6143. This should be obvious, since such chants can arise in crowds of similar size today without amplification or prior coordination. 6144. Preexisting chants would be widely known; e.g., at the end of the nocturnal mourning rites for Osiris, a coordinated shout arose, “Osiris has been found!” (Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 53, citing Plut. Isis 39, Mor. 366F). Cultic songs were also known, and some used them during drinking at festivals (Libanius Descr. 29.7). 6145. Cf. Cic. Brut. 93.324; Quint. Inst. 11.2.1–51; Tac. Dial. 38. 6146. Lampe, “Acta 19,” 75–76. The position that Alexander is a Jewish Christian is summarized in Strelan, Artemis, 134, 148; Rowe, World, 47. That the crowd denounces Alexander because they recognize him as a friend of Paul and fellow Christian (cf. 150) makes little sense of our current narrative; it took the crowd a few

2923

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 627

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“certain” Alexander).6147 Like a similar anti-Jewish backlash in Acts 18:17, this one contributes toward explaining the charge in 24:5. Alexander was put forward by “the Jews”; although “Jews” and “disciples” were not mutually exclusive categories, Luke normally identifies followers of the Jesus movement as such. That the event depicted in Luke’s source was an anti-Jewish riot not involving the Jesus movement would not explain why Luke would have used it; riots happened often enough that Luke would not need this specific model. Others, however, suggest that it was an anti-Christian riot not involving Paul.6148 But if Paul was in Ephesus, how could an anti-Christian riot not involve him in some way? (He likely worked there before “Johannine” Christians did, especially if many of these were Judeans who migrated to Ephesus after 70 c.e.)6149 Given the likelihood that Luke plays down the fact that Paul became unwelcome in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 20:16) and that (as already argued in ch. 10 of the introduction)6150 Luke may have written even within a decade after Paul’s death, there is little reason to make the source of this scene an anti-Christian riot after Paul’s departure. v. An Official Defends the Disciples (19:35–41)

While demagogues and perhaps synagogue leaders oppose Paul, duly represented authority defends him; this was a picture that would sit well with many hearers in the empire.6151 That Paul had highly placed allies is likely (see comment on Acts 19:31); that Luke reiterates the point, however, comports well with his apologetic design. (1) Introduction

Both the nature of the clerk’s speech and the politics that inform it are relevant here. We would expect the city clerk to calm the crowd with words such as these; we would also expect Paul’s influential allies to have lobbied their colleague on his behalf. The Of f ici a l’s S p ee ch

The official’s speech is rhetorically stronger than Demetrius’s in 19:25–27. Kennedy suggests the following rhetorical outline for the passage:6152 1. Proem (19:35): The shrine’s greatness is beyond debate. 2. Proposition (19:36): You should do nothing rash (cf. 5:38). 3. Argument (19:37–39): Paul and his colleagues did nothing sacrilegious, and this gathering is not the appropriate venue for investigation, in any event. 4. Epilogue (19:40): The speaker appeals to civic pride. moments, probably based on what he was trying to say, to recognize that he was Jewish (Acts 19:34), and Luke suggests that most of the crowd did not realize the object of its hatred (19:32). The proposal that Alexander is a non-Christian Jew sympathetic with Christians on idolatry (Shauf, Theology, 252–53, tentatively) is not impossible but seems less in keeping with Luke’s narration than the majority view that he wishes to dissociate the Jewish community from Paul (cf. 19:9; 21:27). 6147. So Strelan, Artemis, 134. Yet earlier (128) he doubts that the Pauline mission resulted in many converts in Ephesus. The smaller the Christian movement, the less likely would be an anti-Christian riot, and certainly without Paul being involved, if it comes from his time. 6148. Ibid., 134. 6149. For some Johannine Christians settling in Asia after the Judean revolt, see Keener, John, 144, 147; Beasley-Murray, John, xlvi; Bruce, Peter, 121–22 (citing early evidence from Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. 3.31.3–4; 5.24.2); Aune, Revelation, l (Roman numeral 50), 164 (citing IGRR 4.1431.29; CIJ 2, §742.29); for massive emigration from Judea after the war, see (from Aune, Revelation, l) Jos. Ant. 20.256. 6150. See Keener, Acts, 1:383–401, and also 406–14. 6151. On the apologetic value of this speech, see Padilla, Speeches, 182–88. 6152. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 132.

2924

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 628

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

The substance of the speech would be a matter of public record. Minutes were kept of official meetings of a civic assembly (or of any official body).6153 Whereas a mob situation did not invite the keeping of minutes, the official who spoke on behalf of order would want to be able to document his words afterward for the sake of a positive appeal to the governor to overlook the incident.6154 Luke’s sources here would not be official records, however (it is not even likely that he traveled to Ephesus [cf. 20:15–16], much less consulted records there); some of Paul’s traveling companions (19:29) and supporters (19:30–31) were present. One of his companions, Aristarchus, spent considerable time with the author of Acts afterward (20:4; 27:2; cf. Col 4:10, 14; Phlm 24). There is thus good reason to assume that Luke would have known at least his Christian informants’ summary of the basic thrust of the speech that disbanded the unlawful assembly. Luke could then develop such information plausibly into a more coherent speech, as ancient historians often did. Here, however, the précis reports no more than the thrust; however Luke may have adapted the speech, he could not have expanded it much. Be hin d -t he- S ce n e s A dvo cat e s?

The city clerk knows far more about the charges behind the riot (Acts 19:37–38) than does much of the crowd (19:32), and he knows it from a vantage point favorable to Paul’s colleagues (19:37). Luke writes too concisely to provide the details for what happened, but ancient readers might have reconstructed a behind-the-scenes effort on behalf of Paul’s colleagues. It is possible that Demetrius was known because he had previously petitioned the courts unsuccessfully on this matter or because he was making a personal appeal to officials during the riot that he had helped begin. It is equally or perhaps even more likely, however, that when Demetrius’s allies apprehended two of Paul’s colleagues (19:29), Paul and others (perhaps familiar with Demetrius’s past threats or complaints)6155 immediately sought the help of highly placed friends. Although access to patrons was normally during set times in the morning, the riot created an emergency situation, and the Asiarchs’ own honor was at stake (see comment on Acts 19:31). The Asiarchs, who knew Ephesian politics well, thus would have insisted that Paul stay out of the theater (19:31) while they contacted city officials who shared their status and with whom they had reciprocally beneficial relationships. That Demetrius is named (undercutting any potential attempt to disguise his aggression through a mob) and Paul and his colleagues are not (“these men”) also suggests that the official has the story from Paul’s allies, who wish to reduce the scandal involving Paul. As in 18:14, Paul does not raise an argument in his own defense, but he may have noticed the situation’s irony. As in 18:12–13, Jewish community leaders appear to have been hostile to Paul (19:33–34, at least if we may guess from 19:9–10 and 21:27–28); as in 16:19–22, pagan crowds were also hostile. But as in 18:14–15, some pagan officials refused to accommodate such partisan attacks;6156 Luke presents the ideal of justice in the empire favorably, perhaps also as an invitation to officials who 6153. See Rüpke, “Commentarii,” 628. 6154. Provided relations were good, the clerk would probably wish to discuss the matter with the governor as quickly (and perhaps as informally) as possible. Probably, however, Asia’s governors generally were on good terms with Ephesus; e.g., a later writer can portray the governor attending plays in Ephesus’s theater (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.5). 6155. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence, at least, is clear that Paul faced serious troubles in Ephesus before the riot portrayed here. 6156. Given the explicitly pagan sentiment of the speech (Acts 19:35–37), which builds rapport with the clearly religious audience, the paradox of Roman support in the face of sporadic Jewish resistance appears deeply paradoxical; it also has apologetic value.

2925

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 629

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

hear such reports (if nowhere else, perhaps from members of Luke’s audience) to emulate such precedents. Acts does not focus on Paul’s development as a character, but if we may infer any development in Paul’s relations with the authorities, it is not surprising that by the time of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, he is prepared to appeal to the Roman government (21:37–39; 22:25–28; 23:17). In principle, pagan civic and Roman authorities were concerned with justice and order; in practice, this remained true where unchecked by rapacious officials or emperors’ greed. At the least, Paul would fare better with sometimes favorable authorities than with certain enemies. (2) No Doubt about Artemis (19:35–36)

The city clerk appeals to common knowledge about Artemis’s greatness to show that her cult is in no danger (contrary to the accusation of 19:27, which he may portray as dishonoring to the goddess). Whereas the elite expected demagogues (such as Demetrius in 19:25–27) to stir crowds passionately, they expected calmer reason and dignified bearing from other members of the elite.6157 Luke’s audience would probably imagine the city clerk reasoning with the crowd that had gotten out of control. The contrast between a populist demagogue denouncing Paul and a reasoned official defending him would appeal to the sort of people who could make a difference in the church’s acceptability in Luke’s (and Paul’s) day.6158 Q uiet ing t he C rowd ( 1 9 : 3 5 )

Silencing a crowd was no easy task. When panic spread through one army camp at night, one had to interrupt the noise, ordering silence, before making a proclamation (Xen. Anab. 2.2.19–20). Nevertheless, the city clerk had some advantages to help him in spreading word. It is likely that initially an assistant would walk around on the platform, shouting as loudly as possible to get people’s attention so the official could speak with less strain.6159 The acoustics in the theater were notably good,6160 and the presence of a noted official,6161 perhaps wearing official regalia and standing in an official location for announcements,6162 could alert the crowds (beginning with those nearest the front) that a speech was about to be given. After two hours of frenzy, many were no doubt more exhausted than they had realized, in any case, and more than ready to hear from an official of the city. Presumably he signaled with the familiar gesture requesting silence; some other 6157. Hall, “Delivery,” 231 (cf. also 229–30), although orators like Cicero were still ready to exploit emotion when it was to their advantage (231–32). Hall’s description applies more directly to sober Roman elite culture than to Greeks, but it is nevertheless relevant more widely. Thus a Greek-speaker from early imperial Asia Minor criticizes the more emotional style of Alexandrian oratory (Dio Chrys. Or. 32.68). 6158. Elites and literate people influenced by them feared populist disorder to such an extent that members of the elite sometimes passed laws regulating taverns, the neighborhood restaurants where people congregated for hot food, entertainment, and gossip (Toner, Culture, 109). Whereas Luke portrays the Jerusalem apostles contending with Jerusalem’s elite, he portrays Paul’s relationship with the Ephesian elite more favorably. 6159. In Apul. Flor. 9.10–12, a herald acts in this way to prepare for the proconsul, who would speak more quietly. A tribunal was smaller than a theater; the latter might require all the more assistance. 6160. Witherington, Acts, 594. Ancient theaters were designed with acoustics in mind (Vitruv. Arch. 5.3.4–8; 5.8 passim; for sounding vases, see 5.5, esp. 5.5.1); for ancient theories on acoustics, see Barker, “Acoustics” (and cf. idem, “Music,” 1008–10, on melodic structure). Rome designed even temporary wooden theaters with acoustics in mind, but it was more essential in stone and marble theaters, which absorbed more sound (Vitruv. Arch. 5.5.7). 6161. In Tac. Hist. 3.20, although many were speaking, the general’s honor and authority enabled him to gain silence before speaking. Some Romans expected even the rabble to quiet themselves when spying a person of nobility (Virg. Aen. 1.148–53). 6162. Greek theaters have a ground level for the orchestra (where the chorus was; Vitruv. Arch. 5.6.1–2), but the speaker would use the platform.

2926

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 630

6/18/14 10:26 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

ancient texts employ the same verb (καταστέλλω) for quieting a crowd with a hand motion.6163 A leader’s ability to quiet an angry crowd with words of reason was considered praiseworthy (e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.35).6164 It is possible that the audience members listened also because they expected a city official to defend the Artemis cult; certainly their actions indicate that they did not expect to be told that the cult had not been challenged. One riotous assembly clamoring for punishment on prisoners quieted when it saw an old man who, having lost two sons in the war, would surely oppose the captives (Diod. Sic. 13.19.6); once he had the audience’s attention, he argued for mercy (13.20–27). The C i t y C le r k (1 9 : 3 5 )

The γραμματεύς here is a city official or “clerk,” not merely a village scribe or a respected Jewish teacher (see comment on Acts 4:5).6165 Although a γραμματεὺς τῆς βουλῆς (clerk of the city council) would be a notable official,6166 the crowd’s recognition of and response to the individual suggests that he is instead the γραμματεὺς τοῦ δήμου, clerk of the city assembly.6167 This official was one of the highest in Ephesus. So prominent was this position, in fact, that, as Trebilco notes, “inscriptions were often dated by the clerk’s year in office and he appears on Ephesian coinage from the time of Augustus.”6168 Sherwin-White notes that in other cities of Roman Asia, this official functioned as “the chief administrative assistant, annually elected, of the magistrates; he had a staff of permanent clerks, responsible for the paper work of the city.”6169 Specifically in Ephesus, however, he ranks higher (and hence is more explicitly named) than the στρατηγοί whose authority he has supplanted; he acts “as the director of affairs in council or assembly.” Coins from Augustus’s period onward identify him as Ephesus’s “chief magistrate. On one document, he is even named along with the proconsul of the year as if he were the eponymous magistrate.”6170 It was he with whom Demetrius and his followers should have first lodged their complaint.6171 He would represent the same social stratum as Paul’s patrons in Acts 19:31, likely with some of the same sympathies but with a paramount obligation to restore order (19:40). Sometimes the clerk was himself an Asiarch or former Asiarch;6172 at other times he may have been an aspiring future Asiarch, and helping out others of rank could have strengthened him politically.6173 Most Greek offices for public secretaries 6163. Shiell, Reading Acts, 161 (citing Jos. War 2.611; Plut. Mor. 207E). Shiell (162) compares someone in Diod. Sic. 18.67 who sought to silence a crowd; although it could not hear him, it could see his gestures. Someone reading Acts publicly would probably imitate this gesture (162–63). 6164. Apparently people in the early empire did believe that elite speakers could quell riots with speeches (see Virg. Aen. 1.151–52). 6165. The title γραμματεύς is common in Ephesian inscriptions (more than eighty times, e.g., I. Eph. 8.17; 21 I.34; 23.22), though not always for the same position; elsewhere in Asia Minor, e.g., MAMA 5.204.11. 6166. Sherwin-White, Society, 86–87, notes that this office was less prominent than the clerk of the assembly (below); the offices merged in the early third century. For the γραμματεύς of the council (βουλῆς), see, e.g., I. Eph. 8.20–21, 46. For various uses of the public title, see Gomme and Rhodes, “Grammateis.” 6167. Fitzmyer, Acts, 661; cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 249; “clerk” of the citizen assembly is probably implied in Demosth. Or. 18.265 (as cited in Hermog. Method 15.431–32). For the clerk of the people (δήμου), see, e.g., I. Eph. 21 I.10–12; 24 B.5–6; probably also in 21 I.28; 27 A.8. 6168. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351. Most note the office’s elevation (Hemer, Acts in History, 122; Johnson, Acts, 349). 6169. Sherwin-White, Society, 86. 6170. Ibid. 6171. Ibid., 87. His office was in the prytaneum, the main civic building (McRay, Archaeology, 254). 6172. Conzelmann, Acts, 166, citing SEG 19.984.34–35; McRay, Archaeology, 255, citing I. Eph. 2.461, 508, for Aristio; also T. Flavius Pythio in Horsley, Documents, 4:49–51 (both from about the late first century). 6173. Cf. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 151. On the importance of those in high office maintaining positive relationships with colleagues, see, e.g., Plut. Statecraft 20, Mor. 816A.

2927

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 631

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ran for only a year,6174 which might minimize political concerns about offending the crowd here (though he might well plan to hold other offices afterward). Responsible for many aspects of the city’s administration, the γραμματεύς “frequently led city politics and spoke for the city assembly.”6175 In Asia Minor, this clerk was usually (as noted above) the city’s highest official: “Documents from Ephesus show that the town clerk was superior to the city council members.”6176 His position likely required him to function as the chief liaison between Ephesus’s local government and the Roman proconsul, headquartered in the same city—which meant that he would be the official responsible for explaining the riot to the provincial authorities (cf. 19:40).6177 C i vic P r ide (1 9 : 35 )

The form of the clerk’s question (“Who does not know . . . ?”) functions as an appeal to common knowledge, a common rhetorical appeal in antiquity.6178 Rhetorical questions like this one were common in rhetoric.6179 The clerk builds rapport with his audience in the beginning, as was appropriate in an introductory exordium (see comment on Acts 17:22), by affirming the very matter that appears to be under dispute; this would win his hearers’ support, while also defusing any reason for continued protest. Building rapport would be especially crucial when one addressed a hostile or unstable assembly. His appeal to civic pride is likewise appropriate in an exordium (on civic pride, see comment on Acts 21:39). One specialty of rhetorical training was to provide encomia on cities, as in Isocrates’s Panegyricus and Panathenaicus and Aelius Aristides’s To Rome (Or. 26).6180 Orators could praise cities for their location, sometimes because they overshadowed neighbors or failed to be overshadowed by them (Men. Rhet. 1.2, 350.4–6); some said that Asia’s cities were so great that none robbed the others of splendor (350.4–6).6181 Cities could also be praised for justice and fairness in dealing with neighbors (2.3, 385.14–17).6182 Another important subject for encomium was a city’s origin (1.2, 353.8–11), especially if it was founded by a deity (353.11–12). Only a few cities, such as Heliopolis, claimed to be founded by deities (353.13), but the divine origin of its treasured image of Artemis would provide an analogous source of local pride in Ephesus. A philosophic observer implied that Ephesians took civic pride much too far (Heraclitus Ep. 9). The clerk’s appeal to civic pride here includes the title νεωκόρος (NRSV, “temple keeper”) and the claim that Artemis’s great statue fell from heaven itself. 6174. Rhodes, “Bureaucracy.” 6175. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351, noting that he published the decrees made by the δῆμος (e.g., I. Eph. 27.430). 6176. Jeffers, World, 163, repeating much information found in Sherwin-White. Among the official’s clerical responsibilities, he would need to verify money being deposited in the temple (Witherington, Acts, 597). 6177. Bruce, Commentary, 400–401; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 56. 6178. See, e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 20; Lit. Comp. 22; cf. the similar phrasing in Job 12:3. Logicians also supported reasoning from the known to prove what is yet unknown (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.27). On appeals to common knowledge in rhetoric, see further Anderson, Glossary, 67 (citing, e.g., Cic. Inv. 1.48); comment on Acts 10:37. Lucian employs a Scythian as an example of one ignorant of common knowledge (Critic 3). 6179. Perhaps this question functions as somewhat akin to hypophora (Rhet. Her. 4.23.33) or anacoenosis (in Anderson, Glossary, 18) asking the opinion of opponents or audience (cf., e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 47.12–14, 18–20); on other sorts of rhetorical question, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 51, 237. 6180. Cf., e.g., Quint. Inst. 3.7.26; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 332.8–9; 1.2, 344.16–345.8; 1.2–3, 346.26–367.9 (esp. 1.2, 346.26–351.19; 1.3, 359.16–367.9); 2.14, 429.1–4; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.535; utopian geography in Let. Aris. 83–107; Balch, “Encomia” (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.9–2.29; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.145–295). Many of Dio Chrysostom’s orations involve praise and blame for cities. 6181. The cities themselves did not always agree; see comment on Acts 21:39. 6182. Cf. Alexandria and Egypt as “nurse of cities” (Sib. Or. 5.88; 11.302).

2928

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 632

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Ν ε ω κ ό ρ ο ς (19:35) The term νεωκόρος appears frequently in Ephesus’s inscriptions (ninety times or

more in I. Eph.), with various applications.6183 Applying this familiar title to the city would appeal to the audience’s civic pride in their relation to Artemis; rhetoricians understood that blame (Acts 19:40) was more palatable if seasoned with, and often preceded by, praise.6184 The city prided itself in its νεωκόρος status as “guardian” or “warden” of the imperial cult, a status officially conferred in the late first century.6185 Some scholars emphasize that the title therefore belongs to the late first century rather than to Paul’s day and argue that the title reflects Luke’s day rather than Paul’s.6186 That Luke would use language of his own day as he fills out a speech summary would be plausible, but normally historians tried to insert in composed speeches language thought appropriate to the speaker.6187 More problematic is this argument’s demand that we date Acts after 89 c.e., when the title was conferred, and far enough after that date for Luke to know the title (especially since he was not likely based in Ephesus); if he also does not know that the title is too recently bestowed to be relevant, this could push the date even later. These multiple assumptions require a date much later than the majority of scholars assign to the work.6188 If this were the only literal option, it would be more plausible to argue that Luke’s use of the title is purely figurative and merely coincidental with the later usage. Luke in fact says nothing about the city as warden of the imperial cult but applies the title to the city as warden of Ephesian Artemis. The original use of νεωκόρος for a temple warden of the Artemis temple6189 (or, less relevant, for a humbler way of keeping a shrine)6190 could readily be applied figuratively to the entire city, a hyperbole particularly suited to epideictic rhetoric and complimentary exordia.6191 Yet it is possible that Luke offers neither anachronism nor metaphor but reflects an authentic usage of νεωκόρος for the city, and one closer to Paul’s time. A coin of 65/66 c.e., only about a decade after Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, speaks of neōkoros with reference to Ephesus, probably referring “to Ephesos as the neokoros of Artemis.”6192 Less relevant, the phrase appears on at least two Domitianic coins (Ephesus as 6183. I. Eph. 21 I.3, 22, 41; 24 B.2; 27.4; 132; 143.36a–d; 212; 233; 236; 241; and passim. For its application to the civic office of temple wardens for the Artemis cult, see comment on Acts 19:24. 6184. See Stowers, Letter Writing, 80 (citing esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 33.12), 88 (citing P.Oxy. 1837), 130 (citing Pliny Ep. 9.5). 6185. On this date, see Friesen, “Cult,” 229–30; Price, “Neōkoros.” City titles like this one were used in competition between cities (Friesen, “Cult,” 236–39; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 136–37); on such rivalries, see comment on Acts 21:39. 6186. White, “Development,” 36–37 (its use regarding the imperial cult is first identified in 89 c.e.); Witetschek, “Color.” 6187. See Keener, Acts, 1:285–86, 304, 308, 316–17. 6188. Contrast Luke’s relatively positive view of the Roman government with the more sectarian John 15:18–25 and Rev 13, both probably stemming from the 90s and probably (almost certainly in the case of Revelation) Asia Minor. 6189. See comment on Acts 19:24 (discussing temple wardens with the different term νεωποιός; but that term might be synonymous in the inscriptions, cf. McRay, Archaeology, 258). The title applied to those responsible for administering “a temple and its sacrifices” (Trebilco, “Asia,” 330, citing Xen. Anab. 5.3.6; Paus. 10.12.5; Jos. War 1.153; Philo Spec. Laws 1.156; Flight 90, 93–94). 6190. Johnson, Acts, 350, cites Philo Spec. Laws 1.156; Jos. War 1.153, “in the sense of cleaning and tending” shrines; one may add Philo Spec. Laws 2.120 (of the Levites); Dreams 2.272; Mos. 1.316, 318; 2.72, 159, 174, 276; Rewards 74; and the common usage in North, “Temple Officials,” 1482. 6191. Cf. the reverse sort of compliment, in portraying Jupiter as custodian of the city of Rome (Cic. Cat. 1.5.11). 6192. Friesen, “Cult,” 231; Witherington, Acts, 598; Oster, “Artemis as Opponent,” 30; cf. Ramsay, Letters, 232. One might suggest that the Romans later shifted the νεωκόρος title to the imperial cult partly because of

2929

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 633

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

“twice neokoros”),6193 and later inscriptions also identify the city as “temple keeper of Artemis” (νεωκόρος τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος) as well as of the emperors.6194 A term’s first appearance in our surviving, fragmentary sources is rarely its first actual occurrence. Given the small percentage of evidence that survives, it is reasonable to suppose that the title that became official enough for use on coins soon afterward was already in popular vogue for praising the city.6195 The designation is a reasonable one. “In the Roman period, Greek cities were given the by-name neokoros in their capacity as the special ‘patron’ of a cult of their particular tutelary deities.”6196 The I m ag e f ro m He ave n ( 1 9 : 3 5 )

The clerk claims that Artemis’s image “fell from heaven.” Despite an occasional suggestion to the contrary,6197 we lack sufficient evidence that the cult image in Ephesus actually fell from heaven or was even believed to have done so.6198 Some scholars have suggested that it was a meteorite, like some other sacred objects in antiquity (reportedly including Ceres at Enna, and El Gabal at Emesa).6199 But such suggestions do not fit surviving images of the Ephesian Artemis, which were clearly formed by human hands (see discussion of the image in the introduction, above, to Acts 19:23–40).6200 (That a piece of meteorite was used in, on, or beneath the image is not impossible.)6201 Tradition claimed that the Amazons dedicated this Ephesian Artemis image.6202 The clerk may grant even more than what his audience expects in his praise of Artemis, continuing to establish favor with them to make his case. When offering an epideictic oration praising a statue, one would compare it with others and could add, “What Phidias, what Daedalus fashioned such an image?”6203 Then, with no less exaggeration, an orator might add, “Perhaps this statue fell from heaven.”6204 The purpose in the clerk’s statement here is probably to contrast this Artemis with “gods made its earlier use in the Artemis cult. But Rome also granted the title to other cities; in 38 c.e., e.g., Rome granted it in an informal way to Cyzicus (Friesen, “Cult,” 231). 6193. Any ancient city would have counted “twice neokoros” as a special ground for boasting (e.g., Synnada in Phrygia, MAMA 4.59.5, ca. 293–305 c.e.). This probably refers to Ephesus’s two imperial temples, the first of which existed long before Domitian. 6194. Trebilco, “Asia,” 329–30 (citing I. Eph. 300; 304; 304a; 740; 1910; 2040.4–5; 4336). Cf. also CIG 2.2972; Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Hemer, Acts in History, 122. See esp. Kearsley, “Neokoros,” 203 (on I. Eph. 3.647): “both neokoros of Artemis and three times neokoros of the emperors.” 6195. This is the procedure we would use for most ancient sources; those who insist on more complete evidence for claims in Acts treat it more suspiciously than we treat comparable historical sources. 6196. Williams, “Neokoros” (though citing only Acts 19:35 as an example). 6197. Cf. Thompson, Archaeology, 398, offering no evidence. The Suda reports the legend that the image originated ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (Arnold, Power, 22), but this legend could stem from Luke. 6198. Most note this lack of evidence (e.g., Carter and Earle, Acts, 298; Trebilco, “Asia,” 352; Fitzmyer, Acts, 661). 6199. Bruce, Acts1, 367 (citing for Ceres at Enna, Cic. Verr. 2.5.187, as in Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 250; for El Gabal at Emesa, Hdn. 5.3, 5); idem, Commentary, 398; Longenecker, Acts, 298; Witherington, Acts, 598; cf. Trebilco, “Asia,” 351–52. 6200. Meteorites would not, e.g., be compatible with wooden statues (e.g., of a seated Athena, Strabo 13.1.41; the Tauric Artemis, Paus. 1.23.7), though decomposing (wooden) statues could be replaced (Pliny Ep. 9.39.4). Mussies, “Artemis,” 97, notes Pliny the Elder’s report (N.H. 16.213–14) that the Ephesian Artemis’s statue was made of dark wood. On the cult image of Artemis of Ephesus, see Aurenhammer, “Sculptures,” 252–55. 6201. Gill, “Religion,” 89, speaks of “a sacred baetyl, which had supposedly fallen out of heaven,” used for worshiping Cybele at Pessinus; see also Strobel, “Pessinus,” 861–62. Pliny E. N.H. 2.59.149–50 (esp. 150) refers to the worship of stones that fell from heaven in various locations. On diopetes objects in antiquity (fallen from the divine realm), see also Kauppi, Gods, 101–5. 6202. Graf, “Artemis,” 65 (citing Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], line 238); he describes the typical Artemis image as “archaic . . . with removable ornaments and clothes.” 6203. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 445.18 (Russell and Wilson, 223), praising a statue of Apollo. 6204. Men. Rhet. 2.17, 445.19 (Russell and Wilson, 223).

2930

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 634

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

with hands” (Acts 19:26),6205 demonstrating that any such claims are too baseless to be taken seriously (and hence to merit a riot). As a member of the highly literate class, he would know many accounts of divine images from heaven being used in Asia Minor; most of these were probably known by most of the population, rehearsed by storytellers and orators. Thus writers commented on the Palladium, an image of Athena that had fallen from heaven (διιπετές) and had to be captured before Troy could fall (Apollod. Epit. 5.10).6206 In one account, it originally fell from heaven in front of Ilus’s tent, as a sign from Zeus; “It was three cubits in height, its feet joined together; in its right hand it held a spear aloft, and in the other hand a distaff and spindle” (Apollod. Bib. 3.12.3).6207 Lycophron declares that it fell “from heaven [ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] and Zeus’ throne” (Alex. 363); Fronto also says that it fell “from heaven” (de caelo; Eloq. 1.3). Some ancients thought that it might still exist in the later Troas (in northwest Asia Minor; see comment on Acts 16:8)6208 or (more common among Romans) that Aeneas brought it from Troy to Rome,6209 though the dominant Greek tradition was that of its capture by the Greeks.6210 Legend also claimed that the Athena image in Athens’s Acropolis fell from heaven (πεσεῖν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).6211 Likewise, Appian reports that the image of the Great Mother, mother of the gods, fell from heaven at Pessinus in Phrygia about 204 b.c.e. and was brought to Rome (Hist. rom. 7.9.56). Herodian notes the same tradition of the statue’s having fallen from Zeus in Pessinus (Hdn. 1.11.1)6212 and that the Romans had the Phrygians bring the statue to Rome (1.11.3–5). Elsewhere, a huge stone reportedly fell from heaven in the fifth century b.c.e. and continued to be revered by locals half a millennium later (Plut. Lys. 12.1–2).6213 Some claimed that the Cyprian Aphrodite (see comment on Acts 13:6) fell from heaven.6214 Storytellers could also narrate the gods’ sending a shield down from the sky (Ovid Fasti 3.373–74). Perhaps most relevant is that classical Greek drama spoke of the Taurian Artemis image as διοπετής—that is, from Zeus—claiming that it fell from heaven.6215 In Eurip6205. Trebilco, “Asia,” 353, noting the analogous claim that the symbol of the Great Mother from Pessinus, being from heaven, was not humanly made (Hdn. 1.11.1); Witherington, Acts, 598; Shauf, Theology, 255, 257; Green, “Acts,” 759. 6206. See other sources in Linderski, “Palladium,” 1100 (including Ovid Fasti 6.419–60; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68–69). 6207. LCL, 2:39. Frazer in LCL, 2:38n2, cites on the image also Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.68ff.; 2.66.5; Paus. 1.28.9; 2.23.5. 6208. Appian Hist. rom. 12.8.53 (also noting that it supposedly fell from heaven)—as if Ilium had not been burned! 6209. For the Roman story, see Linderski, “Palladium,” 1100. See also the tradition in Plut. Cam. 20.5 (in which it remained hidden in the temple of Vesta; also Gordon, “Vesta,” citing Livy 26.27.14); Metellus honorably snatched the Palladium from flames when Vesta’s temple burned (Val. Max. 1.4.5). 6210. E.g., Little Iliad frg. 11 (from Paus. Collected Attic Words d.14) (GEF 133); Libanius Encomium 1.17; 2.13; Speech in Character 23.4 (with notes citing on the Palladium also Apollod. Bibl. 3.12.3; Epit. 5.10–13; Ovid Metam. 13.337–51; Virg. Aen. 2.163–68). This scene appears even in a cameo from Jerusalem (Rahmani, “Cameo”). 6211. Paus. 1.26.6, himself unwilling to venture an opinion on the view’s accuracy. 6212. Also observing in this passage that some thought that the place was named Pessinus because the statue had “fallen” from heaven; various πεσ- forms are the second aorist of πίπτω. The etymology is likely fallacious but reveals the popular strength of the connection between the legend and the location. 6213. Some ancients suggested a comparison with stars, which one scholar thought consisted of heavy stone that simply glowed from friction against the heavenly aether (Plut. Lys. 12.1–2). On this stone, cf. also Pliny E. N.H. 2.149–50. 6214. See Lucian Gout 87–88 (esp. 88, ἀπ᾽ αἰθέρος). 6215. Scholars cite Eurip. Iph. Taur. 87–88, 977, 1044–45, 1384–85 (e.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 250; Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Trebilco, “Asia,” 352–53; Mussies, “Artemis,” 97). See also Renehan, “Quotations,” 23, suggesting an echo (of διοπετές in Eurip. Iph. Taur. 977–78).

2931

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 635

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ides’s story (written for an Athenian audience), this statue was taken to Athens (Iph. Taur. 1445–61). Some could also speak metaphorically of something supposedly from the gods that had “fallen from the heavens.”6216 As noted above, the clerk in the narrative world probably contrasts this heavenly Artemis with “gods made with hands” (Acts 19:26), demonstrating that any such anti-idolatry claims are too baseless to take seriously. Luke may simply endeavor to represent fairly what the clerk said (or would have said); historians normally tried to present the most convincing arguments for the various positions they reported in speeches. Luke’s literary function for his own audience might go beyond this if, for his audience, one could mock the absurdity of pagan views by simply recounting them (see comment on Acts 14:15–17).6217 Luke’s ideal audience might well laugh at the sober clerk’s assertion. U n de n i a ble Facts ( 1 9 : 3 6 )

The civic leader’s quieting an audience and warning it against rashness parallels Gamaliel’s role earlier in the book (5:38);6218 Luke welcomes reasoned defenses of toleration of his movement, whether from Jewish, Roman, or other leaders. The verb for “staying calm” (καταστέλλω) is also used for the clerk’s quieting the crowd’s members (19:35); since these are its only two uses in Luke-Acts (or, for that matter, in the nt),6219 it is clear that the clerk wants them to remain in their quieted, nonriotous state. The basis for calmness is that Artemis is so glorious (19:35), and the matter so undeniable, that her cult can be in no danger at all (pace the fearmongering claim of 19:27). The clerk’s term for “rash, reckless” (προπετές) rhetorically balances his διοπετοῦς in 19:35;6220 since each appears in Luke-Acts only here (and only one of the terms appears anywhere else in the nt),6221 the similar sound is probably deliberate, fitting the skilled rhetoric expected of a city official.6222 The “undeniable facts” might make sense as the clerk’s speech within the narrative world but on the larger level are Lukan irony: the facts are quite deniable.6223 As noted on Acts 19:35, probably even the Ephesians did not literally believe that their statue fell from heaven (and certainly no one else did)! But beyond its hyperbole, the clerk’s point would persuade the audience: Artemis worship would surely not be banished, contrary to Demetrius’s hyperbolic charge (19:27). (3) Empty Charges (19:37)

The clerk here either refutes the sort of charges implied by Demetrius (cf. 19:25–27) or notes the kind of charges that would have been actionable, which Demetrius failed to bring in court because he could not prove them. The point here is not to settle the legal questions, however, but to quiet the mob; legal questions could, if necessary, be settled legally and in the appropriate manner. 6216. E.g., the new Philip (Polyb. 36.10.1–7), as if ἀεροπετής (36.10.2). 6217. See also Keener, “Monotheism.” 6218. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 132; Pervo, Story, 68. Johnson, Acts, 350, compares similar advice in a similar setting in Heliod. Eth. 4.20.1–3. 6219. In the lxx, only at 2 Macc 4:31; 3 Macc 6:1. 6220. With Johnson, Acts, 350. 6221. Προπετής appears elsewhere in the nt only once (2 Tim 3:4), three times in the lxx (Prov 10:14; 13:3; Sir 9:18), and once in the Apostolic Fathers (1 Clem. 1.1); διοπετής appears in none of these sources (though it appears elsewhere; see BDAG). 6222. An excess of such plays on sounds might fit accusations of bombastic “Asianic” rhetoric. 6223. Ancient hearers would not expect an unreliable character’s words to reflect the author’s perspective (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K110.8–9), nor would monotheists expect even a civic or Roman official to speak truth regarding polytheism.

2932

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 636

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

A Fa l se Ca se

That the official uses a form of the verb ἄγω for the crowd’s bringing Gaius and Aristarchus forward may be conciliatory language, as if the crowd could have intended only a legal hearing (17:19); Luke gives a harsher perspective in 19:29 (συναρπάσαντες; though cf. also his use of a form of ἄγω in 18:12). To focus the blame on Demetrius (19:38) rather than on the majority of his audience, at least until they have heard him out (19:40), is better for maintaining a hearing and calming them down. In the long run, it will also be more shaming to (and provocative for) Demetrius. One might use care when criticizing a respected person (Hermog. Method 18.434); but while Demetrius may be influential with those whom the elite considered the rabble, he hardly belongs to the high elite. How can the town clerk know that Paul’s companions are not guilty of such crimes? On the basis of what Luke reports, it is reasonable to guess that Paul’s Asiarch friends (19:31) may have delivered word to him, but whether or not this is the case, his affirmation is not likely to prove controversial. Even Demetrius has not offered such extreme charges (which are the epitome of vileness and hence function hyperbolically). The point is that Paul’s companions have committed no crime worth circumventing the courts and acting in a riotous, disorderly manner that might invite the governor’s retribution. Ironically, while an Ephesian official defends Paul’s circle against the charges of temple violation (via reductio ad absurdum) and (less absurdly) blasphemy against a pagan deity, Ephesian Jews later charge Paul with these very offenses regarding Jerusalem’s temple (21:28), despite his obvious monotheism! This presentation is useful for Luke’s apologetic: if Paul would not violate the former, he would hardly violate the latter. Te m p le R obbe ry

Given charges that monotheists desecrated polytheists’ sacred space (see discussion below), the denial here serves Luke’s larger apologetic as well as the official’s rhetoric. It seems that ancients could employ the expression “temple robber” (ἱερόσυλος) metaphorically for any who committed sacrilege of a similar nature6224 (an accusation later leveled at Paul in Jerusalem, 24:6), but in any case, a legally actionable offense would include somehow desecrating the temple, the image, or something pertaining directly to the goddess. The charge of temple robbery was among the most serious in antiquity; it could have led to the death of the accused had not the matter been so happily deniable in this instance. Conquerors were expected to leave sanctuaries untouched,6225 though some ravaged or destroyed them.6226 All ancient Mediterranean cultures recognized destroying temples6227 or seizing things in a shrine6228 as acts of impiety. 6224. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 251; Johnson, Acts, 350; they cite 2 Macc 4:42; Jos. Ant. 4.207; War 1.654; Ag. Ap. 2.237. Most relevant here is that it was sometimes applied to trying to change religious arrangements (I. Eph. 27.217; Trebilco, “Asia,” 354); even moving sacred objects, including statues of morals, within a temple counted (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.88–89; cf. 31.82). Cf. Porph. Marc. 19.316–17, which applies the term (19.317) to sacrifices offered by those ignorant of God’s nature. 6225. Thucyd. 4.97.2 (though cf. the Athenian reply, 4.98.2); Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.89 (in Carthage, Rome would spare only tombs and temples). The pious Romans pillaged around a temple but not inside (Livy 36.20.3). 6226. E.g., Polyb. 4.67.3; Tac. Hist. 3.33; Suet. Jul. 54.1–2. 6227. E.g., Polyb. 4.67.3 (citing the customs and laws of humanity); 5.10.3–4; 9.35.6; 16.1.2–6; Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; Tac. Hist. 3.71–72; Quint. Decl. 257.4. 6228. Aeschines Embassy 131; Livy 31.26.12; 31.30.9–10; 31.31.3; 42.3.8; Corn. Nep. 4 (Pausanias), 4.4; Appian Hist. rom. 8.20.133; Quint. Decl. 252.5. Earlier, cf. Judg 18:17; Daube, Studies in Law, 202– 3. Rome was protecting the sanctity of some others’ shrines by the second century b.c.e. (see Wells, “Impiety”).

2933

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 637

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Though it did happen,6229 theft from a temple was a heinous offense;6230 those who committed it would then “battle against” deities.6231 Those who listed perpetrators of particularly severe crimes frequently included temple robbers;6232 temple robbery even became a rhetorical commonplace for a severe offense.6233 Most believed that the gods would avenge this insult,6234 sometimes even with fire from heaven.6235 A more typical literary example is the case of Pyrrhus, who plundered even the gifts in a temple (Appian Hist. rom. 3.12.1); after the gods sent vengeance by a storm, he restored the gifts and executed all those who had participated in the temple robbery (3.12.2).6236 After Sulla stole an image of Athena, the gods made him break out in lice and die a horrible death (Paus. 9.33.6). One Menophanes razed Delos, thereby showing contempt for Apollo (3.23.3–4); the god saw to it that Menophanes ended violently (3.23.5). After Himilcon impiously plundered the temples of Demeter and Kore, he suffered the appropriate punishment (Diod. Sic. 14.63.1).6237 Another typical case was Prusias, who seized statues from temples that he was destroying (Polyb. 32.15.3, 10–12); plainly he was insane (32.15.8), 6238 fighting gods as well as mortals (32.15.13).6239 Thus his army was sick on their retreat, the gods displaying their anger immediately (32.15.14). Likewise, Antiochus Epiphanes sought to raid the sanctuary of Artemis in Elymaïs to procure funds, and many Gentiles attributed his insanity and death to this attempted outrage (31.9.1–4).6240 6229. E.g., Strabo 4.1.13; Nero was notorious for this crime (Dio Chrys. Or. 31.148; Tac. Ann. 15.44; Suet. Nero 32). 6230. E.g., Lucian Hermot. 37; Vit. Aes. 127–28; true even if caused by poverty (Quint. Decl. 379.5; for poverty as cause, see Libanius Invect. 6.11; Confirmation 3.4; for greed, Invect. 5.12). It was also bad luck in a dream (Artem. Oneir. 3.3). An exception to this view was Diogenes the Cynic (Diog. Laert. 6.2.73), who claimed that the gods shared everything with the wise anyway (6.2.72). 6231. Diod. Sic. 14.69.2 (θεομαχῶμεν); Quint. Decl. 323.5 (where the army faces a plague for harming a temple). 6232. Xen. Hell. 1.7.22; Plato Euthyphro 5; Diod. Sic. 27.1; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.25; Fin. 3.9.32; Dio Chrys. Or. 3.53; Lucian Z. Cat. 16, 18; Dial. D. 450 (24/30, Minos and Sostratus 1); Sat. 7; Char. Chaer. 1.5.25; Quint. Decl. 260.17; 304 intro.; 304.3; Libanius Topics 1.15, 20; 2.13–14, 18, 23; 4.15; Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 41; cf. Lucian Icar. 16; in a list of apocalyptic-like disasters, see Sib. Or. 2.14. Jesus, by contrast, accused the temple authorities of being robbers in the temple (Luke 19:46), as if it would hide them from divine judgment ( Jer 7:11). 6233. E.g., Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 12. One noted for particular evil might be thought capable even of plundering divine images (Eurip. Danae frg. 328, in Stob. 3.16.6). 6234. E.g., Diod. Sic. 27.4.3; Val. Max. 1.1.18, 21; 1.1.ext. 3 (posthumously), 5; Corn. Nep. 17 (Agesilaus), 4.8; Pliny E. N.H. 33.24.83; Babr. 78; Phaedrus 4.11.1–13; Lucian Z. Rants 24, 32; Paus. 9.39.12 (on treasures in Pausanias, cf. Arafat, “Treasure”); Quint. Decl. 323 intro.; cf. 1 Sam 5:4; an oracle growing silent after a temple robbery in Strabo 17.1.43. A skeptic might report a god failing to avenge this insult repeatedly (Lucian Tim. 4). 6235. E.g., Athen. Deipn. 12.523ab; destruction by lightning for destroying a sanctuary, Paus. 9.25.10; cf. soldiers blinded by fire for trying to plunder Ceres’s temple (Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 5). Cf. punishment by angels for attempted theft of the temple treasures in 2 Macc 3:25–26. In contrast to temples offering refuge to supplicants, a temple caught fire, burning alive some temple robbers who sought refuge there, revealing the gods’ special anger for this crime (Diod. Sic. 16.58.6). 6236. Cf. Pleminius, who hastily restored treasures plundered from a temple of Persephone after his fleet was shipwrecked (Diod. Sic. 27.4.3). 6237. A plague struck the Carthaginian army after they plundered the temple of Demeter and Kore (Diod. Sic. 14.69.4); the general who pillaged Zeus’s temple fled in shame with a few survivors (14.76.3); one who ordered a sacred grove cut down was killed in judgment (Val. Max. 1.1.19). A deity might also defend its grove (Philost. Hrk. 57.13–14), and the death of trees planted to honor Nero portended his death (Suet. Galb. 1). 6238. Plundering temples could lead to divinely sent insanity (Livy 42.28.12). Caligula’s subsequent detractors depicted him as both insane and impious (see the excursus “‘Divine’ Humans” at Acts 10:25–26 [Keener, Acts, 2:1782–86]). 6239. Acts portrays Paul’s impious fighting against deity only in terms of his earlier persecution of Jesus’s followers (Acts 26:14). 6240. For his insanity, see also Polyb. 26.1.1–3. In Diod. Sic. 28.3.1, Antiochus faces just disaster for plundering Zeus’s temple at Elymaïs.

2934

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 638

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

Naturally, Josephus demurred, attributing it instead to his outrage against the true God’s temple.6241 Nevertheless, humans and their courts also executed severe punishments for this crime;6242 it was considered among the most serious of capital offenses.6243 Locals who found items missing might pursue foreign priests suspected of the theft.6244 The only two crimes for which one papyrus does not grant amnesty are murder and “sacrilege against a temple.”6245 It was said that Alexander slaughtered people who came to him in peace, because their ancestors had violated a temple.6246 One particularly noteworthy case was that of Verres, whom Cicero prosecuted for exploiting his office in Sicily. Cicero claims that, for Verres, “no sanctuary is too holy for money to defile it” (Verr. 1.2.4 [LCL, 7:73]). Verres plundered numerous sanctuaries,6247 stealing statues6248—indeed, all the costliest gods of Sicily (1.5.14). When those suspected of robbing a temple fled prosecution elsewhere, Verres solicited their help for his deeds (2.4.13.30). Surely, Cicero warned, such a man must be suffering divine judgment (2.1.3.7–8). Indeed, he stole statues from Apollo’s sanctuary at Delos (2.1.17.46), something even the Persians feared to do (2.1.18.48); the statues were recovered when the ship was wrecked (2.1.18.46), and Verres could expect judgment (2.1.18.47). He plundered Diana’s (Artemis’s) sanctuary at Perga, even stripping the gold from Diana’s image (2.1.20.54; 2.4.32.71).6249 Cicero pretends to pass over quickly the seizure of other items from Syracuse’s sanctuaries (2.4.59.131). In his closing argument, Cicero then calls on all the gods whose temples Verres violated to bring Verres to justice with the court (2.5.72.184–89).6250 The temple of Artemis was considered particularly inviolable, long famous as a sanctuary and place of asylum.6251 (Ancients viewed temples in general in this man6241. Jos. Ant. 12.358–59; cf. 4 Macc 18:5. 6242. E.g., the Romans punished harshly some who stole money from the shrine of Persephone (Livy 32.1.8); likewise, Alexander earlier punished one who stole from tombs and temples (Arrian Alex. 6.30.2); all people rejected one who tried to plunder Zeus’s temple (Diod. Sic. 34/35.28.1–3); in declamations, the appropriate punishment for burning a temple is death (Quint. Decl. 331.5); one committing temple theft is tortured for information (Quint. Decl. 379 intro.); the thief ’s property is consecrated to the temple (Quint. Decl. 324 intro.; 324.4). A nine-year-old boy is spared execution only through another’s intervention in Paus. 6.11.2–3. 6243. Xen. Mem. 1.2.62; Apol. 25; Sen. E. Controv. 8.1; Alciph. Paras. 7 (Psichoclastes to Bucion), 3.43, ¶5; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.82; Vit. Aes. 128, 132; Apul. Metam. 9.10; cf. Schiemann, “Death Penalty.” Forensic orators could raise the question of definition to resolve the conflict between the double repayment required of thieves and the death penalty applied to temple robbers (Hermog. Issues 27.8–14, cf. 27.5–8; also in 62.2–10). Technically, the charge applied only to stealing items devoted to deities (Robinson, Criminal Law, 31). In practice, some were simply imprisoned at length (Lucian Tox. 28), and even this depended on catching them (Icar. 24); but if a temple robber was hurled from the rocks, he deserved it (Phal. 1.6). 6244. In Lucian Lucius 41 (where they find the stolen objects in the bosom of the priests’ goddess statue; though they venerate images, it never occurs to them to charge the goddess image, rather than the priests, with the theft); cf. the pursuit of Aesop in Vit. Aes. 128. 6245. P.Tebt. 5.5. 6246. Quint. Curt. 7.5.28, 31–35. Curtius himself regards this punishment as excessive, since the suppliants were not guilty of their ancestors’ crime (7.5.35). 6247. Cic. Verr. 1.4.12; 2.1.4.9; 2.3.3.6; 2.4.43.93–94; 2.4.44.97; 2.4.46.103–4; 2.4.49.109–10; 2.4.56.126– 2.4.60.134; Ag. Caec. 1.3; 4.11. His aides broke open the doors of another temple to seize a statue but were repelled (Verr. 2.4.44.96). 6248. Cic. Verr. 2.4.3.5–2.4.4.7; 2.4.45.99; see, e.g., his plunder of the treasures and art of Minerva’s temple (2.4.55.122–2.4.56.125). 6249. Earlier plundered also by a colleague of his (Cic. Verr. 2.3.21.54)! 6250. Naturally, disrespecting imperial statues raised the specter of maiestas (Nock, “Developments,” 489; probably hinted at in Apul. Apol. 85). 6251. See esp. Jos. Ant. 15.89; Strabo 14.1.23; Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23; Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 98–106; Strelan, Artemis, 49–50, 70–71. Fugitives there included debtors (Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 100) and those others wished to kill (100–102).

2935

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 639

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

ner, but some temples gained particular reputations for this feature [cf. comment on Acts 19:29].) Plundering a temple of Artemis warranted death.6252 Like other ancient temples, Ephesus’s Artemis temple also functioned as a bank, but this one in Ephesus became particularly famous for this feature (see comment on Acts 19:25). Temples often thus contained great wealth,6253 inviting plunder from those who disregarded their sacredness. Caesar claims that he thwarted his enemies from pilfering the temple of Diana (Artemis) at Ephesus.6254 That Ephesus had experienced a major scandal with the mismanagement of temple funds a mere decade or so earlier (see comment on Acts 19:25) can have only exacerbated Ephesians’ sensitivity to such concerns. Je ws, Sacr ile g e , a nd B l a sp he my

Because of Jewish insistence on only one God, Jews in particular were sometimes suspected of sacrilege against pagan shrines (cf. Rom 2:22).6255 Josephus, with his apologetic emphasis, distances Jews from such charges;6256 pagan Egyptians complained that when Jews controlled Egypt, they destroyed the idols there,6257 and others accused Jews of being temple robbers.6258 The lxx, originating primarily in Alexandria, reinterpreted the biblical text even to forbid speaking against pagan deities.6259 The genocidal slaughter of Egyptian Jewry in 116–17 c.e. stemmed in part from pagan oracles warning that the “impious” Jews would plunder Egyptian temples if not attacked first.6260 Some Jewish apologists emphasized that, far from advocating temple robbery, the Jewish law forbade even mocking others’ gods,6261 and Philo warns against alienating proselytes by blaspheming their former gods (Spec. Laws 1.53). Some other Jewish apologists, addressing Jewish audiences only, did in fact mock idolatry (e.g., Wis 13:10–14:7; see comment on Acts 14:15), but other Jews, such as Josephus, sought to commend Judaism to pagans as a religion that merited toleration. Christian apologists similarly noted that Christians could hardly be accused of plundering temples, since they do not even know what the temples contain, because they do not frequent 6252. Arrian Alex. 1.17.11. Similarly, those who ate fish sacred to Artemis consequently reaped awful judgments (Diod. Sic. 34/35.9.1). 6253. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54 (gold in Apollo’s temple at Pytho); Cic. Fam. 5.20.5 (money stored safely in a temple); Strabo 14.1.22 (on Ephesus’s temple). D. Williams, Acts, 343, notes “temple-robbers” regarding Ephesus (citing Strabo 14.1.22; Heraclitus Ep. 7). 6254. Caesar C.W. 3.33, 105. Caesar himself, however, was not above pilfering temples to finance his wars (Plut. Caes. 35.2–4). Augustus claimed to restore to Asia’s temples what his rival had plundered (Res Gestae 4.24). 6255. Indeed, this could be inferred from some conquest narratives in the lxx; some Jews did tear down a pagan altar in an area that Jews considered their own (Philo Embassy 200, 202; Philo blames those who built the altar of provocation, Embassy 201). Strelan, Artemis, 151f., n. 43, points out that many Jews did denounce idols (citing Sib. Or. 4.28–30, possibly from late first-century c.e. Asia). Yet even some later rabbis disapproved tearing down pagan altars (ʾAbot R. Nat. 31, §66 B), though they refused to permit any idolatry (y. Giṭ. 5:9, §8). 6256. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.237; Ant. 4.207. Josephus may also play down Asa’s destruction of paganism (Ant. 8.286–315; see Feldman, “Asa”). 6257. Manetho according to Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.248–49. Hecataeus complained that Jews were unwilling to cooperate in building or rebuilding pagan temples (1.192) and that they happily helped Macedonians tear down old temples (1.193). 6258. Lysimachus in Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.311, 318. 6259. Exod 22:27 lxx (22:28 ET; see, e.g., Sanders, Judaism, 242; esp. van der Horst, “Not Revile,” on Josephus and Philo following this apologetic; on the reasons for the apologetic, see esp. van der Horst, “Zult”). Philo thus warns even against speaking against pagan deities (Mos. 2.205; Spec. Laws 1.53). 6260. See Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 206–7 (citing CPJ 3:119–21, §520 and other sources). 6261. Jos. Ant. 4.207; Ag. Ap. 2.237; Philo Mos. 2.205; all this from a remarkable exegesis of the third commandment (Exod 22:28)! Since Philo and Josephus do mock other gods, this claim was propaganda (see Goldenberg, “Ban”).

2936

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 640

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

them (Tert. Apol. 15.7). When monotheists later did gain the political upper hand, however, pagans complained that Christians did destroy and sacrilegiously plunder pagan shrines (Eunapius Lives 472).6262 These were sensitive issues. Bl a sp he m ing the Godde ss

That Paul’s colleagues are “not blasphemers” of the goddess serves an obvious function within the narrative world, but for Luke’s audience, it may also sound i­ ronic.6263 Like most other Jews, Paul opposed idolatry (Acts 17:29) without necessarily denouncing specific cults. But Luke’s audience knows that those reducing God’s glory to the level of idols are the true blasphemers, and may recognize the ironic inversion of the charge. After all, Jesus’s opponents accused him of blasphemy (Luke 22:65) whereas in reality it was those who opposed the authentic Jesus movement who blasphemed against the true God and his Messiah (12:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6; 26:11; cf. Luke 23:39). The truth lies between the clerk’s recognition of Paul’s civil innocence and Demetrius’s complaint that he undermined pagan religion (19:26–27). The modern reader of Luke’s Greek text, and probably many ancient readers as well, may find the masculine form θεόν here unusual, especially given the feminine definite article here and the feminine form for Artemis as θεά in Acts 19:27.6264 Ephesus’s own documents, however, similarly alternated between ἡ θεά and ἡ θεός with reference to the goddess (with the latter form predominating)—for example, in I. Eph. 27.6265 The phrase ἡ θεός is applied to Artemis frequently in Ephesus and almost nowhere else; Ephesians employed θεά for Artemis particularly in phrases similar to the one that Luke reports in Acts 19:27. Together these connections with local Ephesian usage suggest a careful knowledge of features of Ephesian language and hence authentic experience or dependence on someone or a source with such knowledge.6266 (4) Lawful Venues (19:38–39)

Instead of stirring up a mob, Demetrius ought to bring matters to court; if more discussion is needed, it should be had in the regular civic assembly, not during a spontaneous gathering or (on another view of this event) as an unannounced issue during a meeting of the assembly. Just as Achaia’s Roman governor refused to accept a weak case (18:14–15), the honorable city clerk of Ephesus refuses to pander to a mob the way Macedonian officials in Philippi (16:20–23) and Thessalonica (17:5–9) did.6267 P ro consul s (1 9 : 3 8 )

Paul faces mobs in 14:5, 19; 16:22; 17:5–8; and perhaps 18:17, but while authorities sometimes accommodate mob pressure (16:22; 17:8–9), they also can protect 6262. Perhaps avenging the persecutions that many Christians had recently suffered from some pagans, yet still astonishingly different from Jesus’s or Paul’s teachings on nonresistance. 6263. Ancient audiences, no less than modern ones, could appreciate the narrative irony of characters within the narrative world speaking truth recognized only by the authorial audience (e.g., Char. Chaer. 1.13.10; Apul. Metam. 5.6; John 11:48, 49; 12:19; cf. the ambiguity of oracular double entendre in Aune, Prophecy, 60–61). 6264. Earlier sources employed ἡ ἄνθρωπος for an “unwomanly” woman, but by this period, pejorative associations appear quite minimal in documentary sources (Sosin, “Word for Woman?,” suggesting that it may function in many cases as “wife”). 6265. The masculine form of the noun is dominant here (ἡ θεός in I. Eph. 27.68, 215, 249, 271, 275, 313, 367, 396, 437, 462, 535, 553), but ἡ θεά appears in 27.224–25 (cf. 27.324, 407, 453–54), though ἡ θεά “never occurs alone” (Trebilco, “Asia,” 319; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 122; Lightfoot, Acts, on Acts 19:37, forthcoming [courtesy of Witherington]). The masculine form was, apparently, known at least to educated speakers in Asia Minor (Dio displays his knowledge of it in Or. 31.55, 65, addressing Rhodians). 6266. See esp. Baugh, “Phraseology and Reliability.” 6267. Perhaps the more influential leaders had less concern about public sentiment; it might also be relevant that Rome appointed the governor, and the city clerk may have had a brief term limit (one year); they might answer less to the public than the magistrates of the Macedonian cities did. Perhaps that Paul was already established in Corinth and Ephesus could be a factor.

2937

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 641

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

people from it (21:32; cf. 18:14–16), as here. The clerk here employs a variety of expressions suitable to a legal setting, specifying proper means as opposed to mob demands.6268 That the “courts are open”6269 suggests to many an assize day. A proconsul or his deputies (some think that at this time only the latter were available in Asia; see below) would travel and hold court in the capital of each conventus, or assize district. There were at least nine such districts in Asia, including Smyrna, Pergamum, and Tralles (cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.29.105–26).6270 Ephesus was one such conventus capital.6271 This claim suggests that the proconsul or his deputy is again in Ephesus at the time (a suggestion that could make the warning of Acts 19:40 more ominous, though the provincial government would have learned of the riot, in any event).6272 Many commentators note that the reference to “proconsuls” is unusual Greek.6273 It is next to impossible that Luke, as an urban citizen of the Roman Empire, was unaware that Rome assigned only one proconsul per province.6274 The expression may well be a generalizing plural;6275 proconsuls carried on such work in all the provinces. Yet Luke nowhere else speaks of proconsuls with a generalizing plural, and so scholars point to a special circumstance that may help explain it here. These events are close enough to the mid-50s in Pauline chronology that many have argued that “proconsuls” refers to the unusual state of affairs at precisely this time. Nero’s mother, Agrippina, had the proconsul Marcus Junius Silanus poisoned shortly after Nero’s accession in October 54 or, at the latest, in December 54 or January 55 c.e.6276 These scholars thus point to the proconsul’s interim successors, either Nero’s envoys Helius and Celer (who helped assassinate Silanus)6277 or, more likely, Silanus’s three deputies.6278 Some scholars are dissatisfied with this explanation; it would have been simpler to mention “the proconsul” if one was in office and to simply mention the continuance 6268. Johnson, Acts, 350, noting “case against one” (Arist. Rhet. 1402a), “bring cases” (Plato Apol. 26C), “court days” ( Jos. Ant. 14.245), and “proconsuls.” 6269. For the Greek expression, BDAG cites Jos. Ant. 14.245; Eph. Ep. 7.436, no. 44.10; Strabo 13.4.12. The “courts” being “open” seems to occur much more rarely in smaller Apamea, where the arrival of judges seems to bring a host of others (Dio Chrys. Or. 35.15). The courts being open suggests that no festival is underway, despite the religious fervor (Libanius Descr. 29.9). 6270. Bruce, Acts1, 368; Hemer, Acts in History, 123; Trebilco, “Asia,” 355; cf. Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189. Trebilco, “Asia,” 355, also notes the conjunction of ἀγοραῖοι and ἄγω in Jos. Ant. 14.245 (with the singular for the court day), IGRR 4.788.10, and other sources; this may reflect the Latin conventus agere (Conzelmann, Acts, 166). If this was an assize day, the meeting may have been conducted in the town hall adjoining the theater rather than in the theater itself. 6271. Trebilco, “Asia,” 309. 6272. A proconsul could also convene a city “assembly” (Dio Chrys. Or. 45.15). 6273. The standard translation of Dio Chrys. Or. 40.7; 45.4, 6, 8; 46.14 speaks of “proconsuls” but uses the different term ἡγεμών (which also means “governor” [e.g., Acts 23:24, 26, 33; 24:1, 10; 26:30], though it bears a broader semantic range than this [e.g., 1 Macc 6:57; 2 Macc 1:13, 16; 12:19; Philo Creation 17, 30, 69, 75, 78]). Perhaps Dio could refer to successive proconsuls in these cases, or proconsuls over all the provinces in that region; or Dio may employ a generalizing plural (see comment below). 6274. As Barrett, Acts, 937, notes, this was “an elementary and universally known fact.” Elsewhere Luke always employs the singular (Acts 13:7, 8, 12; 18:12). A quaestor and three legates assisted the proconsul in Asia (Calder, Gray, and Mitchell, “Asia,” 189). 6275. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 251; Barrett, Acts, 937; Horton, Acts, 331n22; allowed as a possibility in Hemer, Acts in History, 123. The generalizing plural with proconsuls appears in Plut. Praecepta gerendae rei publicae (Statecraft) 813E (Trebilco, “Asia,” 356n283). 6276. See Tac. Ann. 13.1 (noting the use of the imperial agents Celer and Helius in the murder, as the first murder of Nero’s reign); Dio Cass. Hist. 61.6.4–5; Bruce, Commentary, 401; idem, Acts1, 368; Riesner, Early Period, 216–17; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55 (also mentioning another possibility, below); very tentatively, Trebilco, “Asia,” 356. 6277. Duncan, Ephesian Ministry, 102ff.; more tentatively, Bruce, Documents, 83; idem, Commentary, 401n70; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55; Hemer, Acts in History, 123, 169. 6278. Riesner, Early Period, 216–17. On Roman means of temporarily filling emergency vacancies, see Treves and Levick, “Suffect”; Tomlin, “Vicarius.”

2938

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 642

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

of courts if he was not.6279 “Proconsuls” may be an unusual way to speak of one proconsul, but it was perhaps an even more unusual way to speak of those who were not technically proconsuls, unless it conveys “a touch of obsequious respect.”6280 If the riot occurs during the interregnum before a new proconsul arrived, a generalizing plural might make better sense. Moreover, for the members of Luke’s audience—who would know that provinces did not have multiple proconsuls simultaneously, and probably would not be aware of the political situation in Asia at the time the narrative depicts (unless they were Ephesians themselves)—a generalizing plural is probably the only way they could have taken it. The generalizing plural is thus a safe guess; the more detailed explanation is possible but uncertain.6281 Even if Luke is aware of finer points of the events, he at most alludes to them, mostly obscuring them by his concise way of recounting only what is relevant; his audience, unaware of such details, would thus likely assume a generalizing plural about proconsuls in provinces. C ourts in Se s sion (1 9 : 3 8 )

The clerk’s explicit naming of Demetrius would serve as a public rebuke.6282 Still, that the clerk stops with an exhortation to Demetrius to use legal methods, rather than with any threat of punishment for him as well as for the city assembly as a whole (19:40), suggests that the clerk reads the situation as politically charged. If Demetrius has led a public defense of Artemis’s honor, he would be popular, and a stronger denunciation might help neither the immediate situation nor the clerk’s political standing (it would, in fact, augment Demetrius’s standing with the latter’s partisans). Other instigators of riots could face harsher punishments. Individuals charged with stirring unrest could face exile or execution.6283 Punishments could apply to Demetrius’s entire guild (19:24–25). Although Dio Chrysostom ultimately urges Tarsus to accept the linen workers as citizens (Or. 34.23), he warns that the linen workers should be expelled from popular assemblies (ἐκκλησίαις) if they stir insurrection and disorder (34.21). Indeed, even filing frivolous charges was unwise; Dio also warns the Tarsians not to engage in pointless complaints lest they lose the right of “free speech”; he notes that Ionia has forbidden such accusations.6284 Courts were held not in the commercial agora next to the theater but probably in the state agora further east, across from the prytaneion, the equivalent of a city hall.6285 Paganism would not have felt threatened there; a temple, probably of Augustus, stood in its center, and the sanctuary of Hestia Boulaia was nearby; statues of Artemis of Ephesus have also been found in that area.6286 To reach the court from the theater, 6279. If there was no proconsul at the moment, it would explain the clerk’s need to emphasize that the courts remained in session, though the clerk might well emphasize this point, in any case, as a contrast to Demetrius’s attempt to achieve justice by the mob. 6280. Blaiklock, “Document,” 50. Given the hyperbole in Acts 19:35, this is not impossible, especially if he refers to the emperor’s agents there (though the deputies would be more likely to exercise the proconsul’s duties). 6281. For skepticism about the detailed explanation, see Barrett, Acts, 937; Witherington, Acts, 599. 6282. One might deliberately suppress an opponent’s name in an insulting manner (e.g., Aeschines Ctes. 1; Demosth. Or. 19.120 [noted in Hermog. Inv. 4.3.179]; Cic. Agr. 24.63–64; Res Gestae 1.1; 4.24; Quint. Decl. 293.1; Libanius Speech in Character 7.1, 3; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.36–37; 40.8–9; 47.20–21; Lucian Peregr. 11–13, 22; Marshall, Enmity, 342–43; perhaps Symm. Ep. 1.65); but one would sometimes name them if this would warn against or shame them more effectively (e.g., 1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17; perhaps 4Q477 2 II, 3, 5, 7, 9). 6283. Plut. Praecepta gerendae rei publicae (Statecraft) 813F, 825C (Trebilco, “Asia,” 344); the banishment of those who stirred violence in Pompeii in Tac. Ann. 14.17 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 345). 6284. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.39; needless fights would result in their relinquishing their superiors’ trust (34.40). Ionia includes Ephesus, but in a later generation and presumably involving more-provincial complaints. 6285. McRay, Archaeology, 40, 253–54. The state agora was 525 ft. long, with a basilica on its north that was 65 ft. wide, and dates to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. 6286. Ibid., 254.

2939

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 643

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

one would follow Marble Street just past the length of the commercial agora and turn left on to Curetes Street, which would lead toward the large state (civic) agora.6287 Demetrius may have tried to preserve his own honor by threatening to prosecute Paul if he did catch him. (Among themselves, his partisans probably viewed city officials as guilty of prejudicial collusion with outsiders hostile to the sacred local goddess. If they did not, they would quickly repudiate Demetrius as having brought them into public association with what was shameful.) It is possible that Paul was convicted in absentia, but Luke’s confidence in Acts 19:38–39 (especially in the legal system as implied in 19:39) makes this appear doubtful. Had the courts condemned Paul, Luke’s apologetic would need to explain how the courts were deceived, not express confidence in their support. More likely, embarrassed supporters (19:31) would have ensured that the matter never came to trial, and Demetrius, having achieved local honor enough in his circle for defending the cult, would be satisfied with his inability to bring Paul to court so long as Paul stayed out of the city (cf. 20:18). And it is unlikely that Paul would be welcome in Ephesus again as a public sage, drawing crowds and gaining support within the establishment. Both Paul’s former patrons and his enemies would prefer his absence from Ephesus.6288 The L aw ful A sse mbly ( 1 9 : 3 9 )

Assemblies of the people were often conducted in theaters,6289 the venue of this scene (19:29). Although Luke has occasionally called the mob an “assembly” (ἐκκλησία, 19:32, 40),6290 he has also used “crowd” (19:33, 35; on his use of ἐκκλησία, see comment on Acts 19:32). Here the clerk speaks of a “legal assembly”—that is, in contrast to the current one6291—although in Ephesus the regular assembly also met in the theater (see comment on Acts 19:29). Ancient readers knew well “the distinction between a properly and legally convened Assembly of the people—in exercise of the supreme powers that belonged to the people and could be exercised only through a lawful Assembly called together according to certain rules—and a mere assemblage of the people to hear a statement by a magistrate or give vent to some great popular feeling in a crisis.”6292 When jurors were particularly enraged about an alleged offense that may or may not have been committed, orators might remind them to judge the case, not the law; they could make laws only on the proper days.6293 Under the empire, citizen assemblies even of free cities probably met relatively infrequently.6294 (They were, however, much more relevant in this period than by the 6287. Ibid., map, 251, reproduced above on p. 2902. 6288. If 1 Tim 1:3 is construed as saying that Paul eventually returned to Ephesus, it is possible that the political situation changed (though even in the Pastorals it appears that conditions remained uncomfortable for Paul there; cf. 2 Tim 1:15; 4:14–15). But if he did, it is beyond Luke’s purview and perhaps beyond his sources (Acts 20:25, 38, though this may represent Luke’s compression of material and use of pathos). 6289. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 40.6 (in contrast to council chamber meetings); 66.4, 29. 6290. Possibly, this occurred on an assize day (a good day for Demetrius to choose to stir his allies to seize someone, Acts 19:29), and the mob spilled into and interrupted regular proceedings; were that the case, however, we would expect mention of the proconsul or deputy (unless Demetrius chose this time also because of the interregnum; see comment on Acts 19:38). 6291. With Conzelmann, Acts, 166; Bruce, Apostle, 294. The exact expression “regular assembly” appears elsewhere in ancient sources (SIG3 852.20, from 149 c.e.), and the idea is attested in Ephesus (I. Eph. 27.468–69, from 104 c.e.; Hemer, Acts in History, 123). For further discussion of the expression (and the view of some that the assembly here indeed was an official one), see comment on Acts 19:32. 6292. Ramsay, Other Studies, 205; see more fully his discussion on the lawful assembly, 203–15. 6293. Rhet. Alex. 36.18–20, 1443a (from the Hellenistic era). For openness to being corrected by another’s views, see Dion. Hal. Lysias 20. 6294. All uses of theaters in cities may have been five to twenty-five times in a year (Horsley, Galilee, 180, following Boatwright, “Theaters”), though perhaps Ephesus would have used its theater more frequently

2940

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 644

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

mid-second century and later.)6295 Because one inscription in Ephesus suggests one regular assembly per month (I. Eph. 27.54) and John Chrysostom suggests three assemblies in Ephesus per month,6296 some scholars suggest that Ephesus had one regular or sacred and two additional meetings a month, which was similar to the schedule in Athens.6297 Thus some believe that this was a legal assembly (with matters being brought before the town clerk) but not a regular one,6298 the issue simply being that it went out of control. Given the use of irony in ancient rhetoric, one could well imagine a speaker condemning a disorderly meeting as no real meeting at all.6299 Yet Luke’s narrative can also read as if this was an unscheduled mob scene (if the earlier uses of “assembly” are ironic).6300 After all, why should the accusers raise the matters in a “regular assembly” as opposed to the sort of additional assembly this view proposes for this occasion? Demetrius could also whip up mob support for a regularly scheduled meeting, but if Paul’s case were really on the docket, his absence (which Luke would not likely invent; cf. 19:30–31) is harder to explain. More likely, a complaint such as the one they offered should have started in the courts rather than occupying the entire citizen assembly. The matter is thus debated. (5) Answering to Rome (19:40–41)

Rome could not be safely ignored. Rome was increasingly invested in Ephesus,6301 an involvement that the Asiarchs, the clerk, and other officials of the city and province probably found to their own advantage.6302 Although romanization was merely a veneer in much of the empire (especially in rural areas), it did affect cities even in the East, including Ephesus.6303 If the clerk or other leaders of the city had to plead on the city’s behalf, they would praise the emperor’s or other Roman official’s benevolence and mercy before announcing their dependence on them.6304 The Da ng e r

The language and imagery of this scene fit the circumstances but also skillfully fit Luke’s purposes. For Luke, the clerk’s “we are in danger” (κινδυνεύομεν, with respect to Rome) rightly answers to Demetrius’s “there is danger” (κινδυνεύει, with respect than did smaller cities. In classical Athens, popular assemblies settled even routine decisions ( Judge, Pattern, 19); in later centuries, “free” cities continued to make many decisions by votes in the theater (cf. Heliod. Eth. 4.21). 6295. Sherwin-White, Society, 85–86, noting that the picture fits the era (though only a very few scholars date Acts as late as the mid-second century). Centralized government also increased in late second-century Asia Minor (Zuiderhoek, “Centralization”). 6296. Chrys. Hom. Acts 42.2 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 252; Bruce, Commentary, 402; SherwinWhite, Society, 87; Witherington, Acts, 599). 6297. Sherwin-White, Society, 87; Trebilco, “Asia,” 356. 6298. Sherwin-White, Society, 88. Even irregular assemblies would be announced; ancients did post announcements (Kolb, “Newspaper,” 698). 6299. Cf. Paul’s complaint in 1 Cor 11:20–21: it is not the Lord’s supper you eat, but your own (cf. Winter, Left Corinth, 158). 6300. Ambiguously leaving such an impression could further serve Luke’s apologetic (even if it were a scheduled assembly), but of course, we have a mob scene that furthers his apologetic, in any case (shouting in any assembly could become out of control). Perhaps the mob was aroused on the pretext (or, likelier, assumption) of an unscheduled meeting. 6301. Italian pottery in first-century Ephesus (see Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, “Factories,” 221) suggests commercial ties, though this speaks more about material than about social culture. 6302. Given nostalgia for the Greek past, literary sources focus on Greek elements of the culture, but archaeology demonstrates considerable Roman influence, especially among the upper classes (Thomas, “Religion in Ephesos,” 107–15). 6303. See White, “Development,” 30–33. 6304. Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.7, 10.

2941

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 645

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

to Artemis being abandoned; 19:27, the only other use in Acts). Because Demetrius had failed to “bring accusation” in the appropriate forum (19:38), the city could be “accused” (19:40). Thus the charge of στάσις, wrongly leveled against Paul (Acts 24:5), properly belonged instead to his opponents (cf. 23:7, 10; Luke 23:19, 25). Just as there was no rightful cause for convicting Jesus (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; Acts 13:28) or Paul (Acts 22:24; 23:28; 25:18, 27; 28:18, 20), there was no justifiable cause for this mob’s behavior (19:40).6305 Mobs normally acted without thought for the consequences,6306 as ancient observers recognized (Max. Tyre 27.6). Nevertheless, consequences often followed, or at least were the subject of warnings, as here.6307 During Nero’s reign a mob action in Pompeii (where gladiatorial games led to a riot and some visitors’ deaths) caused the banning of such gatherings for ten years and, in addition, the exile of the show’s sponsor.6308 Later in the first century, Dio Chrysostom warned a rioting mob in his own city of Prusa that Rome would hear about it, as it did about all improper assemblies (Or. 46.14).6309 About a century after the riot that Luke describes, when bakers’ meetings in Magnesia led to a strike and public riots, the proconsul promised to punish any further infractions.6310 Cities that engaged in riots could, at a minimum, lose Rome’s respect.6311 Twice in the first century Rome investigated matters surrounding the Artemisium itself—first, regarding its offering of asylum to suppliants6312 and, second, in the proconsul’s censure of conspicuous corruption about 44 c.e.6313 By the time depicted in this narrative, the temple establishment, like the city government as a whole, currently needs no negative publicity. L o sing Fr e e Statu s

The most ominous prospect would be for Ephesus to lose its status as a “free city” (civitas libera);6314 free cities losing their freedom was the greatest disgrace possible (Pliny Ep. 8.24.7). This honor and measure of autonomy remained completely contingent on Roman goodwill,6315 and riotous behavior was the surest way to lose the privilege.6316 Cyzicus had lost this privilege for allowing the execution of some Roman citizens, “apparently in connection with a riot.”6317 Intercity violence in Pompeii during a gladiatorial show in 59 c.e. led to the revocation of its right to 6305. I assume that Luke here uses αἰτία and αἴτιος interchangeably (compare Luke 23:4 with Acts 13:28). 6306. Crowds often supported views when together that no one afterward would defend (Pliny Ep. 2.11.6–7). 6307. Hostile interpreters could construe civic violence “as violations of Lex Lutatia, Lex Plautia, and possibly Lex Iulia de vi publica” (Fitzmyer, Acts, 662, following Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1128–29). 6308. Tac. Ann. 14.17. 6309. Jones, Chrysostom, 24; Yamauchi, Cities, 81; Trebilco, “Asia,” 347. 6310. Trebilco, “Asia,” 339–40; Harland, Associations, 170 (citing I. Eph. 215). 6311. Dio Chrys. Or. 38.33–37, in Trebilco, “Asia,” 344. 6312. On which see comment on Acts 19:29. Unlike some other sanctuaries, the Artemis temple successfully defended its claim to the right (Tac. Ann. 3.60–63; see more fully Trebilco, “Asia,” 342–43). 6313. See comment on Acts 19:25. Here see Trebilco, “Asia,” 343; I. Eph. 17–19. Half a century later, proconsuls themselves were allegedly involved in corruption (Tac. Agr. 6). 6314. Bruce, History, 18; cf. Judge, Pattern, 24. 6315. See Spawforth, “Free Cities”; Bruce, History, 18. 6316. Pliny noted that a free city implemented its own laws, but the emperor had to decide if it could have clubs to care for the needy (Ep. 10.92). The emperor replied that “free cities,” unlike all others, could have such clubs so long as they did not abuse them “for riotous and unlawful assemblies” (10.93 [Radice, LCL, 2:283]). 6317. Trebilco, “Asia,” 344, citing Dio Cass. 54.7.6 and dating the loss to 20 b.c.e. (comparing also Rhodes’s loss in Tac. Ann. 12.58; others in Suet. Aug. 47). One gathers from Tac. Ann. 4.36 that Cyzicus lost the privilege because of neglecting the imperial cult as well as violence to Roman citizens, ca. 25 c.e.

2942

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 646

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul and Companions in Asia and Achaia (15:36–19:41)

such shows for ten years;6318 Prusa lost its right of assembly before 102 c.e., “probably because of riots.”6319 This prospect was unlikely for a mostly unplanned outcry confined to a few hours in the theater (and defending Artemis rather than criticizing Rome) and with no fatalities, especially in prominent and wealthy Ephesus. Yet no official would care to offer provocation; the privilege depended entirely on Rome’s favor, as noted above, and Rome was already looking for excuses in this period to reduce such privileges.6320 If Tarsus did not address its disunity, Dio Chrysostom warned, Rome might intervene, threatening their “right of free speech [παρρησίαν] altogether.”6321 Ephesus’s “freedom” was a significant privilege. The highest status belonged to Rome’s “colonies,” with municipia and other towns with the Roman franchise next, followed by “Latin” towns; after these were the “free” cities “(Ephesus, Smyrna, Tarsus, Antioch of Syria), meaning their internal affairs were governed by their own laws, or ‘federate’ (Athens, Tyre, Rhodes),” even though this privilege did not fit the normal administration of the imperial period.6322 Rome preferred permanent municipal senates (with permanent interests in Roman order), but Ephesus, as a “free” city, apparently continued to follow the Greek model of annually selecting its city councilors (by lot) in this period (I. Eph. 1003–4, 1009).6323 Having calmed the crowd by affirming Artemis’s greatness, and then sobered the calmed crowd with warnings of Roman intervention, the official is finally able to disband the assembly (Acts 19:40, end; in most English translations, 19:41). The matter would not likely be finished, however. Publicly associating Demetrius with the risk of the city’s demotion would cause him to lose face in front of many of his fellow citizens. Demetrius would likely look for subsequent means to respond, to regain his honor. Demetrius might be happy to escape charges himself, but if he wished to press his case and recoup his honor he could counter with a charge that Paul was guilty of sedition.6324 This charge possibly could be aided by the association of the imperial cult with local religion. Because of the local prestige of the Artemis cult, Rome sought to associate the imperial cult with it.6325 This connection became especially clear after the emperor Claudius’s second wife, Agrippina, became linked with Artemis in 50/51 c.e.; the coins portray Diana (Artemis) of Ephesus on one side and the imperial couple (with the claim THEOGAMIA, “divine marriage”) on the other.6326 The presence of the imperial cult might lend to any assaults on the dignity of Ephesus’s deities (Acts 19:26) potentially dangerous political implications (cf. 17:7). 6318. Tac. Ann. 14.17 (Trebilco, “Asia,” 345). 6319. Trebilco, “Asia,” 345, citing Dio Chrys. Or. 48.1. 6320. See Sherwin-White, Society, 83–85; Witherington, Acts, 600n171. On the circumscription of cities’ autonomy (and especially that of the municipal elites who traditionally controlled them) under the empire, see, e.g., Meeks, Moral World, 27. 6321. Dio Chrys. Or. 34.39 (LCL, 3:373, 375; quoted also in Meeks, Moral World, 27). “Free” speech here probably implies speech in the civic assembly. 6322. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 32. “Freedom” was a status that the advancing empire bestowed on cities (Appian Hist. rom. 12.12.83); in its strictest sense, it meant exemption from Roman taxation (cf. pl. liberae, Cic. Verr. 2.3.6.13; but in the first century, such exemption might be specified by immunitas [see Burton, “Immunitas,” 749]), a significant economic boon. 6323. Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 55–56, noting that Rome did not try to force change (cf. I. Eph. 1487–88, a “polite request to add two councilors”). Apparently, the Greek model prevailed until the Flavian period. 6324. For a discussion of Paul’s imprisonment(s) at some point(s) in Ephesus (possible but not proven), though not necessarily on the occasion described here, see the introduction, above, to Acts 19:23–40. 6325. See Johnson, “Paul and Riot”; Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 156–57. An altar honoring Augustus was inside the temple precinct of the Artemisium (McDonald, “Ephesus,” 319; Yamauchi, Cities, 83). 6326. Kreitzer, “Clue to Acts 19.23–41” (suggesting also the dangerous political dimension of Acts 19:40); see also Riesner, Early Period, 215. Earlier scholars emphasized a ritual of sacred marriage (cf. Reitzenstein,

2943

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 647

6/18/14 10:27 AM

Paul’s Diaspora Missions (12:25–19:41) (continued)

Because Paul was Jewish (despite the schism in the synagogue, 19:8–9), his monotheism would be tolerated if he were not actually attacking the imperial cult, but the accumulation of enemies’ charges from various locales was gradually building toward a potential case against him (21:28; 24:5). That his ministry had become controversial would also make it embarrassing to former supporters like the Asiarchs. Although Luke emphasizes that Paul had already planned a departure (19:21–22), Paul’s decision to leave Ephesus would reduce complications for the new movement and undoubtedly relieve his supporters.

Religions, 19–20, 25, 35–36, 118, 310–19; Ramsay, Teaching, 294–96; Angus, Mystery-Religions, 114–16; Murray, Stages, 32; Knox, Gentiles, 201; Tarn, Civilisation, 354–55; Batey, Imagery, 11), but modern research is more skeptical about sexual rituals connected with conjugal myths (Graf, “Hieros Gamos: Greece”; Lanci, “Stones,” 209–10; Koester, Introduction, 1:177; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 239) and speaks of such marriages in more restrained terms (Burkert, Religion, 108–9; Klauck, Context, 102–3, 120, 125; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.56; Hdn. 5.6.5). Often marriage is employed simply as an image for something else (Wohl, “Scenes”).

2944

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt2b_TW_djm.indd 648

6/18/14 10:27 AM

P A R T

T o R ome

6

J erusalem (20:1–28:31)

v ia

L

uke has narrated the ministry of Jesus, the expansion of his movement from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria, and the beginning of the Pauline mission across cultural barriers. In 19:21, Paul turned toward Rome by way of Jerusalem, revisiting the churches of Achaia and Macedonia; his final voluntary journey begins along these lines in 20:1–21:17.1 Here in Jerusalem he enters Roman custody, and the narrative moves on inexorably to Rome. For historically useful comparisons with Paul’s letters, see the table below, under Acts 20:1–5, and comments on the relevant passages thereafter.

1. The final involuntary journey will be the voyage to Rome in Roman custody in Acts 27:1–28:14, but it fits Paul’s sense of God’s calling as well (cf. 19:21; 25:11; 27:24).

2945

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 1

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

A

phase of Paul’s public ministry closed after Ephesus, which was its climax. Acts 20:1–21:16 is not only a geographic transition from Ephesus to Jerusalem1 but the transition from his accepted public ministry to his captivity (his “passion,” so to speak). Far from the transition being unimportant, Luke highlights elements of this transition,2 especially during its later eyewitness “we” portion. The voyage includes a miracle (20:7–12); a summary of Paul’s central message to a church he had guided (20:18–35); and scenes of great affection for Paul (20:36– 21:14). Luke uses the scenes of affection to reveal more about Paul’s ēthos, or character (through the way that characters within the narrative world who knew him had perceived him), than Luke’s audience could otherwise infer merely from Luke’s fast-paced narrative. By narrating even Paul’s extended stays in 20:1–21:16 only briefly (esp. 20:3), Luke creates another continuous journey account, interrupted only by a major speech (20:18–35). Hellenistic narratives employed such devices to organize their material, and they appear elsewhere in Luke-Acts (cf. Luke 9–19; Acts 13–14; 15:36–18:1; 18:18–19:1).3 Gaventa suggests episodes alternating between Paul’s travels and “discrete dramatic events” in Acts 20:1–21:17:4 • 20:1–6: Travel • 20:7–12: Event • 20:13–16: Travel • 20:17–38: Event • 21:1–7: Travel • 21:8–14: Event • 21:15–17: Travel 1. Although Paul’s turn toward Jerusalem and Rome begins in Acts 19:21 and the riot in Ephesus merely confirms the need to leave, I have chosen to begin the new section where Luke is actually moving Paul toward Jerusalem (technically, starting in 20:3; the break between 19:41 and 20:1 is not abrupt). 2. Luke does not treat all elements equally: Paul himself probably saw more relevance in his extended stay in Achaia and Macedonia (Acts 20:1–6), as well as in his collection (cf. 24:17), than Luke did. 3. See Johnson, Acts, 10. 4. Gaventa, Acts, 276. In a sense, however, this alternation is not unexpected (nor are travels completely uneventful; cf. 21:4): Luke narrates accounts in various locations along the way, and travel from one location to the next must be mentioned. Perhaps he could have expanded on other locations as well but summarizes them as orators sometimes did in lists (cf. Rowe, “Style,” 148–49), though this cannot be inferred from the present itinerary in light of the itinerary form. But this approach does break up narrative nicely, lest recounting of travel details become too tedious. The travel sections also summarize the passage of time (e.g., traveling more than 150 mi. round-trip to a location where he needs to conduct some business, Pliny needs at least thirty days; Ep. 10.8.6).

2946

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 2

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

The first travel sequence, 20:1–16, is a chronological transition, kept as brief as possible, to return Paul to the church in Ephesus, which he leaves in 20:1. (The speech in 20:18–35 does not take place in Ephesus, but it is addressed to the leaders of the church there [20:16–17].) Luke retains the story of Eutychus in this compressed travel sequence, however, because the raising parallels miracles of Jesus and Peter (Luke 7:11–17; Acts 9:36–42). Luke may also report this event in part because this is a point where Luke can add his own eyewitness testimony (he was present at the meeting, Acts 20:7). It is possible (though I think less than clear) that Luke preserves this story in the midst of a section surrounded by the Ephesian church to suggest that the God who could raise Eutychus would also preserve the church in Ephesus despite its problems. Luke reports travel details more minutely at some points than others, but he does so most commonly in “we” narratives, especially when he is covering ground already traveled by Paul earlier in the book.5 Although Paul’s letters reveal that even here Luke summarizes and simplifies, the travel notes do reflect early material.6 As one early twentieth-century scholar remarked, “The narrative portion of the twentieth chapter of Acts is full and correct enough for a guide-book.”7 Ancients seem to have appreciated fresh travel details more than most modern Western readers would;8 descriptions of where ships went appear also in novels (e.g., Char. Chaer. 1.11, though the modes and timing appear less careful).9 Likewise, in one of his letters, Cicero spends the first paragraph summarizing his recent travels, including the number of days spent in various locations (Att. 5.12). This is one of the few parts of Paul’s life where his letters provide a secure sequence, and the sequence here and in following chapters fits Paul’s letters precisely, where there is overlap. Neither source includes every detail found in the other (if they did, we would need to suspect dependence),10 but they confirm each other on the points where they overlap. I provide on pages 2948–49 a much fuller comparison than at Acts 19:21.11

1. Macedonia, Achaia, and Macedonia (20:1–5) Paul contemplated this phase of his activity in Acts 19:21, but Luke hurries over it quickly, eager to reach that verse’s primary goals of Judea and Rome. Because Paul’s travels here revisit major ministry locations from his second mission, Luke in a sense uses this compressed historical information to briefly re-encapsulate that mission, thereby reminding the audience that Paul now leaves his successful Diaspora mission to return to Jerusalem. 5. Knox, Acts, 57–58. Thus much of the ground summarized in Acts 18:18–23 and 19:1 is treated in detail in 20:5–6, 13–16; 21:1–3, 7, 15. 6. So Conzelmann, Acts, 167 (citing, to show that it is simplified, 1 Cor 16:5; 2 Cor 2:12–13; 7:6–7, 13–16). 7. Burkitt, Sources, 16. 8. So Knox, Acts, 57–58. 9. When one did not know the number of days’ distance a site was, it was safest to claim that the traveler “came in the usual number of days” or something similar (Xen. Cyr. 5.4.51). 10. Luke’s omissions of Titus and the collection are major differences that must reflect Luke’s concerns, even if we cannot satisfactorily explain them. Perhaps the most difficult question is when Paul’s second visit to the Corinthians occurred (2 Cor 13:2; cf. 2:1); the reference to that visit cannot be simply dismissed as figurative usage for Paul’s surrogates visiting them. Did it occur before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, early in Paul’s two-year stay in Ephesus and too brief to warrant Luke’s mention? (Or, less likely, after an interval away from Corinth during his eighteen months there?) If we place it after 1 Cor 16:3–8, Luke may have collapsed the two visits together, which is entirely possible (see Hemer, Acts in History, 188) but is not the simplest solution. 11. See Riesner, Early Period, 233, here adapted and expanded; Witherington, Acts, 447–49; cf. also Dunn, Acts, 262; more briefly Hemer, Acts in History, 187; Fitzmyer, Acts, 652.

2947

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 3

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31) Paul’s Letters

Acts

Paul taught the “Galatians” about the collection (1 Cor 16:1)*

Paul strengthens “the disciples” throughout Galatia and Phrygia (18:23)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8)

Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (19:1–20)

Many events while Paul is in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8) a. Visitors: members of Chloe’s household (1 Cor 1:11); Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus with a gift (16:17); someone (probably Stephanas’s group) with a letter (7:1) b. Writes 1 Corinthians c. Probably his second, painful visit to Corinth (briefly alluded to in 2 Cor 2:1; 12:14; 13:2)†

Paul’s stay in Ephesus lasts more than two years (19:8, 10; 20:31)

Apollos is known to the Corinthians as a strong preacher and is with Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:12)

Apollos earlier left Ephesus for Corinth, where he preached for a period of time (18:24–28)

Paul plans to visit a. Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5)‡ b. Then Achaia (16:5–6; cf. 4:18–21) c. Judea (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 1:16) d. And finally Rome (Rom 1:11–13; 15:23–25; cf. 2 Cor 10:16)

Paul plans to visit a. Macedonia b. Achaia c. Judea d. Rome (in that sequence; 19:21)

At some point while they are in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8), Paul sends Timothy to Corinth ahead of himself (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10);§ Timothy is later with Paul in Corinth (Rom 16:21)

While in Ephesus, Paul sends Timothy and a companion into Macedonia (19:21); Timothy is next mentioned leaving Corinth (or just possibly Macedonia) with Paul (20:3–4)

The situation in Corinth a. At one point, Paul considers sailing to Corinth before Macedonia (2 Cor 1:15–16),‖ but the plans do not materialize (1:17), partly because of conflict with the Corinthian church (2:1–3) b. At some point, rival Jewish-Christian missionaries (2:17; 4:2) with letters of recommendation (3:1) and self-commendations (10:12–18; 11:18) enter Corinth, exacerbating the tension with Paul (11:4, 12–15, 19–23) c. Paul sends Titus to Corinth with a sorrowful letter (2:13)

In a section already compressed, Luke omits conflicts with the Corinthian church, which would not serve his purpose

Paul visits Troas (2 Cor 2:12)

Implied as a normal part of the journey through Macedonia, the simplest route between Asia and Greece (16:11; 20:5–6)

Events in Macedonia a. Anxious about the Corinthians’ response, not having heard from Titus, Paul leaves Troas for Macedonia (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5; cf. 1 Cor 16:5) b. Offerings in Macedonia (2 Cor 8:1–5; 9:2) c. Probably a visit to Illyricum (Rom 15:19),# though some scholars place this closer to Acts 17:10 (less likely)**

Paul visits Macedonia (20:1–2)

The summaries are too brief (esp. 19:10), with a few examples added that are germane to Luke’s points about the gospel spreading (19:10–20) and persecution (19:23– 20:1); he has addressed the Corinthian church’s inner life too little for us to expect comment on the Corinthian correspondence from Ephesus

Again Luke omits details of the conflict with the Corinthians (which provide little narrative action, do not advance Luke’s apologetic point, and may have been forgotten or remembered only painfully by Luke’s audience, who may be Greeks and Macedonians, after Paul’s death)         (continued next page)

*He writes as if the Corinthian Christians knew of this journey. †Riesner, Early Period, 299, appears to think of Paul’s second letter as a surrogate visit. Given Luke’s summary of “two years” in a verse in Acts 19:10 (though adding afterward an anecdote), however, we should not count Luke’s silence against an interim journey noted only in 2 Corinthians. The visit may have been brief but at least long enough to justify the voyage, which by itself may have taken more than two weeks each way (see Cic. Att. 5.12–13); no ship could make it in a night (Aeschylus Ag. 279–81). ‡For a planned Macedonian visit, cf. also Phil 2:24; but unless this was written during an Ephesian imprisonment (which I doubt; cf. the likeliest sense of 4:22), it involves later plans (as also 1 Tim 1:3). §These may represent two comings of Timothy (based on the aorist indicative in 1 Cor 4:17 and the aorist subjunctive in 16:10); but if Paul writes from his own chronological standpoint (Timothy’s future arrival but past sending), Timothy might be part of the party bearing the letter (perhaps with others in 16:17–18). Paul plans to send Timothy to Macedonia in Phil 2:19, but unless he writes from an Ephesian imprisonment (I think that Phil 4:22 points more easily to a Roman one; even a Caesarean provenance is more likely for Philippians than an Ephesian one), this is later. ‖This was probably discussed either in his letter of reproof (2 Cor 2:4; 7:8), in which case the coming may have been a threat (cf. 1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 13:2) and was delayed so that Paul would not have to carry it out (2 Cor 2:1–4), or in an earlier letter, in which case the letter of reproof (2:4) temporarily substituted for his presence. Although some defend the identification of 2 Cor 10–13 with this “tearful letter” (e.g., Watson, “Painful Letter”; Talbert, Corinthians, xix), most doubt it (Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 13–18; Bruce, Corinthians, 167–68; Sumney, Opponents, 126; Scott, Corinthians, 6; Amador, “Revisiting,” 95–98; Kreitzer, Corinthians, 23–25; Best, Corinthians, 2–3). #Unless the grammar there reads “as far as Illyricum,” treating Macedonia as a symbolic whole (see, e.g., Dunn, Romans, 864). **That section of Acts details Paul’s movements fairly specifically whereas omissions of detail are far more to be expected in Acts 20:1–3; see comment on Acts 17:10.

2948

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 4

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16) Paul’s Letters d. Titus, returning from Corinth, meets Paul in Macedonia with good news that the Corinthians have disciplined the offender (2 Cor 7:6–7, 13) e. Paul writes 2 Corinthians and sends it with Titus, in preparation for the collection to be ready when he arrives (8:6, 16–19, 22–23; 9:3–5; cf. 1 Cor 16:2); he expresses confidence in Corinthians (2 Cor 8:24; 9:2) Despite his delay (2 Cor 1:16–17; 2:1), Paul plans to visit Corinth (13:1) with traveling companions from other cities (9:4) Paul finishes his collection in Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26) and writes Romans from Corinth, sending it by a church leader from Cenchreae (16:1)†† After leaving Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:26), Paul presumably carries through his plan to visit Jerusalem (15:25) Paul is aware that Jerusalem might prove dangerous (Rom 15:31); his next letters are from Roman captivity (least disputed, Philippians; Philemon) Paul apparently ends up in Rome, though not necessarily by the means he planned (Phil 4:22; cf. Rom 15:23–24)

Acts

Paul visits Achaia (20:2–3), and soon afterward we see him with traveling companions from various cities (20:4) Paul in Achaia for three months (20:2–3) Paul in Jerusalem (21:17) Paul is arrested in Jerusalem and detained by the Romans (22:24–23:30) Paul uses his Roman citizenship to have his case transferred to Rome (25:10–12)

††A Corinthian provenance for Romans is also likely because he has finished the collection (Rom 15:25–26; Riesner, Early Period, 233–34) and because of the status and perhaps high proportion of Roman names among his colleagues (Rom 16:22–23; cf. 1 Cor 1:14); though these arguments might also fit Philippi, Acts (if it is not circular to admit its evidence here) suggests a much briefer stay in Philippi (Acts 20:3, 6); cf. also the discussion of Erastus (Rom 16:23) at Acts 19:22. The connection with Cenchreae in Rom 16:1 is most important; the ending of Romans is generally accepted today as part of the original letter (Hunter, Romans, 128–29; Lönnermark, “Frågan”; Donfried, “Note on Romans 16”; Stowers, Diatribe, 183; idem, Letter Writing, 155; Drane, “Romans,” 223; esp. Gamble, Textual History; pace, earlier, e.g., Manson, “Letter”; Richards, “Chronological Relationship,” 30; McDonald, “Romans XVI”). Most accept this provenance for Romans (e.g., Bruce, Commentary, 405; Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Barrett, Acts, 947).

Paul’s own letters detail his plans and movements in this period much more fully than does Luke (see the table above, on 20:1–21:16, and comment below). This suggests that Luke does not depend on Paul’s letters for his account;12 it also reminds us that Luke is summarizing most periods of Paul’s life, not providing a blow-by-blow account. Where he provides more detail, it is because he is able to provide dramatic scenes or material useful for his themes, not because this is the only point at which details were later remembered. a. Ephesian Interest (20:1) Paul left Ephesus soon after the riot (20:1). Many scholars think that dangers forced Paul to leave Ephesus;13 although Luke attributes Paul’s departure to other factors (19:21), it is clear from his own account that Ephesus would prove less hospitable to the missionary (cf. 19:30–31). In any case, Luke emphasizes that, despite the troubles in Ephesus, Paul meets with the disciples before leaving, as elsewhere in the face of conflict (14:20; 16:40). This meeting reinforces his portrait of Paul’s courage and loyalty to the young churches. Part of Paul’s farewell here is the farewell “greetings” (note the use of ἀσπασάμενος); on greetings, see comment on Acts 21:7. Luke, who all but omits the collection (24:17),14 has little reason to emphasize a trip to Macedonia and Achaia (20:1–2) whose focal point was the collection (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1–5; cf. 2 Cor 8–9);15 he covers a span of several months in two verses (Acts 12. An ancient writer who had only the protagonist’s letters would use them as a source but would also almost always cite them; historians liked to emphasize documentary sources where they were available. Luke’s “we” in this section identifies a simpler and more complete source of information. On Luke’s “we” material, see the discussion at Acts 16:10; for his nonuse of Paul’s letters, see Keener, Acts, 1:233–37. 13. E.g., Dunn, Acts, 267. 14. For various views of the collection, see the survey in Watson, “Collection,” 1–11, esp. 2–5. 15. See also Bruce, Acts1, 369; Johnson, Acts, 357. Galatia is also included (cf. Acts 20:4; 1 Cor 16:1); the representatives from the Galatian churches may have joined Paul before his departure from

2949

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 5

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

20:2–3). Luke is eager to return to the aftermath of the Ephesus account—namely, a sermon for which he was present (20:15, 17–35) and that he shapes to prefigure Paul’s ultimate witness in Rome. b. Ministry in Macedonia (20:1–2a) Although Luke treats the ministry in Macedonia cursorily (apart from Paul’s “much speech,” λόγῳ πολλῷ), we can supplement our knowledge of the historical events of this period. Paul’s correspondence in what we call 2 Corinthians provides many details of his stay in Macedonia as well as the ongoing discussion he had there with Corinth via letters and messengers.16 Apparently, after leaving Ephesus, Paul went north to Troas (2 Cor 2:12–13) and evangelized. Paul had been promising the Corinthians that he would visit them (1 Cor 4:19, 21; 16:5–7),17 and he briefly even considered starting the collection in Achaia, visiting them before and after Macedonia (2 Cor 1:15–16). He was delayed, however, out of concern for how they would receive him and how he would be forced to deal with them (1:17; 1:23–2:1).18 (Circumstances could alter travel plans [Rom 1:13].) The conflict over the Corinthians’ behavior grew so heated that Paul apparently feared that he would be compelled to carry out the discipline he had threatened (1 Cor 4:18–21; 2 Cor 13:2),19 which he did not wish to do (2 Cor 2:1; 13:10).20 Thus he sent a firm letter by Titus in lieu of his presence (2:4; 7:8), unwilling to come until the congregation was reconciled to him (1:23).21 When Titus did not meet him as arranged, Paul feared that something had gone wrong, and (despite his flourishing ministry in Troas) he anxiously pressed ahead into Macedonia to meet him more quickly (2:12–13). Once in Macedonia, following the path of churches planted there, Paul finally found Titus (7:5–7), possibly in Thessalonica (if Paul could now enter there safely) but much more likely in Philippi. The Corinthians had responded well to his letter (7:9–11) and received Titus hospitably (7:13, 15). The letter had not silenced all opposition,22 but the church had at least repented and made amends on the discipline matter at hand (2:5–11); yet Paul wanted to make sure that they were fully prepared for the collection (9:3–5). Whether our present 2 Corinthians is a unity23 affects how Ephesus. Information about the collection would likely have been available to Luke (see Morgan-Wynne, “Traditionsgrundlage”). 16. See further Rackham, Acts, 370–73; Hemer, Acts in History, 188; Marshall, Acts, 322; Dunn, Acts, 267. For Paul’s movements in this section, see the discussion in Keener, “Corinthian Believers”; also idem, Corinthians, ad loc. 17. By way of Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5). 18. For one reconstruction of the conflict, see Marshall, Enmity, 264; for one view of the change in travel plans, Matera, II Corinthians, 52–53. Some matters in Corinth itself probably also changed, requiring more instruction (Winter, Left Corinth, 5). 19. Because I think that the “second visit” of 2 Cor 13:2 must have taken place during Paul’s hastily summarized stay in Ephesus in Acts 19:10, the threat mentioned in this verse may be older than 1 Corinthians. 20. In the end, however, he remains willing to carry out his threat if it becomes necessary (2 Cor 10:11; 12:19–13:2). 21. Given its content, it is not too surprising that this is one letter that the Corinthian church failed to preserve. 22. His reproof by letter instead of in person led some to accuse him of being timid in person though heavy-handed in his letters (2 Cor 10:1–2, 8–11). 23. Most scholars doubt its unity, though most also reject the more extreme multiple partitions. Yet an increasing minority, often under the influence of contemporary literary and rhetorical criticism, accept even the possibility that the entire letter, including 2 Cor 10–13, belongs together (Danker, “Debt”; deSilva, “Reality”; idem, Credentials, 36–43; Hester, “Unity”; Amador, “Revisiting”; Young and Ford, Meaning, 27–59; Matera, II Corinthians, 24–32; Keener, Corinthians, 146–51; Witherington, Corinthians, 333–39; Barnett, Corinthians, 16–23; D. Garland, 2 Corinthians; Lambrecht, Second Corinthians; McCant, 2 Corinthians, 20–23; Belleville,

2950

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 6

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

we reconstruct the influence of Paul’s rival teachers there, but it appears likely that he is confident of defeating these “false apostles” before he resumes his plans for his third journey. Paul then sent Titus on ahead of him with 2 Corinthians (or part of it) and some companions to supervise the collection (8:16–24).24 Before sending Titus back, Paul already could see that the Macedonian collection would be very successful (8:1–5), though he apparently had some concern about the Corinthians, who ought to have more to contribute than the Macedonians (9:2–4). Hence he sent Titus and others ahead (8:6, 16–19, 22) to make sure it was ready before he brought others with him (9:5; cf. 8:23). Paul’s time in Macedonia (probably after Titus left for Corinth again) is the simplest time in Paul’s career to fit in his trip to Illyricum (Rom 15:19; cf. Titus 3:12);25 we would expect Luke to have mentioned it in the detailed travel narrative of Acts 17:1–10 but not in the enormously condensed summary of 20:2–3. If Paul did travel west to the Adriatic at this time, perhaps in anticipation of his later voyage to Rome (cf. Acts 19:21; Rom 1:10, 13; 15:23), “the first ten words” of Acts 20:2 might hint at the ministry “of as much as a year.”26 It is not clear that Paul spent a long enough time in Illyricum to account for so long a period, but we must expect more than the three months in Achaia that Luke specifies (20:3a), and one cannot doubt that Luke has compressed his account. (Luke naturally mentions Macedonia and Greece specifically because they fit his earlier discussion of Corinth without requiring any digression to explain unfamiliar territory.) Paul would have traveled on the Via Egnatia, a road that he had earlier left in Thessalonica (17:1, 10). c. Ministry in Achaia (20:2b–3) Finally Paul returned to Corinth in person (2 Cor 12:19–13:2; 13:10), now for his third visit (12:13; 13:1).27 Paul’s three-month stay in Achaia was probably during winter (cf. 1 Cor 16:6), starting as early as November or as late as December;28 consonant with this probability, it was followed shortly by the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 20:6). Winter was a difficult time to be traveling by land and especially by sea (see comment on Acts 27:9), and it was simplest for Paul to make this his 2 Corinthians, 30–33; Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, 31–33; Scott, Corinthians, 6–7; earlier, e.g., Allo, Épître aux Corinthiens, l–lvi). 24. The identity of “the brother” (2 Cor 8:18, 22; 12:18) is disputed; some suggest Luke (cf. Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 561–62), though the question seems ultimately insoluble (Matera, II Corinthians, 197). Apollos’s showing up with Titus would have impressed them (cf. his fame in 2 Cor 8:18; cf. 1 Cor 16:12), as would Silas’s; “the brother” might refer to Timothy (cf. 2 Cor 1:1), Paul’s most frequent envoy (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; Phil 2:19; 1 Thess 3:2), though the brother’s confidence in the Corinthian believers (2 Cor 8:22; a major motif in this letter, 1:12, 15; 2:3; 7:4, 16; 9:4) might suggest a Corinthian (cf. 1 Cor 1:1?). Finally we can only speculate, since we are not privy to all of Paul’s earlier communication with the Corinthians, which is likely assumed. Some think that the companions could include Luke (a view mentioned in Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 561–62), but Acts reads as if he joined them in Philippi. 25. With many commentators, e.g., C. Williams, Acts, 229 (if Rom 15:19 is literal); Bruce, Commentary, 404; Gill, “Macedonia,” 410; Riesner, Early Period, 301. But Dunn, Romans, 864, suggests that μέχρι might mean “up to” rather than “into” (so also BDAG here) and that Paul could envision his evangelization of Macedonia as representatively covering the entire province. 26. Bruce, Acts1, 369. Bruce estimates more than a year (perhaps summer 55 to late 56) in Troas and Macedonia (Commentary, 405). 27. The visits must be asymmetrical in duration, given the length of the first one (Acts 18:11), but he weighs each as a distinct visit even if the second one was brief, given the difficulties of travel. 28. It is possible that Acts 20:1–3 does not represent the same visit as 1 Cor 16:5–6 (Rapske, “Travel,” 5; cf. 2 Cor 2:1; 13:1). I am inclined to think that it is the promised visit (perhaps delayed; cf. Hemer, Acts in History, 188), taking his “second visit” as early in his stay in Ephesus, before he wrote 1 Corinthians; but if not, then at least the two passages probably suggest the same travel pattern (avoiding winter travel; cf. Acts 27:9), and 20:1–3 may fulfill the hope of a winter stay abandoned on an earlier trip.

2951

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 7

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

season with the Corinthians if other factors (e.g., their hospitality) accommodated such plans. (He had originally hoped to winter with them earlier [1 Cor 16:6] but had been forced to change his plans [2 Cor 1:16].) This may have been winter of 56–57 (or a nearby year); by this time Aquila and Priscilla have returned to Rome (Rom 16:3), Claudius having died in 54 (see comment on Acts 18:2).29 Luke normally uses the provincial title “Achaia” (Acts 18:12, 27; 19:21; seven times in Paul) but here (and only here) prefers the ordinary, historic term “Greece” (Ἑλλάς),30 which in popular usage could represent Achaia (BDAG). Paul had a number of issues to resolve in Corinth, perhaps including some difficult confrontations if matters were not yet in order (2 Cor 12:20–21; 13:2). If rival apostles remained there, claiming widespread ministries (cf. 10:12–16; 11:5, 13), the international team that accompanied Paul (cf. Acts 20:4) may have helped to set matters in context (cf. the appeal to other churches’ practice in 1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; 14:33).31 Paul already had the Macedonian part of the collection with him, and he planned to sail directly to Jerusalem. Although his plan to reach Macedonia by way of Achaia (2 Cor 1:16) had been discarded in favor of the original plan to reach Achaia by way of Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5–6), he still planned to leave from Achaia for Judea (2 Cor 1:16; cf. 1 Cor 16:6). We know, however, that he was aware of opposition in Judea and was concerned both about the church’s reception of the gift and about more dangerous enemies there (Rom 15:31, written from Corinth).32 That Paul anticipates trouble in Judea is probably more than a guess (cf. also comment on Acts 18:22), and some suspicion may have come from transplanted Judean opposition in Corinth as well as from warnings from Christian travelers who had been to Judea.33 Assuming that Paul wintered in Corinth, as is likely, his plan to sail for Syria here (cf. Acts 21:3) would have probably placed him in Jerusalem in time for Passover (rescheduled because of his trip through Macedonia; 20:6, 16).34 Given the timing, probably a number of the passengers traveling from Corinth’s port town Cenchreae would be Achaian Jews, undoubtedly including some whose hostility he had incurred earlier (18:6, 12).35 Once he was aboard a ship crossing the Aegean,36 means of escape from enemies on the same ship would prove difficult, and a murder designed to appear accidental might even evade notice and prosecution.37 Thus the voyage would 29. Witherington, Acts, 602. 30. Cf. Bruce, Acts1, 369; Gasque, “Acts and History,” 55; Witherington, Acts, 601. This is the only use in the nt or Apostolic Fathers; in the lxx, see Isa 66:19; Ezek 27:13; 1 Macc 1:1; 8:9. It does appear more often in Josephus (twenty-one times) and Philo (thirty times). 31. Cf. also 1 Cor 16:1, 19; 2 Cor 8:1, 18–19, 23–24; 11:8, 28. The representatives from various provinces may also help explain why Paul sends greetings from “all the churches” to Rome from Corinth in Rom 16:4, 16 (he cites the authority of “all the churches” elsewhere, but only here does he send their greetings). 32. With Conzelmann, Acts, 167. Rom 16:1 indicates that the letter is written during Paul’s stay in Corinth. 33. Some may have come from the “false apostles” who may have emphasized their Judean provenance (2 Cor 11:13, 22) and apparently did not think highly of Paul’s ministry. But continuing opposition from Corinthian Jews is also likely (cf. Acts 18:12–13; 20:3). 34. The rescheduling for Pentecost may have providentially worked in his favor, since it was less associated with nationalist aspirations than was Passover (cf. comment on Acts 24:11). 35. With Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 400, though he also (probably wrongly) thinks that most of the sailors would have been Jewish. Ramsay himself admits that we lack evidence for many Jewish sailors (there were a few; m. B. Bat. 5:1; Ketub. 5:6; b. Ketub. 61b; 62b; probably assumed in sailors’ knots in m. Šabb. 15:1; b. Šabb. 111b; see further Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 688–89). They are positive in b. Qidd. 82a; negative in m. Qidd. 4:14; for angels disguised as sailors, see b. Taʿan. 24b. 36. Sailing from Athens to Ephesus may have taken two and a half to three weeks in certain wind conditions (Cic. Att. 5.12–13). 37. Passengers aboard ships brought their own food and other supplies; the crew would not be concerned with keeping tabs on all of them. Depending on the size of the Jewish community in Achaia, it is not impossible that a ship could have been chartered. Still, many ships would leave Cenchreae for Syria, and we do not

2952

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 8

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

provide a far greater opportunity to kill Paul than his stay in busy Corinth, surrounded by others, some of them people of influence (cf. Rom 16:23).38 Plots (cf. 20:19) and conspiracies were common in this period, extending even into the imperial household.39 If an individual heard that his adversaries were plotting against him, fleeing was not dishonorable.40 Even Stoic sages were concerned for their safety, though they might note that this concern merely reflected part of the larger picture of what was best for the most people.41 That Paul is repeatedly warned of plots in time to escape them (also 9:24; 23:16) suggests divine protection. This protection parallels the case of Jesus in the Gospel until the passion narrative (cf. Luke 4:29–30; 13:31). The entire group here could have sailed to Troas and waited for the narrator and anyone with him to join them after the Philippian church finished celebrating the feast. But the text says that they journeyed (by land) through Macedonia, a journey of perhaps two weeks.42 Paul, at least, returned through Macedonia, and he could easily be included in Luke’s “we” in Acts 20:5–6. The narrator, then, had presumably stayed behind in Philippi, probably because he had for some time now been connected with that church (cf. 16:10–17).43 d. Paul’s Colleagues (20:4) Some scholars suggest that Luke mentions Paul’s associates by name because they assisted him in the collection and such responsibilities required known and approved character.44 Certainly, Paul recruited traveling companions partly to provide credibility for the offering (2 Cor 8:20–21), but this is probably not why Luke mentions them. Historically, Paul’s traveling companions participated in the collection, but because Luke mentions the collection only briefly (in 24:17), “the collection agents of the individual communities become mere companions.”45 Although not all teachers took companions on their travels, it was common for them to do so.46 Both Paul’s letters and Acts make it clear that in Paul’s circle not only he but also a number of associates were engaged in ministry of the word.47 But it was also far safer to travel in groups, especially if one carried large amounts of money. Many pilgrims to Jerusalem traveled in groups ( Jos. War 2.232, 515; Ant. 18.122; know that there were massive numbers of Corinthians Jews making pilgrimage; this suggests that the plot would be coordinated with Paul’s known travel plans. 38. Thus Lucian recounts a plot to throw him into the water once he was out to sea, thwarted only by the shipmaster dissuading the sailors, who had been commanded by Lucian’s nemesis (Alex. 56). 39. E.g., Suet. Claud. 13; Dom. 2.3. 40. See, e.g., y. ʿAbod. Zar. 5:4, §3 (claiming that R. Ishmael had to flee Samaria, where he had spoken against Samaritan religion). 41. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 60. 42. Le Cornu, Acts, 1103, estimates a journey of ten to fourteen days, “depending on whether the party travelled by foot or on transport”; travel through Macedonia (Acts 20:3) implies a land journey. Such journeys could employ different means, but given the party’s size, walking would be likeliest, for all or most of the journey. 43. If he had traveled temporarily with Paul and his colleagues to Corinth, then returned to Philippi, this could allow an identification with “Lucius” in Rom 16:21. It would not, however, demand it, since they could have simply agreed to meet the narrator in Philippi. 44. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 234. On Paul’s coworkers (especially in the letters), see further Ellis, “Coworkers.” 45. Haenchen, Acts, 581. 46. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 144; see also comment on Acts 13:5. In many cultures, people learn their trade, including as cultic practitioners, by apprenticeship rather than schooling (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 232–33). 47. See the discussion in Meeks, Urban Christians, 7–8 (also attributing Colossians, Ephesians, and possibly 2 Thessalonians to these circles).

2953

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 9

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Philo Spec. Laws 1.69), and caravans guarding the temple tax traveled there from Babylonia ( Jos. Ant. 17.313).48 Paul’s traveling companions are arranged by twos, except the first one (since there are an odd number of them), which recalls Jesus’s sending out his disciples in pairs (Luke 10:1). In this case Paul has not twelve named companions here (cf. 6:13) but (for those attentive enough to count) seven, the next number used for ministers (Acts 6:5; 21:8). This arrangement is somewhat artificial, since it excludes Luke and probably others (20:5), but it suits Luke’s arrangement, perhaps implicitly comparing the Pauline circle with the circle around the Jerusalem apostles in 6:5.49 Still, Luke nowhere makes the number explicit (and perhaps could not because of those members excluded from it). Besides Luke himself, the number excludes Titus,50 though some think that he had gone on to mission work elsewhere.51 That he remains anonymous because he is Luke’s literal brother, as some have suggested (cf. 2 Cor 8:18),52 seems at best a possible but unlikely guess; why Acts omits Titus’s name, whereas he appears roughly ten times in Paul’s undisputed letters 2 Corinthians and Galatians, is a question difficult to answer.53 Perhaps he appears here under a different name, such as Gaius (see comment below). If Titus somehow became persona non grata among churches after Paul’s death (cf. Demas in 2 Tim 4:10), one would have expected the epistle that bears his name to be suppressed as easily as mention of him in Acts, but perhaps he offended only certain individuals (e.g., Luke) or circles (e.g., Luke’s audience). Such explanations seem barely plausible, but the definitive answer is likely lost to us. Presumably, Sopater of Beroea54 is (in the longer form of the name) Sosipater, mentioned by Paul when he wrote Romans from Corinth (Rom 16:21).55 Paul there lists greetings from his coworkers, mentioning Timothy, Lucius (possibly but not necessarily our Luke; the “we” resumes only in Acts 20:5), and Jason and Sosipater (who appear paired), his “relatives.” If “relatives” means fellow Jews and if Jason is the one reported in 17:5, Jason and Sosipater were both Jewish Christians from Macedonia.56 “Secundus” appears prominently as a name in Thessalonica,57 though we should not, of course, assume that we have attestation of the same Secundus; it was a common 48. Sanders, Judaism, 128. 49. A contrast with Sceva’s seven “sons” (Acts 19:14) is possible but far less likely. 50. Riesner, Early Period, 269, suggests that Titus may have replaced Silas for this journey, though of lower rank. Talbert, Corinthians, 185, suspects that some of Paul’s companions are not named. It is unlikely that the author of Luke-Acts is Titus, especially given the lack of “we” material in Acts 15, where Titus was present (if Gal 2:1–10 is identified with Acts 15). 51. Marshall, Acts, 324. Cf. Titus 1:5, but the ministry depicted in the Pastorals must derive from a later period in Paul’s life than can be accommodated in Acts. 52. Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 18, including n. 1. An author might avoid praising those closest to him to avoid the charge of bias (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.33.628). 53. We could identify Luke with Titus, except for 2 Tim 4:10, but this would be forced, in any case (even if Titus’s movements might passably fit the “we” narrative, why would Paul use differing names for the same person in differing epistles?). On the argument that Titus is Timothy (skillfully articulated in Fellows, “Titus”), see comment on Acts 16:3. 54. The form for “Beroean” fits exactly the evidence of local inscriptions (see Hemer, Acts in History, 124; he notes a divergent form found in Athens in IG 3.2.2395, but possibly referring to a different town). That Luke specifies Sopater’s father might allow that the Pauline circle included more than one Sopater, but even if this is the case, that both of them appear in Corinth at the same time suggests that Luke and Paul speak of the same one. 55. As commonly suggested; e.g., Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:21 (CER 5:272, 274; Bray, Romans, 378); Dunn, Romans, 909; Riesner, Early Period, 348; Jewett, Romans, 978. 56. Jason could be Secundus (as his Latin name), as part of the Thessalonian delegation, but this is only a possibility. 57. CIG 2.1967; Milligan, Thessalonians, 134.

2954

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 10

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Latin name,58 including in Jewish inscriptions in various languages.59 It is one of the most common names in Thessalonica, and more than 80 percent of its occurrences there that can be ascertained refer to Roman citizens.60 Secundus was thus likely a person with some status, insofar as we may venture an educated guess.61 Aristarchus and one Gaius, also from Thessalonica, had worked with Paul in Ephesus (19:29), and Aristarchus traveled with Paul to Rome (27:2). Paul himself (or on some views, Pauline tradition) calls Aristarchus his “fellow captive,” either literally (namely, because they were transported as prisoners together)62 or, more likely, figuratively, as one who traveled with Paul and hence shared his captivity (Col 4:10). Another captivity letter also attests that Aristarchus, along with Luke, remained with Paul during his (probably Roman) detention (Phlm 24). All three names of these Macedonians are well attested in Thessalonica, including in combinations among politarchs from the early empire (Sosipater son of L. P. Secundus; Aristarchus son of Aristarchus).63 Paul seemed apprehensive about bringing Macedonians with him to Corinth if the Corinthians were unprepared (2 Cor 9:4), in contrast to the earlier expectation that they would be ready (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 9:2).64 Thus he sent some on ahead to make sure that the Corinthians were prepared (2 Cor 9:5); presumably Titus has informed Paul that the Corinthians are prepared before he brings these Macedonians. In the end, Corinth, like Macedonia, did participate in the collection for the Christian community in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26).65 “Gaius” was a common name applying to multiple individuals in the early church; since this Gaius is not from Corinth (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14), probably not from Macedonia (Acts 19:29),66 and probably not the elder mentioned in 3 John 1 at the end of the first century, we probably lack other information concerning him. Perhaps Gaius appears under a Greek name in Paul’s letters (Luke preferring a more prestigious Roman form), or “Gaius” may be part of Titus’s name if he was a Roman citizen (as well as a Greek, Gal 2:3).67 That Timothy, from the same region as this Gaius (Acts 16:1), was with Paul in Corinth shortly before the journey to Jerusalem is clear in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:21), but Luke does not report his company on the final voyage recorded in Acts (Acts 27:2). Whether Luke simply omits him (because he fades from the picture like Aquila or Silas) or Timothy joined Paul later, Timothy apparently was 58. E.g., Mart. Epig. 1.2.7 (a freedman); 5.80.7, 13 (a learned and eloquent Secundus); 7.92.3; 12.75.3. 59. E.g., CIJ 1:117, §164 (if reconstructed correctly; from the Via Appia); 1:432, §595 (Greek words written in Hebrew letters); 1:432, §595 (“Secundos son of Secundos,” in Greek letters); cf. also “Deuterus” (the Greek equivalent, transcribed into Latin), 1:161, §225. 60. Riesner, Early Period, 350–51. 61. Thessalonica was the provincial seat (see comment on Acts 17:1) but, unlike Philippi, not a colony, and so Roman citizenship would have been rarer. 62. Perhaps from charges of stirring unrest raised by Asian Jews and rendered plausible by events in Acts 19:29. 63. Cadbury, Acts in History, 54n21. 64. They were, in fact, the first to desire to contribute (2 Cor 8:10; 9:2), unless this is rhetorical exaggeration meant to encourage them. 65. Jewett, Romans, 928, doubts whether they were prepared; but Paul in Rom 15:26 describes both churches in the same way, and it is no more appropriate to exclude Corinth from “Achaia” than to exclude Philippi or Thessalonica from “Macedonia.” 66. Probably because that Gaius also appears as a Macedonian with Aristarchus, the Western text changes “Derbe” to “Doberus,” in Macedonia near Philippi. The name Γάϊος was, however, common, and this is likely a case of later tradition combining disparate individuals with the same name (cf. Marshall, Acts, 324). 67. The “Gaius” here need not be a Roman citizen ( Judge, First Christians, 561). We cannot identify Gaius Titius Justus with the epistles’ Titus, because of both his provenance and Pauline chronology. The letters’ Titus was, more likely than not, from South Galatia (like Gaius here), converted on Paul’s first mission there.

2955

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 11

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

with Paul during his Roman detention (Phil 1:1; 2:19; Col 1:1).68 Though circumcised earlier (Acts 16:3), Timothy, who is of mixed ethnic heritage, fits comfortably in a list of representatives from Diaspora churches that are themselves mixed.69 Tychicus and Trophimus represented the church in Asia.70 Since Paul organized the collection from this area (1 Cor 16:19), this church’s contributions may have been easiest to organize. Luke omits Tychicus, like Timothy, on Paul’s voyage to Rome (Acts 27:2), yet like Timothy, he shows up at Paul’s side in (probably) Rome in early sources (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7).71 The name means something like “Lucky”72 but is attested as a (likely) Jewish name (CIJ 1:315, §415); that it occurs in close proximity to “Eutychus” (which name means something similar; see comment on Acts 20:9) is surely coincidental. Trophimus is from Ephesus (Acts 21:29), and the name was especially popular in the first century c.e.73 His name might appear last because of the role he will fill in 21:29, which highlights his Ephesian background. e. Geographic Diversity (20:4) Representatives from each of the churches were to carry the offering to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3).74 Luke lists these representatives by province: Sopater of Beroea is linked with Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, also in Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe and Timothy, from the same area (most likely Lystra, 16:1–2), were from Phrygia (what Paul’s letters call Galatia); Tychicus and Trophimus were from Asia. On the historical level (though not emphasized as directly by Luke), the geographic diversity of the group supports the idea that Paul wanted to emphasize the unity of the church of the Diaspora with Jerusalem (Rom 15:26–27). Here was an offering from the nations to God’s people in Jerusalem, which Paul or some other Jewish believers could view as fulfilling part of the prophetic eschatological schema (e.g., Isa 60:5, 11). Although churches seem to have been governed at a strictly local level75 (when Paul or comparable authoritative leaders were not present), they inherited a transnational 68. According to very early tradition (on my uncertain but working assumption that the movements in the Pastorals reflect a period after Paul’s first Roman imprisonment), Paul later returned near Ephesus and told Timothy to remain there, before he himself left for Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). Paul later urged him to come see him in Rome (2 Tim 4:21), but Timothy was arrested and, after Nero’s death, released to return to the eastern Mediterranean (Heb 13:23). 69. Cf. Barreto, Negotiations, 117. 70. The ethnic designation Ἀσιανός was common in this period (Hemer, Acts in History, 124). 71. Tychicus remained a significant coworker in 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12. One could argue that Timothy and Tychicus joined Paul later; but Luke may have simply omitted their presence in Acts 27:2, perhaps abbreviating or (less likely) for ideological or apologetic reasons. 72. Based on the pagan Greek Τύχη, Fate (Robertson and Dietrich, “Tyche”; Τύχη is pervasive in the literature, e.g., Isoc. Paneg. 26; Demon. 29; Demosth. Philip. 4.38; Diod. Sic. 31.4.1; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.21.1; 9.25.3; Plut. Chance, Mor. 97C–100A; see excursus on fate at Acts 2:23 [Keener, Acts, 1:927–38]); compare the analogous name “Epaphroditus” (Hawthorne, Philippians, 120; cf. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.34; Lucian Affairs 16). Tyche is designated a “savior” in one inscription from Ephesus (I. Eph. 1238); Tychicus is from Asia. 73. In Rome, it was the twelfth most common cognomen in inscriptions (it appears at least 297 times; Hemer, Acts in History, 236). A Jewish inscription from the Via Appia mentions one Trophimus and his daughter Trophimē (CIJ 1:121–22, §169), though clearly Paul’s Trophimus is a Gentile (Acts 21:28–29). 74. On the Jewish analogue, cf., e.g., Nickle, Collection, 130; De Ridder, Discipling, 125. Since Corinth and Philippi are not represented, Le Cornu, Acts, 1099, suggests that some of the coworkers stand for the Diaspora churches as a whole rather than for their localities. Additional possibilities are that Luke may represent Philippi, and it is possible that Paul might represent Corinth himself; or they may have failed to provide a representative; or Titus (who is for other reasons unnamed) became their representative (cf. 2 Cor 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18); or Luke’s list may well simply be incomplete. See further brief discussion below. 75. See, e.g., discussion in Pearson, “Associations,” 136–37.

2956

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 12

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

sense of unity from Diaspora Judaism.76 The church did not yet have the more formal networks that began emerging with the rise of bishops in the second century. Given the difficulties and uncertainties of transportation and local personalities, coordinating local churches from various regions was no mean organizational feat. Conspicuously missing from this list, however, are representatives from the prominent church of Achaia, though we know that Paul specifically asked the church there to provide some (1 Cor 16:3).77 The “messengers of the churches” mentioned in 2 Cor 8:23 are probably the representatives of the collection from other areas already participating. If the Jerusalem collection “failed” in such a way that Luke chose not to record it, it is doubtful that it was because the Jerusalem church refused the gift (in Mediterranean antiquity, to refuse such a gift would not express mere disagreement but constitute a declaration of enmity).78 Rather, the failure might be that the Corinthian church was inadequately prepared, embarrassing both itself and Paul.79 This would be a faux pas of which Achaian Christians would desire no reminder, which would not have commended Luke’s volume among them.80 This proposal seems, however, unlikely. First, Paul sent Titus on ahead to make sure that the offering was ready (2 Cor 9:5), and other issues seem to have been the basis for his warnings of conflict when he would come (12:20–21; 13:2). Second, Paul stayed in Corinth after his arrival for at least parts of three months (Acts 20:3), more than enough time to complete the offering, even if (in a worst-case scenario) only a few Corinthians still supported him and contributed. At least Stephanas had been committed to organizing the collection (1 Cor 16:15).81 Third, Paul expressly tells the Romans, when he is writing from Corinth, that Achaia participated in the collection (Rom 15:26). (It is possible that the listing of Macedonia first implies that its offering was greater82 or perhaps simply that it was ready earlier.) Fourth, we should not assume that areas without named delegates failed to contribute; Luke’s description of the Macedonian delegation names no one from Philippi—though on my hypothesis of authorship and provenance, this is probably because Luke himself represented that church, having long ministered there. (Certainly the first-person narrator of the “we” narrative appears to have joined the group there, in any case.) Finally, even if Luke names all the delegates (instead of reducing the number, as already suggested as a possibility, to seven), it is possible that providing travel delegates for the long journey away from home was more problematic for the church than providing the offering, and so prosperous Achaia allowed others to represent it. Some scholars think that Paul himself represented Achaia;83 other possibilities are that Timothy (whom the Corinthians knew well; 2 Cor 1:1, 19) represented both Achaia and Galatia or that 76. See esp. Meeks and Wilken, Antioch, 27. 77. Galatia is represented, on the South Galatian view (1 Cor 16:1; Gaius and Timothy in Acts 20:4); so also Asia (Tychicus and Trophimus in Acts 20:4). 78. Marshall, Enmity, 13–21, 257 (widely followed, e.g., Watson, Second Corinthians, 118; Matera, II Corinthians, 250; Watson, “Boasting,” 82); cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 40.16; Pliny Ep. 8.6.9; perhaps Fronto Ep. graec. 4.2–3. One could refuse politely under some conditions (Pliny Ep. 6.28.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5). 79. Some may have wished to insult him, but not likely the majority, since 2 Corinthians sounds as if, whatever the conflict (even at its rhetorical strongest in 2 Cor 10–13), they will receive him; Luke also claims that he stayed for up to three months (Acts 20:3), presumably winter. 80. Likewise, if Achaia failed, the unity of the church would not best be served by Luke’s emphasizing this point for Macedonian readers. 81. The “ministry to the saints” in 1 Cor 16:15 seems to be a regular designation by Paul for the collection (2 Cor 9:1, 12), especially given the context (1 Cor 16:1). 82. Matera, II Corinthians, 202. 83. Marshall, Acts, 324.

2957

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 13

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Titus, whom Luke also omits but who was directly involved in preparing the offering, represented Achaia (7:13–14; 8:6). f. Luke’s Group in Macedonia (20:5) Although “we” may invite reader participation,84 it is very likely an indication that the narrator, whom this commentary argues is also the author, was present here (see full discussion at Acts 16:10), given the normal use of “we” in historical works.85 (Certainly we do not read first-person pronouns in most other historical works in the ingenious manner sometimes found in commentaries on Acts.) The “we” suddenly appears, distinct from a larger group that left Corinth; it appears in Macedonia, before reaching Troas. Since the “we” left off in Philippi (Acts 16:16), it is reasonable to assume that it picks up again here because the narrator remained there,86 at least for most of the intervening time. Luke elsewhere leaves off a character in one location and picks him up at the same location later (8:40; 21:8). In this case, it appears likely that Luke became (historically, though not for Luke’s narrative) Philippi’s representative in the collection.87 This may have been a late decision based on Paul’s change of course; Macedonia’s contribution was complete (cf. 20:3), and Luke could have planned to stay on in Philippi until he learned that Paul was passing through Macedonia en route to Jerusalem.88 The less likely alternative is that Luke, who avoids naming himself in the narrative, was in Corinth for at least part of the time Paul was there (cf. Lucius in Rom 16:21)89 and that he traveled to Philippi with Paul after the rest of the group (or Luke returned to Philippi, where he was laboring, ahead of the group). Troas was the point of crossing on the other side of the Hellespont, in “Asia” (see comment on Acts 16:8); Paul had apparently planted a church there on his way into Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12), and so his companions would find rich ministry there.90 Travel between Neapolis (Philippi’s port) and Alexandria Troas was a conventional route of east-west travel in antiquity.91 We cannot be certain why the groups traveled separately, since Luke does not tell us. One guess is that they divided in case hostile pursuers remained (cf. Acts 20:3; 84. Tannehill, Acts, 246–47. 85. Some (including Porter, Paul in Acts, 30) see two “we” sections (Acts 20:5–15 and 21:1–18) in 20:5–21:18. Whatever this view may have to commend it in terms of source criticism, this division evades the obvious in terms of the narrator’s flow of thought: if Luke was with Paul on the voyage before and after the speech (and its immediate setting), it makes little sense to suppose that he temporarily disappeared during the speech, simply because (having digressed from the voyage to focus on an action exclusive to Paul) he briefly stops mentioning himself (or the rest of the group). With our view that the author is the narrator, the distinction does not even work source-critically. 86. With, e.g., Witherington, Acts, 168 (suggesting that Luke was the sort of peripatetic physician attested in Greek epitaphs), 604 (noting that Luke does not insert “we” where it would be most helpful from a purely narrative standpoint and that Greek historians included themselves in narratives only when present). Such eyewitness testimony was crucial in Greek historiography (605). 87. Cf. also Hemer, Acts in History, 124. 88. From 20:3–4, it appears that the Macedonian and other coworkers were with Paul in Corinth and therefore would have sailed with him for Syria, rather than that they awaited him in Macedonia (or already in Troas, 20:5) en route to Syria. A letter Paul wrote from Corinth attests that at least two of these workers were with Paul in Corinth (Rom 16:21), and he may name there only those known to some of his audience in Rome. Jason may have accompanied him to Corinth (Rom 16:21) but planned to return to Macedonia afterward. 89. Lucius is apparently Jewish in Rom 16:21 whereas Luke is probably Gentile in Col 4:14 (cf. 4:11); the pairing of Luke and Aristarchus in 4:14 fits Acts’ “we” following Paul to Rome, so that Luke is a likelier narrator here than the Lucius in Rom 16. See this commentary’s introductory chapter on authorship (Keener, Acts, 1:402–22) for further discussion. 90. For further details on Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 357–59. 91. See Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 384.

2958

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 14

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Gen 33:1–2); another is that Paul wanted to spend more time in Macedonia.92 Paul certainly wanted to spend the Feast of Unleavened Bread with fellow Christians, though whether he preferred to spend its days in Philippi rather than Troas or simply did not want to spend some of them in transit to Troas is an open question.

2. Resuscitation in Troas (20:6–12) Although many of the details of Luke’s travel narrative toward Jerusalem concern the names of ports and the number of days spent traveling—material inviting summary at most—Troas provided a dramatic episode lending itself to more thorough telling. Here Paul prays for a youth apparently killed in a fall, and the youth recovers; Luke uses language familiar from biblical narratives about Elijah and Elisha, as well as from his own telling of Jesus’s resuscitations of young persons, to unite Paul firmly with other major figures of salvation history. Luke clearly demarcates the account of Eutychus’s raising from the larger travel narrative; for example, Acts 20:7 and 20:11 both emphasize breaking bread, Paul’s long message, and his plan to depart after speaking.93 Although the larger section represents a geographic transition from Paul’s summarized Diaspora mission back to Jerusalem, Luke digresses from the general geographic frame to narrate specific events in Troas (20:7–12), Miletus (20:17–38), and Caesarea (21:8–14). Since Paul warns in 20:22–25 that trouble awaits him and he will not return to Ephesus, and since 21:13 emphasizes his determination to confront the predicted suffering in Jerusalem, the account of Eutychus’s raising may provide some theological context. Paul’s ministry brings life, and even in the face of death and separation, death will not be the final word.94 This connection between Eutychus’s raising and the theme of hope is reinforced by Luke’s explicit repetition of language from his Gospel’s passion and resurrection narrative, some of which is superfluous to what would be strictly necessary to narrate the account: the first day of the week (Luke 24:1, Luke’s only other identification of that day), the upper room (22:12; Acts 1:13), and breaking bread (Luke 22:19; 24:30–35).95 a. Philippi to Troas (20:6) Luke’s record of this phase of the journey incidentally reveals interesting information, such as Jesus’s followers reckoning time by (and apparently celebrating) biblical festivals; Luke’s group traveling with Paul from Philippi; and apparently seasonal weather patterns. i. Observing Festivals

That Paul, Luke, and others remained in Philippi for the days of the Unleavened Bread96 instead of crossing to Troas immediately to rejoin their companions (Acts 92. Dunn, Acts, 268. It would not be much more (or less) speculative to suggest that Paul delayed to persuade Luke to join them. If Paul sent the others on ahead, it may have been with an exhortation (such speeches were conventional for teachers or others sending off subordinates; Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.8–12). 93. See Trémel, “Actes 20, 7–12” (though some of his structuralist observations are less profound than the apparently deliberate inclusio). 94. Cf. 2 Cor 2:14–16; 4:7–5:10, esp. 4:14. Even in his conclusion (Acts 28:30–31), Luke ends on an upbeat note rather than with Paul’s death; although this may say something about his market sensibilities, it probably also reveals something of his theological disposition (far more easily comparable to many ot narratives emphasizing divine providence than to Greek tragedy). 95. These connections are emphasized by Johnson, Acts, 358. 96. In Luke’s usage, this includes Passover (Luke 22:1); this was not unusual usage in this period (cf. Philo Spec. Laws 2.150, though distinguishing them; Jos. Ant. 2.317; 9.263–64, 271; esp. 14.21; 17.213; 18.29; 20.106; War 2.10; distinguishing them in Ant. 3.249; 10.70).

2959

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 15

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

20:5–6) suggests that they continued to observe Jewish festivals.97 That such festivals remained quite familiar to at least Jewish Christians in the late first century (as attested in John’s Gospel)98 suggests that Christians preserved many of these customs longer than Gentile Christendom of many later centuries has often assumed.99 Indeed, Eusebius reports a mid-second-century tradition in Asia Minor that claimed that the apostle John held Easter on 14 Nisan (Passover), whether or not it fell on a Sunday (in contrast to other churches).100 It is unlikely that either Luke or Paul preserved such designations (cf. also 12:3–4; 27:9) as merely chronological markers; although Paul did not require Gentile Christians to keep festivals (Rom 14:5–6; Gal 4:9–10), he did assume their knowledge of them (1 Cor 16:8), presupposing some theological instruction about them (5:7–8). Luke’s detail here belongs to a series of chronological details in this “we” narrative, but it may also perform another narrative function. When the Feast of Unleavened Bread was near (Luke 22:1), Jerusalem’s elite plotted Jesus’s death (22:2); Peter was also arrested during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3–4). Paul celebrates the feast shortly after escaping a plot (20:3) and before heading into captivity (20:22–23). Jesus held his Last Supper with his disciples at this feast (Luke 22:7, 14–23) in an upper room (22:12); Peter also bade farewell to Jerusalem after his escape at the end of this feast (Acts 12:17). Shortly after the feast here, Paul breaks bread with believers in an upper room (20:7–8). The resonances might increase hearers’ anticipation for what is to come. ii. A Chronology of the Journey

Counting backward from the probably Sunday night gathering at Troas in 20:7 (subtracting the days in 20:6), some scholars argue for Passover on a Thursday.101 The only year in the period 52–60 c.e. in which Passover likely fell on a Thursday was 57 c.e., when it fell on April 7 (and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, April 7–14). This chronology assumes a departure immediately after the festival (likely in view of Paul’s haste, 20:16) but fits a common reconstruction for Paul’s final years.102 (We do need to allow for a half day’s journey from Philippi proper to its port, Neapolis [modern Kavalla],103 but Luke might include this in his five-day figure.) Nevertheless, other chronological schemes are possible, especially if we need not infer the Passover on a Thursday; those who believe that Festus became governor in 56 would need to place Paul’s visit in 55 (see comment on Acts 24:27); a date before 55, however, conflicts with too much of the other data to represent the most probable option (unless an early accession of Festus were to force it on us). The accumulation of details in this section resembles Luke’s detailed account of Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem in the Gospel; this is, however, at least partly because Luke was traveling with Paul again and hence had access to more details (see comment 97. Cf. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254, who allow that possibly “Paul and his companions celebrated” this festival. Diaspora Jewish communities (e.g., in Hierapolis in Asia) did keep Pentecost (CIJ 2:36, §777). 98. See Keener, John, 171–232, here esp. 174. 99. Suggested in Keener, “Festivals.” Former pagans in Egypt may have assimilated Easter to festivals of rising deities such as the Isia (which originated early but continued past the third century; see Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 56, citing P.Oxy. 36.2797), but Easter originated in the Passover setting. 100. Irvin and Sunquist, Earliest Christianity, 79; Euseb. H.E. 5.24. 101. The argument is not foolproof, since it depends on a particular way of reckoning Passover in relation to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Barrett, Acts, 952), but this reckoning seems more probable than not. 102. Bruce, Commentary, 406; Hemer, Acts in History, 124, 169; Gill, “Macedonia,” 399; Riesner, Early Period, 218–19. 103. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254.

2960

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 16

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

on Acts 16:10). The contrast with the scarcity of detail covering a period of at least several months in 20:1–3 is stark.104 The voyage from Troas to Philippi’s port in 16:11 took only two days, but that was good sailing (three or four was average);105 the return voyage here took five in the winds of spring.106 Because Paul could not take the ship that would have reached Jerusalem for Passover (see comment on Acts 20:3), he needed to rush so that he could reach it by the next major festival seven weeks later, Pentecost (20:16).107 When Paul could not be in Jerusalem, he liked to at least spend festivals in a location with other believers, whether Pentecost (as very recently in 1 Cor 16:8) or the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as here. In view of Luke’s apologetic for Paul suggested in the commentary introduction,108 Luke may need to show that Paul’s fateful trip to Jerusalem had pious causes, and that he was not there to provoke a disturbance (cf. Acts 24:11–12, 17).109 This interest does not require us to doubt Luke’s chronological notice; given references within Paul’s own letters, it is clear that early Christians were familiar with the timing of festivals, and it seems quite plausible that many early Christians continued to observe these festivals.110 Could Paul have reached Jerusalem in time for Pentecost? The time of the journey may be calculated roughly as follows:111 • The weeklong Festival of Unleavened Bread in Philippi (Acts 20:6)112 • Four days’ voyage to Troas (reckoning inclusively; 20:6)113 • Six days at Troas (reckoning inclusively; 20:6) • Three days to Miletus (20:13–15), in addition to an unspecified delay there to (probably) wait for and address the Ephesian elders • Two more days between Cos and Patara (21:1) • Six days at Tyre (21:3–4) • One day at Ptolemais (21:7)114 • One day to Caesarea, with an unspecified number of further days in Caesarea (21:10) As Colin Hemer points out, this list accounts for a total of thirty specified days; the rest of the days until Pentecost would be taken up by the stay in Miletus, a probably brief voyage by the places in 21:1–3 (including a likely brief transition between ships in Patara [21:1] and a minimum of three days from there to Tyre), a longer (and perhaps considerable) stay in Caesarea, and some time in Jerusalem before the 104. With Bruce, Acts1, 371. This fits the shift in the narrative’s character to an eyewitness source; thus, e.g., Cicero’s letters sometimes comment on his travel details. One day he was unable to sail, he notes, because the winds were contrary (Att. 5.12). 105. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 254. 106. Cf. Riesner, Early Period, 315–16. 107. See Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 400. 108. Keener, Acts, 1:223–24, 445–47. 109. Cf. here also the valuable argument of Perry, “Paul in Acts.” 110. Cf. Keener, “Festivals.” Although this continuance probably was most relevant for Jewish believers, most early Gentile believers probably recognized that it was a Jewish faith, grounded in the biblical heritage, to which they were converting. 111. Hemer, “Observations,” 9. 112. Riesner, Early Period, 316, dates Paul’s departure from Philippi to April 15 (on the premise that the year was 57 c.e.). 113. The five “being reckoned inclusively in the ancient manner” (Hemer, “Observations,” 9). 114. “Whether or not the journey involved another” day as well (ibid.).

2961

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 17

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

festival.115 Luke’s narrative provides a fairly complete account of the passage of days on this journey, but it falls into two markedly different parts. The first section gives the impression of travelers impatient at delay, frustrated by the unexpectedly slow passage to Troas, counting the days, and making exceptional arrangements for Paul to prolong slightly his strategic work there (20:13). It was early in the season and the timing of the voyage was uncertain. They yet had to make transshipment at Patara without further critical delay. But when they reach Tyre, the pace relaxes. The focus changes to what awaits Paul if he ventures to Jerusalem.116

Hurried at the beginning, anxious not to miss yet another festival, they could relax more toward the end of their journey. Under optimum wind conditions, which would normally prevail in this season (northerly winds hastening their southward voyage), they might make a voyage in as little as twelve to fourteen days.117 Yet Paul cannot assume optimum conditions; reaching Jerusalem is an urgent mission, and so from the start he must include time for unexpected delays and any hospitality obligations.118 Voyagers could not predict weather conditions, the filling of cargo holds, or “omens” noted by sailors, which determined ships’ sailing schedules; such unpredictability required haste toward the voyage’s beginning to ensure sufficient time to reach Jerusalem by the festival.119 iii. The Chronological Goal

Why was reaching the city urgent? Undoubtedly, in addition to any personal religious desire on Paul’s part to reach Jerusalem in time for a festival (cf. 20:16),120 he was thinking strategically. Whether Passover (cf. 20:3) or Pentecost, he would be able to communicate his point on a larger scale to the Jerusalem church when it was swelled by émigrés or pilgrims who had returned for a festival (see comment on Acts 2:1).121 The Diaspora crowds and festal focus may have also made Jerusalem seem safer for Paul and his Gentile delegates during a festival (though cf. 21:27). If he missed Pentecost, however, he would not be able to await any other major festival, since Pentecost concluded the major spring festivals. In his letters Paul could provide symbolic connections with festivals (1 Cor 5:7). In the case of Pentecost, he could link the Diaspora churches’ gift with the ingathering of the firstfruits. We know that Paul historically made abundant use of the firstfruits image (e.g., 2 Thess 2:13), especially in this period in his ministry, whether for the first believers in a location (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15) or for the more universal aspects of salvation history (Rom 8:23; 11:16; 1 Cor 15:20, 23).122 If Paul sought to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16), he would not have slowed down to spend time in Caesarea unless he had either missed the feast (unlikely, given his itinerary above) or unexpectedly found that he had plenty of time to 115. Ibid., 10. 116. Ibid. 117. Riesner, Early Period, 316 (commenting that Pentecost was probably on May 29 this year). 118. Sailors counted it prudent to prepare in case winds delayed a ship at sea (Philost. Hrk. 53.9). 119. Witherington, Acts, 639. 120. Though having attended many festivals in Jerusalem while growing up, Paul had missed them for many years, and in older subjects with religious backgrounds, religious devotion is sometimes mixed with nostalgia. That Paul likely observed Jewish festivals we have already suggested above in the comment on Acts 20:6. 121. Cf. also Ellison, Mystery, 22. It is also clear that Paul in his letters can calculate time sometimes by festivals: he expects the Corinthians to understand his plan to stay in Ephesus till Pentecost in 1 Cor 16:8. 122. In Rom 11:16, he uses the image in a context of Jewish and Gentile relations, but the firstfruits may refer here to the patriarchs. Elsewhere in the nt, the term ἀπαρχή appears only at Jas 1:18; Rev 14:4.

2962

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 18

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

reach Jerusalem before it, having included in his plans extra days for trouble or delays (more likely). Paul’s dependence on Felix’s knowledge that he came to “worship” less than two weeks earlier (24:11) probably implies that Paul was at the feast, the date of which Felix would have known. If Paul did reach Jerusalem for Pentecost, Luke may imply a connection (perhaps by way of contrasting responses) between his speech in Acts 22 and that of Peter in Acts 2.123 It seems somewhat odd that Luke, who notes the haste to reach the city, does not mention Paul’s participation in the festival, but this might be to allow rather than to disallow the implied narrative connection; probably the riot technically occurs after the festival rather than during it (cf. 21:27; 24:11). By not specifying the date of the riot (which is not Pentecost), he can leave an implied connection because Paul was in Jerusalem for that festival not long before (20:16), as if Paul, like Peter, will have a “Pentecost speech.” iv. Troas and Its People

For discussion of Alexandria Troas itself, see comment on Acts 16:8. We do not know Paul’s host in Troas, but it may have been Carpus, who, the tradition seems to imply, served as his host on some occasion (2 Tim 4:13).124 The church there was probably not culturally homogenous. Although Alexandria Troas was a Roman colony, its people were not all romanized. Rome had forcibly amalgamated various peoples there, and the city’s status as a major port would have brought merchants, sailors, and immigrants.125 The cultural focus of Troas’s “native population” probably remained “the Smintheum at Chryse,” fifteen miles south of the city, as it had been for centuries.126 The Greek and Latin inscriptions here diverge sharply in their interests, revealing a significant cultural divide.127 As a Greek-speaking Roman citizen, Paul may have sought to target both, as in Corinth, though the congregation would be (again as in Corinth and Philippi) mostly Greek-speaking, and Greek would be its common language. b. Breaking Bread on the First Day (20:7) Because Paul had been back with the church in Troas only briefly128 and had to leave the next day, he needed to equip the church with much information and hence spoke throughout the night. Luke’s note that the church was meeting on the first day could indicate a regular practice, or it could point to a practice that was unusual; in any case, Paul met with the believers at length then because he would leave soon afterward. i. The Meeting

Breaking bread appears often in contexts of fellowship in Luke-Acts, whether around Jesus as teacher (Luke 9:16), in the passion narrative (22:19; 24:30, 35), in the early Jerusalem church (Acts 2:42, 46), or in Paul’s ministry (27:35). Paul was “reasoning” (διελέγετο), probably interactively, with them, although the debate 123. Noted also in Keener, “Festivals.” 124. Le Cornu, Acts, 1106. Given the divergent itinerary of the Pastorals, this hosting may purport to represent a later occasion; but guests often stayed with the same hosts, and Carpus remains the only named host there for whom we may venture a guess. 125. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92. 126. Ibid. Hemer notes (84) that this was the temple of Apollo Smintheus; Hom. Il. 1.37–39 mentions the cult as being at Tenedos and at Chryse, and Strabo shows that it remained the area’s religious center even in his own time. 127. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92–93. 128. Historically, we know that Paul had to leave sooner than he might have otherwise done during his previous ministry there (2 Cor 2:12–13).

2963

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 19

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

connotations that Luke likely often attaches to the verb make less sense in this context (see comment on Acts 18:4). In the tradition of good orators (e.g., Cicero and later Pliny), Paul was also able to speak at great length (28:23); Luke undoubtedly means that Paul’s message had great substance, not that he was simply long-winded (cf., on the preference for conciseness and brevity, the comment on Acts 24:4).129 Paul continues speaking at midnight. Midnight was normally a time for sleeping, but a dramatic situation could demand attention then (Luke 11:5), and Paul elsewhere expresses his devotion to God then (Acts 16:25). That Paul continues until morning shows that he wants to share as much knowledge as possible with the probably young believers in Troas (cf. 2 Cor 2:12), since he plans to leave the next day.130 (It might also constitute an example of the sort of event for which Paul spent “sleepless nights” [6:5; 11:27], although these may have also had many other causes.) Long-winded speakers were common; Cicero and others complained when restricted to two-hour speeches in the first century b.c.e.131 Pliny the Younger boasted that his seven-hour oration was well received (Ep. 4.16.2). One speaker, Albucius, was known to speak at times for many hours (perhaps nine) on end, supporting even his arguments with other arguments. In every speech, “it was his wish to say not what ought to be said but what is capable of being said.”132 Since legal settings imposed limits on time, he preferred speaking in other venues.133 Although speaking all night might be difficult in a structured message, a “talk” (λαλιά) kept the sequence random, and this is probably closer to Luke’s idea here than a conventional oration.134 Especially in the intimate setting of a single upper room, lively interaction (which occurred even in public speeches)135 would allow for digressions, tangents, and fresh questions raised by those present. Those modern popular pundits who have assumed that the passage criticizes Paul for preaching too long fail to reflect on either the ancient background (in which such lengthy speaking was sometimes viewed as praiseworthy and sleeping students as negligent) or the literary context—Paul keeps preaching for the rest of the night after Eutychus’s fall. Luke’s interest in this incident is partly apologetic, vindicating Paul’s wisdom during his fateful journey to Jerusalem. His interest is thus in God working through Paul to raise Eutychus, not in a negative depiction of Paul’s common sense. Those who criticize Paul as long-winded thus likely take a perspective antithetical to that of Luke. ii. The First Day of the Week

Some writers make much of the day of the week mentioned for the meeting, the “earliest narrative account of a Sunday meeting.”136 Paul may meet at this time, however, because he follows his frequent practice of meeting in a synagogue on the 129. Historically, Paul was certainly able to speak at some length, especially given the oral character of Romans; though it need not have been dictated all in one session, it was likely dictated at normal speaking speed rather than “syllable by syllable” (Richards, Letter Writing, 206). 130. Cf., e.g., Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105. This is not at all unusual under the circumstances, as those of us in similar pastoral situations can testify. E.g., in one such situation, where I was leaving the next morning and thus had a limited amount of time (in a Bible school that I was briefly visiting), I taught (interactively) from 3:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon until 5:00 a.m. Sunday morning; about twenty students stayed throughout. 131. See comment on Acts 24:5; briefly, Keener, Acts, 1:260. 132. Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 1 (LCL, 1:5). He speaks of the trumpet blowing three times during his speeches, possibly figurative for the three-hour-long night watches, hence implying excessively long speeches. 133. Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 8. 134. Men. Rhet. 2.4, 391.19–28; 392.9–14; 393.23–24. 135. See, e.g., Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 38.25–26; 4, p. 42.34–35; Dio Chrys. Or. 55; Pliny Ep. 5.12.1; 6.17.1–3. See further comment on Acts 2:37. 136. R. Williams, Acts, 140; cf. Larkin, Acts, 288–89; in antiquity, Chrys. Hom. Acts 43 (“the Lord’s day”). For this particular Semitic expression (“the first day from the Sabbaths”), see Luke 24:1 (from Mark 16:2; also found in John 20:1, 19).

2964

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 20

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Sabbath (the day preceding the first day), and because he was planning to leave on the following day (the motive explicit, in fact, in 20:7). Christians by the early second century were meeting on a fixed day (Pliny Ep. 10.96.7), very likely on Sunday.137 This day was not chosen by coincidence, nor was it chosen initially to supplant the Sabbath day it followed. “Sunday,” Justin claims in the mid-second century c.e., “is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God . . . made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”138 If continuing Jewish history after Moses added new festivals such as Purim and Hanukkah,139 it might seem reasonable for Christians living on the edge of the future age to set aside a special day to commemorate the resurrection.140 Such possibilities do not grant license to those who would read later traditions about a “Christian Sabbath” into Luke’s era. Meetings on any day had the potential to cause problems with authorities, though probably only if outsiders brought these meetings to the authorities’ attention. Concerned to prevent seditious organizing, Rome prohibited associations from meeting more than once a month,141 but Romans may have often ignored the rule.142 In any case, Christians would be exempt from this prohibition as long as they were viewed as Jews, who met in their synagogues on the Sabbath. It is possible that one of the practical reasons for the earliest Sunday meetings was to avoid conflict with Sabbath observance in locations where Christians remained part of the synagogue. It is, indeed, quite unlikely that Luke would have viewed the timing of the Sabbath as changed, since he employs the term about thirty times, always for the traditional Sabbath. Many of these occurrences relate to synagogue activity;143 but Jesus may presuppose the goodness of the Sabbath in Luke 13:16, and his followers observe it in 23:54.144 Jesus challenges not the timing of the Sabbath but restrictions against benevolent activity then (6:5, 9; 13:15–16; 14:3–5); his followers continue to describe the day as the “Sabbath” (Acts 13:27; 15:21). Luke himself uses the Sabbath in designating time (Luke 24:1; and here, Acts 20:7) and (at least in a narrative regarding the early Jerusalem church) distance (the distance an observant Jew was permitted to walk on the Sabbath, Acts 1:12). The limitation of the distance measurement to the early Jerusalem church (other measures proving more useful in the Diaspora) would be compatible with the impression, easily gained from Pauline literature, that this emphasis diminished in the Diaspora church, probably in part because of the large number of Gentile converts who lacked the 137. Ign. Magn. 9.1 (if the “Lord’s day” is Sunday); Barn. 15.9 (the eighth day); Meeks, Urban Christians, 143. Other texts also mention the “Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10; Did. 14.1), usually held to specify the same time (Vanni, “Giorno”; but note Strand, “Day”; Lewis, “Ignatius”). On the gradual developments, see the careful study of Bacchiocchi, Sabbath to Sunday. 138. Justin 1 Apol. 67 (trans. Dods and Reith, ANF 1:186); Iren. On Easter (i.e., frg. 7, ANF 1:569) also links Sunday with Jesus’s resurrection. Early Jewish tradition added that the earth was dry from the flood (perhaps the first day of a new creation) on a Sunday (4Q252 1 II, 2, added to Gen 8:14; cf. 4Q252 1 I, 17). 139. The Sabbath itself may have been a weekly commemoration of God’s act of creation (Exod 20:11–12). 140. There may be a reference to postbiblical festivals in 4Q409 1 I (unless this fragmentary text refers to known festivals by different names). 141. Winter, Left Corinth, 134–35; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 136. Some civic cults held rites only annually (cf. Philost. Hrk. 52.3, 5, 8). For Roman concerns about unregulated meetings, see, e.g., Livy 39.15.11; 39.18.9; Tac. Hist. 2.54. 142. Harland, Associations, 168. 143. See, e.g., Luke 4:16, 31; 13:10; Acts 13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4; cf. Luke 14:1. 144. Though they may have had little choice culturally, Luke specifies only their obedience, probably analogous to that of other pious law observers in his narrative (Luke 1:6; 2:21–24, 25; 23:50–51; Acts 21:20; 22:12). Luke’s usage of Sabbath language was brought to my attention by Anthony Kent.

2965

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 21

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

possibility of taking off work for a day each week.145 These references to the Sabbath nevertheless make clear that the traditional Sabbath day was not supplanted by a new day so designated; even if we were to argue from complete earliest Christian silence to support the latter, it would render the many explicit references to the former utterly confusing. The idea that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday is not attested in our earliest sources (the nt documents),146 though it appears not long afterward147 and eventually became dominant in the churches of the empire and those they influenced.148 Some scholars think that Constantine made Sunday an official holy day to satisfy two constituencies already using it—namely, Christians and Mithraists.149 (It is not likely that Mithraic use directly influenced Christian use, however,150 since Mithraism became widespread only in subsequent centuries151 and Christians were meeting on Sunday before this.) Yet among the earliest Jewish Christians, the Sabbath remained on the last day of the week,152 and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, more isolated from the influence of the Roman Empire’s form of Christianity, ultimately developed a long history of honoring the Sabbath (the seventh day; often alongside the Lord’s Day, the first day).153 A meeting day should not be equated with the Sabbath, regardless of which day the believers here were meeting. For that matter, the earliest evidence emphasizes frequent meeting (Acts 2:46; Heb 10:25) much more than it emphasizes the particular day (though the emphasis on the first day in the Gospels probably does imply a special commemoration of that day). Outside this passage, the clearest reference to Christian activity on the first day (1 Cor 16:1) can be construed as a private activity rather than a gathering.154 The widespread second-century tradition originated somewhere, and it is plausible that it could have roots in some location in this period, but it is tenuous to read it into this passage without stronger exegetical warrant. Luke does have literary reason to connect the meeting with Jesus’s resurrection on the “first day” (Luke 24:1; cf. Mark 16:2; Matt 28:1; John 20:1, 19), but he provides 145. Nevertheless, they continued to measure time by Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6, 16; 27:9; 1 Cor 16:8; cf. 1 Cor 5:7). 146. Usually recognized by exegetes, and sometimes pointed out with particular force today by Adventist and Messianic Jewish scholars. 147. Cf. Ign. Magn. 9.1 (the “Lord’s day” replacing the Sabbath); Barn. 15.9 (celebrating the eighth day, against [15.8] the Sabbath). Cf. discussion in Keener, Revelation, 86–87 (arguing against the change of day in the first century). 148. E.g., Athanas. Homilies (TLG 2035.669; J. Ford, ed., The Gospel according to St. Mark: Illustrated [2nd ed.; London: J. Masters, 1864], 435; from Oden and Hall, Mark, 240). 149. His public rationale in the empire was veneration of the sun (Chadwick, Early Church, 128; cf. discussion in Hinson, “Worshiping,” 20). 150. Pace Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 344. The day dedicated to the sun was, however, Mithras’s holy day, as they note. Greeks reckoned the month’s ninth day as sacred to the sun (Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67). 151. Cf., e.g., Grant, Gods, 40–41. 152. Among non-Christian Jewish sources, possibly as early as L.A.E. 51:2, an emphasis on the seventhday resurrection may polemicize against the Christian eighth-day tradition; cf. Marmorstein, “Attitude,” 388, though cf. minim in b. Taʿan. 27b. Jewish-Christian practice suggests that the move away from the seventh day was not uniform in early Christianity and may have coincided with movement away from Judaism (Tonstad, Meaning, 300–302); cf. a comparable change of fast days in Did. 8.1 (and the probable replacement of thricedaily Jewish prayers in 8.2–3). 153. See Isichei, History, 49 (for some later indigenous churches, see 256); Irvin and Sunquist, History, 46, 49, 218; from a plausible Adventist perspective, note also the discussion in Bradford, Sabbath Roots, passim, esp. 98, 108–9, 113, 145–50; Heye, Sabbath in Ethiopia, esp. 37–39, 48, 60; Tolbert, “Roots.” In China, cf. the indigenous True Jesus Church (Zhaoming, “Chinese Denominations,” 444–45; Anderson, Pentecostalism, 134), which also influenced the Spirit of Jesus Church in Japan (Anderson, Pentecostalism, 140–41). 154. So Barrett, Acts, 951–52, who does not find Sunday to be theologically significant in the nt.

2966

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 22

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

no indication that this was a regular meeting day (he notes that Paul is preparing to leave the next day) or probably even that the entire meeting took place then. In Pliny the Younger’s account, the meetings took place on a set day but before dawn (Ep. 10.96.7), which does not easily fit the meeting here (unless we should think that Pliny’s Christians’ meeting before dawn started the preceding evening; but nocturnal meetings were more suspect and would have drawn more comment from Pliny than morning ones). In fact the likelihood is that this passage does not include a Sunday morning gathering at all. iii. Sunday Morning or Evening?

Did the meeting in our passage take place on a Sunday morning? Scholars are divided on the basis of two options.155 The first is a meeting starting at sunset on Saturday (ca. 6:00 p.m. in April) and hence concluding Sunday morning; this view allows for the Christians to gather immediately after the Sabbath.156 But no rule (unless a strict observance of Sabbath journey limits; cf. comment on Acts 1:12) would have prevented them from meeting for worship and teaching before sundown on the Sabbath, which would have been easier (for the Jewish Christians at least) than gathering on a workday. The other (and likelier) view is that Luke refers to a meeting that begins Sunday evening and ends on Monday at dawn.157 Since Luke uses the Jewish calendar (e.g., Acts 20:6, 16; most analogously to the wording here, Luke 24:1), he obviously means Sunday rather than the first day of the Roman week, Saturday (which would hardly be called τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, in any case). But does Luke calculate from sundown to sundown, also according to the Jewish method?158 This would place the “Sunday” on our Saturday evening through Sunday morning (the first view, above). It is clear, however, that Luke uses the typical non-Jewish method of reckoning days from dawn to dawn (Acts 3:1; 4:3–5; 10:3, 23; 23:12, 31–32); and so he would presumably begin counting the “first day” at dawn, and the following evening (and night) would belong to that same day. Thus the evening on which they met is our Sunday evening, and they dispersed at dawn on Monday morning, before people would go to work (as they also had on Sunday morning). If one did use the Jewish method of calculation, one might not end up with Sunday morning anyway, depending on whether the meeting started before or after nightfall (which Luke does not specify). If the meeting began around nightfall, on Jewish reckoning of a day from dusk to dusk, the entire night occurred on “the first day.” But if it began on the first day before nightfall (i.e., on Sunday afternoon), then most of the meeting technically took place on the second day (starting our Sunday evening but running to Monday morning). By the likelier Roman reckoning of dawn to dawn, however, it remained on the first day (Sunday afternoon till Monday dawn). Thus the meeting was probably not a Sunday morning meeting in honor of the resurrection. Rather, it was just what Luke suggests: a meeting with Paul, who planned 155. Conzelmann, Acts, 169, is uncertain which option is preferable. 156. Rackham, Acts, 376–77; Banks, Community, 41; Fitzmyer, Acts, 668; Wall, “Acts,” 277. 157. Bruce, Commentary, 408n25; Marshall, Acts, 325–26; Witherington, Acts, 606; Riesner, Early Period, 218; Bock, Acts, 619 (tentatively, citing also Rordorf, “Sonntagnachtgottesdeinste”). 158. Cf. Luke 12:38, where his division of the night into three watches corresponds to a frequent Jewish reckoning, in contrast to the normal Roman division into four watches in Mark 13:35 (so Jeremias, Parables, 27; but see comment on Acts 12:4). This designation, however, probably reflects authentic Jesus tradition; the four shifts of soldiers in Acts 12:4 may imply the Roman watches (naturally adopted by Agrippa; see comment on Acts 12:4 for further details).

2967

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 23

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

to leave the next morning (20:7).159 The text thus says nothing about Sunday worship (or the lack of it). The earliest Jerusalem believers were meeting with each other daily,160 but in the younger, smaller, and more spread-out churches of the Diaspora, this was no longer feasible.161 Given Sunday’s special status as the day on which Jesus arose and possibly also the wish to avoid conflicting with synagogue services in some regions, it eventually became a meeting day. This may have already happened by Paul’s day (though 1 Cor 16:2 need not compel this interpretation) and Luke’s, but if so, it is not reported in this passage. c. Lamps in the Upper Room (20:8) Luke paints elements of the setting necessary for the story (such as an upper room) and other vivid details suitable to his “we” narrative (such as the mention of lamps). i. The Upper Room

Given the frequency of multistory buildings in the Roman Empire, an upper room is not surprising, but it is also useful for Luke’s narrative connections. The upper room recalls gatherings around the leadership of Jesus (Luke 22:12) and Peter (Acts 1:13; for a raising, 9:37–38), fitting the parallelism between major figures in Luke-Acts.162 Perhaps, however, this narrative’s own events require mention of the upper room even more than does the parallelism: Eutychus falls far enough to cause serious injury (20:9). It is unclear how we should envision the architecture. An upper room on the side of the building farther from the street might provide more privacy (especially if nearby buildings lacked as many stories), but it is also possible that it would have neighbors who hear the noise (no louder, perhaps, than the clatter of pack animals and other nocturnal transport in the streets).163 Perhaps this is the oblong hallway, lined with windows, found in many buildings’ upper stories, though this suggestion, too, can be only a reasonable guess.164 This upper-story room seems larger than those typical of urban tenements,165 though the room is likely crowded, in any case, contributing to Eutychus’s placing himself in the window. ii. Lamps

Although Luke may well mention the lamps to underline a point (or image, such as a night meeting) that he expected to be fairly clear, modern interpretations of what this point might be differ widely. Some suggest a symbolic use of light,166 but while Luke borrows this ot symbolism in discourse material (Luke 1:78–79; 2:32; 11:34–35; Acts 13:47; 26:18, 23), he never clearly uses it in narrative.167 Some have suggested 159. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 105; Twelftree, People, 137. Banks, Community, 40, allows this possibility, though preferring the idea of regular meetings on this day. 160. Or perhaps more accurately, house meetings were occurring daily, with believers probably meeting and eating in one another’s homes as often as possible but not every house hosting meal meetings every day. 161. Cf. Capper, “Reciprocity,” 514. 162. See discussion and sources in Keener, Acts, 1:555–62, esp. 561–62. 163. Perhaps especially prevalent in a town so strategically located for trade by ship and land. 164. See discussion below. 165. Ground-floor apartments were more often larger ones ( Jeffers, World, 56). 166. Tannehill, Acts, 250; Gaventa, Acts, 279–80; Pervo, Acts, 513 (perhaps most persuasively citing Luke 12:35). Earlier, Bede Comm. Acts 20.7–8 applies it to explaining “the more enigmatic sayings” in Scripture. 167. Except perhaps in one discursive comment on narrative setting (Luke 22:53). One might make an argument for Luke 24:1, but it is, at best, ambiguous and probably not relevant; other cited examples are not relevant at all. One may contrast the thoroughgoing use in John or the Qumran literature (see 1QS III, 3, 19, 25; X, 2; 1QM I, 1, 11; XIII, 5, 15–16; XIV, 17; 1QHa XVII, 26; XX, 9; XXI, 15; 4Q177 III, 8; 4Q186 1 III, 6; 4Q257 III, 5; 4Q299 5 2; 4Q491 8–10 I, 14; 4Q548 1 10, 13, 15–16; in the Fourth Gospel, cf. esp. Koester, Symbolism, 123–54; Keener, John, 382–85, 387).

2968

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 24

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

that the lamps held a ritual significance understood by Luke’s audience, as in later Christianity, but we lack evidence supporting this practice in an early period.168 Others suggest that the lights were for celebration,169 as in Jewish celebrations170 (where light could also have, as suggested above, a symbolic function).171 The term λαμπάς (see BDAG) can mean either “torch,” on the one hand (e.g., Zech 12:6), or “lamp” or “lantern,” on the other (e.g., Jdt 10:22; Rev 4:5). Usually a torch172 (often λαμπάς, as here) was for outdoor use, with Greeks preferring branches or bundles of twigs and with Italians preferring tallow or beeswax on metal candleholders.173 People also used lanterns, which consisted of lamps or candles inside glass.174 Most lamps were small enough to hold in the hand, were made of clay or bronze, and had an external wick extending into the olive oil.175 When no available flame was nearby, people could use “sulphur matches or a flint-and-steel apparatus” to light them, but their light was “dull and murky” and they emitted a strong smell, so much so that works written during the night could retain the odor.176 Many commentators suggest that the smell of oil, its heaviness in the air, the heat, and perhaps the hypnotic dance of flickering light from the oil lamps contributed to Eutychus’s sleepiness.177 But if Eutychus was in the window, was he not exposed to the smell of oil less than most of his colleagues were?178 Would Luke expect his audience to infer that the flickering light helped put Eutychus to sleep?179 Luke may mention the lamps because their heat helped make the window (Acts 20:9) a more 168. Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 188. An allusion to lamps in the tabernacle might be more conceivable if the term were used thus in the lxx (though cf. Rev 4:5 and the cognate in Exod 37:21; 1 Kgs 7:49; Zech 4:2–3). 169. Cf., e.g., Plut. Cic. 22.3–4; most pervasively in the literature, torches in weddings: Aeschylus frg. 275, lines 831–32; Eurip. Tro. 343–44; Virg. Aen. 4.338–39; 7.388; [Culex] 246; Ecl. 8.29; Catull. Carm. 61.15, 77–78, 94–95, 114; 64.25, 302; 66.79; Ovid Her. 4.123; 6.42; 11.101; 12.137–38; 14.10; Fasti 2.558, 561; Tristia 4.5.33; Pont. 3.2.55; Metam. 1.483, 763; 4.758–59; 6.430; 10.6; Val. Max. 7.1.1; Lucan C.W. 2.356; Sen. Y. Med. 37–38; Statius Theb. 2.259; Silv. 3.4.53–54; 4.8.59–60; Sil. It. 2.184; Plut. Rom. Q. 2, Mor. 263F; Alciph. Fish. 22 (Thalasserôs to Euploüs), 1.19, ¶1; Ach. Tat. 2.11.1; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.8; Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.23–24, 32; 2.7, 409.10; Matt 25:1 (also sometimes funerals; Ovid Fasti 2.562; Her. 2.120); but weddings used torches partly because they were at night (Men. Rhet. 2.7, 410.19–25). 170. Le Cornu, Acts, 1107, 1110, emphasizes Shabbat lamps; but in the dark, one needed lamps regardless of the day. For Sabbath lamps, see m. Šabb. 2:1; b. Šabb. 21a; Gen. Rab. 11:2; 12:6; Pesiq. Rab. 23:6; for Hanukkah lamps (at a different time of year), see b. B. Qam. 30a; 62b; B. Meṣiʿa 118b; Šabb. 21b; Sukkah 46a; y. Sukkah 3:4, §3; Pesiq. Rab. 2:1; 3:1; 6:1; 8:1; Goodenough, Symbols, 1:152. 171. Rackham, Acts, 379. For the symbolic use of light in festivals, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 12.325; Ag. Ap. 2.118; m. Sukkah 5:3–4; b. Sukkah 52b–53a; see also Safrai, “Temple,” 895. Cf. the use of torches in sacred processions and other nocturnal rituals in Lucian Alex. 39–40; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2, 10; Char. Chaer. 1.1.4–5; cf. Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 54; but this must be expected at night. 172. On torches, see Forbes, Technology, 6:125–31; see 6:131–39 for candles; to prevent fire, often even palaces used special pans (6:128–29). 173. Pryce and Gill, “Lighting.” 174. Ibid. 175. On their evolution, see, e.g., Sussman, “Lighting”; for classification, e.g., Goodenough, Symbols, 1:139–64; for Diaspora Jewish lamps, 2:101–8. 176. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 102. 177. Hobart, Medical Language, 48; C. Williams, Acts, 230; Bruce, Acts1, 373; Blaiklock, Acts, 165; Marshall, Acts, 326; Longenecker, Acts, 305 (adding “lack of oxygen”); Fitzmyer, Acts, 669; Larkin, Acts, 290; tentatively, Barrett, Acts, 953; for the warmth and smoke drifting through the window, see Wilkinson, Health, 87. 178. Though it might be drifting past him. Further, does the smell of oil lamps have this effect on those accustomed to it? I and most others I know who used oil lamps in Africa (e.g., Charlemagne Nditemeh, confirmed May 22, 2012; Médine Moussounga Keener) did not report this effect (one reported the opposite effect), but another source (Alice Kadon, June 1, 2012) did report it (both Charlemagne Nditemeh and Alice Kadon also noted its effects on the eyes). Still, I assume that such an illustrious list of commentators, at least the earliest of whom may have used oil lamps, presumably have good reason to note it. 179. Granted, it may have done so, but the connection between oil lamps and falling asleep is by no means conventional or obvious in itself unless (and this is possible) one was conditioned to associate such conditions with sleep (but the likelier association is with midnight).

2969

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 25

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

attractive seat. Although the heat is a very plausible factor and could be Luke’s point, a possible argument against this approach is that if Luke’s interest here was in heat we might expect mention of other, more prominent factors in creating heat. Some suggest that Luke mentions the lamps to show that Eutychus fell asleep despite the best precautions;180 this use of lamps seems more obvious than the reverse assumption and may well be correct, though still less than certain without an explanation. Perhaps the lamps even took up floor space (making the window an attractive seat), but they are probably small, and Luke omits other evidence that we would need to argue for this conclusion. Lamps would always be employed in night meetings, and so Luke probably reinforces graphically the memory of an all-night meeting (20:8–9, 11). The point might be as simple as that there was sufficient light for the otherwise dark night meeting.181 (Perhaps this claim might counter claims or potential claims that Christians acted subversively, in the dark,182 but it might be simply a vivid recollection or counter suspicions of negligence.) It is also possible, however, that Luke’s emphasis might be on the number rather than the lamps’ presence. Though Luke may specify “many” lamps to reinforce whatever his other point was in mentioning lamps to begin with, the comment probably emphasizes the size of the room and, more important, the number of people present. It might also show that the people were eager for Paul’s teaching this night; most homes would not have “many lamps,” but the people were prepared for his long nocturnal teaching. d. A Deadly Fall (20:9) “Eutychus” means something like “Good Luck” (cf. “Tychichus,” 20:4),183 ironic here (in view of Paul being present) but probably not deliberate. This was the ninth commonest Greek name in Rome’s inscriptions (337 times), dominant especially close to the first century.184 i. Sitting in a Window

Presumably Eutychus sits in the window because the upper room is crowded with many or most of Paul’s converts from Troas. Further, even after sundown in April, 180. Conzelmann, Acts, 169. 181. Cf., e.g., Jub. 23:4; thus, e.g., one could write during darkness but not once the light went out (Cic. Att. 7.7). 182. Conzelmann, Acts, 169, records this view of some, based on later charges that Christians acted in the dark (refuted in Min. Fel. Oct. 9; Tert. Apol. 8–9; cf. Eph 5:11–12; comment on Acts 26:26); Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 151 (on suspicions about nocturnal meetings, see 151–55; idem, Acts, 177–79). Talbert connects this with concerns that would arise over a dead boy in a nocturnal cultic setting (Mediterranean Milieu, 156) in view of charges of cannibalism and infanticide by pagans against pagans (156–57), against Jews (157), and against Christians (157–58); by Jews against Christians (158); and by Christians against pagans (159–60) and deviant Christian groups (159). Given other raisings in Luke-Acts, that one should occur at night might be coincidental, but it might raise concerns. Eutychus might be on the edge of puberty; he sounds like a youth in Acts 20:9 but a boy (or slave) in 20:12. Many interpreters believe that he was a youth (in his twenties) but also the “child” of someone present (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558). 183. E.g., Menander Sikyonioi 225. Bede Comm. Acts 20.9a (Martin, Acts, 246; L. Martin, 160), quoting Jerome De nominibus hebraicis (CSEL 72:145, 29/30), allegorizes this to apply to his raising, while construing the name in Hebrew for “senseless” to apply to his youthful “fall” from virtue. 184. See Hemer, Acts in History, 237. In various forms, it appears as a probably Jewish name as well in Rome and elsewhere (CIJ 1:80, §115; 1:166, §232; 1:315, §412; 2:26–27, §763). For similar names, see, e.g., Eutyches (Εὐτύχης), a first-century c.e. gem cutter (Michel, “Eutyches”); Eutyc(h)ius, a fourth-century c.e. Latin grammarian (Gatti, “Eutyc[h]ius”); the fourth- to third-century b.c.e. sculptor Eutychides (Neudecker, “Eutychides”); the second-century c.e. Latin grammarian Eutychius Proculus (Gatti, “Eutychius Proculus”). With a wordplay, note the donkey driver Eutychus whom Augustus met and viewed as an omen (Kienast, “Eutychus”).

2970

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 26

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

tightly packed bodies might become warm in an upper room (the lamps contributing further, 20:8), but he would likely stay cool in the night air in the window. In summer heat, people sometimes sat in larger windows, the thick walls offering “window-seats” of sufficient size.185 Thick walls made for thick window “sills,” as can be attested from the designs of numerous recovered or reconstructed homes.186 Certainly Eutychus was not supported by modern wallboard (which could have buckled even if he were awake);187 although walls grew weaker as they climbed higher in most insulae, often these multistory tenements used kiln-fired brick.188 Later rabbis claimed that Hillel (a sage before Paul’s era) was poor but so eager to learn that he sat in a window to hear the sages despite being covered with snow (b. Yoma 35b, bar.).189 Romans sometimes used window glass;190 glassmaking was an ancient art, though not in regard to windows.191 Although glass windows were occasionally used in firstcentury Italy, they were not popular in this period and were at best very rare in the East.192 Given the rareness of glass for windows, most windows were simple openings in walls, closed by wooden shutters.193 Windows in the East had long used shutter boards, which could be inserted and removed as necessary.194 Thus windows could be closed or opened (2 Kgs 13:17),195 and texts that report women peering through (or perhaps seen inside) windows sometimes mention lattices.196 Often people covered their windows with simple cloth or skins,197 but these were susceptible to rain; folding wooden shutters were more helpful for inclement weather, but these kept out the light.198 (Pliny the Younger, however, was happy to shut out even the light.)199 Either Eutychus’s window lacked shutters, or he removed them to sit there; curtains could be pulled back, but they would not hold his weight, in any case. 185. See Safrai, “Home,” 734–35, with full documentation. Herr, “Window,” notes recessed frames (but for temple windows, 1 Kgs 6:4; Ezek 41:16); birds also perched on windowsills (Isa 60:8; Zeph 2:14). 186. E.g., Blue, “House Church,” 210, fig. 20. 187. For windowsills, on which one could lay objects, see, e.g., b. Šabb. 147b; Qidd. 50a; cf. ʿErub. 98b. The first-floor, second-century c.e. window in Clarke, Houses, 291, fig. 178, appears to be at least two bricks thick. Cf. also the thickness of the windows in Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 19, fig. 2.2; 24, fig. 2.7 (perhaps two bricks deep); 104, fig. 5.7; plate 2, between pp. 148 and 149. 188. Purcell, “Houses, Italian,” 731–32. Or often in Rome, wood (still in the third century, Hdn. 7.12.5–6; Packer, “Housing,” 82). 189. Others could also sit in windows (e.g., b. B. Bat. 20a). A proper house should have windows (m. B. Meṣiʿa 8:9; b. B. Meṣiʿa 101b), which ideally should admit light (m. B. Bat. 2:4; b. B. Bat. 7ab; 22ab), and Amoraim cited Dan 6:11 (6:10 ET) in support of praying in a room with windows (b. Ber. 31a; 34b); for lowering items through windows, cf. b. Beṣah 36a. “Egyptian” windows, as opposed to “Tyrian”-style windows, were small windows through which one could not place one’s head (m. B. Bat. 3:6). 190. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307n4; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 101, 116. 191. See, e.g., Whitehouse, “Glass.” A glass factory appears even in Cana, within sight of Jesus’s Nazareth (Charlesworth, “Archaeology,” 39–40; Richardson, “Khirbet Qana,” 132). 192. Forbes, Technology, 5:182–84; cf. Platz-Horster, “Techniques,” 863 (noting some in the cities buried by Vesuvius in 79 c.e.); Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 116. Palestinian use is probably well after 70 c.e. (Safrai, “Home,” 734). Though Stern and Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass, attest widespread ancient use of glass, their relative silence about windows is telling. In Palestine, cf. Safrai, “Home,” 734 (noting that it was probably rare before 70 c.e.). 193. Jeffers, World, 59. 194. E.g., the shops at Assos in Dinsmoor, Architecture of Greece, 294. 195. This is in Elisha’s house (2 Kgs 13:14), which does not seem wealthy (2 Kgs 5:9, with no gate, if the same dwelling). 196. Cf. Judg 5:28 (suggesting seclusion); Prov 7:6; Song 2:9; Test. Jos. 14:1. 197. For window curtains on rings, see Hurschmann, “Curtain” (citing Juv. Sat. 9.105); for a skin/curtain, cf. Jos. Asen. 10:2. 198. Carcopino, Life, 35–36; McRay, Archaeology, 84. 199. Whether for leisure (Pliny Ep. 2.17.22; 9.36.1) or for his eye trouble (7.21.1–4, esp. 7.21.2). Windows could protect against bad weather (2.17.4); shuttered windows were sometimes as large as doors (2.17.5).

2971

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 27

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

ii. Size and Location of Windows

Windows came in various sizes.200 Most Middle Eastern homes probably had small rectangular windows to admit some light.201 Certainly, palatial windows ( Jer 22:14; Joel 2:9) were large enough to fall through (2 Kgs 9:30–33; perhaps 1:2). We also read, however, of people climbing through the window of a house on a wall ( Josh 2:15) and another house (1 Sam 19:12).202 Farther north in the Mediterranean world, we find some fairly small windows in some multistory buildings.203 Most homes lacked much light; most windows were small, and windows of any size had to be obstructed during inclement weather.204 The wealthy sometimes had larger bay windows, especially on the ground floor.205 More relevant here is that insulae also sometimes had large windows.206 As noted in the discussion of insulae below, the long, shared room was often well lit.207 Windows on the ground floor were usually higher on the wall to deter potential intruders and the unduly inquisitive;208 this may be illustrated by abundant examples.209 They also appear on upper floors, with less concern, naturally, for intruders. Thus, for example, in one third-century b.c.e. Eastern location (Delos), first-floor windows are high on the wall whereas the sizes and shapes of second-floor windows varied considerably.210 Elsewhere, too, the placement of windows varied from one floor to another.211 Some windows were quite large yet low enough to sit on without climbing into them.212 In one example, a second-level window in an atrium is a little narrower than 200. Note, e.g., those in massive Egyptian (Vitruv. Arch. 6.3.9) and Greek (6.3.10) halls; formal architects of carefully designed buildings were concerned to provide adequate window lighting (1.2.7; 6.6.6–7). Insulae were less light-friendly, but at night, Troas’s streets would be dark, in any case. 201. Herr, “Window,” based on modern examples in the region. 202. Admittedly, if Rahab was an innkeeper, she would have had a larger “house” ( Josh 2:1), and David was a prince (1 Sam 18:27; 19:11). 203. Blue, “House Church,” 204, fig. 13. Syrian windows tended to be narrow (Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 314). 204. Carcopino, Life, 35–36. Cf., e.g., in Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, a small window above an entrance (plate 8, directly before p. 149; cf. also p. 159, fig. 7.11, for another window above an entrance); a very small window, through which one could fit only if one climbed up and squeezed through to get out (i.e., deliberately; 165, fig. 7.15). Small windows also characterized mezzanine apartments above first-floor shops (Packer, “Housing,” 81), though they are not relevant here. 205. Carcopino, Life, 35. Cf. the large first-floor windows in the wealthy corridor in Clarke, Houses, 246, fig. 149. Wealthy buildings could have large enough windows (see, e.g., Stambaugh, City, 294, plate 2; 296, plate 4; 297, plate 5; many buildings in the Rome model, 301, plate 9; 321, plate 30). See esp. Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, passim: spacious windows to illumine the atrium in Herculaneum (p. 19, fig. 2.2); a huge first-floor window (taking up much of a wall; 24, fig. 2.7); a spacious ground-floor window in an atrium (49, fig. 3.16); some large windows (on single-story homes; 128, fig. 6.6); a more moderate-sized window in the middle of the height of a wall (128, fig. 6.7); a huge, square first-floor window in a wealthy home’s atrium, taking up most of that wall (plate 7, between pp. 148 and 149); another large wall window (p. 171, fig. 7.21). For large windows in some Galilean homes, see, e.g., Meyers, “Gendered Space,” 46, fig. 1 (fourth to fifth century c.e.); larger still, 47, fig. 2 (a second- to third-century c.e. wealthy house). 206. E.g., Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 307 (on Ostia and Rome); for drawings of Ostiantype buildings with their large windows, see esp. p. 309, fig. 130 (on all floors); also 308, fig. 129 (though large windows appear only on the higher floors). 207. Stambaugh, City, 172–73. 208. Herr, “Window”; Höcker, “Window,” 649–50; cf. Dickie and Payne, “House,” 772. Cf., e.g., the window in Clarke, Houses, 258, fig. 158 (not large, and before one could fall from it, one would need to climb into it). In p. 291, fig. 178, wide windows start just below the top of the door (averaging 2 m., 6.6 ft.); they are roughly the same size on the second floor but appear to be placed lower on the wall. Cf. the large windows (for light) just beneath the ceiling, above the wide doors of a restaurant, in Stambaugh, City, 315, plate 24 (cf. the similar description in Carcopino, Life, 27). Cf. some smaller windows, but large enough, on a less impressive building (Stambaugh, City, 322, plate 31). 209. E.g., Blue, “House Church,” 204, fig. 13. 210. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 300. 211. Packer, “Housing,” 80 (on Rome). But even rows of windows on a particular floor might characterize apartments (80). 212. E.g., Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 24, fig. 2.7 (though, being of brick, it would not feel comfortable).

2972

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 28

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

the door but takes up most of the height of the second-level bricks.213 In another, more relevant example from a fairly common form of Italian insula, the window is thick enough to sit on and wide enough to accommodate a person; starting fairly low on the second-story wall, it extends quite high on that wall.214 Another window, this one on a first floor, might aid our imagination as well; it was easily thick enough and wide enough for sitting, probably requiring at most a little hop to get into it; one could prop one’s back against one side of the window and prop a foot against the other with one’s knee raised and bent.215 iii. Multistory Buildings The “third floor” (τρίστεγον) underlines the seriousness of Eutychus’s fall.216 We

cannot be certain of the building’s architecture; for example, in one novel a wealthy villa in Asia Minor includes a second story.217 Most people, however, lived in less wealthy settings.218 In the most populous cities,219 multistory buildings were often insulae, or tenements (see comment at Acts 18:3). Some reasonably suggest that Eutychus falls from a window in one of these insulae, or multistory tenements.220 Poor people in much of the empire lived in small homes, but those in the cities were often crowded into multistory apartment buildings.221 Such buildings could, like any other domestic space, be employed for religious purposes or even converted into temples.222 Wealthier households could host meetings on the lowest floors of such buildings, but those less endowed would rent higher dwellings.223 Contrary to the view that multistory buildings characterized only Rome and the Latin West,224 Strabo (16.2.23) says that houses in Tyre (much of it an island with limited space) have even more stories than those in Rome.225 Alexandria, Carthage, and Syria all provide evidence of multistory buildings;226 pre-Roman, classical 213. Ibid., 45, fig. 3.9. Of course, because it is an atrium, there is no “floor” on the second level, and the second level is not a full story. 214. Ibid., 104, fig. 5.7. 215. Ibid., plate 2, between pp. 148 and 149. 216. The “third floor” in Greek (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 642, cite P.Oxy. 1.99.5, from 55 c.e.; 8.1105.9, from 81–96 c.e.; and later 1.75.18; P.Lond. 1164[e].7), American English, and many other languages is the “second floor” (but three stories) in British English (Naden, “Another Stor[e]y”) and most of Europe. A fall from such a height “need not be fatal” (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 256), but someone too asleep to try to break his fall could land in a deadly position. Even a wide-awake person in such a fall could sustain serious injury (e.g., Jun Kim, interview by author, Baguio, Philippines, January 24, 2009; he shared with me his recovery from a head injury caused in this way). 217. Hock, “Ethnography,” 108, citing Char. Chaer. 2.11.1; 3.1.2. 218. Churches probably met in a wide variety of housing types (with, e.g., Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 9). 219. Insulae grew in urban areas, such as Rome, where space was at a premium (e.g., Clarke, Houses, 26). Single stories were more common in Syria and Palestine, though even here some buildings were tall, with multiple stories (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 109, citing Pomponius Mela De situ orbis 2.7.6; Strabo 16.2.13, 23). Single stories predominated except in the large cities ( Jeffers, World, 54). 220. McRay, Archaeology, 84. 221. Ibid., 82. Many also lived in one-floor tabernae, but insulae are more characteristic of excavations in Rome and Ostia (Stambaugh, City, 174–75; Packer, “Housing,” 80). Storey, “Skyscrapers,” argues that tall buildings were, for all their attestation, not the norm. 222. E.g., White, Origins of Architecture, 1:34, 41; 2:144. 223. With Marshall, Acts, 326; Witherington, Acts, 607. For wealthier multistory “residential complexes,” Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 109, cites McKay, Houses, 212–17. 224. Pompeii and Herculaneum also had multistory buildings (Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 74). Rome had some three-story buildings by the third century b.c.e., and they grew much higher in the late republic and early empire (Carcopino, Life, 24–25), occasioning many complaints about their dangerous height (25–26, citing complaints of height in Cic. Agr. 2.96; Vitruv. Arch. 2.8.17; Strabo 5.3.7; Juv. Sat. 3.190–96). 225. McRay, Archaeology, 84. 226. Ibid., 88. For an insula in Perga, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 170.

2973

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 29

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Greek Miletus developed according to insula units rather than streets.227 Surviving evidence of multistory buildings in first-century Asia Minor suggests that they may have been better than the insulae of Rome and Ostia,228 some even including water piped to every floor.229 We have evidence of an appreciation for high buildings in Roman Troas and even in earlier Hellenistic sites in its vicinity.230 Nevertheless, some similarities undoubtedly existed with Western Mediterranean models. At least with regard to the conventional Roman model, as a rule, the greater a person’s resources, the closer he or she lived to the ground floor; the poorer a person, the higher his or her apartment.231 The structure of insulae varied. In one excavated insula, people reached the second floor by a balcony across the front; on the third floor, light also reached the small sitting rooms from this side.232 Privacy was next to impossible on upper floors of such a building; sleeping cubicles were small, and other space would have to be shared with other dwellers.233 The building in Troas was presumably not designed precisely like this (otherwise Eutychus would have hit the balcony; moreover, the windowed front rooms were small in such structures for such a meeting). It may give us a sense, however, of community life in such an insula, in which one’s faith (and house church meetings) were inevitably shared with one’s neighbors, who might well find the meetings the most interesting event in the building. One common insula pattern may provide suggestions for how the meeting was conducted. In many insulae in Ostia, many windows illumined a long, central room with a sitting room at either or both ends. On the back of the long room are multiple cubicles for sleeping.234 Perhaps with some cooperation from other interested tenants (unconcerned with their night’s sleep or immune to loud noise), Paul and his followers made use of some of this longer, central room with windows (the cubicles being too small to gather in).235 Of course, homes might offer more privacy and might be preferred for meetings;236 further archaeological discussion about Roman Troas may best clarify the kinds of structures in view here. 227. Owens, City, 54 (the insula-unit pattern also appears in other classical cities, p. 71); Cobet, “Miletus,” 894. Greeks used rectangular blocks to give more access to the street; Romans emphasized fairly square, uniform blocks, though in practice their insulae reveal considerable diversity (Owens, City, 156). Most buildings in third-century b.c.e. Delos are exactly two stories (Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, 300). 228. On the unpleasant situation of Roman insulae, see Carcopino, Life, 26–32; Stambaugh, City, 157, 175. See esp. Packer, “Housing,” 81, who notes Seneca the Younger’s awareness of the flimsiness of the tenements (Ben. 4.6.2; 6.15.7; Ira 3.35.4–5). Even after Nero’s renovation of part of Rome (Tac. Ann. 15.43; Suet. Nero 16.1), complaints continued (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). Packer notes (“Housing,” 82) that Trajan prohibited new buildings higher than 60 ft. (Aur. Vict. Epit. Caes. 13.13); Aul. Gel. 15.1.2–3 thought that tenements would be good investments if they did not burn down so often. 229. McRay, Archaeology, 87–88. 230. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139 (residential, and also high monuments). Archaeologists note forty-seven blocks from Roman Ilium, near Troas, “usually measuring 360 (N-S) x 180 (E/W) Roman feet” (Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 138). 231. Stambaugh, City, 172. 232. Ibid., 177–78. For second-floor balconies in some Western insulae, see also Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 109, fig. 5.9; 112, fig. 5.14. 233. Stambaugh, City, 178. 234. Ibid., 172–73 (eight cubicles on the ground floor, and so more on upper floors). For light reaching the central room (the medianum), see also Clarke, Houses, 27–28. 235. Jewett, Romans, 959, argues that many of the so-called house churches in Rome were, in fact, “tenement” churches in insulae. 236. See Heid, “Romanness,” 407.

2974

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 30

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

iv. Eutychus’s Sleep

Luke is not criticizing Paul for the length of his sermon;237 Paul goes on for the rest of the night after Eutychus is restored (Acts 20:11). Paul was planning to leave the next day (20:7) and hence had to cram into this single session everything he might have said over a long period. He had been there roughly a week (20:6), but perhaps this gathering to break bread was the first opportunity to address all the believers in Troas; in any case, it was his last opportunity to address them, and undoubtedly much had transpired since his previous visit (2 Cor 2:12). He had a pastor’s heart toward them even though he could spend only a week there. Luke is emphatic about the depth of Eutychus’s sleep, perhaps to underline the danger he allowed himself to fall into.238 It seems questionable that the oil or the flickering of lamps (Acts 20:8) put Eutychus to sleep; that their heat would have put him to sleep is even unlikelier.239 His position might be one factor; some of those reclining at Greek banquets might lean back, as if ready to fall asleep.240 But while digesting a meal (20:7) could make one sleepy,241 either the meal mentioned as a purpose for the meeting in 20:7 (κλάσαι ἄρτον) had not yet occurred (20:11) or, if the attendees ate twice, the meal already held was much earlier;242 this incident apparently occurs no earlier than midnight. The simplest explanation seems to be the one that Luke provides: it was late. Eutychus was also young (νεανίας), and some scholars suggest that this factor might have contributed to his inattentiveness;243 but we cannot be certain that it would have done so.244 Luke might mention his age (if παῖδα in 20:12 qualifies the term here to mean “boy” instead of simply indicating a young servant)245 because death before reaching manhood was considered particularly tragic.246 But scholars 237. Cf. González, Acts, 235. Some see humor in Eutychus’s falling asleep during Paul’s long preaching (Pelikan, Acts, 149); implausible for those within the narrative world, it is not impossible on the larger narrative level (given the comic upturn). But Paul preaches long because he must leave the next day, and ancients often viewed a pupil’s sleeping negatively, and so, even if his narration might be humorous on some level, Luke’s point is serious. 238. Even the verb καταφέρω (used here twice, half the Lukan and nt uses; found in the passive form with reference to sleep) was commonly used for sleep in medical literature (elsewhere, see BDAG), which also distinguished ὕπνος βαθύς from lighter sleep (Hobart, Medical Language, 48–49). Luke twice in the same verse repeats Eutychus falling asleep (with the present and then aorist participles). 239. If he was too hot, it would not have been a “deep sleep”; but as noted above, he would not likely be hot in the window. 240. For an example, see the diagram in Smith, Symposium, 16. 241. Especially if it was a meal at a time to which one was unaccustomed (Hippocr. Reg. Ac. Dis. 42). 242. Even if it was later than the average evening meal (e.g., at sundown, when even shopkeepers could attend), that was many hours earlier than midnight. 243. So Conzelmann, Acts, 169. Although this Greek term need not mean a youth (Acts 7:58), it must do so when conjoined with παῖδα in 20:12 (unless it means “servant,” as sometimes in Luke-Acts). In itself, it reflects no lack of zeal (7:58; 23:17). 244. I have taught hundreds of students in marathon teaching sessions (in at least six-, eight-hour, or longer segments), including many (in fact, mostly) college-age students who were quite eager; I have no experience from which to evaluate adolescents, but “youth” may range him in his twenties (see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558). As I am aging, I find my own body less inclined to endure such sessions. 245. Cf. Luke 7:7 (a servant); 9:42 (a child); but more relevant for a resuscitation, the child in 8:51, 54; see especially the cognate νεανίσκος for the raising of a lad in 7:14. Philo defines “boy” as ages nine to fourteen (Creation 105, often cited here), but usage could vary. 246. E.g., Lysias Or. 13.45, §§133–34; Demosth. Leoch. 18; Statius Silv. 2.1.52–54; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.25.610; Luke 7:12; for young women, see the tomb inscription in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 11, §21; Judg 11:37–39; Soph. Antig. 891; Eurip. Hec. 416; Heracl. 579–80, 591–92; Hipponax frg. 68, in Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 16, §31; Paus. 3.19.4; Safrai, “Home,” 776–77; for the ideal of one’s children surviving one, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.11.6.

2975

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 31

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

point out that “youth” probably specifies him in his twenties, and that he may have simply been the “child” of someone present. Whether Eutychus was the only one who dozed is another question, but he was apparently the only one who risked falling into the street by sitting in a window.247 If the street was a fairly prominent one, it may have been paved or even had a sidewalk;248 otherwise it could be even a rugged alleyway with dirt and stones. More often windows of significant size, both in the East and West, faced onto an inner courtyard, so we cannot be certain about what he landed on. In any case, the fall was a hard one.249 Because there would be no streetlights,250 those who came out to examine Eutychus would have to carry lamps with them. Although a handful of people returning from late-night parties,251 perhaps a few night watchmen,252 and certainly wheeled traffic (especially in a mercantile city such as Troas) could be in the larger streets, the street could easily be barren at this time. Though Luke’s interest is in recounting the miracle, not in negligence on Eutychus’s part,253 an ancient audience might well view the adolescent’s sleep with some negative nuances.254 Given his age and the time of night, few would evaluate him harshly, but falling into a “deep sleep” in a meeting could still be viewed as negligence.255 It seems that students sometimes responded to orthodox philosophic pedagogy by falling asleep (Fronto Eloq. 4.3, expressing his disdain toward philosophers!).256 (Paul is, however, probably using dialogical style, not simply lecturing; Luke usually employs διαλέγομαι [Acts 20:7, 9] for public disagreements or disputes [cf., e.g., 18:4, 19; 19:8–9; 24:12].) The penalty for falling asleep in an assembly of the Qumran community was expulsion from the assembly for thirty days and a reduction in food for ten.257 Rabbis were more prone to arouse drowsy audiences with merely striking statements,258 but a particularly 247. Although I am working from the premise that a fall into the street (perhaps from the long hall) is likely, it is also possible that he fell into an inner courtyard (depending on the direction the window faced). On his age, see Overstreet, “Concept,” 558. 248. See Stambaugh, City, 188–89 (on Rome); for the antiquity of paving, e.g., Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 106; Roman influence made paving a common urban feature sponsored by civic benefactors (Owens, City, 157). Troas was prosperous enough to afford this, though the current state of our knowledge is incomplete. 249. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139, notes the Hellenistic stone foundations of buildings in earlier, nearby Neandria. For larger windows facing an inner courtyard, see Höcker, “Window,” 649–50; for windows opening onto a courtyard, cf. also m. B. Bat. 3:7; b. B. Bat. 59b. 250. Antioch was exceptional in having these (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 106). 251. E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.15; Statius Silv. 2.4.6; Lucian Nigr. 22; see fuller comment on Acts 2:15. 252. Cf. minimal night patrols in Rome ( Jeffers, World, 31, 61); wealthy persons on Roman streets at night brought their own guards (61). 253. Barrett, Acts, 954. 254. He is accused of sloth in Arator Acts 2 (Schrader, 81); likewise, of negligence in Bede Comm. Acts 20.10; cf. perhaps also Bede Comm. Acts 20.9A (L. Martin, 160–61; Martin, Acts, 246). But contrast Chrys. Hom. Acts 43 (Martin, Acts, 245–46): Eutychus was zealous and so was willing to sit even in the window. He fell asleep not because of indifference but by “necessity of nature” (cf. Mark 14:38). Arterbury, “Downfall,” correctly notes many metaphoric uses of “sleep” in antiquity (see on this point also comment on Acts 20:31), though it is important to note that Luke’s sort of historical narrative was more apt to communicate lessons by examples—possibly including the negative one here—rather than as a series of symbols inviting allegorization. Luke’s narratives do not consistently lend themselves to allegorization (as opposed to plainly symbolic narratives like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress), but the negative nuances of these figurative uses in part reflected negative perceptions of some literal behaviors. 255. Nero reportedly punished Vespasian for falling asleep during Nero’s singing (Suet. Vesp. 4.4). 256. Some sources warn against excessive sleep as a form of laziness (e.g., Sent. Syr. Men. 67–71). 257. E.g., 1QS VII, 10 (also noted by Barrett, Acts, 954); 4Q266 10 II, 5–6. 258. E.g., the story of R. Judah ha-Nasi in Song Rab. 1:15, §3; 4:1, §2. Sometimes readers also complained that particular works made them laugh or put them to sleep (a speaker in Tac. Dial. 21).

2976

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 32

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

hot-tempered Greek sophist might strike the student physically to awaken him.259 By falling asleep, guards or others sometimes caused themselves grave trouble;260 figurative alertness becomes an issue a few paragraphs later (20:28, 31). Episodes in which someone falls from a height and dies appear in other sources,261 and some readers would think of the prototypical literary incident of Elpenor’s fall in Homer’s Odyssey262 (which ended less positively than in this passage).263 (One might also think of the slaughter of Rhesus and others as they slept in front of the earlier Troas,264 but the shared location is probably coincidence, since the slaughter of sleeping enemies is a literary motif.)265 In the whole Lukan context, however, Luke’s audience will be aware of positive characters who mean well but sleep during times of prayer (Luke 9:28, 32; 22:45–46).266 Eutychus’s sleep, like that of the disciples at Gethsemane, may therefore provide a concrete illustration for the impending warnings to remain vigilant (Acts 20:31; cf. Luke 12:37–39; 21:36). It may provide a model opposite Paul’s own (Acts 16:25).267 e. Paul Resuscitates Eutychus (20:10) Against those who think that Luke does not claim a resuscitation here, it makes little sense for Luke to record Paul’s intervention here if he believed that it was not a miracle but only a medical insight.268 Claiming that the youth’s life remained in him (20:10) does not tell Luke’s ideal audience that Eutychus had not really died; rather, it evokes the resuscitation scene in Luke 8:52. Modern Westerners’ standard for clinical evidence may be much more rigorous and our definition of death perhaps narrower than Luke’s, but we should not for that reason miss the literary connections between this narrative and other resuscitation accounts in Luke-Acts (and their ancient Israelite prototype).269 Like Jesus (Luke 7:14–15; 8:54–55) and Peter (Acts 9:40), Paul raises the dead. The boy fell from an upper room (20:8), which was where Peter, Elijah, and Elisha raised the 259. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.578, whose narration suggests that most understood that this was too harsh; hearers sometimes did fall asleep. For a comparison of Greek and some Roman views of sleep, especially among medical writers, and their influence on later monastic approaches, see Dossey, “Greeks.” 260. E.g., Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1, 3; Philost. Hrk. 25.14 (citing Hom. Od. 10.31). See further discussion on alertness at Act 20:28 and esp. 20:31. 261. Cadbury, Acts in History, 9, cites P.Oxy. 3.475 (182 c.e., on a genuine incident); it appears as a means of suicide in y. Kil. 9:3, §3. Aristophanes jests that Euripides creates lame heroes because he writes in an elevated room (Acharn. 410–11). Other hazards of sleep locations include bird droppings in the eyes (Tob 2:9–10). 262. On which see Bloch, “Elpenor” (citing Hom. Od. 10.551–60; 11.51–83; 12.10; Apollod. Epit. 7.17; Hyginus Fabulae 125.11–12; Ovid Metam. 14.252; Tristia 3.4.19–20; Juv. Sat. 15.22). 263. Agreeing with MacDonald, “Eutychus and Elpenor,” on Hom. Od. 10–12 (though he may press the connection too far in seeing a deliberate allusion here). Marcus Aurelius playfully points out the troubles that came when Ulysses (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.4.2) or Agamemnon (1.4.3) slept. People in real life could also fall fatally from windows; see, e.g., P.Oxy. 3.475, noted above. 264. Hom. Il. 10.471–97; cf. Euripides Rhesus (probably genuinely Euripidean, though this is hotly debated; see Norwood, Greek Tragedy, 291–95). 265. E.g., Hom. Il. 10.465–514; Virg. Aen. 9.314–66 (though cf. 9.375–445); cf. Hom. Il. 10.326–27; Plut. Cam. 33.4; 1 Sam 26:12. 266. In contrast to throwing oneself down from a height (Luke 4:9–12), falling accidentally seems more covered by the spirit of Ps 91:11–12 (cf. 91:10). 267. On sleeplessness in antiquity, see discussion at Acts 16:25 and esp. at Acts 2:15. 268. Such a case of medical insight appears in Apul. Flor. 19.2–7, especially 19.7. 269. Le Cornu, Acts, 1112, notes that the rabbis diverged over whether the boys raised through Elijah and Elisha were genuinely dead (she believes that Eutychus probably was). But Luke alludes back to the biblical accounts directly, rather than to later rabbis, and the most natural reading of those accounts is that the boys were, indeed, dead (thus the child’s life returning, 1 Kgs 17:21–22; the child “died” or was “dead,” 2 Kgs 4:20, 32).

2977

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 33

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

dead (1 Kgs 17:19, 23; 2 Kgs 4:10–11, 21, 32–33; Acts 9:37).270 That Paul fell on271 and embraced272 the boy fits the model of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17:21; 2 Kgs 4:34–35).273 The parallels suggest that Luke expects his reader to understand that Paul is the agent of a resuscitation here.274 In contrast to the narratives about Elijah and Elisha raising boys, however, Paul does not demand privacy and does not emulate the related actions of these prophets, which could have smacked too much of magic for Luke’s audience to be acceptable, given his antimagical apologetic (see comment on Acts 8:9–11). Paul’s announcement that the boy is alive matches Jesus’s announcement about Jairus’s daughter in Luke 8:52, though this time the hearers are believers who accept the claim (cf. 1 Kgs 17:23; 2 Kgs 4:36). Words of assurance are common in miracle stories.275 Luke does not report a dramatic recovery (such as sitting up, as in Luke 7:15; 8:55; Acts 9:40), merely that the boy did leave alive as Paul had said (Acts 20:12).276 It seems that Luke was an eyewitness on this occasion (20:7), but despite his lack of the sudden drama found in some of his accounts developed from other sources, everyone appears satisfied (20:12).277 Luke is not simply pretending skepticism to add credibility to the account, as some of his contemporaries did;278 his narrative has already irrevocably committed him to the validity of miracle claims. Most resuscitations in ancient novels are merely the raising of those apparently dead,279 but while Luke seems more restrained than usual here, he declares unequivocally that the boy was picked up “dead” (20:9) and was afterward clearly alive (20:12), indicating his view of what happened.280 Early Christians clearly did believe that some people were 270. Cf. also Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:191. For comparisons and contrasts with the Elijah and Elisha narratives and with Acts 9:36–42, see, e.g., Stipp, “Vier Gestalten”; Kowalski, “Fenstersturz”; Pervo, Acts, 512–13; for comparisons with 9:36–42 and Luke 7:11–17, see, e.g., Lindemann, “Einheit,” 243–48; note also the comments and comparison chart in Keener, Acts, 2:1710–11. Bede Comm. Acts 20.10 (Martin, Acts, 246) homiletically notes points of contrast to highlight the parallel raising: Eutychus died through negligence at night, Tabitha through weakness by day; Eutychus fell down, but Tabitha was placed in an upper room; Paul was present and went down whereas Peter was summoned and went up. 271. The term here could contrast with Eutychus’s fall in the previous verse but probably simply reflects common idiom (especially for falling on the neck, Acts 20:37; Luke 15:20; Gen 33:4; 45:14; 46:29; Tob 11:9, 13; 3 Macc 5:49; Song Rab. 8:1, §1); Luke uses the verb here eight times, and the cognate in Acts 20:9 twenty-six times. 272. Since the boy was, technically, still dead, some might have required Paul’s purification on reaching Jerusalem (though Le Cornu, Acts, 1112, notes that his sojourn in Gentile lands would have required the same); but Diaspora Jews could not well come to Jerusalem for regular purification, and more than seven days of Paul’s journey remained (e.g., Acts 21:4). (This could be more of an issue in the case of a Nazirite vow, but many questions surround the interpretation of 21:24–26.) Nor did the Jesus movement seem to observe such rules in the case of resuscitations (see comment on Acts 9:39). 273. As Dunn, Acts, 268, notes, this could have been Paul’s practical model as easily as Luke’s literary one (cf. also Twelftree, Paul, 263). Johnson, Acts, 356, notes the parallel but the lack of “verbal echoes.” 274. With, e.g., Reimer, Women, 51. 275. See Theissen, Miracle Stories, 58–59 (citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; 4.10, 45; 7.38; Lucian Lover of Lies 11; IG 4.128). The imperative here echoes a verb in Mark 5:39 (though omitted in Luke 8:52; Parsons, Acts, 287). 276. In Greek epic, one might also expect gory details of the wound (e.g., Hom. Il. 16.577–78). 277. This is the response of the believer, in contrast to Luke 8:53; the contrast is perfectly credible. When, in about 1995, a student whom I knew collapsed and other students thought he was dead, a minister friend prayed for him, and he regained consciousness. Her adherents celebrated the resuscitation whereas her detractors ridiculed it as fakery or coincidence. 278. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 4.2; 7.9, 11; 8.2, 8; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, l (Roman numeral 50); the uncertain verdict of Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.45; cf. Klauck, Context, 174; Keener, John, 262; see further comment in idem, Acts, 1:348–49; cf. 344–46. 279. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 99–100, 104–8, 118–19; e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 25–26. There were many exceptions; e.g., a hero displayed his power by resuscitating a dead fish in Hdt. 9.120.1–2. 280. With Fitzmyer, Acts, 669; Lenski, Acts, 829; Schnabel, Acts, 836; pace Foakes-Jackson, Acts, 186–87. One could digress here to note the excavated necropolis and elaborate memorials for the dead in the Troad

2978

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 34

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

raised from death; indeed, the early apologist Quadratus claimed in Hadrian’s day that some people (perhaps especially young people such as Jairus’s daughter) that Jesus raised had survived into Quadratus’s own lifetime.281 Those gathered at the meeting would no doubt be impressed. As in most other ancient cities, the residents of Troas were deeply concerned about both natural and supernatural means of health and healing.282 Hot springs, widely used for health in antiquity,283 are less than a mile southeast of Troas.284 But local traditions aside, it is doubtful that residents of any ancient city would have been unimpressed. f. Finishing the Message (20:11–12) Most people began dinner a few hours before dark. Some banquets ran late into the night or even all night long. Usually, however, people hurried home before it grew too late, “since the streets in most towns,” notes one historian, “were not safe. Those out at night risked being mugged by robbers or beaten up by a police patrol.”285 Cities lacked streetlights; further, even the 350 night police patrolling Rome mainly protected wealthy people’s property.286 Though most work stopped at night,287 some diligent people did work at night,288 such as Demosthenes preparing his speeches late at night by lamplight (Plut. Demosth. 8.4; 12.5–6). More relevant is that under strenuous circumstances, Israel might pray all night ( Jdt 6:21), an idea that Luke appreciated (Luke 6:12; cf. 2:37; 22:45–46; Acts 16:25). Those who were intimate and had not seen each other for a long period of time might stay up and talk through the night (e.g., Jub. 31:24).289 That most of the audience stayed throughout the night is probably less because the streets might be dangerous and more a sign of loyalty to Paul. Ancients would see this as a sign of the audience’s eagerness,290 which would praise Paul as disciples’ loyalty to teachers normally did.291 That Luke has recounted the miracle (Acts 20:10, 12) fits his narrative emphasis (he will provide a discourse later, 20:18–35). But that Paul continues to teach through the night shows that the theological focus of Luke’s protagonist is on the message rather than primarily on the signs that confirm it (elsewhere in Acts, cf. 4:29–30; 14:3).292 (see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139)—but in this case, the people do not end up needing a burial spot (and many Christians might have used different burial arrangements, like Jews, in any case). 281. Quadratus frg. 2. For reports of raisings in Christian history subsequent to Acts, see the summary in Keener, Miracles, 543–49; for more recent accounts from various cultures, see 551–79. 282. Thus inscriptions (CIG 3577, 3582) seem to associate the local Apollo Smintheus (whose temple was 15 mi. south) with Asclepius (Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 93). 283. E.g., Vitruv. Arch. 8.3.4; Pliny E. N.H. 31.31.59–61; see more fully the discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:327. 284. Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 93. 285. Jeffers, World, 31. 286. Ibid., 61. 287. Including combat; Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Apollod. Epit. 4.2; Ap. Rhod. 4.1059; Polyb. 5.86.1–2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.48.3; Caesar Alex. W. 1.11; Gallic W. 2.11; Cic. Fam. 1.2.3; Arrian Alex. 1.19.2; Sil. It. 5.678; 13.254–55; Philost. Hrk. 58.4; their uncommonness made night attacks all the more devastating (Hom. Il. 10.100–101; Arrian Alex. 1.4.1). 288. E.g., study, in Plut. Demosth. 8.4; 12.5–6; Cic. Att. 7.7; 13.26, 38; 1QS VI, 6–7; t. Šabb. 1:13; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Ber. 43b, bar.; ʿErub. 18b; 65a; Tamid 32b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:4; Exod. Rab. 47:5; Lev. Rab. 19:1; Num. Rab. 15:16; Safrai, “Home,” 745. Luke certainly knew about fishermen (Luke 5:5, perhaps in counterpoint to 6:12). 289. Ἱκανός as applied to time in 20:11 (in the phrase that could be translated “a long time”) could apply to many days (Luke 20:9; 23:8; Acts 8:11; 9:23, 43; 14:3; 18:18; 27:7, 9) but here simply means “at great length” (cf. Luke 23:9). For staying up to converse at night, see Bishop, “Sleepless Nights” (based on a traditional Palestinian custom, sahrah); nocturnal study, see comment on Acts 2:15; rabbis allowed staying up late to discuss Torah but not idle matters (ʾAbot R. Nat. 29 A). 290. Cf., e.g., Philost. Hrk. 43.1, where the guest, listening eagerly, is unwilling to leave. 291. Cf. Jos. Life 84 (for other loyalties); see comment on Acts 13:13. 292. With González, Acts, 236.

2979

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 35

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Breaking bread after dark fits the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23; Luke 22:53; Matt 26:31, 34; John 13:30) and here the church’s custom, attested half a century later, of meeting before sunrise (Pliny Ep. 10.96).293 But the double mention of breaking bread (Acts 20:7, 11) is emphatic and may suggest a farewell meal as in Luke 22:19,294 which might recall another comparison: Eutychus, like the disciples at Gethsemane, fell asleep just after a farewell dinner (Luke 22:45). Luke calls the lad παῖδα here, perhaps reinforcing the comparison with Luke 8:54. The “not measured” (οὐ μετρίως) comfort of Paul’s hearers in Acts 20:12 is litotes (see, e.g., note on Acts 19:24) for considerable comfort.

3. Further Travel, Avoiding Ephesus (20:13–16) Although the itinerary may not much interest modern readers unfamiliar with the locations, it would have interested educated readers in antiquity.295 The latter often appreciated “travel literature” (an interest spanning both novelistic and factually oriented genres).296 Well-to-do ancients sailed to Egypt and other exotic locations for sightseeing tours,297 and many works assumed educated audiences that would find their vast repertoire of geographic references (along with allusions to Greek history and legend associated with them) intelligible and interesting.298 Culture and history were associated with the various locations, and so “this ‘name-dropping’ itinerary would have been of interest to a Roman audience,” as Larkin points out.299 Luke’s itinerary is also accurate, as we would expect in a prose historical work.300 a. Assos (20:13) Assos was considered quite close to Adramyttium, near Mount Ida (Strabo 13.1.2) and thus in the general region of Troas (13.1.51). The town was elevated far above its artificial harbor and was known to be strongly fortified (13.1.57).301 It had the best harbor, perhaps the only significant one, between Troas and Adramyttium and would be strategic in relation to the island of Lesbos, which lay to its south. By some estimates, Assos was about twenty miles south-southwest of Alexandria 293. Eating around dawn was an older custom for Greeks, less often practiced by this period (Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 3; cf. Smith, Symposium, 20). 294. Tannehill, Acts, 250–51. That Luke mentions it here (when, in fact, Paul likely ate at every stop) may suggest the importance of the connection with death and resuscitation (framing it in Acts 20:10, 12). (Others also emphasize the connection between the Lord’s Supper and raising of the dead here [e.g., Heil, Meal Scenes, 269–91, esp. 291; Kowalski, “Fenstersturz”]. Some may press the point too far in a later eucharistic sense, but the evocation of the Last Supper is probably deliberate.) On the Lord’s Supper in Pauline theology, see, e.g., Marshall, “Lord’s Supper.” 295. See also comment on Acts 16:11. In rhetoric, one could list various matters in quick succession for cumulative force (ἐπιτροχασμός, in Anderson, Glossary, 54). Itineraries normally serve a different literary function; although, by evoking Aegean geography, Luke might evoke such cumulative force. 296. Krasser, “Reading,” 554. 297. See Max. Tyre 16.6. 298. See Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc. 299. Larkin, Acts, 292. 300. Contrast poetry, which could ignore proper travel times between locations (Dio Chrys. Or. 52.7). Cf. also supernatural voyages (e.g., Tac. Hist. 4.84). 301. The height above the harbor was ca. 700 ft. Assos was also a fertile area that had supplied wheat for Persians (Strabo 15.3.22). For its prominence and subsequent decline in relation to Troas, see Trebilco, “Asia,” 359–60 (though, as he notes, we know of some first-century c.e. buildings constructed there); for epigraphic evidence on Assos, see Merkelbach, Inschriften von Assos; for a summary of excavations and the city’s prosperity in the early empire, see Rose, “Hope.”

2980

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 36

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Troas,302 and so on this estimate (questioned below), Paul could have made the journey on foot in a day or perhaps traveled more quickly by animal. Scholars dispute why he traveled by land while his companions went by boat.303 Perhaps there was someone on the route whom he had met earlier (cf. Acts 16:8; 2 Cor 2:12) and wished to visit; or he had learned that someone from Troas had moved to a smaller settlement along the way (though this was not the usual trend); or perhaps he sacrificed to save a small amount of fare.304 (If the churches’ delegates were carrying the collection, as one may surmise from Paul’s letters and perhaps from Acts 24:17, they would need to stay together and, preferably, travel by the most efficient means.) A common but unlikely suggestion is that he took the land route because it would be quicker. Granted, land journeys could be faster for some short stretches than sea voyages.305 Strabo, writing of the Ionian coast farther south (which included Miletus, 20:17), noted that an overland journey was considerably shorter than the coastal voyage because of gulfs and peninsulas.306 In this case the coast jutted westward south of Troas before turning east toward Assos; a coastal voyage from Troas to Assos would have traversed about one and a half times the distance covered by a more direct land route.307 Many scholars thus argue that, in some ways, the land journey was simpler; a ship had to follow a coastline exposed to the northeast wind and round Cape Lectum; after Assos, however, both Lesbos and the mainland would protect the ship from the stormy northeasters that reportedly blew five of every seven days.308 As a coasting vessel putting in at various small ports along the way (though skipping the busy port of Ephesus, 20:14–17), it would not be moving rapidly.309 The land route, however, probably would not have really saved Paul time. Although a direct route from Troas to Assos might be just twenty miles, the major Roman road was not in fact direct. It followed the coast, and parts of the road remain “visible west of Assos.” The journey thus might be thirty-eight miles (61 km.).310 If Paul expected it to save time, perhaps it was because of some unexpectedly unseasonable winds; but thirty-eight miles was still no short journey by land. Perhaps Paul, exhausted from his ministry the night before (20:11), took an animal;311 a horse may have been able to bring him to Assos on the direct land route 302. E.g., Yamauchi, Cities, 21–29; Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 56, C2. This assumes travel in a straight line, which is probably too generous. As noted below, Paul probably took the main road, which was probably nearly double the length. 303. One of the more speculative—but possible—proposals is that he waited to be sure that Eutychus was recovering fully (Bruce, Commentary, 409); one of the most honest is that we do not know for sure (Conzelmann, Acts, 171). 304. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 123, wonder if there is a connection between Paul’s cloak left in Troas (2 Tim 4:13) and this land journey. Perhaps potential assassins were on the ship (cf. Acts 20:3), but Luke would surely have known this if it were the case, and his silence on the matter would be surprising; nor would Paul likely have traveled by land alone. 305. Especially when winds were contrary or because of other obstacles, travelers might take part of the journey on foot (Pliny Ep. 10.15.1; 10.16.1; 10.17A.1). 306. Strabo 14.1.2, claiming, e.g., that Ephesus was only 320 stadia from Smyrna by land but a coastal voyage was just under 2,200. 307. See Talbert, Barrington Atlas, 56, C2–3. In addition to the shorter distance, Paul, as an able-bodied and independent person, may have preferred to temporarily evade being at the mercy of sailing weather or ship’s cargo or port schedules, whereas his colleagues may have preferred to rest their legs. This explanation would fit the active Paul whom we meet in the nt, but our evidence is insufficient to be certain here. 308. Trebilco, “Asia,” 360; Hemer, Acts in History, 125; Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 257–58; Haenchen, Acts, 587. 309. Bruce, Commentary, 409. Sailors usually felt safer hugging the coastline than sailing into the open sea, even the Aegean (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.2; see further Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 5n4). 310. Mark Wilson, personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011. 311. Cadbury, Acts in History, 61, also suggests the possibility that he did not travel on foot.

2981

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 37

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

(even along the coast) faster than a ship would have reached there.312 Conversely, one or more companions might have felt too ill or exhausted to make the overland journey, or perhaps his comrades needed to procure supplies or to remain aboard the ship to secure their place for the voyage beyond Assos, if the same ship was continuing south, as 20:14 may suggest. That Paul “met” or “joined” them there (20:14) also probably suggests that they arrived before him.313 Perhaps Paul simply preferred to walk and pray with less distraction than there would be aboard a crowded ship. Whatever Paul’s reasons, Luke is probably happy in his narrative to honor the commitment and dedication of Paul, a characteristic that also surfaces in Paul’s letters; despite an all-night meeting, he is ready to press forward with his mission. Assos was a well-fortified town with an artificial harbor and dominated the coastal road.314 By 600 b.c.e., it was the Troad’s most significant city,315 although Alexandria Troas later readily surpassed it. Various philosophers had lived or been born in Assos.316 Some of the most educated members of Theophilus’s circle may have known of contributions Assos had made to classical Greek philosophy.317 For example, Cleanthes (who succeeded Zeno as head of the Stoic school) was from there, Aristotle studied there, and one of his students was from there (Strabo 13.1.57). The temple of Athena in Assos may have been six centuries old by Paul’s day.318 The city also hosted the imperial cult.319 The city’s agora had a council chamber and a bēma on its east. The south stoa’s top floor adjoined the agora on the north and revealed the sea on its south, so that those residing there could walk along the sea.320 A particular kind of gem (sard) was found around Assos (Pliny E. N.H. 37.31.105).321 b. Mitylene (20:14) The voyage to Mitylene, farther south on the island of Lesbos and slightly north of Pergamum across the strait (and somewhat overland) in Asia Minor, should have been milder than the lengthy voyage around the land jutting out between Troas and Assos.322 The difference would have been understood in other ways as well; Greek islands had an identity distinct from the Greek mainland.323 Mitylene324 was the largest city of Lesbos and had everything it needed (Strabo 13.2.2).325 Among those benefits, Mitylene had two useable harbors. “The south312. Riesner, Early Period, 316; Trebilco, “Asia,” 360. This would be the case especially if the winds were uncooperative. 313. For the verb applying to meeting one who was already present, cf., e.g., Luke 14:31; Jos. Ant. 1.219; 2.184; 6.275; 12.290. Luke, the only nt author to employ the term, uses it in various ways, reflecting its wide semantic range. 314. Mitchell, “Assos,” 194; on its important artificial harbor, see also Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 92. 315. Yamauchi, Cities, 23 (estimating twelve to fifteen thousand inhabitants at that time). 316. Mitchell, “Assos,” 194; cf. Schwertheim, “Assos,” 184. For excavations relevant to this period, see Wescoat, “Assos,” 224. 317. It was a “notable” (ἀξιόλογος) city (Strabo 13.1.66). 318. Schwertheim, “Assos,” 186 (noting that it was later replaced by a Byzantine church); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 164; cf. Wescoat, “Assos.” 319. Yamauchi, Cities, 28–29; Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 13). 320. Fant and Reddish, Sites, 164–65. For archaeological work on Assos in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 139–40 (for the rest of the Troad, 137–44). Further on Assos, see Yamauchi, Cities, 21–29; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 161–66. 321. Pliny the Elder also believed that a “flesh-eating” sort of stone was produced in this vicinity (N.H. 2.98.211). 322. Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 30 miles (48 km.). 323. See, especially thorough and useful, Constantakopoulou, “Islander.” 324. Further on Mitylene, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 80–83; Sonnabend, “Mytilene” (for its prominence, 471); Wallace and Williams, World, 200. Lesbos was also known for its wines (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.13). 325. This, like many other cities, figures prominently in Apollonius King of Tyre (33–46), which occurs mostly in Asia and Syria. Strabo provides his estimated distances: 50 stadia from the Larisaean Rocks on

2982

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 38

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

ern can be closed and holds only fifty triremes, but the northern is large and deep, and is sheltered by a mole. Off both lies a small island, which contains a part of the city that is settled there.”326 Approaching from the north, Paul’s ship undoubtedly harbored in the deeper, northern harbor.327 The city also had considerable contact with Asia Minor.328 Founded much earlier by Aeolians, Mitylene had produced famous men, but perhaps most notably, it produced Sappho, considered the greatest woman poet (13.2.3).329 Mitylene celebrated its Roman connections (though sacked in 79 b.c.e., it was freed by Pompey), and excavations confirm its prosperity in Roman times.330 Romans often traveled there, attracted by both climate and cultural factors;331 some settled there for the same reasons.332 Both Mitylene and Samos (Acts 20:15) had temples for Roma and Augustus.333 c. Chios (20:15) The itinerary indicates only day travel. The narrow channels and many small islands off the coast may have made night travel dangerous, and the summer winds are said to blow on the Aegean here only during the day, rendering night progress difficult.334 Chios was a large island—by modern measurements, 325 square miles (842 sq. km.).335 The island’s mountainous north is not productive, with most habitation around its eastern bay.336 Strabo estimated a 900-stadia voyage around it on the coast. He also noted the city’s good port and “a naval station” for 80 ships; Phanae had a good harbor, and both Notium and Laïus had good shores for anchoring ships. Not surprisingly, the island once had its own fleet (Strabo 14.1.35). Chios was about 12 miles from old Smyrna and 4.5 miles (7 km.) from the coast of Asia Minor.337 Pliny the Elder estimates Chios as 94 Roman miles from Samos and 65 from Mitylene;338 these ancient estimates are high but do reveal an approximate sense of the relations among the locations. the road to Methymna (Strabo 9.5.19), 70 stadia from Malia, 120 from Canae, and 120 from Arginussae (13.2.2). 326. Strabo 13.2.2 (LCL, 6:141). Excavations have also found moles in the harbor. The city’s “walls, extending on to the mainland,” encompassed roughly the same acreage as Athens (Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene”). 327. So also Fant and Reddish, Sites, 82. 328. Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene,” noting that it controlled land there. Josephus mentions it as a stop in sailing (Ant. 15.350; 16.20). 329. For examples of her poetry, see Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 4–6. Her poetry probably does include lesbian elements (Stigers, “World”; Winckler, “Gardens”; Hartmann, “Homosexuality,” 469), and she likely did have lesbian relationships (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.30), although Sappho and her circle of women friends eventually married and had children (Grant, Social History, 12). Rhetoric was, apparently, important in Lesbos as well (cf. Tac. Dial. 15). For its Aeolian origins, see also Vell. Paterc. 1.4.4. 330. Shipley and Roueché, “Mytilene.” Earlier, by surrendering to Alexander and demonstrating loyalty to him, Mitylene gained his favor (Quint. Curt. 4.5.22; 4.8.13). Mitylene’s Roman favor differed somewhat: in contrast to Rhodes, Mitylene betrayed Roman interests and regained freedom because of Pompey’s friendship with a citizen (Vell. Paterc. 2.18.3). 331. Sonnabend, “Mytilene,” 473. 332. Tac. Ann. 14.53 (on Marcus Agrippa, in Augustus’s day). 333. Cadbury, Acts in History, 28. For Egyptian cults there, see Koester, Paul and World, 148, 165. 334. Larkin, Acts, 292. If Passover was April 7, Pentecost would be May 29 (Riesner, Early Period, 316). 335. Shipley, “Chios,” 323. Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136 gave as estimates 125 or 134 Roman mi. in circumference. On Chios, see also Carroll, “Chios”; for one modern report, see Stark, Ionia, 42–50. 336. Shipley, “Chios,” 323. 337. Ibid.; Larkin, Acts, 292. 338. Pliny E. N.H. 2.112.245; for the 94 mi. from Samos, see 5.38.136. Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates 65 mi. (105 km.) from Mitylene to Chios.

2983

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 39

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

A mixed group, led by Ionians, colonized Chios from an early period (14.1.3), as Ionians also settled Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:19) and Miletus. The island had long been known for its wealth (Thucyd. 8.24.4; 8.40.1).339 In 86 b.c.e., residents of Chios included some loyalists to Rome during the conflict with Mithridates, leading to its people’s enslavement by Mithridates (Appian Hist. rom. 12.7.46–47).340 Rome recognized it as a “free” state (on this designation, see comment on Acts 19:40) until Vespasian’s time, after Paul’s death.341 Devastated by an earthquake in the early first century, Chios was helped by funds from Rome.342 Like the island of Cos, which Paul and his companions would reach soon afterward (Acts 21:1), Chios was especially known for its exceptional wine (Strabo 14.1.15; 14.2.19).343 (Greeks associated fine wines especially with such islands as Cos, Chios, and Rhodes,344 and so such wines constituted one possible cargo addition if Paul’s ships took on additional cargo at such ports.) Also like Samos, it was a “free island” (Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136). The island was the home of some famous people of learning, including a sophist, a poet, a historian (Strabo 14.1.35), and allegedly Homer (10.4.19; 14.1.35).345 Like Rome and Massilia, Chios possessed many wooden images of the goddess Athena seated (13.1.41). Most notable were the Poseidium and the temple of Apollo with its palm grove (14.1.35). Herod had bestowed benefactions on Chios ( Jos. Ant. 16.18–19, 26). Someone entering Chios’s harbor might easily find a ship outbound toward Rhodes (Acts 21:1),346 though it does not appear that Paul’s ship put into port in Chios.347 d. Samos (20:15) By the time Paul and his companions reached348 Samos,349 the ship was beginning to pass Ephesus (20:16);350 Paul must have known that it would take this route when he and his colleagues boarded it.351 (Accidentally sailing past Ephesus would have 339. Shipley, “Chios,” 323; for the known Ionian association with Chios and Samos, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3. 340. Earlier, Chios fell to Alexander’s soldiers (Quint. Curt. 4.5.14–18) but was afterward on good terms with Alexander (4.8.12); he had liberated Chios, Cos, and Lesbos (3.1.19). 341. Bruce, Acts1, 375. 342. Suet. Tib. 8 (Tiberius was the advocate, who later continued to retain sympathies for cities in Asia Minor devastated by earthquakes, 48.2). 343. Part of the island that was harborless produced “the best of the Grecian wines” (Strabo 14.1.35 [LCL, 6:243]). Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 199, note that Chios was “renowned for its wine, grain, and figs.” The island also had famous marble quarries (Strabo 14.1.35; Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136; 36.5.46; 36.8.50) and produced splendid marble statues (N.H. 36.4.22; 36.4.11–14). For epigraphic sources, see Corsten, Inschriften von Kios. 344. Paterson, “Wine,” 1622. For Chios’s respected wines, see Dio Chrys. Or. 6.13; esp. Pliny E. N.H. 14.4.25; 14.9.73; it was also known for large wine jars (Lucian True Story 2.40); for its figs, Pliny E. N.H. 15.19.69. 345. For the tradition of Homer’s birthplace there, Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 199, cite also Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi 13–15. Lucian True Story 2.20 denies that Homer was from there (perhaps in jest; 1.7 alludes to a fanciful Chian author). Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 32.7.16 (LCL, 8:475) for “the Shrine of the Old Men” there. 346. See Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21, where Apollonius leaps onto a Rhodes-bound ship without even touching shore. 347. See Arnold, “Acts,” 423. 348. The term παραβάλλω could simply mean they “approached” (one of the definitions in BDAG), but their itinerary makes sense of their anchoring there overnight rather than risking a night crossing (Fant and Reddish, Sites, 118). Wilson (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Samos was 84 mi. (135 km.) past Chios. 349. Further on Samos, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 116–25; Sonnabend, “Samos”; Wineland, “Samos.” For complete publication of archaeological work in Samos, see Milojčić et al., Samos; for early history, see Shipley, History of Samos. Samos was well known on the Greek mainland; cf., e.g., the ten Athenian generals there in 441/40 b.c.e. in Androtion Atthis frg. 38 (see commentary in Harding, Androtion, 144–48). 350. Ephesus and Samos could lie close on itineraries (e.g., Jos. Ant. 16.23). 351. A few manuscripts (including 𝔓41vid as well as the Western text) mention Trogyllium, which was across the strait on the Ionian coast. This stop was logical for a coasting vessel between Samos and Miletus, though

2984

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 40

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

created a delay had he backtracked, but 20:16 notes that he had “decided” to “sail past” it.) One standing on the island could see Mount Mycale on the mainland; the mountain was higher than Samos, and a strait of only seven stadia separated them (Strabo 14.1.12; cf. 14.1.14). Strabo reckoned the voyage around the island as six hundred stadia (14.1.15).352 Samos the city (on the island of that name) faced south, as did its harbor, which had a naval station (14.1.14).353 Samos had perhaps the earliest harbor construction that can be firmly dated, in the late sixth century b.c.e. (Hdt. 3.60); a breakwater protected the shore where it had been exposed.354 That Paul’s vessel, next to stop at Miletus farther south, put into port here seems reasonable.355 The most literate or traveled members of Theophilus’s circle would know that the vessel would soon after reach Cos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1). Ancient geographers counted Samos as near Chios (and Cos and Lesbos), among the islands off the coast of “Caria, Ionia, and Aeolis up to the Troad” (Strabo 2.5.21). Rhodes was near Chios (Polyb. 16.7.4–16.8.5), and they were closely connected historically and had acted together (5.24.11; 5.28.1; 5.100.9).356 Pliny the Elder estimated Samos at a hundred Roman miles from Cos and ninety-four from Chios (N.H. 2.112.245).357 Rome attached Samos to the province of Asia in 129 b.c.e., and buildings and population growth attested in the archaeological record suggest that the island generally prospered in the Roman period.358 Samos was a “free island”359 but was also the one island in the area that (in contrast to Chios, Lesbos, Cos, and, on the mainland, Ephesus) did not produce good wine. Nevertheless, it was otherwise well endowed (Strabo 14.1.15).360 There were many famous Samians (14.1.16–18), including, according to tradition, one of the Seven Sages,361 one of Alexander’s generals,362 and Pythagoras,363 who allegedly drew many learners there.364 the textual evidence is not strong (Ramsay, Church in Empire, 155; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 478); I would guess it an inference based on knowledge of the common route (in still later times, the city might also wish to be mentioned). Trogyllium was well known historically (Abbott, Acts, 220). 352. Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135 lists as estimates for its circumference 87.5 and 100 miles. 353. He mentions that the city was mostly on level ground but that part of it went up to the mountain. 354. Souza, “Harbours,” 667. 355. Apul. Flor. 15.1 speaks of Samos as “opposite Miletus,” about a day’s sailing. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 258, think that Paul’s company coasted north of Samos to put in farther south at Miletus. Touching the island’s northwest makes sense of omitting Ephesus (to the east), but if they harbored, they may have chosen the better harbor. 356. Xenophon of Ephesus also reports the same route from Samos to Cos and Rhodes (Hock, “Novel,” 139, citing Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.2–6); in Jos. Ant. 16.16–17, Herod sailed to Rhodes, Cos, Chios, and Mitylene. More than half a millennium earlier, another Xenophon notes the proximity of Rhodes to Cos, Miletus, and (farther north) Ephesus (Hell. 1.5.1). 357. He repeats the 94 mi. from Chios in Pliny E. N.H. 5.38.136. His estimates lack modern precision but are informative to us because they approximate the relations among the locations as perceived by Paul’s and Luke’s contemporaries. Chios, Cos, and Lesbos also appear together in texts (e.g., Quint. Curt. 3.1.19). 358. Shipley, “Samos.” 359. Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135. 360. It was well watered; Pliny E. N.H. 5.37.135 lists three rivers and two springs. Samos yielded a special kind of stone used for gold polish (36.40.152). Poor in crops except olives (Apul. Flor. 15.2), it nevertheless had many residents and tourists (15.3). Larkin, Acts, 292, notes that it was famous for art and the manufacture of deep red pottery. Many Greeks knew the story of a legendary ruler of Samos who was exceptionally blessed (Hdt 3.41–44; Libanius Narration 11). 361. Lucian Runaways 9. In legend, Aesop sojourned there (Vit. Aes. 101). 362. Lucian Slander 18. Lucian also mentions a tyrant of Samos in the classical period (Charon 14; Dance 54). 363. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.162; Lucian Cock 4; Phil. Sale 3; True Story 2.21; Lexiphanes 19; Apul. Flor. 15.12–13; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 32. 364. Iambl. V.P. 6.28.

2985

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 41

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Like most of the rest of the Hellenistic world, Samos worshiped Greek deities. Legend had it that Samos was founded by the guidance of the gods (Iambl. V.P. 2.3–4). Aphrodite (Plut. Gk. Q. 54, Mor. 303C) and Hera (Tac. Ann. 4.14) were among the members of the pantheon known to be worshiped there. The temple of Poseidon had many statues but was open to the sky, with no roof (Strabo 14.1.14).365 As one would expect on an island with good harbors, foreign cults such as Isis and Serapis were well represented (as also at Cos and Rhodes).366 At some point the city began hosting the imperial cult.367 Perhaps most important, an Ionian declares that Samos was sacred to Hera; those who stopped there overnight might well offer sacrifice before leaving (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). Dio Chrysostom lists Samos’s temple of Hera among other famous temples of antiquity, such as the Parthenon and the temple of the Ephesian Artemis (Or. 40.8).368 Some Jews lived there before Paul’s day (1 Macc 15:23),369 and many other Diaspora Jews knew of it along with other well-known locations.370 e. Miletus (20:15) Miletus371 was about thirty miles (50 km.) south of Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:17) in a straight line, a considerable distance especially for a longer sea voyage that would need to round the promontory at Trogyllium opposite Samos. Miletus had four harbors, “one of which is large enough for a fleet” (Strabo 14.1.6 [LCL, 6:205]).372 These harbors lay “near the mouth of the Meander River on the Latmic Bay.”373 Miletus was larger than the cities in whose ports the vessel had recently stopped; already in the second century b.c.e., Miletus had an estimated population of about a hundred thousand.374 Besides this, the area around Miletus may have included five hundred settlements (although this includes all periods, not just the Roman period).375 Cities with significant harbors prospered not only from trade but from fees for their use and from customs duties.376 Miletus’s harbor remained active in late antiquity, though requiring constant work to prevent silting.377 In Strabo’s time, Miletus and Ephesus were the most renowned cities of Asia (14.1.4). Luke provides no details about Miletus, but by his time, it is possible that there was a church there (cf. 2 Tim 4:20), which could host the Ephesian elders (Acts 365. He notes that Marc Antony had seized the three larger statues but Augustus restored two of them. 366. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 103. 367. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue no. 10). 368. See also Apul. Flor. 15.4; on its treasury, see 15.5–6. On peacocks as the animal sacred to Hera in Samos’s temple, see Hünemörder, “Peacock,” 661. 369. Cf. also CIJ 2, §954 (Stern, “Diaspora,” 154). 370. Sib. Or. 3.323 mentions its judgment (among other well-known locations in 3.319–23). 371. On Miletus, see further Cobet, “Miletus,” esp. 889–90, 894; Yamauchi, Cities, 115–27; Trebilco, “Asia,” 360–62; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 243–54; Schnabel, Mission, 1231–33; McRay, “Miletus”; for one modern perspective, Stark, Ionia, 171–84. For archaeological work there in the 1990s, see Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 151–54 (on Ionia more generally, 146–64). 372. Yamauchi, Cities, 118, thinks that Paul landed at the Lion Harbor; he also notes (126) that this was the location of the sanctuary of Apollo Delphinius (the dolphin). For the sixteen-columned harbor gateway with its processional way and sidewalks, see Edwards, “Miletus,” 27. 373. Fitzmyer, Acts, 672; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.113 (estimating 1.25 mi. between Miletus and the Meander). 374. Trebilco, “Asia,” 361. Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112 calls Miletus the capital of Ionia. 375. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 154 (noting that roughly a third had already been identified by 1906). On Milesia (Miletus’s peninsula, which differs from the city’s frequently shifting territorium), see Lohmann, “Milesia.” 376. Souza, “Harbours,” 667; see Burton, “Portoria.” 377. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus.” Cf. the harbor of Ephesus in comment on Acts 18:19–21.

2986

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 42

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

20:17). Certainly his ideal audience would know of its prominence and history. It was reportedly founded by Cretans (Strabo 12.8.5; 14.1.6); Minoan and later Mycenaean archaeological strata support this claim.378 It allegedly established as many as ninety colonies around the Black and Mediterranean seas from the ninth through the sixth centuries b.c.e.379 It was later under Ionian, Persian, and Dorian rule but is especially linked with the Ionian cities.380 Whereas most cities of western Asia Minor had gone over to Alexander voluntarily, he had to take Halicarnassus and Miletus by storm (Plut. Alex. 17.1); this liberated Miletus from Persian control. Some renowned early intellectuals there, preceding the era of Socrates, include Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes.381 Miletus had three agoras, and at about thirty-six thousand square meters, the agora in the southern part of the city may be the largest yet discovered in the range of Greek culture. It contained thirty-nine pairs of shops on the eastern stoa and nineteen on the southern.382 Although smaller than the theater in Ephesus (see comment on Acts 19:29), Miletus’s Roman theater was one of Asia’s largest, seating more than fifteen thousand.383 Miletus may have acquired a reputation for obscene love stories, from the phrase “Milesian tales,” but while most major port cities hosted some promiscuity, this phrase developed from a single novel.384 A later sage allegedly criticized Miletus for lacking true men and leaders (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 33) and for speaking against the gods when an earthquake struck Miletus (Ep. Apoll. 68). None of these features likely inform Luke’s scene here. Miletus hosted renowned sanctuaries. The temple of Athena there dated to the seventh century b.c.e.385 Ceres (Demeter) had allegedly judged soldiers who sought to plunder her temple in Miletus (Val. Max. 1.1.ext. 5). Persians burned not only Miletus’s Poseidium but also Apollo’s oracle there, yet the city later built the world’s largest temple with a village settlement inside the sacred grounds and a sacred grove inside and outside.386 This sanctuary contained very costly art and was not far from the city proper by sea or by land (Strabo 14.1.5).387 Like Delians, Milesians invoked especially Apollo Ulius, Apollo as deity of healing (14.1.6).388 The Delphinium, sanctuary of Apollo Delphinius, lay in the southeast corner of the Lion Harbor and by 378. Ibid., and ample bibliography there. 379. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26; so also Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112. 380. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus”; for the Ionian connection, see, e.g., Vell. Paterc. 1.4.3. For its other titles (“Pitousa” and “Anactoria”) see Edwards, “Miletus,” 26 (citing Hdt. 1.17–20, 141; 6.6; Arrian Alex. 1.18). For the Greek design and architecture in the classical period, see Owens, City, 54. 381. Ure, Cook, Sherwin-White, and Roueché, “Miletus”; Kahn, “Anaximander”; idem, “Anaximenes”; idem, “Thales”; Bodnár, “Milesian School” (though noting that they were not a unified “school”). For Thales being from Miletus, see also, e.g., Apul. Flor. 18.30; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.5; Ep. Apoll. 68; for Anaximander, also Apul. Flor. 15.20. 382. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26. Yamauchi, Cities, 120, 122, calculates it at 525 by 645 ft. (164 by 196 m.). 383. Edwards, “Miletus,” 26; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 245. 384. Lucian Affairs 1 (with Macleod, LCL, 8:151n1). A famous courtesan attached to Pericles was also from Miletus (Lucian Cock 19). Cf. “Milesian Tales.” 385. Yamauchi, Cities, 126. 386. Strabo 14.1.5. Naturally, such a large enclosure lacked a roof, as Strabo points out. For close connections with Apollo’s temple in Didyma, 10 mi. (6 km.) south of Miletus, see Edwards, “Miletus,” 27 (Pliny E. N.H. 5.31.112 has 22 Roman mi.); Dio Chrys. Or. 40.8; on Didyma, see the excursus “Pythoness Spirits” at Acts 16:16, esp. sect. 2, “The Delphic Pythia”; on sacred groves, see 2892–93n5866 above. 387. A cult of Dionysus is also attested there in this period (Yamauchi, Cities, 119, following Vermeule, Art, 219, 463). 388. For Apollo and healing, cf., e.g., Hom. Il. 5.446–48; 16.526–31; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.56–57. For Miletus and Apollo, see also Tac. Ann. 4.55.

2987

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 43

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

the Hellenistic era measured 165 by 200 feet (50 by 60 m.).389 Like other prominent Asian cities, Miletus hosted the imperial cult.390 The city had a significant Jewish community ( Jos. Ant. 14.244–46). One secondor third-century c.e. inscription from the city theater noted seating accommodation for local Jews;391 that it was in the fifth row reveals the status that Jews held in Miletus by that time.392 Sources suggest that Paul or his companions eventually were engaged in ministry there (2 Tim 4:20), perhaps building on the work of predecessors who carried the gospel there during Paul’s time in Ephesus (Acts 19:10). f. Avoiding Ephesus (20:16) That Paul would take a ship that bypassed the less efficient port of Ephesus to save time makes sense;393 but that he then waited in Miletus for messengers to reach Ephesus and gather elders there394 and then for the elders to come from Ephesus (perhaps five days or more)395 seems only to add to his delay. The messengers and elders would probably not sail from Ephesus, risking delays at ports awaiting ships; quicker at this distance was probably a land journey between Ephesus and Priene and a ferry between Priene and Miletus over the Gulf of Latmus. This shortest route would have been seventy-two kilometers, hence requiring at least four days for the messengers to reach Ephesus and (assuming the elders could simply drop everything they were doing and come) return.396 Indeed, Paul could have met with them more quickly in Samos (20:15) if they could have sailed there397 (though funds for so many to sail would not demonstrate thrift). How does Paul save time by this means, and is it the real (or at least primary) reason that he avoided Ephesus? The problem does suggest that Luke (who was present on the voyage, 20:15) accurately records Paul’s voyage to Miletus, skipping Ephesus; Luke would not “voluntarily concoct the sort of problem we see here.”398 But what were Paul’s motivations? In some decisions, several factors may be at work, yet a writer may choose to focus on the factors that fit his or her aim. One factor that is emphasized by many scholars and that seems likely despite Luke’s omission of it is that Paul was no longer welcome (or perhaps safe) in Ephesus.399 Certainly even Luke acknowledges that Paul still had 389. Yamauchi, Cities, 126. 390. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue nos. 7–8); Yamauchi, Cities, 119 (on Caligula). For Egyptian cults, see Koester, Paul and World, 154–55. 391. CIJ 2:14, §748 (Stern, “Diaspora,” 152). On the Jewish community in Miletus, see further Stern, “Diaspora,” 145; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 148–49; Trebilco, Communities, 56 (with the caveat that the supposed synagogue excavated there probably was not one); Fant and Reddish, Sites, 247; Yamauchi, Cities, 125. 392. Edwards, “Miletus,” 27. 393. The customary route to Miletus over open sea would deliver them south of Ephesus much more quickly than would hugging the coast of the long promontory between Smyrna and Ephesus. 394. Especially if they needed to make arrangements regarding appointments or work in Ephesus on short notice! Perhaps Paul had already sent a message from Troas for them to be ready (since he knew the vessel’s course before booking passage, Acts 20:13–16), and they merely awaited precise word of when he would reach Miletus. 395. Ramsay, Traveller and Citizen, 294, estimates only three; but Haenchen, Acts, 590, argues that it was at least two days each direction (32 mi. straight, but more by land route, including a crossing of the Meander). 396. Mark Wilson, unpublished paper sent to me in personal correspondence, Aug. 8, 2012. His calculations regarding the Gulf of Latmus follow first-century topography as opposed to its modern form. Passengers could undoubtedly find passage on boats ferrying cargo, as is common in many parts of the world today. 397. Conzelmann, Acts, 171. 398. Barrett, Acts, 960 (also observing that although he might have invented a speech in Ephesus, he lacked reason to invent one to Ephesians in Miletus). 399. E.g., Marshall, Acts, 328; Johnson, Acts, 356; Dunn, Acts, 269. Barrett, Acts, 960, suggests that the money may have been safer in Miletus than in Ephesus, yet it is difficult to know why (if it would be confiscated

2988

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 44

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

many enemies there (21:27; 24:18–19). As Conzelmann puts it, “It is clear that Paul could no longer enter Ephesus, but Luke cannot say this.”400 Luke focuses on the riot; but Paul faced opposition in Ephesus before this riot (1 Cor 16:9), and Luke himself is aware of it (recalling it even in this context, Acts 20:19). Writing an apologetic history with generally positive relations between Paul and important officials, Luke omits mention of post-riot backlash against Paul in Ephesus; yet it is intrinsically likely that some backlash occurred. This backlash could include banishment or legal warnings that would amount to the same,401 but it could as easily take the form of requests from his patrons not to appear there publicly (see comment on Acts 19:31). It might have been as simple as a conclusion by Paul, as the movement’s most visible leader, that it was indiscreet to bring the church trouble by appearing little less than a year after the riot.402 Whatever the case, Luke sometimes reports Paul’s remaining for a time after troubles (14:20; 16:40; 18:18) to reinforce his honor; if Paul had a reason to avoid Ephesus that some of Theophilus’s circle might regard as less than honorable, it is not to Luke’s advantage to report it (cf. the omission of the cause for expulsion in 18:2). Inability to return openly, whether due to banishment, a hostile situation, or benefactors’ requests, would explain Paul’s avoidance of Ephesus. Similarly, when Dio Chrysostom was banished from his homeland and his friends wanted to see him, going directly to the border seemed dishonorable, as if he was too broken by his exile to stay away (Or. 19.1); thus he went to Cyzicus, about fifty miles away, to allow his friends to visit with him during his stop there (19.2). g. Paul’s Haste as a Factor (20:16) Luke’s omission of one important factor need not, however, mean that he falsified the factor that he does report (and so it does not relieve commentators of the need to explain it). A number of commentators who suspect that Paul would have faced trouble in Ephesus also concur that he was genuinely hurrying to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost and that this urgency influenced his travel plans.403 As argued in more detail in the comment on Acts 20:6, the entire itinerary reveals that the early part of the voyage was undertaken in some haste, and Paul had important reasons to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost, where he could offer the “firstfruits” of his ministry to the Gentiles.404 Further, unpredictable factors required haste toward the voyage’s beginning to ensure a safe cushion of sufficient time to reach Jerusalem by the festival.405 If we grant Paul’s haste, does it really fit as a factor in Paul’s meeting Ephesians outside Ephesus? There are several considerations that support the plausibility of Luke’s explanation, though (as noted above) his explanation is probably not the only to cover fines, one would expect that Paul’s associates remaining in Ephesus would have already been forced to cover him; cf. Acts 17:9). Although it is true that Paul returns to other scenes of trouble (Rapske, “Travel,” 16), he apparently does not do so as long as legal obstacles remain insurmountable (cf. Acts 17:10; 1 Thess 2:18). 400. Conzelmann, Acts, 171. Cf. Rakocy, “Tradycja.” 401. Paul’s mention of the “sentence of death” (2 Cor 1:8–9) may be no more literal than his beasts in the arena (1 Cor 15:32), but it implies considerable opposition, which may have remained despite Paul’s safety afterward (2 Cor 1:10–11). It would not be the only location where official opposition long prevented his return (cf. 1 Thess 2:18). 402. Cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 672. 403. E.g., Marshall, Acts, 328; Dunn, Acts, 269. For several independently plausible possibilities, see Trebilco, Ephesus, 173–74. 404. Dunn, Acts, 269. 405. Witherington, Acts, 639; see further comment above.

2989

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 45

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

reason for the detour. These considerations include various factors in the nature of the voyage and the ancient demands of hospitality. The first consideration is the nature of the voyage: Paul depended on the ship’s own itinerary, and there were notable problems with access to Ephesus. Part of Paul’s plan may have depended on the itinerary of the one vessel that he could count on (perhaps for the price he could offer for his companions’ fares). Often a ship would not go as far as passengers needed, would skip a harbor they sought, or would stay in one place too long; often this required transshipping to a more convenient vessel, as eventually occurs in Acts 21:2.406 Ephesus was not on the direct route between Chios and Miletus if the ship planned to stop in Samos407 (though, as a variant in 20:15 suggests, some did stop in Trogyllium); crossing the Gulf of Ephesus would take some time, and it would be against prevailing winds if one went to Samos first. Most ships that headed for Ephesus—they would have had cargo destined primarily for that large center—would not have needed to stop in Samos. If this vessel was headed for Miletus with its cargo (the other stops being merely or primarily along the way), it would not have needed to spend time in the congested harbor of another big city, Ephesus. Ships without direct business in Ephesus also had good reason not to stop there merely for a temporary harbor in this period. Ephesus had the “largest harbour in Asia Minor,”408 but it was not always the most convenient. Silting caused problems for ships in Ephesus’s harbor in the late 50s c.e.; the harbor was finally dredged in 62 (Tac. Ann. 16.23), probably because of local pressure.409 Running aground in a poor harbor was not worth the risk; Horsley notes that the vessel’s supervisor might have even made this decision to avoid Ephesus after taking on passengers in Troas, a decision that the passengers could not affect.410 It is perhaps more likely that Paul knew this in advance (cf. the wording of Acts 20:16), and it is possible that he calculated it as part of his plan. If Paul knew that the ship planned to spend several days in Miletus, he may have even sent a message ahead from Troas so that the Ephesian elders would be ready to come once messengers informed them that he had reached Miletus. But these are merely plausible reconstructions, none of which is absolutely compelling by itself. Miletus was a bigger city than the other stops the ship had made, and the captain might have planned to remain in Miletus for several days.411 During this time the crew would unload cargo (a process that could take many days, depending on the size of the ship’s hold) and perhaps wait for the optimum amount of cargo before leaving. Since a ship bound for Ephesus from Troas might equally have stayed there several days, Paul might not lose much time by calling the Ephesian elders to meet him in Miletus. Undoubtedly many ships left Troas on the day that Paul’s companions sailed, but Paul would have probably known their expected itineraries412 and perhaps would have secured guaranteed passage for his group on the coasting voyage even as far as Patara, where the group had to find a different ship heading south to Phoenicia (Acts 21:1). (Alternatively, this is a secondary plan formulated en route to Miletus after 406. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390. 407. This is especially the case if, with Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 258, they touched merely on the northwest of Samos. As noted above, however, this reconstruction is uncertain. 408. Scherrer, “Ephesus: History,” 1026. 409. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 134; Hemer, Acts in History, 125. 410. Horsley, “Inscriptions of Ephesos,” 134. In this view, which is possible, Paul apparently decided in retrospect that the detour was just as well for his travel schedule. 411. Cf. Bruce, Commentary, 412; Marshall, Acts, 328; Hemer, Acts in History, 125. 412. The plans in Acts 20:13 and 20:16 were formulated beforehand.

2990

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 46

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

the ship unexpectedly skipped the harbor of Ephesus,413 perhaps for reasons such as noted above; or because of an unexpected delay in Miletus.) Luke’s mention of “the ship” in 20:38 probably implies (at least for the narrative world) that after his speech Paul reboarded the same ship on which he had arrived in Miletus. (Depending on the size of ship, unloading cargo dockside might take twelve days.)414 Finally and probably more decisively, the demands of giving and receiving hospitality may have been a compelling factor to avoid Ephesus proper.415 Even given the above considerations of travel, Paul could have arranged to reach Ephesus had he wanted to, provided he would not be detained long once there.416 But being detained long once there may have been precisely the problem. In some cultures, competing demands for hospitality provide embarrassments: individuals will be offended if one does not stay with them while in town;417 social obligations require planning for a stay of sufficient duration to satisfy all the acquaintances who feel they have claim on one.418 It was considered an honor to entertain a noble friend as a guest,419 and a sorrow if the friend had to be housed elsewhere instead (Eurip. Alc. 1039–41). One might even express in jealous tones such desires for someone to visit, to emphasize the sincerity of the invitation, or otherwise urge haste, to show affection; for example, Cicero urges Valerius to come straight to see him, not to visit Apulia on the way (Fam. 1.10.1).420 Sometimes partly playfully and sometimes not (cf. 2 Cor 1:17), writers complain that someone with whom they are on intimate terms did not personally stop to see them.421 This lapse requires an apology or a defense or at least an 413. Such skipping sometimes happened (Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390); despite the size of Paul’s company, other factors may have taken precedence. 414. Rapske, “Travel,” 31. 415. With Rapske, “Travel,” 17; Witherington, Acts, 609; Le Cornu, Acts, 1119. Quick departures might also help wealthy persons evade patronage invitations (cf. Symm. Ep. 1.3.4), though Ephesian believers would not be looking to Paul for money (despite Acts 20:34). 416. E.g., Pliny the Younger expected to be detained for a day but no more (Ep. 4.1.6), but he was of more distant social rank. 417. At least one must provide better reason for declining than one’s preference for another’s company. Suitability of accommodations for the purpose at hand is a legitimate excuse, but one must nevertheless spend time with all those who have a claim on one’s friendship. Even refusing to attend a banquet could be offensive, without a good excuse, because attendance was expected; see, e.g., Xen. Symp. 1.7; Callim. Hymns 6 (to Demeter), lines 72–73; Cic. Fam. 16.9.3; Phaedrus 4.26.17–19; Sir 13:9–10; cf. Derrett, Audience, 43; Scott, Parable, 171; for failing to come after accepting the invitation, Pliny Ep. 1.15.1 (but playfully); Luke 14:18–21. 418. I base this suggestion on personal observations, experiences, and conversations in some West and Central African cultures, and so the customs may not be pervasive (but cf. also Richards, Letter Writing, 192–93, on the lengthy hospitality obligations in Indonesia, and this passage; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 258, on African farewells). Yet such cultures seem closer to ancient Mediterranean culture than the busy, less relational academic Western milieu in which I usually live. For rabbinic farewell conventions, see Ehrlich, “Rituals.” 419. E.g., Luke 19:5–6; Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3–4; Eurip. Alc. 1039–41; Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 6.14.1; 6.28.1–2; Lucian Dem. 63; Lucius 3; Affairs 9. A giver’s hospitality obligated the receiver socially (e.g., Pliny Ep. 3.4.5; 4.1.4–5), and too great a gift could overwhelm reciprocity obligations (cf. probably, e.g., 6.32.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5.8). 420. Cf. letters expressing longing to see the other, e.g., P.Oxy. 528.6–9; Cic. Fam. 8.15.2; 16.1.1; Pliny Ep. 6.1.1–2; 6.4.1–5; 6.7.1–3; 6.14.1; 7.5.1–2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.4; 2.10.3; 2.14; 3.9.2; 3.19; 4.5.3; 4.7; 6.6.1; Rom 1:11. See particularly P.Giss. 17 (in Richards, Letter Writing, 13–14). 421. Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 1.3, from Lucius Verus; Symm. Ep. 1.102; cf. Symm. Ep. 1.20.3; eagerness for visits in Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.62; the frequent protest of letters’ being too few or too brief, e.g., Cic. Att. 1.5, ¶3; 1.9, beginning; 1.12, final ¶; 7.10; 12.12, end; Fam. 2.1.1; 2.10.1; 2.13.1; 4.4.1; 7.14.2; 11.24.1; 12.9.1; 14.10.1; 15.20.2; 16.25.1 (Cicero Jr.); 16.26.1; Ovid Tristia 4.7.21–26; Dio Chrys. Ep. 3, 5; Pliny Ep. 2.2.1–2 (quite playfully); 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 3.17.1–3; 4.11.16; 6.4.5; 6.7.2; 9.2.1–5; the (usually) playful banter in Symm. Ep. 1.1.1; 1.5.2; 1.16.2; 1.18; 1.23.1–4; 1.26; 1.27; 1.30; 1.33; 1.34.1–2; 1.36; 1.39; 1.42.1; 1.45.1; 1.47.2; 1.50.1–2; 1.57; 1.80; 1.82; 1.85; 1.88; 1.91; 1.93; 1.95.1; 1.97; 1.98. The tone of Lucius Verus to Fronto in Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.2 is light, but it does appear that Fronto was not writing sufficiently (Ad Ant. imp. 1.4; 2.3), although, when he writes, his letter is full of affection (Ad verum imp. 2.1).

2991

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 47

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

explanation.422 Escaping persistent offers of hospitality might require exceptional determination.423 The demands of hospitality were widely known, to Luke and to everyone else. One might urge a traveler to stay because it was now night (Luke 24:29),424 but if the traveler was particularly dear, one might continue insisting, to prolong the stay as long as possible ( Judg 19:4–9).425 Thus the crowds wanted Jesus to stay with them though his mission demanded otherwise (Luke 4:42–43). The citizens of a city might lay their honor on the line by expressing an invitation for a governor’s visit in such a way that his failure to visit would appear to dishonor them (Men. Rhet. 2.14, 424.3–430.8). This was a particularly emphatic way of seeking to honor the governor, and unless he deliberately wished to snub them, he normally would not refuse.426 In contrast to Troas, which Paul visited for one week (Acts 20:6), Paul could face more-demanding obligations in Ephesus. He had lived in Ephesus for nearly three years (20:31; cf. 19:8, 10), and his ministry was strongly interpersonal and from house to house (20:20, 31); his friends in Ephesus would surely expect more than a week’s stay if he were in town. Paul’s letters also suggest that he would take care not to leave anyone out if possible (cf. 1 Cor 1:14, 16; esp. Rom 16:3–15). He sometimes expresses the desire to stay for some time, not merely in passing (1 Cor 16:7; Phlm 22; cf. Rom 15:24). He also recognizes that churches will count it a privilege to “send him” on his way—that is, to offer hospitality and provide for his travel beyond them (1 Cor 16:6, 11; Rom 15:24; cf. Rom 15:28); this was a recognized social responsibility and would be their desire as much as his own.427

4. Farewell to the Ephesian Church (20:17–38) This speech warns Paul’s successors as leaders of the Ephesian church—and those leading the church in Luke’s own generation—to watch out for greedy teachers who seek their own disciples (Acts 20:30) to exploit them (20:29, 33).428 In this passage, Paul’s life becomes a model for sacrificial ministry. That a speech was given on this occasion is very likely. Although Luke has a predilection for speeches, the leaders of the early Christian movement were known especially for speaking. One might accuse Luke of inventing a speech in Ephesus, but there is little reason to invent one for Miletus, particularly with the inconvenience of Ephesian elders needing to come there to hear it.429 Probably Luke would also not invent a reference to Paul not seeing the Ephesians again, at least if he knew the claims 422. Cf. the defense in Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 1.4.1–2; 2 Cor 1:15–17; cf. also, regarding visits, Symm. Ep. 1.20.3; regarding letters, 1.5.1; 1.14.1; 1.16.1; 1.35; 1.47.1; 1.59; 1.61; 1.83. 423. E.g., Judg 19:9–10; Ap. Rhod. 1.861–64. 424. On travelers arriving in late afternoon or evening needing to stay the night, see Luke 24:29; Hom. Od. 3.345–58; Alciph. Farm. 34 (Pratinus to Megaloteles), 3.36, ¶1; Gen 19:2–3; Judg 19:6, 7, 20; John 1:39; Luke 24:29. 425. The Corinthians wished Favorinus to stay longer, though they finally settled for making a statue of him instead (Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.8). 426. For a sense of the offense caused by failure to come if it was believed that one could do so, see 2 Cor 1:15–17. 427. Cf. Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68; Meeks, Urban Christians, 66. 428. On a succession in Luke-Acts from Jesus to the Twelve, to Paul, to the Ephesian elders, see Talbert, Patterns, 96. Paul’s successors are not limited to Ephesus (e.g., Acts 14:23), but this passage certainly underlines the demand for continuity (probably more as an exhortation than an institutional observation). For the emphasis on and characterization of God in this speech, see Cheng, Characterisation, 118–23. 429. Barrett, Acts, 960; Witherington, Acts, 615; Trebilco, Ephesus, 175.

2992

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 48

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

suggested by 1 and 2 Timothy.430 Although Paul may have spent nearly three years in Ephesus, however (20:31), neither Luke nor Paul makes any attempt to match this speech with a specifically “Ionian” mode of declamation.431 a. Introduction Because questions of rhetorical genre, authenticity, and the nature of the speech’s rhetoric inform our understanding of the speech, it is important to introduce these issues before investigating the speech further. i. Genre and Its Consequences

Dibelius compares this speech with “something like a will: it provides for the future.”432 Many scholars have developed the idea that this speech is a testament,433 though the idea has its detractors.434 Because there is no thought of Paul on his deathbed bequeathing promises to his heirs, technically the speech is simply a farewell discourse. Nevertheless, because testaments were a particular type of farewell discourse, they may help inform the paraenetic function of this discourse. (1) Testaments and Farewell Discourses

Scholars have proposed that Paul’s Miletus speech functions as his testament or, more broadly (and, technically, accurately), a farewell discourse. Ancient literature often emphasized the words of a dying person; thus the impending death of a sage frequently became the occasion for paraenesis.435 Many people believed that shortly before death, some people exercised keen prophetic insight or received special revelations,436 an idea perhaps related to testaments that offer predictions for the future.437 As in many cultures,438 a person might leave special instructions before dying or permanently departing; some scholars contend that the same format could be employed for a departure speech not necessarily indicating imminent death.439 Formal literary testaments often included warnings to keep the stipulations of the covenant; mention of a successor;440 and a prayer.441 Testaments also often include a 430. Witherington, Acts, 616. 431. Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.619. It is possible that it was not yet in vogue in this period. 432. Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 155. For one extensive list of studies on the passage, see Pervo, Acts, 515–16. 433. E.g., Michel, Abschiedsrede. Pervo, Story, 73, contends that, as a testament, it applies to all Christians and hence reveals situations within Luke’s audience; the latter claim need not follow from the testamentary genre (though most historians and testament writers alike arranged speeches with their audience in view). One might write a literal testament in a different dialect than one’s other writings (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.35), but this was not common enough to lead us to expect a different style here. 434. Dunn, Acts, 269: Luke does not use the genre of a testament, though his motivation is similar. Cf. use of the insights but with qualifications in Nelson, “Leadership,” 113–16, 122–23 (summarized in Walton, Leadership, 57–58). 435. Perdue, “Sage”; cf. Seneca’s hortatory farewell in Tac. Ann. 15.62–63 (noting a more extensive original); for a predeath speech as social commentary, e.g., Ann. 6.48. I am here adapting material from Keener, John, 896–97. For the literary motif of a dying person’s words, see Englhofer, “Ultima verba” (noting on 89 that these words could be authentic). 436. E.g., deathbed visions in y. Soṭah 9:16, §2; ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Jacob in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1. Ancients also expected some who were dying to have special insights about the future (Dio Chrys. Or. 30, esp. 30.8, 10–24, 26–44), or sometimes efficacious curses (Hom. Il. 22.355–60). 437. Cf., e.g., Xen. Apol. 30; Aune, Prophecy, 178; many references in Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 221–22. People also believed that deities sometimes warned people in advance of their own death (e.g., Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; but contrast Xen. Symp. 4.5). 438. E.g., 1 Kgs 2:1–9; Mbiti, Religions, 109. 439. So Michel, Abschiedsrede, for Paul’s Miletus speech here (Acts 20:18–35). 440. Testaments typically sought to provide for those left behind; in the Fourth Gospel’s farewell discourse, Jesus does this especially through the Paraclete (see Müller, “Parakletenvorstellung”). 441. See Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, 174–75.

2993

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 49

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

blessing, burial instructions, an oath, and descriptions of sad parting and the person’s death. But a testament need not (and most testaments did not) include all these characteristics to fit the general context of the genre; thus, for example, many (not all) nt scholars place Mark 13 and 2 Peter in this category despite their overlap with only some of these characteristics.442 Testaments, as a traditionally conceived genre, typically are Jewish,443 but they also appear in Greek and Roman literature. Thus several centuries before Luke, Xenophon depicts Cyrus calling his sons before his death, addressing them as sons (παῖδες, Cyr. 8.7.6), reviewing his life (8.7.6–7), defining succession for his heirs (8.7.8–12), and offering special counsel to his sons (8.7.13–28).444 As suggested above, formal, literary testaments (generally pseudepigraphic) reflect the broader idea of deathbed instructions or prized final words.445 More broadly still, farewell or departure speeches were a frequent biblical446 and early Jewish literary form;447 they also appear elsewhere in Greco-Roman works448 and early Christian works.449 Technically, this is a farewell discourse (cf. Luke 22:15–37), of which a testament was only one type (and one that was normally given by a person who was dying, which Paul is not going to do just yet).450 Unlike Jewish testaments, farewell speeches did not need to end with the speaker’s death; this broader genre seems more appropriate here, since whatever the Miletus speech implies about the eventual future, it does not end with Paul’s death.451 Indeed, although the speech implies the possibility of Paul’s death (Acts 20:22–24) and declares that Paul will be arrested (20:23) and not see his hearers again (20:25), neither the speech (20:22) nor the prophecies (20:23; 21:11) are explicit about his death. “Departure” in 20:29 is appropriate to a farewell speech without implying Paul’s death. Testaments do, however, offer one sample of 442. E.g., ibid.; Bauckham, Jude, 131–35. 443. E.g., 4Q542 (cf. Falk, “4Q542”); in Jubilees, see Lambert, “Testaments”; cf. survey in Walton, Leadership, 56–58. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, though in some respects closer to a Stoicizing Jewish moralism than to the rabbis, are paralleled conceptually by two Targumim, where the most expansive part is on the blessings to the patriarchs (Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49); this is especially significant in the earlier Targum Onqelos, which is sparing in additions except here (Tg. Onq. on Gen 49). 444. This includes moral and philosophic words as well as (Xen. Cyr. 8.7.25) directions for his burial. 445. Cf., e.g., the reported deathbed concerns of Johanan ben Zakkai (ʾAbot R. Nat. 25 A; b. Ber. 28b; Gen. Rab. 100:2). 446. E.g., Gen 47:29–49:33; Deut 31:1–33:29; Josh 23:1–24:30; 1 Kgs 2:1–10; cf. 1 Sam 12. On Genesis, cf. Endres, Interpretation, 199–201. 447. Including both testaments and broader farewell speeches, e.g., Jub. 36:1–11; 5Q542 (on which see Falk, “4Q542”); Tob 4:3–21; 14:3–11; 1 Macc 2:49–69; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; 2 En. 2:2; y. Ketub. 12:3, §§12–13; Taʿan. 4:2, §8; Tg. Onq. on Gen 49; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49 (in each case, the most expansive part of the Targum); Bauckham, Jude, 131–35; in conjunction with deathbed visions, e.g., y. ʿAbod. Zar. 3:1, §2; Soṭah 9:16, §2; Tg. Neof. on Gen 49:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1. On testaments, see further McNamara, Judaism, 89–92; Kolenkow, “Testament”; Collins, “Testamentary Literature”; in the rabbis, cf. Saldarini, “Deathbed Scenes.” Testament of Abraham may be a nontestament because of Abraham’s refusal to die and hence failure to prepare (see Kolenkow, “Role”; cf. Test. Ab. 15:7–10). 448. E.g., Plato Phaedo; Xen. Cyr. 8.7.6–28; Babr. 47; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.9–434.9. These differ from the farewell speech genre (propemptikon), in which one wishes farewell to a traveler (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 395.4–30; Stowers, Letter Writing, 55–56). Haraguchi, “Farewell Discourse,” suggests elements of both Greek-tragic and biblical farewell discourses here. 449. E.g., Luke 22:14–38 (Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38”); John 13–17 (cf. Käsemann, Testament, 4; O’Day, “John,” 737–38; see esp. Segovia, Farewell, 308–9); Mark 13 (Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, 174–75); 2 Peter (Bauckham, Jude, 131–35). 450. Also Witherington, Acts, 613, 619; cf. correctly MacDonald, “Farewell,” 200; on farewell discourses, see briefly Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 182–83. For parallels in Greco-Roman farewell discourses, see esp. Alexander, “Exhortation,” 114–22 (cited in Walton, Leadership, 31); Walton, Leadership, 58–60. Peter’s only “farewell discourse” is the brief command in Acts 12:17 (and then he reappears in 15:7, as Paul does throughout Acts 21–28). 451. See esp. Alexander, “Exhortation,” 340–42 (noted in Walton, Leadership, 31).

2994

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 50

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

such farewell discourses and hence serve a useful role in understanding this passage. A prominent Greek example was Socrates’s testament, so to speak, composed by Plato in his Phaedo. Some writers focus on a single ancient farewell discourse as the model,452 but while some offer more parallels than others, the genre was familiar enough that it is not likely that one single, specific source is in view. (2) Deliberative and Epideictic Aspects

Because this speech is a farewell discourse, some scholars contend that it is epideictic. Duane Watson maintains that most speeches in historians were epideictic and that a farewell speech (συντακτικὸς λόγος) was normally epideictic.453 Although speeches in historians were often not epideictic (e.g., exhortations before battle and political debates are more deliberative, with epideictic elements), epideictic speeches were indeed common there (e.g., funerary orations). Watson argues that Luke may weave in deliberative or judicial elements while remaining especially epideictic, emphasizing Paul as a model more than giving an apologetic for him.454 Certainly at least a significant element of epideictic is present; Luke honors Paul in this work, and ancient speakers could even offer themselves as a moral example for the less explicit purpose of praising themselves.455 But is the focus of Acts 20 on praising Paul as a model?456 Or does Paul’s example serve a primarily deliberative function (cf. 20:35)? Here, perhaps, testaments provide a useful corrective to a general appeal to the “farewell” genre. Although farewell discourses were often epideictic, the moral exhortation here, as in most Jewish testaments, serves a deliberative function within the narrative world.457 For Luke’s own audience, the portrayal of Paul may well function, to a significant extent, epideictically, but within the narrative world, using oneself as a moral example within a speech could have a deliberative function (as, e.g., in 1 Cor 9). (Even for Luke’s audience, Luke’s apologetic for Paul458 is also an apologetic for his Gentile mission, and a model of commitment to that mission.) 452. MacDonald, “Farewell,” 191 (see also idem, Imitate Homer, 69–102), intriguingly argues that the closest parallel is Hector’s farewell to Andromache (Hom. Il. 6.113–502), echoed (192–94) especially in Virg. Aen. 12.433–35, 438–43. But despite MacDonald’s diligence, the nine “parallels” with Acts 20 (194–98) do not appear compelling; some, such as pathos or invoking deities, are not unusual; some “echoes” are more plausible than others, but on the whole, given the vast space covered in the Iliad speech and the change of sequence (and the motifs not reproduced), the “echoes” are extremely tenuous (MacDonald [199] attributes the change of sequence to Luke’s rearrangement as a chiasmus). Even cumulatively, the “parallels” are no stronger than for testaments in general. Even if Hector’s speech constitutes one literary influence here—which is by no means certain—it is not obvious that it would be the primary or only one (1 Sam 12 is, in fact, closer; see below, passim). Homer may have affected the telling of subsequent Greek farewell scenes, but this effect at most suggests indirect influence. 453. Watson, “Speech,” 190–91. Soards, Speeches, 105, notes that “farewell addresses” were epideictic but that Paul departs from some epideictic conventions, even using the past to address the future. Analogous kinds of speeches were also epideictic (e.g., the later Nicolaus Progymn. 8, “On Encomion and Invective,” 47). 454. Watson, “Speech,” 191. 455. Despite ancient concerns about self-praise, even a speech of gratitude or honoring another person could be used as an excuse to praise oneself (see, e.g., Flor. 16.34–43; 17.2); likewise one could use a warning to detractors to praise oneself (e.g., Apul. Flor. 9.1–6). 456. Although epideictic included both praise and blame (see, e.g., Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.15), most epideictic speeches focused on praise rather than blame (see Rountree, “Genre”), though some have used epideictic as a catchall category (Keck, “Pathos,” 80). 457. Thus Pervo, Acts, 518, is right to regard the speech as primarily deliberative, with “apologetic and epideictic elements”; see also Parsons, Acts, 291. The deliberative function is captured in hortatory applications today, often for leadership formation (e.g., in Barnes, “Finishing,” 240; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 260–70). Hortatory material is also common in Paul’s letters (e.g., Malherbe, Philosophers, 50–56). 458. A potentially “forensic” aspect as well, defending Paul (note the speech’s repetition of “witness” and “testimony”), relevant perhaps to part of Luke’s purpose in the larger work. On Luke’s apologetic for Paul,

2995

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 51

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

The speech is mostly unadorned, a style inappropriate to epideictic rhetoric.459 Although we may not accept the speech as primarily epideictic, however, Watson provides many useful parallels to epideictic speeches:460 • “An outline of achievements” (Acts 20:18–21; Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b33–34)461 • “Actions worthy as a matter of course”462 • “Courage in danger,” especially when it helps many (Acts 20:24)463 • “Bearing adversity without being crushed” (Acts 20:19–20; Cic. De or. 2.85.346) • “Achievement foreshadowed by portents and oracles” (Cic. Part. or. 21.73; cf. Acts 20:22–23) • “Fulfilling an office or ministry” (Acts 20:24; Cic. De or. 2.85.347) I am inclined to think that such parallels fit Paul’s presentation of himself as an example, but within a larger speech with a larger purpose. Such parallels also suggest Luke’s function, in his larger narrative, of presenting Paul as a model (and praising a model can sometimes appear in epideictic speech), yet even in this larger setting, the model serves as an example for the church and hence performs a deliberative function (see Acts 20:35).464 In the end, speeches often overlapped among the categories of the arbitrary threefold categorization of judicial, epideictic, and deliberative speeches,465 and the dispute may be mostly semantic.466 Luke’s work as a whole may be partly an apologetic for Paul but also partly a deliberative exhortation to continue the same Gentile mission to which he devoted himself.467 Luke is not bound to a single set of speech conventions if his speech serves multiple functions. The usual sort of farewell speech (προπεμπτικόν) was epideictic but could be addressed to the departing traveler.468 The farewell speech that one who was departing addressed to those left behind was epideictic but differed from most elesee, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic”; to the extent that any of the three usual rhetorical categories apply, literary apologetic in Josephus and Luke could include epideictic elements, but Josephus, at least, sometimes also is concerned with legal precedents. Nevertheless, probably the three classifications are not adequate for the sorts of literary works here considered. 459. See Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.1. Genuine panegyric is not only emotional but also uses hyperbole and is typically elaborated and often rhythmic (Hermog. Inv. 1.5.106–8; 4.1.171, depending on earlier works; for epideictic hymns for the divine, cf. Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.15–1.1, 339.2). Cic. Or. Brut. 13.42 opines that epideictic is suitable for parades but not the forum. 460. Watson, “Speech,” 197. 461. Especially effective, he notes (ibid.), “when praising someone” (cf. Quint. Inst. 3.7.15–16). 462. Watson, “Speech,” 197, cites Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32; Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.; 35.1440b.14ff. 463. Watson, “Speech,” 197, cites Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a4–1366b6; Cic. De or. 2.84.343–44; 2.85.346; Rhet. Her. 3.6.10; 3.8.15. 464. For the speech as primarily deliberative in character, see also Witherington, Acts, 613. For life relevance of the model in a Roman setting, see Lang, Kunst, 315–35. 465. For mixed genres, overlapping, and varieties in classification schemes, see, e.g., Stowers, Letter Writing, 51; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 419; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 97. For the categories, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 20; Theon Progymn. 1.74–76; Hermog. Issues 34.21–35.2; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 331.4–9; Diog. Laert. 7.1.42; Kennedy, “Genres”; idem, Art of Rhetoric, 7–18. 466. Biographies may serve an encomiastic purpose (cf. Shuler, Genre) yet be moralistic as well; see Keener, Acts, 1:56–59, esp. 58; idem, John, 14–16. 467. On the Gentile mission, see the sources and discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:437–40, esp. 440–41, on model for mission; on the apologetic for Paul, see 223–24, 441–47; idem, “Apologetic.” Gaventa, “Ecclesiology,” argues that the church (and God’s activity in it) is the speech’s focus. 468. Stowers, Letter Writing, 55; long used in poetry, Robbins, “Propemptikon,” 20. The nature of the speech depended on the relative status of the traveler and speaker (Men. Rhet. 2.4, 395.4–30; Stowers, Letter Writing, 56). For rabbinic farewell conventions, see Ehrlich, “Rituals.”

2996

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 52

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

ments here (though there are similarities, e.g., 20:25): it expressed distress and grief at leaving, then provided a formal encomium of the city being left.469 Undoubtedly most farewells, including in speeches, did not follow such strict rhetorical models, but the differences caution us against depending too much on the “genre” of farewell speeches.470 (3) Commissioning Speech

As a speech by a leader to followers, Paul’s Miletus speech fits a model different from that of usual farewell speeches. A leader might rehearse the fact that he has done only good for the people now refusing to follow him, thereby exhorting them to follow better (Arrian Alex. 7.9.1–7.11.2; cf. an ot prophetic “farewell” speech, 1 Sam 12:3).471 More than the typical Greek farewell speech (but something like a testament), this speech in Acts represents a commissioning or passing on of the calling, a passing on of Paul’s care for the Ephesian church to its elders. Thus it can draw on various conventions and motifs of ot prophetic speeches, since it focuses on call and ministry.472 The same is true for other biblical and early Jewish speeches that assign work to the hearers to carry on (as in 1 Kgs 2:1–10; 1 Macc 2:49–70).473 All these aspects support a deliberative function. Speeches often introduced a primary theme toward the beginning, and this speech emphasizes Paul’s example of sacrificial service (Acts 20:19). This example dominates most of the speech, informing Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (20:20–21), his willingness to sacrifice his life in Jerusalem (20:22–25), and his approach to possessions (20:33–35). In the center of all these claims about Paul’s own previous ministry, Paul exhorts the elders to take over (20:28, 31a); in this context, he is inviting them to carry on his Ephesian work with the same spirit of self-sacrificial love. (4) Literary Connections with the Mission

The commissioning emphasis of the speech becomes clearest when one notes several allusions to Jesus’s apostolic instructions to the seventy in Luke 10. Here, as there, the calling is expanded and passed on (though Luke does not narrate the activity of the elders): • Lambs among wolves (Luke 10:3; Acts 20:29)474 • Ministry in houses (Luke 10:5; Acts 20:20) • Preaching the kingdom (Luke 10:9; Acts 20:25) • Paul no longer responsible (Acts 20:26; cf. Luke 10:6, 11, 16) • A contrast: eat what they give you (Luke 10:7–8), because the laborer is worthy (10:7); but Paul gave up this right (Acts 20:34; cf. 1 Cor 9:12) 469. Men. Rhet. 2.4, 393.31–394.4 (συντακτικὴ λαλιά). For the opposite analogue, an “arrival speech,” cf. 2.3, 384.25–27; 2.4, 394.13–29; arrival speeches could also be addressed either to the city or to the person coming to it (2.3, 385.7–8). 470. On the importance of not reading the genre’s common forms into the particular text without attention to the text itself, see also Walton, Leadership, 60. 471. Although Acts 20:18–35 is not strictly dependent on 1 Sam 12:1–25, the parallel character of these models (cf. Kurichianil, “Speeches”) is instructive, and Samuel’s speech provides multiple allusions. Le Cornu, Acts, 1137, compares both 1 Sam 12 and Num 16:15. Cf. Hubbard, Redaction, for ot commissioning language as relevant to Matthew’s climactic commission (in Matt 28:16–20). 472. Cf. Lövestam, “Nyckel,” for motifs such as the watchman of Ezek 33:6, 8 (cf. Acts 20:26) and the shepherds of Ezek 34 (cf. Acts 20:28). 473. These passages are particularly emphasized by Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38.” 474. These are the only two references to wolves in Luke-Acts (Luke 10:3 is from Q, Matt 10:16); but for “flock,” cf. Luke 12:32; 15:4–7.

2997

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 53

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

There are more details that are not parallel than those that are,475 suggesting that the missionary discourse provides only one among several sources for allusions. But some of the parallels are strong enough to suggest that Luke had in view a commissioning sort of farewell speech, in which the work was multiplied by being passed on to other laborers. One may gather the same impression by comparisons with Jesus’s farewell discourse in Luke,476 where Jesus presents himself as a model (Luke 22:20, 24–27), as Paul does here.477 Since this seems Luke’s hortatory point in developing the pattern from Jesus to Peter to Paul as models for the church’s continuing ministry, this speech to believers fills a strategic function in the work as a whole.478 Repetitions are sometimes a key to emphatic elements, and they highlight in this instance the focus on ministry questions; Tannehill finds several of these elements arranged in chiastic (inverted parallel) sequence:479 A you know . . . serving (Acts 20:18–19) B whole time . . . tears (20:18b–20) C did not shrink from announcing (20:20) D bearing witness (20:21) Dʹ bearing witness (20:24) Cʹ did not shrink from announcing (20:27) Bʹ three years night and day . . . with tears (20:31) Aʹ you know . . . served (20:34) ii. Authenticity

Clearly, Luke has arranged the material in ways that connect with his own overarching themes and purposes, as he has done with the other speeches. But does Luke reflect at least the basic substance of Paul’s message on the occasion, or did he compose the speech from whole cloth? This is the only lengthy speech to appear in the context of the “we” narrative—that is, in the midst of Acts’ most directly eyewitness material. This is also the one speech in Acts with the most extrinsic parallels to support an argument for genuine Pauline material. This commentary on the speech will note other factors suggesting that Luke has condensed an actual speech rather than composed one from whole cloth. For example, an allusion to Ezek 34 (in Acts 20:28–29) may follow an allusion to Ezek 33 (in Acts 20:26), as if Paul’s actual speech, here mainly summarized, was offering a fuller explanation from a Scripture text. Moreover, Paul concludes on the issue of financial sacrifice (20:33–35), which fits the context, in Paul’s life, of a journey to deliver his churches’ financial offerings to the Jerusalem church (a point that Luke had no reason to invent, since he barely mentions the collection). But in this section we focus primarily on Pauline parallels. 475. For example, healing (Luke 10:9) is not mentioned in the speech (though it happened in Ephesus, Acts 19:12), where it might sound like self-boasting, which ancient rhetoric discouraged. 476. On which see at length Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38”; Walton, Leadership, 100–117 (including impending suffering; the efficacy of Jesus’s death; leadership; and money). 477. Kurz, “Models,” 175–76; cf. idem, “Luke 22:14–38.” 478. This observation is in line with the commentators above who think that Luke addresses his own “generation” through the speech, though some of them are too skeptical of historical tradition in the speech. 479. Tannehill, Acts, 253. The sequence might be coincidental if other parallel elements were introduced, but the repetitions are certain. Cf. Talbert, Acts, 180–81 (“you know,” Acts 20:18, 34; “and now,” 20:22, 32; “I know, therefore,” 20:25–26, 29, 31; the charge in 20:28); MacDonald, Imitate Homer, 98 (with the same asymmetry characterizing many proposed chiasmi).

2998

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 54

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

(1) Pauline Style 480

Whether invented by Luke to sound Pauline or dependent on Pauline tradition or on an actual speech by Paul heard by the author, this speech sounds more like the Paul of the epistles than does any other speech in Acts (despite the brief allusions in 9:20; 13:39). As Johnson puts it (regarding it as Luke’s προσωποποιία): “This is surely not Stephen or Peter delivering the speech. It is unmistakably Paul, and a Paul who presents himself to this community in terms remarkably like the ones we recognize in the letters we know Paul himself wrote to his communities.” 481 This judgment is appropriate; after all, other speeches in Acts are evangelistic, judicial, or otherwise apologetic. Only this one is addressed “to a Christian community—in other words, it is addressed to an ‘epistle-like’ situation.”482 Most of Paul’s speeches in Acts are evangelistic (deliberative) or apologetic (judicial); of the speeches attributed to him in Acts, this is the only one exhorting Christians—the primary setting of Paul’s letters.483 It comes as no surprise, then, if Luke’s Paul sounds most like the Paul of the epistles when he provides analogous kinds of exhortations for the same sort of audience. This speech is the book’s best test case for compatibility with Paul. Some scholars believe that Luke freely composed this speech to address the issues of his own generation.484 Others believe that Luke created the speech but used genuine Pauline thoughts (arranging it with conventional farewell motifs and conforming it to the pattern of Jesus in his first volume).485 These scholars sometimes argue that the Pauline thought may be based on general knowledge rather than on the speech given on this occasion.486 Because we lack external means to evaluate what Paul may have spoken then, we can evaluate only whether the speech is genuinely “Pauline,” not the degree to which it resembles Paul’s words on this occasion. At the same time, if Luke imitates Paul’s style and content (since historians were expected to make their speeches as authentic to the speaker as possible), it follows that he had access to that style and that content through some source. Most scholars doubt that Luke knew Paul’s epistles;487 undoubtedly he knew that Paul had written some, but he seems to have been more interested in more direct biographic sources. If this is the case, Luke’s audience may have also known more about Paul’s life than about his “style,” so that Luke’s adherence to this style is more a sign of fidelity to Paul and Luke’s historical task than an attempt to impress his audience with his ability to adopt Pauline style. This is the first speech appearing in a “we” section in Acts,488 and given Luke’s 480. When other criteria were inadequate, ancients could also evaluate speeches’ authenticity on the basis of stylistic criteria (Dion. Hal. Lysias 11), though these were freestanding, not speeches in histories. 481. Johnson, Acts, 367. 482. Walton, Leadership, 1, noting that it is “widely recognised as paralleling the language and ideas of the Pauline epistles.” 483. From a rhetorical standpoint, see Watson, “Speech,” 184. 484. E.g., Haenchen, Acts, 596 (based on grounds since refuted; see Trebilco, Ephesus, 181–83); Lambrecht, “Farewell Address.” For one fuller survey of views regarding authenticity, see Bock, Acts, 623–25. 485. Syreeni, “Paradigms,” 49. For Paul being modeled after Jesus, cf. Acts 20:19, 24, 35. 486. See Barrett, “Address to Elders” (the speech is meant to continue Pauline tradition for Luke’s generation). Anthologies were common and appear even in the Qumran scrolls (4Q265; see comment on Acts 17:28). 487. Noted in this connection, e.g., by Bruce, Acts1, 377 (who thinks that Luke was present and took notes); Hanson, Acts, 38 (who also argues [21–28] that Luke knew Paul personally); Walton, Leadership, 14–17. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:233–37. 488. Unless we should suppose that the narrator of Acts 20:14–15, coming with Paul to Miletus, disappeared when the reported action took place, reappearing only when Paul left Miletus, coincidentally together with the narrator (21:1). The narrator omits himself from the action in all the narratives, but the context clearly shows that he was present.

2999

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 55

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

careful notes on the itinerary and this commentary’s view of the “we” material’s author (see comment on Acts 16:10), it is reasonable to hope that, however he may have adapted it to fit his larger work, Luke did have access to the substance of this particular speech. Although it goes without saying that Luke has edited this speech, like all his material, for the sake of his larger narrative unity, many scholars concur with the verdict that this is the most “Pauline” of Paul’s speeches in Acts, an observation that comports well with its setting.489 (2) Particular Parallels

Parallels here with Pauline letters are extensive; although some of these parallels may simply reflect early Christian language more generally and some are also Lukan language, nothing in the speech is foreign to the “epistolary” Paul.490 The articulation of ministry principles here491 fits the practical, pastoral concern of the Paul of the letters.492 This speech employs language familiar from philosophers and moralists,493 just as Paul’s letters do.494 Paul’s themes here also comport well with the Pauline letters.495 Steve Walton’s extensive study of parallels between this speech and just one of Paul’s letters, 1 Thessalonians (probably his earliest extant letter), uncovers numerous parallels.496 Although some others might be added,497 Stanley Porter provides an extensive list of even verbal parallels in Paul’s letters:498 489. See Hemer, “Ephesian Elders”; Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 111; Witherington, Acts, 171; cf. Fitzmyer, Acts, 675 (suggesting possible dependence on “his Pauline source”); Marshall, Acts, 329. 490. See Witherington, Acts, 610–11; Pervo, Dating Acts, 111–33 (Pervo thinks Acts dependent on Paul’s letters, but the parallels are not evenly distributed among his Lukan speeches). There are some close parallels with the Pastorals, which may reflect similar circumstances (Barrett, Acts, 965) or even the same historical source from Ephesus (Donelson, “Cult Histories”). Still, it is not easy to reconcile Paul’s movements in the Pastorals with Acts without postulating a second Roman imprisonment (which is plausible). 491. See, e.g., in Barnes, “Finishing,” 240; Gilliland, “Missionaries,” 260–70. 492. On which see, e.g., Malherbe, “Paul as Pastor” (esp. on 1 Thessalonians, 126–28). Paul’s own ministry style was flexible, reflecting both the compassion and the sternness of a parent (e.g., 1 Cor 4:14–21; 2 Cor 12:14; 1 Thess 2:7, 11; cf. the thesis of Joubert, “Shifting Styles,” even if one might differ on the examples). 493. Malherbe, Philosophers, 152–54. 494. See ibid., passim (e.g., on 1 Thessalonians, 49–66; but esp. 67–77, even if his conclusion, 77, may be overstated). 495. See esp. Ware, Synopsis, §§75 (pp. 138–41, on being set apart for God in Acts 20:32 and, e.g., Rom 6:17–23; 1 Cor 1:2, 30–31; 6:11; Eph 5:25–27; 1 Thess 4:3–8; 5:23–24; 2 Thess 2:13–14), 92 (pp. 166–71, on the consecrated ones’ inheritance, in Acts 20:32 and Rom 4:13–15; 8:15–21; 1 Cor 6:9–11; 15:50–57; Gal 3:15–18, 26–29; 4:1–7, 28–31; Eph 1:13–21; 3:1–7; 5:3–5; Col 1:12; 3:22–25; Titus 3:4–7), 112 (pp. 202–5, on overseers, in Acts 20:28 and, e.g., Rom 12:8; 1 Cor 12:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12–13), 117 (pp. 212–16, warnings against deceivers, in Acts 20:29–31 and, e.g., Rom 16:17–20; 2 Cor 11:1–4, 12–15; Gal 1:6–9), 152 (pp. 278–79, self-support, in Acts 20:33–35 and, e.g., 1 Cor 4:12; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 2:9; 4:10–12; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6–12), 156 (pp. 282–85, on Paul’s handling of money, in Acts 20:33–35 and 1 Cor 9:1–18; 2 Cor 11:5–21a; 12:11–18; Phil 4:10–20; 1 Thess 2:9–12; 2 Thess 3:7–9). 496. Walton, Leadership, 140–85; he also shows (203–12) that these parallels reflect dependence not on 1 Thessalonians but on authentic Pauline tradition. He observes (186–92) some parallels with Ephesians but notes that they are far less close than with 1 Thessalonians. For one mostly favorable evaluation of Walton’s study, see Elbert, “Miletus Speech” (esp. 268). 497. Hanson, Acts, 203, includes recalling the past (Phil 1:5; Col 1:6; cf. also, e.g., 1 Cor 2:1–5; Gal 4:13–14), tears (2 Cor 2:4; cf. also Phil 3:18), and protesting innocence (1 Thess 2:3–11; 2 Cor 7:2). Dunn, Acts, 271, adds others, most notably “profitable” (Acts 20:20; 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7; 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1). 498. Porter, Paul in Acts, 117. Four of these also appear in Kistemaker, Acts, 11–12; see others in Trebilco, Ephesus, 177–80. Emphasis on the speech’s Pauline language appears already in Lightfoot, Acts, “speech of Paul at Miletus” (forthcoming; courtesy of Witherington).

3000

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 56

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

• Serving the Lord (Acts 20:19; Rom 12:11)499 • “With all humility” (Acts 20:19; Eph 4:2)500 • “Jews and Greeks” (Acts 20:21; Rom 3:9; 1 Cor 1:22, 24; 10:32; 12:13)501 • “Complete the course” (Acts 20:24; 2 Tim 4:7)502 • Complete his service (Acts 20:24; Col 4:17; 2 Tim 4:5) • The service received from the Lord (Acts 20:24; Col 4:17) • The grace of God (Acts 20:24, 32; passim in the epistles)503 • Church of God (Acts 20:28; passim in the epistles)504 • Watch for yourselves (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 4:16) • Consider (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:6, 10) • “Build up” (Acts 20:32; Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:4, 17; Gal 2:18; 1 Thess 5:11)505 • The inheritance among saints (Acts 20:32; Col 1:12) • Hands working (Acts 20:34–35; 1 Cor 4:12; Eph 4:28) • “Repeated language of earnestness” (Acts 20:31; 1 Thess 2:7–8) In addition to these verbal parallels are biographic information (e.g., Paul’s reluctance to burden churches; Acts 20:33–34; 1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 11:7–11; 1 Thess 2:9–12) and theological similarities (cf. perhaps “blood of his own” in Acts 20:28). Porter remarks that Luke’s desire to add “an authentic Pauline stamp,” held by most scholars, works here only if Luke knew either Paul’s letters or Paul himself.506 Much of the speech could reflect early Christian paraenesis used more generally, found in Petrine as well as Pauline literature.507 For example, Peter, as an elder, exhorts fellow elders (1 Pet 5:1; cf. Acts 20:17) to shepherd God’s flock willingly (1 Pet 5:2; cf. Acts 20:28), not seeking gain (1 Pet 5:2; cf. Acts 20:33) but being examples to the flock (1 Pet 5:3; cf. Acts 20:35). But Paul also uses himself as an example (e.g., 1 Cor 9; 11:1), and Pauline literature employs pastoral language (9:7; Eph 4:11), warns against seeking gain from ministry (1 Tim 3:3; 6:5), and certainly sets the example of not seeking gain (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 12:13). Despite more general 499. The verb appears elsewhere in Acts only at 7:7 (though in the Gospel at Luke 15:29; 16:13); it appears sixteen times in Pauline literature, in this sense in Rom 14:18; Eph 6:7; Col 3:24; 1 Thess 1:9; cf. Rom 7:25. 500. The exact match appears only in Eph 4:2 in the nt; the term ταπεινοφροσύνη is also mostly from Paul’s later years (Eph 4:2; Phil 2:3; Col 2:18, 23; 3:12; elsewhere in the nt, only 1 Pet 5:5). Cognate evidence is more ambiguous; the cognate adjective appears three times in Paul (against once in Luke); the verb, only once more in Paul than in Luke. 501. It is also Lukan (Acts 14:1; 18:4; 19:10, 17), though in the Diaspora, Pauline, section of Acts. This division probably came naturally to Paul as a Hellenist in Jerusalem. 502. More general athletic imagery, including running, is common in Paul, as among other Diaspora teachers (1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16; 3:12–14; see more fully Pfitzner, Agon Motif). 503. Eleven times in Pauline literature, most of them undisputed references; four other times in Luke-Acts (one in a summary of Pauline speech, Acts 13:43), with four other uses in the nt. “The grace of the Lord” or “our Lord” appears twice in Luke-Acts (15:11, 40) and eleven times in Paul (mostly undisputed; with only one other use in the nt). 504. Seven times in Paul (six undisputed). 505. Mainly Pauline in this sense, though see also Acts 9:31; perhaps 1 Pet 2:5, 7. 506. Porter, Paul in Acts, 117–18. 507. Hanson, Acts, 203, doubts that Paul would point out his own virtues, as in Acts 20:18–21, but cites parallels; and Paul clearly does use himself as a model (e.g., 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1). Although Paul often reasons with his churches, “bending down” to them (like Stoic sages, Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 81–130 passim), sometimes he writes more authoritatively, representing Christ (127, on Philippians; see 2 Cor 5:20).

3001

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 57

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

elements, the impression of Paulinicity in this speech is more marked than in Luke’s other Pauline speeches, as noted above. If the speech includes elements that could genuinely reflect Paul, it seems likely that in this case these elements also reflect the occasion, since (as already noted) this speech occurs at a point when the author of the “we” narratives was present. But some doubt that the speech matches the occasion, since it offers a defense of Paul when no charges are raised in the context.508 To this are offered here two responses. First, it is likely that Paul’s reputation was indeed under serious attack in Ephesus; he was probably not welcome there (see comment on Acts 20:16), and his enemies (cf. Acts 19:38; 21:27–28) could speak against him without him or his closest associates being present to offer a defense. This situation could create a temptation for the local believers to dissociate themselves from his ministry as well because his name could be a liability to the preaching of his gospel (cf. the situation in Phil 1:17). Under similar circumstances, Paul offers a defense of his ministry in Thessalonica, although using stock apologetic that does not require us to reconstruct specific charges against him (1 Thess 2:3–11).509 Second, however, the apparently forensic element fits a sort of farewell speech. Samuel defends himself far more explicitly in 1 Sam 12:3–5 without any explicit accusation against him in the narrative context (though cf. the concern regarding his sons in 1 Sam 8:4–5). iii. Structure

Views on the speech’s structure vary considerably, which is not surprising given divergent views about its content, emphasis, and genre.510 Conzelmann draws on ot analogies to suggest the following:511 1. Retrospect (Acts 20:18–21) 2. Prospect (20:22–27) 3. Testament (20:28–31) 4. Blessing (20:32–35) Witherington provides a more conventional Hellenistic-Roman rhetorical analysis:512 1. Captatio: unnecessary, since the audience knows him513 2. Narratio about Paul’s lifestyle in Ephesus (20:18–21),514 used for arguments in 20:26–30 3. Transition in 20:26 4. Arguments in 20:26–30 5. Peroratio in 20:31–35 (revisiting the opening matter of Paul’s behavior, 20:33–35) He finds the pathos that often accompanies a peroratio in the narrative scene of 20:36–38. Recognizing that ancient speeches in practice frequently departed from 508. Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398. 509. See Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” 510. For a summary of five divergent views, see Porter, Paul in Acts, 116–17. 511. Conzelmann, Acts, 173. 512. Witherington, Acts, 613–14. 513. With his limited space, it may simply be unnecessary in Luke’s summary. 514. Watson, “Speech,” 199, regards Acts 20:18b–24 as the exordium and thinks that the speech, being epideictic, omits the narratio. This appears to me much less persuasive.

3002

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 58

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

the models in rhetorical handbooks, I see the exhortation in 20:28 as the primary point of the speech,515 supported by Paul’s example in the narratio (20:18–27) and explained and developed in 20:29–35. Because it revisits the example of the narratio, 20:31–35, or 20:33–35, may function like a peroratio. Speeches did not always follow tight-knit rhetorical structures,516 but they typically included common elements, and this speech in particular reveals more interest in various rhetorical elements (both in structure and content) than in the prescribed outlines characteristic of rhetorical handbooks. The narratio seems clear enough at least in 20:18–21; Paul mingles ἦθος and πάθος in 20:22–25 (like the narrative, used to support his argument);517 on my reading, the deliberative thesis, in a sense, is 20:28. For further discussion of rhetorical motifs, see discussion above (especially Watson’s observations). b. Setting of Speech (20:17–18a) Although the connection is not clear, Luke might emphasize messengers to draw a connection with Jesus’s ministry in the Gospel; when Jesus was on his final journey to Jerusalem as Paul is now, he also sent messengers ahead of him (Luke 9:51–52). For discussion of the time involved in Paul’s decision to have the Ephesian elders come to him in Miletus, see comment on Acts 20:16; on the meaning of “elders,” see comment on Acts 14:23. If some of these elders were not completely supported by the church (cf. 1 Tim 5:17–18), getting away from their trades, shops, or the like would represent a considerable sacrifice or difficulty (probably few were leisured aristocrats). That the elders would go to such trouble to meet Paul is the equivalent of epideictic narrative: their love for Paul illustrates how he was valued by those who knew him best. Paul had had great influence in Ephesus (Acts 19:9–10; 20:1), had served the Ephesians wholeheartedly (20:20–21, 27, 31–34), and had earned their affection (20:37–38). We should not think historically of Paul as making them go out of their way for nothing; it was unwise for Paul to set foot in Ephesus because of conflict there, and his collection mission was genuinely urgent. By providing neither of these reasons here, however, Luke leaves us with an undistracted picture of the Ephesian elders’ loyalty and Paul’s importance to them. Perhaps he was aware that their loyalty was challenged soon afterward (2 Tim 1:15; cf. Acts 20:29). Some scholars object that Luke’s use of the term “elder” here reflects his own later generation rather than that of the one he depicts;518 others counter that the term was naturally borrowed from the synagogue and may have been in use from an early period.519 I have argued in some detail that “elder” would have been used in Paul’s day (see comment on Acts 14:23), but if it was not, we dare not begrudge Luke the freedom to communicate in the language familiar to his audience (a freedom on which the very principle of translation is based). There can be no question that Pauline churches 515. Cf. Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders,” who may be right to find both Acts 20:25 and 20:28 central. If the speech were primarily epideictic rather than primarily deliberative in function, one might make 20:26 the thesis, but it is likelier that 20:26 simply climaxes the example. 516. For a comparison of different handbooks’ ideal structures, see Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 64; actual speeches required rhetorical flexibility on various matters (e.g., Cic. Quinct. 10.35; Or. Brut. 46.156; Pliny Ep. 4.14.3) and often diverged widely from theory (Wuellner, “Arrangement,” 57; Heath, Hermogenes, 4). Against the excessive tendency of some rhetorical critics to impose such constraints on texts, see, e.g., Black, Rhetoric of Gospel, 21. 517. Paul’s example precedes (Acts 20:18–25), accompanies (20:31), and follows (20:33–35) his primary exhortations. 518. Conzelmann, Acts, 112, 173. 519. Witherington, Acts, 611.

3003

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 59

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

included people in leadership roles, whatever their “titles” (1 Cor 16:15–16; Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12). Clearly, if the term was in use in Ephesus, it did not have to apply only to those who had been Christians for many years; most conversions there had come in the previous four years. But if the term was borrowed from Judaism, it could be applied to the mature leaders in the congregation, older, on average, and hence more respectable than others from the standpoint of ancient Mediterranean culture. c. Paul’s ēthos and (Implicitly) His Example (20:18b–21) Paul emphasizes his own ministry example, as if defending his legacy. The purpose, however, is deliberative: he will call the elders to the same model of sacrificial care for God’s people (Acts 20:28–31, grounded again in Paul’s model in 20:31–35). i. Introduction

A person leaving a city520 might confess gratitude to the city in his farewell speech,521 praising its buildings, its professions, and so forth.522 If Paul offers a specifically epideictic element in his rhetoric here, however, it is himself whom he praises! How would an ancient audience have responded to this shift? Paul here uses his own example (20:18–27, 31, 33–35) as a model—that is, to illustrate ideal behavior, as in his writings (esp. 1 Cor 4:16; 9; 11:1) and as sometimes in moralist literature.523 Here, as in Paul’s letters, Paul’s appeal to his example is not authoritarian but an appeal instead to his model of servanthood.524 Jesus also offered himself as an example in his farewell discourse in Luke (Luke 22:20, 24–27), which fits Hellenistic concern for narrative models for imitation.525 Just as rhetoricians could develop themes by appealing to the “three times,” past, present, and future (not always in that sequence),526 so here Paul’s speech addresses past (Acts 20:18–21), present (20:22–24), and future (20:25), all in terms of his ministry. This focus on Paul’s character need not necessarily reveal that Paul’s legacy was already under attack within either the narrative or the real world;527 one could answer conventional charges even without knowing of actual ones.528 But we do know that toward the end of Paul’s life or shortly after his death, his legacy did come under attack in some circles (e.g., 2 Tim 1:15); indeed, some serious criticism was occurring at the height of his ministry (Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 6:8; 11:4–6, 12–15; Gal 4:16–17). Luke 520. Although Paul is not visiting Ephesus at this time, he is bidding the elders farewell (Acts 20:25), making the farewell speech model relevant. We should keep in mind, however, that neither rhetorically sophisticated nor simple speakers felt constrained to follow models in rhetorical handbooks such as the one I cite here. Further, Luke expects his audience to know that he abbreviates speeches (2:40); perhaps Paul’s use of a complimentary exordium, at least, is assumed? 521. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.30–31. 522. One should not, however, do only an encomium (Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.1–13). 523. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 7.11.1 (delicately, cf. 7.18.1); Mus. Ruf. 9, p. 74.13–19; cf. Fiore, “Exemplification,” 233–34; Fowl, “Imitation”; Seneca’s words before death in Tac. Ann. 15.62. On the use of examples, see further Anderson, Glossary, 87–88. 524. See Clarke, “Imitators”; Ehrensperger, “Imitators.” Kwon, Corinthians, 86–87, is probably right to contrast Paul’s call to imitate “the crucified Christ and his suffering followers” with the Roman ideal of imitating the powerful; at length, see the contrast in Harrison, “Imitation.” 525. Kurz, “Models,” 175–76 (Luke 22), 176–85 (narrative, including 177–82 for history; 182–83 for biography; 183–84 for other narrative genres). For positive mimesis, as opposed to the negative form sometimes cited, cf. also Kim, Introduction, 112–15 (citing Aristotle, as against Plato). 526. Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 21–22 (elaborating a fictitious speech from present to past to future); 10, “On Ecphrasis,” 22 (elaborating actions in the past, present, and future); the later Nicolaus Progymn. 10, “On Ethopoeia” (present, past, and future). 527. Pace Bruce, Commentary, 413. 528. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.”

3004

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 60

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

may then have some apologetic reason for defending Paul’s legacy.529 Nevertheless, personal examples had place enough in moralist argumentation even apart from this consideration. Self-praise was also accepted if countering false accusations and so could be framed in response to potential accusations to make it more rhetorically acceptable.530 The acceptable reason for self-praise here, however, is probably that of using himself as an example. Self-praise could be justified if used to provoke hearers to emulation.531 A teacher was expected to be an example,532 and his behavior was to confirm the truth of his teaching (see comment on Acts 27:21–26). In this section, Paul establishes ēthos, his character,533 which provides a basis for emulation (and would provide a basis for credibility were that not already established). Earlier classical orators who wrote forensic speeches for others normally attributed to their clients good moral thoughts.534 Speakers did need to avoid the appearance of self-boasting535 unless they could justify it according to appropriate conventions;536 Paul had to deploy these conventions in 2 Cor 10–12.537 The balancing act could prove delicate; thus, when competing with one Caecilius, Cicero notes that he dare not praise himself—but that Caecilius was clearly even less qualified.538 Self-recommendation did not always entail selfpraise,539 but self-praise was acceptable under certain circumstances, especially if one could explicitly justify it as being for others’ good, including its offering a model for emulation, as suggested above.540 Of the various topics for praise in ancient rhetoric (such as birth, education, and appearance), achievements were naturally considered the strongest because most dependent on the person’s own activity.541 529. As I have argued elsewhere (Keener, “Apologetic”). 530. Marshall, Enmity, 353 (citing Plut. Praising, Mor. 540C–541E). For “necessity” as a justification, see also, e.g., Hermog. Method 25.442–26.443. 531. Plut. Praising 15, Mor. 544D. 532. For disciples imitating teachers, see, e.g., Xen. Mem. 1.2.3; Quint. Inst. 1.2.26; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21; Jos. Life 11; b. Ber. 62a; Kirschner, “Imitatio”; for an extreme example, see Sen. E. Controv. 9.3.12–13; so also for other leaders (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.363–64). 533. See Watson, “Speech,” 194–95 (on the exordium, which he takes as Acts 20:18b–24, though Kennedy has 20:18b–27). On ēthos, see comment on Acts 24:5, 11; briefly, Anderson, Glossary, 61–63; on the importance of the speaker’s character in persuasion, see McTavish, “Priest.” 534. Dion. Hal. Lysias 8 offers this observation. 535. On the distastefulness of self-praise, see, e.g., Thucyd. 1.86.1; 3.61.1; Isoc. Nic. 46 (Or. 3.36); Publ. Syr. 597; Cic. Fam. 5.12.8 (though noting that self-boasting possesses ample precedent); Val. Max. 4.1.6a; 7.2.ext. 11b; Quint. Inst. 11.1.15, 17, 22; Dio Chrys. Or. 45.2; Plut. Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Alex. 23.4; M. Cato 14.2; 19.5; Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato 5.2; Cic. 24.1–2; Pliny Ep. 1.8.4–6; 9.19.4–5; Phaedrus 1.11.1–2; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.27.616; Jos. Ant. 19.318; Ag. Ap. 2.135–36; Prov 27:2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 22, §46 B. 536. See Quint. Inst. 11.1.18–19; Plut. Praising, Mor. 539A–547F (e.g., 15, Mor. 544D); Hermog. Method 25.441–42 (citing Isoc. Or. 1.1). For examples, see Demosth. Fals. leg. 174; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1.1; Cic. Pis. 1.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 57 (esp. 57.10); Pliny Ep. 1.8.13; 7.4.10; 9.15; Lucian Harm. 4; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.9; cf. Dion. Hal. Isaeus 10–11; Lysias 17. See further comments in Forbes, “Self-Praise”; Marshall, Enmity, 353–54; Watson, “Boasting,” 78–81; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 81–84; Peterson, Eloquence, 113–14; Wojciechowski, “Boasting,” 105–6; cf. also Fitzgerald, Cracks, 107–14; Lyons, Autobiography, 68–69; Forbes, “Comparison.” 537. See Marshall, Enmity, 354–56; Watson, “Boasting,” 81–95; see further Forbes, “Self-Praise.” Judge, First Christians, 700, 707, views Paul as parodying ancient boasting practice. For John Chrysostom’s accurate insight regarding Paul’s forced boasting in 2 Corinthians (e.g., Hom. 2 Cor. 22.2; 23.3 [Bray, Corinthians, 287–88]), see Mitchell, “Perspective.” 538. Cic. Ag. Caec. 11.36; 12.37, 40. 539. Marshall, Enmity, 124–29. 540. Ibid., 353–54. Certainly Romans valued the ideal of glory ( Judge, First Christians, 59–70, esp. 69–70), which provided incentive for community service (cf. 63, 69–70). 541. Hermog. Issues 46.14–17.

3005

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 61

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

ii. Paul’s Sacrificial Service (20:18–19)

Paul appeals to the elders’ own direct knowledge of his life among them (Acts 20:18), how he served and suffered (20:19). (1) Appeal to Their Knowledge (20:18)

By claiming, “You yourselves know,” Paul appeals to the same rhetorical strategy as in 1 Thess 2:1–12: he calls them to witness how sacrificially he lived when he came to them. Some motifs here resemble those in the Thessalonians passage, probably because these topics were conventional.542 Disciples might learn from a teacher’s example by deliberately “being with” him.543 Paul’s letters often appeal to what his hearers already know (e.g., 1 Cor 12:2; 16:15; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 4:13; Eph 5:5; Phil 2:22; 4:15; cf. 2 Tim 1:18), especially in the Thessalonian correspondence (1 Thess 1:5; 2:1–2, 5, 11; 3:3–4; 4:2; 5:2; 2 Thess 2:6; 3:7).544 “You know” is also frequent in speeches in Acts (Acts 10:28, 37, 38; 15:7; 19:25; 20:18, 34). Appealing to the knowledge of one’s audience was a well-established rhetorical strategy (see comment on Acts 26:26).545 A classical orator might note, “You have already heard . . . ,”546 or, “You yourselves are my witnesses . . .”547 To claim something that will be recognized as exaggerated undermines one’s credibility (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 398.1–5), but it was safe to claim what others acknowledged (398.5–6). “You know” was a natural expression then as today (e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.12.4). Appealing to the audience’s knowledge can be used in service of pathos, as when Cicero pauses in his speech to express emotion on behalf of the defendant, who (as everyone knows) served both Cicero and Rome nobly (Sest. 69.144). Such emotional appeal is possible here, given the context of a farewell speech. “The first day” Paul entered Asia probably refers to his ministry summarized in Acts 18:19–21, suggesting that, as we would expect, a number of these elders originally belonged to the synagogue in Ephesus and hence were schooled in Judaism and probably among Paul’s earliest converts there (19:9).548 Paul’s first convert in Asia was apparently one Epaenetus, but by this time he is in Rome rather than here (Rom 16:5).549 Paul’s behavior “with them” (Acts 20:18) shows that he was not exhorting them (20:28, 31) to do something he had not been doing. A leader’s self-restraint (20:19) was part of the example that would commend him to his followers (e.g., Polyb. 10.19.3– 7). If a leader joined in the battle along with his soldiers, this behavior also appeared honorable (3.116.3–4). 542. See Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” 543. E.g., Xen. Mem. 4.1.1; 4.2.40 (Socrates); Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.9–10 (συνεῖναι; cf. 6, p. 52.7); cf. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 223; Gerhardsson, Origins, 16–17; Mark 3:14. 544. Cf. also the rhetorical “Do you not know?” (Rom 6:3, 16; 7:1; 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15–16, 19; 9:13, 24). 545. E.g., Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 22. Stoic logic also reasoned from the known to prove what was yet unknown (Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 32.27), and appeals to agreed knowledge did not require proofs (Acts 10:37; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.4–6). At least some ancient writers of letters of recommendation appealed to the letter receiver’s knowledge of the recommendee (Symm. Ep. 1.22, 67, 75, 81) or to common knowledge (1.94). 546. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 44 (referring to the accuser’s words). Hermog. Method 5.418 cites the example in Demosth. Or. 21.1. 547. Aeschines Embassy 56 (trans. Adams, LCL, 201), 122–23; Tim. 89; Isoc. Nic. 46 (Or. 3.36); Isaeus Pyrr. 40; Jos. Life 257–58; 1 Thess 2:10; John 3:28. In Luke’s Gospel, Luke 11:48; 24:48; see esp. ot legal language in Josh 24:22; Ruth 4:9–10. 548. It would not be true of all of them, and “from the first day I moved to Asia” employs an element of hyperbole suitable for the emphasis needed in speech emphasizing pathos. 549. In the now dominant view that Rom 16 addresses Rome and not Ephesus (with, e.g., Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 24–35; esp. Gamble, Textual History).

3006

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 62

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

(2) Serving Sacrificially (20:19)

Paul’s example of sacrificial service, emphasized here, dominates the entire speech: his ministry in Ephesus (Acts 20:20–21), his willingness to sacrifice his life in Jerusalem (20:22–25), and his approach to possessions (20:33–35). Speeches commonly introduced their major themes toward the beginning.550 The accumulation of three nouns in the genitive case (here δακρύων, πειρασμῶν, συμβάντων) would appeal rhetorically.551 Paul could have depicted his sufferings at greater length (and would have done so perhaps in a fuller speech, of which Luke’s version would represent only a précis). But the summary would bring the shared events to the minds of Paul’s hearers,552 and for Luke’s purposes, the summary points to additional incidents that he has not been able to depict.553 Although Luke’s Paul does not provide a list, his summary narration of his sufferings here performs the same function as hardship lists in moralist literature, demonstrating Paul’s genuineness and providing a model for others.554 Such lists appear frequently in Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom 8:35–39), especially regarding himself (1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 4:8–13; 6:3–10; 11:23–28). In his farewell instruction, Jesus said that the greatest should be a servant (Luke 22:26), following his example (22:27). This teaching inverted the normal status expected of a teacher-disciple relationship;555 Paul, like Jesus, will serve rather than be served. When Paul speaks of “serving” with humility, he employs an image implying self-sacrifice, but this image was positive in some settings, certainly for “servants” of the Lord (Acts 2:18; 4:29; cf. 16:18). For the image of slavery as often being highstatus when the slave belongs to a ruler, see the section “Slaves with High Status” in the excursus “Slaves and Slavery” at Acts 12:13.556 The conjunction of “serving” and “humility” probably means relinquishing status, but even this could be honorable for a leader.557 The most explicit Lukan model for a “servant” whose humility invites God’s favor is Mary (Luke 1:48); in her case (1:52), as in general (14:11; 18:14; cf. 3:5), Luke values humility as a prerequisite for divine exaltation. But the biblically literate hearer, recognizing that the quotation in Acts 550. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a.33–39; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 21 (noting that not all follow this practice); Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8. 551. Cf. the rhetorical device of homoeoptoton; see Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85 (citing Rhet. Her. 4.20.28; Quint. Inst. 9.3.78); Rowe, “Style,” 138 (offering as examples the fivefold series in Chrys. De laudibus sancti Pauli apostoli 3 and the threefold series in Aug. Ep. 41.1); Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581 (citing Rom 12:11–12); cf. Rhet. Alex. 28, 1436a.5–14. 552. Mentioning subjects as if they were heads of a larger outline, implying much more information, was called by some rhetoricians epitrochasmus (Rowe, “Style,” 148–49). 553. Cf. the rhetorical practice of insinuating more acts than one could state (cf. Anderson, Glossary, 88–89) or remarking that one lacks time to mention the items that one does, in fact, briefly mention (Lysias Or. 3.44–45, §100; 31.20, §188; Cic. Cat. 1.6.14; Flacc. 15.34; Verr. 1.5.14; 2.3.24.59; Agr. 24.63–64; Cael. 13.31; 24.60; see fuller comment on Acts 24:19), using the ironic practice of paralipsis (Rhet. Alex. 21, 1434a.25–26). 554. Cf., e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.11.33; Max. Tyre 12.10; see esp. Fitzgerald, Cracks, esp. 43–44, 59; idem, “Affliction Lists,” esp. 17. 555. On disciples as servants, see, e.g., Zeno in Diog. Laert. 7.1.12; Cleanthes in 7.5.170; Exod 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:21; 2 Kgs 5:20; 6:15; 8:4; t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:30; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 27, §56B; y. Soṭah 5:5, §4. 556. Keener, Acts, 2:1926–27. 557. In early Judaism, see Jos. Ant. 3.212; m. ʾAb. 3:12; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 15, 38 A; 29, §§60–62 B; 41, §111 B; b. Meg. 28a; Pesaḥ. 66b; Soṭah 32b, bar.; Taʿan. 20b; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; Soṭah 9:13, §2; Taʿan. 4:2, §§8–9; Num. Rab. 9:20; Maher, “Humble”; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 117; Keener, John, 904–7. Rabbis could also reprove those failing to help the community by failing to exercise proper authority over it (Sipre Deut. 16.2.2); true leaders were expected to lead (e.g., Vell. Paterc. 2.115.5). Imperial claims to reject honor, of course (cf., e.g., Res Gestae 1.4; 2.10; 4.24; Vell. Paterc. 2.89.4–5; 2.103.3; 2.122.1–2; 2.124.2), are probably no more ingenuous than those of Sejanus (Vell. Paterc. 2.127.4).

3007

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 63

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

8:32–33 referred, in context, to the “servant of the Lord” (whom Luke understands as Jesus), might also think of his “humiliation” (8:33).558 Paul’s own “passion narrative” is soon to begin in Jerusalem (21:27–28:14). Although humility was sometimes associated with servility,559 it could also be viewed positively (especially as gentleness),560 and the motif of a “humble” leader was widely valued.561 (I draw here on texts using a common concept though it was expressed through several different terms.) A ruler’s “humility” was often considered power under control.562 Those who govern gently (πρᾴως) commend themselves to their subjects (Polyb. 1.72.3); Roman conquerors also surpassed the Carthaginians in kindness (πρᾳότητα) and so won over many of the Spaniards (3.99.7). Vespasian was praised for identifying with common soldiers (Tac. Hist. 2.5), and Vitellius increased his reputation by kissing even common soldiers (Suet. Vitellius 7.3). A later ruler was so “gentle” that he ignored a spiteful thinker’s verbal abuses (Lucian Peregr. 18). Even a statue of Zeus could convey his “gentleness” (πρᾷον; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.77).563 Paul’s epistles cultivate not only a model of merciful leaders (2 Cor 10:1) but identification with the broken (Rom 12:16) and relinquishment of public status (1 Cor 4:10–13; 2 Cor 12:10).564 (3) Pathos (20:19)

The adding up of “humility,” “tears,” and “trials” is rhetorical accumulation; each of these terms further provides emotional appeal, increasing pathos. The conjunction of tears with a leader’s “humility” in this verse may be significant for other reasons as well. A historian might present as praiseworthy a leader able to mourn over another.565 It was honorable for those in power to weep over others’ suffering,566 even that of their enemies.567 Luke does not clarify whether the tears here relate to Paul’s trials or to his humble “serving,” in which case it could involve rhetorical pathos as he beseeches 558. This is Luke’s only text that employs ταπείνωσις except Luke 1:48, which describes Mary as a “servant” who has been lowly. 559. See, e.g., esp. for ταπεινο- language, Marshall, Enmity, 323–24; Lincoln, Ephesians, 235; Lucian Posts 4. Other negative uses include being abased by circumstances (e.g., Mus. Ruf. 4, p. 48.7). 560. See, e.g., for πρᾳο- cognates, Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.18; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.37; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 100.4–7 (avoiding anger); Lucian Alex. 61. Lowliness (in the sense of ταπεινός) could elicit pathos (Dio Chrys. Or. 13.10); sometimes it was appropriate (9.20). Most considered modesty more honorable than self-boasting (Symm. Ep. 1.2.6; 1.16.2; 1.43.1–2). 561. E.g., Ptolemy as a gentle (πρᾷος) and kind king (Polyb. 39.7.3–4), showing mercy rather than revenge (39.7.5–6); cf. Let. Aris. 257; for a governor, Men. Rhet. 2.4, 389.8; for a rabbi, e.g., b. Šabb. 31a. Many texts value a ruler’s mercy and kindness, e.g., Polyb. 1.72.3; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Diod. Sic. 27.16.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.54.2; Corn. Nep. 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Res Gestae 1.3; Vell. Paterc. 2.25.2–3; 2.29.3; 2.52.4; 2.56.1; 2.85.5; 2.86.2; 2.87.2–3; 2.98.2–3; 2.114.1, 3; 2.122.1; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian Hist. rom. 10.4.24; Suet. Jul. 74.1; 75.1; Aug. 51; Vesp. 12; 14; Tit. 9.1; Hdn. 1.2.4; Babr. 102.3; Iamblichus Letter 1, frg. 1 (from Stob. Anth. 4.5.76); Matt 21:5; cf. also Jos. Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; despite Achilles’s more commonly vengeful personality, Hom. Il. 24.507–8, 665–70; see further Good, King, 47–49; Konstan, “Clemency”; Harrison, Authorities, 139, 141. Such clemency could be impractical, however, in some settings (Cic. Ad Brut. 24.10 [1.15.10]). Gentile philosophers did struggle with the concept of pity when it violated notions of justice (cf. Judge, Athens, 185). 562. See esp. Good, King, passim. 563. Though Zeus was king because of his power, he was “father” because of his gentleness (Dio Chrys. Or. 1.40). 564. For relinquishing status, see, e.g., Winter, Left Corinth, 69; on status issues in Corinth, cf. also the seminal Theissen, Setting; Malherbe, Social Aspects. 565. E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.10.23. Cf. our discussion of leaders’ praiseworthy “gentleness” or clemency at Acts 20:19. 566. E.g., Diod. Sic. 17.69.4 (cf. the emphasis on Alexander’s kindness and generosity in this context, 17.69.9). On weeping for others’ sorrow, see, e.g., Sir 7:34; Rom 12:15; Cic. Fam. 14.3.1; 14.4.1; 13.1.1. 567. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; 8.19.132 (though the consuls emphasized stern discipline instead, 8.12.82, 86); Plut. Caes. 41.1; 48.2.

3008

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 64

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

hearers to respond (as in Acts 20:31). In both biblical568 and Greek569 tradition, tears were appropriate for heroes under duress. As Malina notes, “The show of emotion is an attribute of the honorable man in the ancient Mediterranean.”570 But tears also served a rhetorical function. Although restraining tears could be praiseworthy, especially for traditional Romans571 or philosophers,572 tears were more often used as a tool of pathos, often to demonstrate sincerity (albeit sometimes fake sincerity).573 Whereas aristocratic Romans might consider excessive public displays of emotion undignified, such displays were deemed appropriate in forensic rhetoric as expressions of fidelity to relational obligations.574 A good orator had to present his case with emotional passion or risk his rhetorical reputation (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.6).575 Rhetoricians often expressed and invited empathy for the matter at hand by tears, often explicitly in our written accounts, both narratives576 and speeches;577 “I can no longer speak for tears,” Cicero weeps, “and my client forbids that tears should plead his case” (Mil. 38.105). Apparently Quintilian often appealed to emotion, using tears.578 This behavior also appears in Paul’s letters (2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:18). A moving speaker might also stir his audience to tears (cf. Acts 20:37).579 Such pathos, or emotional appeal, was an essential component of persuasive rhetoric.580 In reality, emotion is not the opposite of reason581 and hence need not be viewed as unethical provided that it serves rather than subverts reason. See fuller comment on pathos at Acts 20:31. 568. E.g., Gen 29:11; 37:35; 42:24; 43:30; 50:17; 1 Sam 1:7, 10; 20:41; 30:4; 2 Sam 1:12; 3:32; 2 Kgs 20:3, 5, 19; 2 Chr 34:27; Ezra 3:12; 10:1; Neh 1:4; Esth 8:3. Also in later Jewish biblical historiography (e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.51; 7.202–3). 569. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.348–49; Od. 4.113–19; 16.190–91, 214; 23.231–32; Soph. Ajax 819–20 (though he had previously thought lamentation only for the weak); Ap. Rhod. 1.535; Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3. 570. Malina, Windows, 24–25, citing examples from Plut. Caes. 5.2; 11.3; 41.1; 48.2; Cic. 47.2; John 11:30–36; and Acts 20:37. 571. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.8.6 presents it as praiseworthy by Roman standards that the ruler would not even shed a tear on seeing his sons justly executed. Cf. also, e.g., Ovid Fasti 4.845–48; Val. Max. 4.1.13; 5.10; 7.2.ext. 2b; Cic. Fam. 5.16.6; Pliny Ep. 3.16.3–6. 572. For the attempt to minimize grief, see, e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.4.5; 1.5.8; 6.7.1; 11.4.1; Ep. Lucil. 99.1–2, 4–8; Epict. Encheir. 14; Lucian Dial. D. 336–37 (3/2, Dead to Pluto against Menippus 1–2); Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.557–58; 2.16.597; Ep. Apoll. 55, 58; Iambl. V.P. 32.226; 33.234; outside philosophers, e.g., Soph. El. 1171–73; Eurip. Hipp. 834–35; Plut. Consol. 2, Mor. 608C; Jub. 19:3–4; Jos. Ant. 3.208; Sent. Syr. Men. 463–69; Pesiq. Rab. 30:1. Stoics regarded grief negatively (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60.31–62.8), though they might indulge others (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99.15–16, 26–27; 104.2–3; Dial. 6.7.3). Yet even Marcus Aurelius could be moved to tears (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.561), and nonphilosophers certainly allowed grief (e.g., Catull. Carm. 68.19–26; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.3.1–2; Att. 12.38–41; Fam. 4.5–6; 5.16.3; Pliny Ep. 5.16.8–10; 8.5.1–3; 8.16.3–4; 9.13.4; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.9 [24]; Nep. am. 2.7; Gr. Anth. 7.339–40, 389). Heraclitus allegorizes Zeus’s tears for Sarpedon (Hom. Prob. 42.1, on Hom. Il. 16.459). 573. An example of feigned sincerity might be Herodes, extemporaneously declaiming with tears in his eyes as he defended an assigned position from the past (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.574). Yet genuine grief could also add passion to one’s speech, even if only by way of remembering one’s own loss (Sen. E. Controv. 4.pref. 6). 574. Hall, “Delivery,” 230. 575. For emotion in rhetoric, cf., e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 13; Cic. Brut. 43.158; De or. 2.46.189; 2.45.191; Quint. Inst. 5 passim; 6.2.8–9; Pliny Ep. 6.33.10; 9.23.1; 9.26.2; Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30; Roman handbooks in Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 52–53, 56. 576. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.10.1; Livy 1.26.12. Describing the tears of one wronged can also move the audience (cf. Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cic. Rab. Post. 17.47; Rosc. Amer. 9.24); tears added pathos to narratives (e.g., Tac. Hist. 3.25). In a cultic/dramatic setting, consider laments for Adonis and others (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 45.6; cf. Plut. Nic. 13.7). 577. E.g., Cic. Cael. 24.60; Quint. Decl. 267.13. In letters, see Cic. Fam. 14.3.1; 14.4.1; Pliny Ep. 5.21.6; 2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:18. 578. Hall, “Delivery,” 228, emphasizes Quint. Inst. 6.2.36. 579. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.9.582; 2.10.586. On tears most fully, see Fögen, Tears. 580. See Anderson, Glossary, 61–63. 581. See Elliott, Feelings.

3009

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 65

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

The “testing”582 that came through plots from Jewish adversaries fits Luke’s portrayal of earlier Jewish hostility (13:50; 14:2, 19; 17:5–7, 13; 18:12–13), sometimes explicitly including “plots” (20:3, most recently; cf. 23:12–15).583 The epistolary Paul also mentions that he faced conflicts with Jewish as well as Gentile opponents (2 Cor 11:24, 26). Luke has not reported Jewish plots in Ephesus, but what he does report makes it clear that Paul incurred hostility from some of the synagogue community there (Acts 19:9, 33–34; 21:27–29; 24:18–19), and Luke omits more opposition than he includes (1 Cor 16:8–9; 2 Cor 1:8–9). One technique for increasing audience goodwill in the exordium “is to give the impression of struggling against difficulties and misfortunes”; hence Paul here serves despite testing (cf. also Acts 20:22–23).584 A true sage should endure rather than avoid hardships.585 Paul in his epistles regularly boasts in his afflictions (Rom 5:3; 1 Cor 4:11–13; 2 Cor 11:23–28; 12:10).586 Had Luke not been writing compressed summaries, he might have amplified some sufferings here in a hardship list or with vivid description,587 but his narratives as a whole perform this function. Since adversity was “the litmus test of character” for ancients, hardship lists could be used to demonstrate the true character of a sage.588 Likewise, those who suffered for a cause might vividly display their wounds to demonstrate their commitment to the cause589 and sometimes to generate pathos and sympathy.590 Someone who had suffered for his audience had a special claim on its attention.591 iii. Proclaiming Openly (20:20–21)

Among the examples of Paul’s sacrificial service (Acts 20:18–19), Paul preached openly, not withholding anything useful even if it would cause offense (20:20a). He announced whatever was profitable, teaching in public and private and bearing witness to all of the gospel (20:20–21). (1) Withholding Nothing (20:20)

Paul in 20:27 reiterates the theme of holding nothing back (Luke’s only other use of ὑποστέλλω, “draw back from,” “shrink from”); speeches often reiterated the same point in different parts of the speech.592 Not “shrinking from” announcing God’s 582. In secular Greek, πειράζω always referred to testing or proving, never enticement to sin (Gibson, “Testing,” 1207–11). 583. It may also parallel Jesus’s words in Luke 22:28 about his own past trials (Tannehill, Luke, 239–40). 584. Watson, “Speech,” 196 (citing Cic. Inv. 1.16.22; Rhet. Her. 1.5.8; Quint. Inst. 4.1.9); one could “amplify” this effect by listing examples (citing Quint. Inst. 8.4.26–27; Longin. Subl. 12.2). Often the speaker noted circumstances that made the speech difficult, but one could also elicit sympathy by mentioning other hardships. 585. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 7, pp. 56, 58. 586. Cf. joy in affliction in Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6; cf. Rom 5:3. On the practice of celebrating one’s afflictions, see comment under “Midnight Worship” at Acts 16:25. 587. Rhetoricians preferred to elaborate sufferings vividly (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.19–25), valuable for augmenting pathos. 588. Fitzgerald, “Affliction Lists,” 16–17 (quote, 17). They also demonstrated the character of other heroes, e.g., Odysseus (Max. Tyre 34.8). 589. E.g., Ovid Metam. 13.262–67; Fasti 2.696–99 (in this case deceptively); Plut. Alex. 50.6; Arrian Alex. 7.10.1–3; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.62.3; Livy 45.39.17; Val. Max. 7.7.1; cf. Sall. Pomp. 1–2; Caesar C.W. 1.72; Sil. It. 9.350–51; Val. Max. 3.2.24; or citing dangers one had faced (e.g., Aeschines Embassy 168–69; Cic. Cat. 4.1.2; 1 Cor 15:30). Hall, “Delivery,” 228, cites Cicero’s appeal to his client’s scars in Rab. Post. 36; and also Cicero’s objection when opponents try the same tactic (Cic. Pro Vareno, cited in Quint. Inst. 6.1.49). 590. E.g., Cic. Verr. 2.5.1.3; Sen. E. Controv. 1.4.2; Quint. Inst. 6.1.30; Jos. War 4.360. Likewise, wounds could be displayed in corpses to stir indignation (Ovid Fasti 2.849; Plut. Caes. 68.1). 591. Assumed, e.g., by Cicero in Flacc. 1.1 (though he may have ultimately overplayed this claim over the years). 592. Watson, “Speech,” 198, notes that exordia typically introduced points “to be further developed in the probatio [citing Cic. De or. 2.80.325; Quint. Inst. 4.1.23–27] . . . and reiterated in the peroratio [citing Arist.

3010

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 66

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

message is tantamount to announcing it, but it is worded negatively, perhaps for stylistic reasons.593 Some scholars suggest that Paul responds here to misrepresentations; these were often answered initially toward the beginning of a speech.594 The charge that one’s actions were unprofitable (ἀσύμφοροι, Rhet. Alex. 4, 1426b.32) for the public good was apparently a common one. Some even suggest that a specific enemy in Luke’s day is in view, such as “a secret gnostic teaching.”595 Aside from being speculative, however, the latter proposal dates “Gnosticism” too early (or defines it too broadly to be helpful, inviting readers to presuppose later gnostic systems),596 and if a secret teaching were in view, it would not need to be gnostic.597 More to the point here, responses to potential accusations could be conventional, as noted above. Paul had made many enemies in Ephesus (Acts 19:9, 23–27; 1 Cor 15:32; 16:8–9; 2 Tim 4:14), but most of them would not have charged him with holding back anything “profitable.” Paul’s claim is nevertheless plausible within Luke’s narrative world. In view of this claim and Paul’s willingness to die in Acts 20:24, no one can regard his failure to appear in the theater as due to dishonorable lack of courage (19:30–31). Not to draw back or shrink from declaring what was for the good of one’s audience undoubtedly implies that some persons might draw back from this because what was for the good of their hearers was not always what they would wish to hear. This portrayal places Paul in the role of one speaking with παρρησία;598 this approach could genuinely confront uncomfortable vices but at other times was a rhetorical strategy by which a speaker pretended “to risk the good will of the audience” yet instead invited it by showing courage for truth.599 Rhet. 3.14, 1414b1; Rhet. Alex. 35.1440b.5ff.].” The suggestion that apologetic elements in Paul’s speech do not fit its context (Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398) does not reckon with similar elements in analogous speeches (esp. 1 Sam 12). 593. Gaventa, Acts, 285, compares it with Luke’s frequent use of litotes. 594. Watson, “Speech,” 197 (citing Rhet. Alex. 35.1440b.5ff. for the use of this in the introduction in epideictic speeches). 595. Conzelmann, Acts, 173. 596. See, e.g., Yamauchi, Gnosticism; Smith, Gnostic Origins; Keener, John, 164–69. 597. Conzelmann, Acts, 174, also cites Qumran for an example of secret teachings (1QpHab VII, 1–14; 1QS III, 13–14; XI, 5–9), and polemical language in Iren. Her. 1.1; Tert. Praescr. 22–23; they were common also in many other groups, including in Judaism. Some Jewish people believed that God had entrusted Israel with special “mysteries” in his law (cf. Test. Levi 2:10; Test. Jud. 16:4; t. Qidd. 5:21; Exod. Rab. 19:6; Esth. Rab. 2:4). Sages sometimes spoke of the “hidden things,” such as the laws of creation, concealed from most of humanity (Deut 29:29; 1 En. 4:1–3; 41:1–8; 49:2; 52:2; 59:1–3; 103:2; 106:19; Wis 7:21; 1QHa V, 13–14; 1QM XIV, 14; 2 Bar. 48:3), or “hidden things”/“mysteries” in the righteous’ teachings, concealed from humanity or from the wicked (Wis 2:22; Ps.-Phoc. 229; cf. Ps 25:14; Prov 3:32; conventional wisdom in Job 11:6; 15:8; for the wicked’s secrets, see Wis 14:23; 1 En. 16:3; 1QM XIV, 9; 2 Thess 2:7). The Qumran community believed that God had revealed to its leaders mysteries hidden from other readers of Scripture (1QpHab VII, 4–5, 13–14; 1QHa X, 13–14; XVII, 23–24; XIX, 9–10, 16–17; XX, 11–13; 1QS VIII, 1–2, 12; IX, 13, 17–19; cf. 1QS V, 11–12; XI, 3–5; 1QM III, 9; XVII, 9; 4 Ezra 14:45–47). Although most mainstream Jewish teachings were available to the public (cf. John 18:20; b. Sukkah 49b; cf. Goodman, State, 74), many Jewish teachers apparently held particular teachings to be too esoteric for public teaching (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2; esp. regarding the throne-chariot, in t. Ḥag. 2:1; b. Ḥag. 13a, bar.; 14b, bar.; Šabb. 80b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §§63–64; cf. 4QS140; and creation, in m. Ḥag. 2:1; t. Ḥag. 2:1, 7; ʾAbot R. Nat. 39 A; b. Ḥag. 15a, bar.; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3; I borrow much of this note from Keener, Matthew, 378–79). 598. Noted here also by Johnson, Acts, 360, who cites the same idiom in Plato Apol. 24A. Rhetoricians could use such candor, claiming to risk losing the audience’s favor but, in fact, fortifying the audience’s appreciation for the speaker’s courage (Rowe, “Style,” 139); Paul’s letters may use this technique (Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581, though his example [Rom 9:1] is not the best). The comparison with Hector refusing to “shrink from” battle (MacDonald, “Farewell,” 196) is too narrow (though legitimate as one illustration among many). 599. See Rowe, “Style,” 139 (and his examples in Demosth. Olynth. 1.1.16.1; Cic. Cat. 1.1.3). Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581, portrays Rom 9:1 as an example of this approach, but 1 Cor 3:3 or Gal 4:16 might be closer.

3011

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 67

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Moralists regularly contrasted the virtue of such frank speech with flattery, in which one tells an audience what they want to hear (see comment on Acts 4:13; cf. 24:25). Telling the truth even when one’s audience did not want to hear it appears in Paul (2 Cor 6:11; Gal 4:16; 2 Tim 4:2–4) and would appear virtuous in the Greek moralist tradition.600 Thus Apollonius is portrayed as later confronting the Ephesians with harsh truth, even at the risk of potentially alienating them.601 By contrast, topics that people enjoyed hearing might be called particularly “sweet.”602 “What was profitable” (here συμφέρω in participial form) does not appear in this sense elsewhere in Luke-Acts (Acts 19:19 uses it differently), but it does appear in this sense frequently in Paul’s letters from Ephesus in the mid-50s (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23; 12:7; 2 Cor 8:10; 12:1).603 This was common language, but it was especially popular as a moral criterion, notable in rhetorical argumentation,604 in moral philosophy,605 and in political theory and practice.606 In this context, what is “profitable” is identified with the “whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). (2) Public and Private Teaching (20:20)

That Paul taught both publicly (e.g., the synagogue and the lecture hall, 19:8–10) and from house to house (i.e., privately) shows that he exploited every possible means 600. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.2–3; Plut. Profit by Enemies 6, Mor. 89B; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12; 2 Tim 4:2–4; cf. Marshall, Enmity, 152; Rowe, “Style,” 139 (noted above). Eastern wisdom was sometimes more ambivalent (Prov 9:8; 23:9; 26:4; cf. Matt 7:6; Sent. Syr. Men. 328–32); cf. also the rhetorical ethic in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 29.2–3 (for the futility of correcting those unwilling to heed); 40.4 (on the practice of populist rhetoric); 86.16 (on Virgil); Eunapius Lives 500. 601. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2. For philosophers ideally not shrinking from declaring what was profitable, see Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing, e.g., Plato Clitophon 407A; Dio Chrys. Or. 11.17; 13.16). The harshest reproofs tended to belong to philosophers rather than to orators (cf. Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 161); among them, of course, the harsher Cynics were the harshest (e.g., Fredrickson, “Hardships,” 175–76), but far from Paul’s affectionate presentation here. 602. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.4, 388.13–14, 27; 392.18; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.521; 2.16.597; cf. Sen. E. Controv. 3.pref. 3; Prov 27:9. Often pleasant speech is associated with “honey” (though some of this originally figurative usage may have come to simply mean “pleasant,” at least in Latin); e.g., Prov 16:24; Hom. Il. 1.249; Pindar Paeans 6.59; 8.78; Isthm. 2.3; frg. 152; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 3; Pliny Ep. 4.3.3; Lucian Portr. 13; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.2.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.8.490; 1.22.522; 2.1.561. 603. Cf. also ὠφέλεια in Rom 3:1, conceptually analogous (and included in citations of profitability below, though it sometimes appears alongside συμφέρον as distinct but related). 604. E.g., Arist. Rhet. 1.7.1, 1363b; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.24, 28–30; 1422a.3–4, 5–16; 4, 1426b.32, 34; 1427a.26–27; 6, 1427b.39–41; 1428a.1–2; 10, 1430a.27–28; 34, 1440a.1–2; 29, 1436b.10–11; Theon Progymn. 8.45; Ael. Arist. Leuct. Or. 5.11–16; Hermog. Issues 76.5–6; 77.6–19, esp. 6–7; Progymn. 1, “Fable,” 2; 5, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 11; 6, “On Commonplace,” 14; 11, “On Thesis,” 25–26; 12, “On Introduction of a Law,” 27; Aphth. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 27–28S, 10R; 7, “On Commonplace,” 35S, 20R; 14, “On Introduction of a Law,” 53S, 47R; Nicolaus Progymn. 4, “On Chreia,” 22; 6, “On Refutation and Confirmation,” 30; 7, “On Commonplace,” 44; cf. also the anonymous prolegomenon to Aphthonius Progymnasmata (fifth century or later; ed. Hugo Rabe, 74–75; Progymnasmata [ed. Kennedy], 91–92, on deliberative rhetoric’s value); commentary (attributed to John of Sardis, probably ninth century) on Aphth. Progymn. 13, “On Thesis,” 240.5. Heath, Hermogenes, 133, notes that Aristotle overemphasized “advantage” as being distinctively the concern of deliberative rhetoric (Rhet. 1358b.20–29; citing, as a corrective, Quint. Inst. 3.4.16). 605. E.g., Plato Alcib. 1.114–27, e.g., 114E, 118A; Hipp. maj. 295E; Xen. Mem. 4.6.8; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 1a (Socrates); Dio Chrys. Or. 3.91–92, 94, 124; Philod. Crit. frg. 1.4; 47.7; col. 10b.10–11; 18b.1–2; 19a.3; 20b.8–9; 24a.4; Iambl. V.P. 31.204; cf. Lodge, Ethics, 62–63, 68–72. This was often associated with the Stoics; see Sext. Emp. Eth. 2.22; Cic. Fin. 3.21.69; Sen. Y. Dial. 7.8.2; Ben. 4.21.6; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 36.9–12; 4, p. 46.36–37; 8, p. 60.10–12, 14, 16; 15, p. 96.25; 16, p. 102.35; 17, p. 108.36; 18B, p. 116.10–11; p. 118.24; frg. 27, 29; frg. 40, p. 136.19; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.5–7; 1.6.6, 33; 1.18.2; 1.22.1; 1.28.5–6; 2.7.4; 2.8.1; 3.21.15; 4.7.9; 4.8.17; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.22; 2.7.5d, pp. 28–29.17–29; 2.7.10a, pp. 56–57.26–27; 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.23–24, 29–30; 2.7.11i, pp. 74–75.38; Marc. Aur. 6.27; 9.1.1; Diog Laert. 7.1.98–99; cf. Cic. Fam. 15.17.3. 606. E.g., Aeschines Tim. 6; Arist. Pol. 1.2.8, 1254a; Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.24; Dio Chrys. Or. 24.3; 38.49; Diog. Laert. 10.150.31 (Epicurus); 10.151.36; 10.152.37; 10.153.38; Jos. War 2.401. More generally, cf. Polyb. 21.32.1; Soranus Gynec. 1.11.42; Phaedrus 3.17.13; Sir 37:28; perhaps 2 Bar. 14:3.

3012

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 68

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

to make his teaching available.607 Then as now, some people proved better in a large public setting than in a smaller one (Sen. E. Controv. 7.pref. 1) or vice versa, but Paul was effective in both.608 Some ancient sages advised other sages to attend to both venues, profiting both disciples and the public.609 The conjunction of public and house meetings here complements the same procedure used by Jerusalem’s apostles in Acts 2:46 and 5:42. The emphasis on the point that some of Paul’s teaching was public is important (see comment on Acts 26:26). Romans feared the potential subversiveness of private meetings, but what was public was available to all.610 Many in antiquity also laid claim to private, esoteric teachings for an inner circle (cf. Luke 8:9–10; but also Greek and Jewish sages).611 House meetings meant that Paul provided intimate contact for the disciples, probably knowing most of them personally until his departure in Acts 20:1.612 Knowing the names of their fellow citizens could increase leaders’ popularity with the people.613 (3) Repentance and Faith (20:21)

Three word pairs in 20:20–21 help elevate the rhetoric of these verses: “publicly and house-to-house [i.e., privately],” “Jews and Greeks,” and “repentance and faith.”614 Luke has already emphasized that Paul’s ministry in Ephesus included both “Jews and Greeks” (19:10, 17).615 For witness, see comment on Acts 1:8; for the same verb as here (διαμαρτύρομαι), see, for example, 2:40; 8:25; for Paul witnessing, 18:25; 23:11; 28:23. Luke employs this verb again in 20:24, where Paul’s testimony is “the good news of God’s grace,” a message therefore equivalent to the message of repentance and faith here. Luke here summarizes Paul’s teaching as including both “repentance” and “faith”; this reinforces the continuity of message that runs throughout Luke-Acts (e.g., compare Acts 2:37–38 with 16:30–31). The conjunction of faith and repentance was probably familiar from Judaism (Heb 6:1) and certainly from the gospel tradition (Mark 1:15). Although this is the only text in Luke-Acts that conjoins them explicitly (though cf. Acts 26:18), the centrality of each concept to Luke’s conception of 607. On house meetings and house churches, see comment on Acts 12:12–13; for Paul’s letters suggesting his household ministry, see, e.g., Barton, “Missionary,” 44–45. Houses continued to be important in the Ephesian church if we may judge by 2 Tim 3:6; cf. 1 Tim 3:4–5, 12, 15; 5:8; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19. On the different kinds of speech associated with either public or private venues, see Neyrey, “Teaching.” 608. Johnson, Acts, 360–61, also suggests a contrast with “false philosophers, whose private activities contradicted their public proclamations” (see Lucian Tim. 54). 609. See further Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing Epict. 3.23.33–34; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.31; 32.8–11; 77/78.37–38; Synesius Dio 1.11). 610. For the general sentiment in antiquity, cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.78.3; Livy 3.36.2; Sipre Deut. 87.2.2; see further Keener, John, 1094; Malherbe, “Corner,” 203; comment on Acts 26:26. 611. See further Keener, Matthew, 378–79; also 1QpHab VII, 1–14; 1QS III, 13–14; XI, 5–9; and other sources discussed above under “(1) Withholding Nothing (20:20).” 612. Close contact with those far below one’s status could be viewed negatively (e.g., Polyb. 26.1.1–3, 12), but Paul “served with humility” (Acts 20:19), reframing the status issue, in any case. For Greek peristyle and other house types in Ephesus, see George, “Architecture”; Trümper, “Environment of Households,” 41. Larger cities usually had multiple house churches (Lampe, “Patrons,” 496). 613. E.g., Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 19; Plut. Cic. 7.1–2; Themist. 5.4; cf. 2 Sam 15:2. 614. Gaventa, Acts, 284. The balancing of “repentance with respect to God” and “faith with respect to our Lord Jesus” would also sound rhetorically appealing (cf. Rhet. Alex. 27, 1435b.39–40; 1436a.1–4), apart from the question of content. The accumulation of accusatives might also sound well crafted (cf. Rowe, “Style,” 138; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85); two are inevitable in view of the word pair, but others follow from the double choice of εἰς, which was not at all inevitable. 615. Elsewhere in Acts, 14:1; 18:4. For the Jewish population in Ephesus, see comment on Acts 18:19; 19:9; for the Ionian Greek element, comment on Acts 18:19. Contrasting opposites was a good Hebrew way to include all (merism; see, e.g., Gen 1:1; Deut 6:7; Ps 1:2).

3013

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 69

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

conversion links them closely, implying that true faith includes repentance and the reverse. The message of “repentance” (see comment on Acts 2:38) belonged to John (Luke 3:3, 8; Acts 13:24; 19:4),616 Jesus (Luke 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30), and Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18) as well as Paul (17:30; 20:21; 26:20; cf. his citations of John the Baptist in 13:24; 19:4) and was to be the message for all Christ’s witnesses (Luke 24:47).617 Faith appears often,618 and it is sometimes explicitly connected with conversion,619 sometimes as a label for the converted.620 Peter preaches it, but it is associated especially with his preaching to Gentiles (Acts 10:43; 15:7), though the message about faith was not a challenge only to Gentiles (cf., e.g., 13:41; 15:9, 11); the message is more characteristic of Paul (13:39; 16:31; 19:4; 24:24; and here). Thus, although Luke emphasizes the continuity of the gospel message, he also allows for distinctive emphases, with Peter employing the language of repentance more often621 and Paul employing more often that of faith. d. Paul Expects Danger in Jerusalem (20:22–25) A climactic example of Paul’s sacrificial service (20:19) is his impending “passion”; like Jesus, he goes to Jerusalem knowing that he will face sufferings there. (Unlike Jesus, Paul does not know the details [20:22]; Luke cannot present Paul as predicting for himself the same fate as Jesus, since he knows that Paul was not executed in Jerusalem.) i. Risking Danger in Jerusalem (20:22–23)

Paul’s “passion prediction” here is historically plausible even if Luke emphasizes it to recall Jesus’s passion predictions.622 Historically, that Paul was aware as early as his recent visit to Corinth (20:3) that hostility might await him in Jerusalem is clear from a letter he wrote from Corinth (Rom 15:31). Luke as a historian cannot fully identify Paul’s mission to Jerusalem with that of Jesus, knowing that Paul was not executed there. Nevertheless, Luke does highlight the growing concern during Paul’s trip to Jerusalem; he has already informed his audience that Jerusalem is the appropriate place for prophets to be martyred (Luke 13:33; cf. Luke 13:34//Matt 23:37). (1) Bound by the Spirit (20:22–23)

“And now, behold” (καὶ νῦν ἰδού) appears in another solemn pronouncement of Paul’s in Acts (Acts 13:11) but most notably in this same context (20:25, its only 616. Michaels, “Paul and Baptist,” notes the similarity between Paul’s and John’s preaching in Luke, though he thinks that Luke preserves here genuine elements of Paul’s manner of preaching. 617. Paul in his epistles employs this language in 2 Cor 7:9–10; 12:21 (cf. 2 Tim 2:25), but for conversion only at Rom 2:4 (though the concept appears elsewhere, 1 Thess 1:9; cf. also new life in Christ, e.g., Rom 6:1–14). He can use the terminology, but Luke seems more at home with it than Paul does, perhaps because Luke grounds it in Jesus’s message whereas the Greek term held different connotations to a Diaspora audience unacquainted with the traditional concept from the prophets. 618. Luke 1:20, 45; 5:20; 7:9, 50; 8:25, 48, 50; 17:5–6, 19; 18:8, 42; 20:5; 22:32, 67; 24:25; Acts 3:16; 6:5; 11:24; 13:41; 14:9; 16:5; 24:14; 26:27; 27:25; cf. Luke 16:11; Acts 9:26. 619. Acts 8:12–13; 9:42; 11:17, 21; 13:8, 12, 48; 14:1, 27; 15:5; 16:34; 17:12, 34; 18:8; 19:2. 620. Luke 8:12–13; Acts 2:44; 4:4, 32; 5:14; 6:7; 14:22–23; 18:27; 19:18; 21:20, 25; 22:19. 621. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22. The Petrine literature does not share this distinction; faith appears in 1 Pet 1:5, 7–9, 21; 2:6–7; 5:9; 2 Pet 1:1, 5, with repentance explicit only in 2 Pet 3:9. 622. Contrary to the usual consensus, even Jesus’s knowledge of his impending passion is historically likely. How could Jesus not expect his impending death when he provoked it, challenging the authorities by attacking the business in the temple? (See the discussion and sources in Keener, Historical Jesus, 287–92, 295–301; idem, Matthew, 431–33; idem, John, 522–27.)

3014

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 70

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

other nt use), where its repetition reinforces the pathos of Paul’s departure. The language echoes the lxx.623 One might interpret “bound in spirit” as “bound by his [own] spirit,” but Luke’s usage and the immediate context decisively favor reading this as “bound by the Spirit”—that is, God’s Spirit.624 When Luke uses “spirit” without qualification he normally means the Holy Spirit (see comment on Acts 18:25; 19:21), and in context, “bound in Spirit” means something like “bound, as the Holy Spirit testifies” (20:23); thus in 21:11 the Holy Spirit testifies through a prophet that Paul will be “bound” in Jerusalem. As Paul had once “bound” Christians (9:2, 14, 21) and as Peter was once “bound” in chains (12:6), so would Paul experience the shame of being “bound” (δέω, 21:11, 13, 33; 22:5, 29; 24:27). “Bonds” (20:23) now awaited the one who was “bound” by the Spirit (20:22). This is probably a wordplay;625 the perfect participle for “bound” probably suggests antecedent action, which, in the context of Acts, likely refers to when Paul “purposed” or “resolved” by the Spirit in 19:21.626 (2) Paul’s Passion Predictions (20:22–23)

Paul’s not knowing what awaits him (20:22) except suffering and being bound (20:23) leaves suspense as to whether captivity will lead to death.627 Those in the Diaspora probably had knowledge of increasing nationalism in Jerusalem, given continuous contact of those communities with the mother city. Historically, Paul, at least, somehow knew in advance that serious trouble of some sort could await him (Rom 15:31). Whether knowledge of the nationalistic situation in Jerusalem played a role, however, we cannot say for certain, but Luke emphasizes prophetic knowledge (as in the more detailed Acts 21:4, 11). Thus this prediction, like the prophecies in 20:23; 21:4, 11, functions as analogous to Jesus’s passion predictions in the Gospel.628 Ancient literature often reports that dreams629 or other signs630 portended the deaths of important figures; others 623. The phrase appears seventeen times in the lxx (eighteen times if one omits the καί), usually for solemn pronouncements and occasionally for pathos ( Josh 9:25; 14:10; 1 Sam 12:2, 12). 624. With most commentators, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 361; Fitzmyer, Acts, 677; Menzies, “Paradigm,” 207; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 122. Thus we should read it as an instrumental dative (“bound by the Spirit”) rather than a dative for an accusative of respect (“bound in my spirit”). For the connection between the Spirit and suffering in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Luke 4:1–2; Mittelstadt, Spirit. 625. Johnson, Acts, 361, 370, also recognizes this Lukan context for “bound” here, seeing Acts 21:11 as making 20:22 a pun (also Dunn, Acts, 282). Wordplay was conventional in rhetoric (Rhet. Her. 4.21.29–4.22.31; Rowe, “Style,” 132; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283–85, and the many sources cited there); for reapplying a literal word figuratively in the same context, see Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §488. Cf., less relevant, metaclisis, although this usually involves different inflections of the same word (Rowe, “Style,” 133) rather than cognates; and other figures (cf., e.g., in Anderson, Glossary, 20). Otherwise, “bound” would be an unusual and graphic expression in Acts 20:22 (cf. the use of such expressions for emphasis in Rowe, “Style,” 127, citing descent “into” the horse in Hom. Od. 11.523 and the Cyclops lying “through” the cave in Virg. Aen. 3.63). 626. Rapske, Custody, 404. Paul’s expectation of “afflictions” (θλίψεις) fits the experience of the ancestors (Acts 7:10–11), the church (11:19), and warnings for the future (14:22). 627. Such phrases elsewhere meant that one did not know if one would return alive (MacDonald, “Farewell,” 195, compares Hom. Il. 6.361–62, 367–68), sometimes as a sign of courageous loyalty (2 Sam 15:21; Esth 4:16; cf. 1 Sam 20:14). Such phrases need not, however, be literary allusions (cf. Heb 11:8; Rom 14:8; 1 Thess 5:10; 2 Macc 6:26; Jos. Ant. 1.193); just before my future wife became a refugee because of war in the Congo, her final letter to me (Dec. 25, 1998) lamented that she did not know whether she and her family would live or die (though not in those words), with no thought of a literary allusion. Paul elsewhere expressed some uncertainty about his fate, both in Jerusalem (Rom 15:30–31) and in captivity (Phil 1:20–26). 628. With, e.g., Johnson, Acts, 361. Cf. also Faw, Acts, 234 (the plan to go to Jerusalem recalls Luke 9:51). 629. E.g., Aeschylus Pers. 176–99; Xen. Cyr. 8.7.2; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 2 (though other versions of Alexander’s death omit this); Plut. Alc. 39.1–2; Sulla 37.2. 630. E.g., Suet. Jul. 81.1–4.

3015

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 71

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

sometimes could predict their own impending deaths,631 and many ancients believed that a dying person could exercise special prophetic insights.632 Knowledge of impending death was also normal in testaments and in many farewell speeches (though one could, as in this chapter, be leaving for reasons other than death).633 As I have argued elsewhere, there is good reason to believe that Jesus did foresee his death, since our best historical evidence suggests that (through challenging the temple establishment and disrupting the market there) he deliberately provoked it.634 But the Gospel writers also had literary and theological reasons for emphasizing this point. Luke’s emphasis on this point may serve an apologetic purpose for those concerned with Paul’s custody and eventual execution.635 By comparing Paul’s arrest to passion predictions, Luke explains that it was no accident, no senseless tragedy, and certainly no judgment on Paul; it was part of God’s plan (cf. 2:23).636 Just as John’s suffering (Luke 3:20; 9:9) foreshadows that of Jesus and Stephen’s martyrdom emulates that of Jesus (Acts 7:58–60), Paul stands in continuity with this tradition. Difficult as it was for Paul’s friends to accept, they had to conclude that his “passion” was God’s will (21:14). No one would regard Paul’s voluntary coming to Rome (as planned in Acts 19:21; Rom 15:23–24) as scandal, but his chains would be so regarded unless, like the cross, his coming to Rome as prisoner belonged to God’s plan. Probably some in Luke’s day also despised Paul’s chains (2 Tim 1:8, 16) or doubted God’s purpose in such events. That the Holy Spirit, presumably through prophets (see comment on Acts 13:2),637 announced Paul’s departure in every city alludes to Jesus’s passion but very probably also evokes the departure of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7), whose ascension becomes the primary model for that of Jesus in Acts 1:9–11.638 Moreover, as the prophets in each city in 2 Kgs 2 highlight the proliferation of prophets since Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel, Luke highlights the proliferation of new prophets in multiple cities since Pentecost, emphasizing Jesus’s movement as a continuing prophetic movement. Luke here prepares the reader for the long and otherwise disturbing arrest and detention of Paul that consumes most of Acts 21–28, nearly the final quarter of the book. Ancient writers often announced the impending fate of various characters, thereby unifying the plot.639 One could also use foreshadowing to build suspense; 631. E.g., Jub. 35:6; cf. Luke 9:22. Conversely, Socrates notes diviners who reportedly could predict the future for others but not for themselves (Xen. Symp. 4.5). 632. E.g., Xen. Apol. 30; Gen 49 and many Jewish testaments. See esp. discussion in Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 221–22 (citing Xen. Cyr. 7.7.21 [most explicit]; Hom. Il. 16.849–50; 22.325; Soph. Wom. Tr. 1148ff.; Virgil Aen. 10.729–41; Plato Apol. 39C; Cic. Div. 1.47; Gen 49; Deut 31–34; testaments). 633. On foreknowledge of death in farewell speeches and its utility for generating pathos, see Watson, “Speech,” 200. 634. As noted above, see Keener, Matthew, 431–33; idem, John, 522–27. 635. On this concern, see again, e.g., Keener, “Apologetic.” 636. Cf. Johnson, Acts, 361. Those who emphasize Luke’s apologetic for Paul will particularly underline the refutation of the view that Paul’s “passion” represents divine judgment. 637. With, e.g., Haenchen, Acts, 591; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 123. For the dominant association of the Spirit with prophecy (and other activity associated with prophets) in early Judaism and in Luke-Acts, see Menzies, Development, 53–112, 205–77; Turner, Power, 86–104; Keener, Spirit, 10–13, 190–201. 638. The language of “in every city” (κατὰ πόλιν) may be stylistically Lukan (Luke 8:1, 4; Acts 15:23, 36), though it is not completely unique (elsewhere in the nt, only Titus 1:5; in the lxx, 2 Chr 11:12; Esth 8:17; 1 Macc 1:51; 2 Macc 4:36; 3 Macc 3:16; 4:4; 6:41; in Josephus, Ant. 5.352; 6.73; 8.395; 9.4, 236; 11.285; 14.215, 219, 221; 16.24; War 2.194, 572; 4.483, 621; Life 335; in Philo, Flacc. 177; Praem. 107; Prov. 2.15, 48; Sacr. 124; Spec. Laws 2.19, 181; 3.74). Cf. Luke 5:17; 10:1; Acts 8:40; Mark 6:33; Matt 9:35; Gen 41:48; 2 Chr 28:25. 639. E.g., Virg. Aen. 10.471–72, 503. Munck, Salvation, 305, thinks that Luke sends Paul to Jerusalem and martyrdom quickly because he has completed his Gentile mission; this reconstruction depends partly on Munck’s view of the restrainer in 2 Thess 2:6–7 (which is not Lukan).

3016

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 72

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

for example, Agamemnon’s death when he returns home creates suspense by foreshadowing what Odysseus could have suffered had he not avoided it (Hom. Od. 13.383–85). Prophecies within the story world could also advance the plot; this was so in Hellenistic historiography, in Josephus, and in Luke-Acts (including both prophecies of Scripture and those by Jesus, Paul, and other reliable voices in the narrative).640 Implying that words in one’s speech are inspired or directed by deities was a familiar rhetorical device;641 citing oracles could have the same rhetorical effect.642 Although biblical prophecies were often conditional and could sometimes be evaded by changed behavior (1 Kgs 21:29; Jer 18:7–10; Jonah 3:10), attempts to evade prophesied fate without changed behavior were futile (1 Kgs 22:30–35). Ancients widely believed that attempts to evade oracles were futile and that the attempts sometimes fulfilled the predictions in the process.643 How can Cassandra, a mantic who foreknows her death, confront it so bravely, Aeschylus asks (Ag. 1295–98). She replies that it is because there is no escape (1299–1301). Greeks knew Achilles’s oracular dilemma: he could live quietly if he relinquished combat in Troy, yet to avenge his friend he chose the other destiny, to die in combat (Hom. Il. 9.410–16; 18.88–116; 19.421–23; cf. Libanius Anecdote 1.22). Paul’s colleagues view the prophecies as conditional warnings (Acts 21:4, 12); Paul, certain that God wants him to go to Jerusalem, views the prophecies as merely preparing him and others for the events that will unfold (21:13). (3) Timing of Death Unknown (20:22)

That Paul does not know what will happen to him in Jerusalem (20:22), then, does not mean that he does not expect suffering;644 it means that he knows he will suffer and is prepared for his own passion and death (20:24) but does not know whether God’s plan will involve him experiencing death as part of this mission to Jerusalem.645 Ancients regarded oracles as generally obscure,646 and Paul recognized similar limitations for Christian prophecy in his letters (1 Cor 12:10; 13:9; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–21). When leaders’ plans turned out badly, they often had to remind their followers that not knowing the future was not a crime.647 Luke provides an alternative defense: Paul knew something of what awaited him in Jerusalem, but he also understood that God’s plan for him entailed suffering, not escape. 640. Squires, Plan, 121–29 (on Hellenistic historiography), 129–37 (for Josephus), 137–54 (in Luke-Acts). 641. Watson, “Speech,” 196 (citing Quint. Inst. 10.1.48). 642. Cf. Watson, “Speech,” 197, noting the use of portents and oracles to foreshadow achievements in an epideictic speech (Cic. Part. or. 21.73). 643. E.g., Val. Max. 1.8.ext. 9; Apollod. Bib. 3.5.7 (a particularly sadistic instance, since Oedipus could not have known differently; cf. 2.8.2); Lucian Z. Cat. 12; Babr. 136; cf. Apollod. Bib. 3.12.5; Diod. Sic. 15.74.3–4; 1 Kgs 22:30, 34. Nonprophetic foreknowledge of danger could sometimes allow one to evade it (Prov 27:12; Dio Chrys. frg. in Crosby, LCL, 5:350–51). Cf. a person’s predetermined “time,” “day,” or “hour” (Hom. Il. 15.612–14; 16.441; Eurip. Alc. 24–27, 105, 147; Xen. Mem. 4.8.6; Virg. Aen. 10.503; 11.470; 12.150; Appian C.W. 2.16.116; 2.21.149; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 69.6; Sil. It. 3.134–35; Phaedrus 4.11.8; Suet. Nero 49.2; Apoll. K. Tyre 29; 1 Sam 26:10; 1 Macc 9:10; Jos. Ant. 4.315; Matt 26:18; John 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; cf. Deut 31:14; Test. Ab. 1:1 B; Tac. Agr. 45; the satire in Lucian Z. Cat. 2, 9, 15). 644. Aune, Prophecy, 222, thinks that Paul’s proceeding to Jerusalem functioned as evaluating prophecy. In Luke’s narrative, however, Paul accepts the prophecies as valid, simply not as revealing God’s will for his action. Aune associates διαμαρτύρομαι here with oracular oath formulas (333; cf. Rev 22:18, 20); Luke might use it, however, as the Spirit’s response to Paul’s own witness (Acts 20:21, 26). 645. The Paul of the epistles experienced the same uncertainty even after detention (Phil 1:19–26; 2:17; though cf. 2 Tim 4:6–8, 18). 646. Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; Plut. Lys. 22.5–6; see comment on Acts 21:4. 647. Libanius Declam. 36.42; 44.50–52, 61; see further comment at Acts 24:18.

3017

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 73

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Luke does avoid narrating Paul’s death in Acts; some scholars have explained this omission as Luke warning his readers against a martyr complex,648 but he may simply have a literary purpose of keeping the narrative enjoyable (and paralleling the Gospel, which, after all, had a happy ending).649 This hint of coming suffering might also foreshadow Acts 20:25.650 On the level of Luke’s literary work, Paul’s death is not narrated; it may be hinted at in 20:24, though imprisonment could also prevent a return to Ephesus. Ancient writers often hinted at a future event without narrating it.651 Paul’s imminent suffering (20:22–23) both foreshadows his warning about the elders’ coming conflicts (20:29–30) and underlines his credibility for encouraging them to confront it bravely. That is, it serves a deliberative purpose; the epideictic praise of Paul is a practical model for the believers (see introduction to the speech). ii. Fulfilling the Calling regardless of Cost (20:24)

Paul was determined to fulfill his calling regardless of the cost, even in the face of death. Fulfilling Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel, Paul does not fear those who may kill only the body (Luke 12:4); he counts himself as doing only his duty (17:10).652 The Paul of the epistles also resolved to face death for the gospel’s sake (1 Cor 15:31–32; 2 Cor 4:10–11; 6:9; 11:23; Phil 1:21; 2:17; 3:10–11).653 (1) Motif of Bravery

It is fairly obvious that Paul’s letters attest his willingness to face death for Christ and that the biblical prophetic tradition and the example of Christ could stimulate such willingness. This motif would also present Paul very favorably to Luke’s Greco-Roman audience. As Conzelmann notes, “Joy at the opportunity for self-sacrifice is a favorite motif in ceremonial inscriptions and in rhetorical historiography.”654 Ancient literature extolled courage, including the brave endurance of suffering and death.655 Romans regarded as virtuous the sacrificing of one’s life for country and often thought that one should “serve the whole world” rather than oneself.656 One who valued his personal safety above the city’s welfare might be viewed as unfit for public leadership.657 Only after facing trials could one’s bravery be lauded (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 66.50); warriors counted it honorable to endure sufferings for praise (Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1). 648. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 25 (rightly noting that Luke reports fewer martyrdoms than likely occurred and that he minimizes Paul’s death). 649. For a helpful literary parallel (though one possibly dependent, to some extent, on Christian sources), cf. Pervo, Profit, 47: Apollonius “went to Rome in the face of gloomy warnings” (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.9–16, esp. 12); sound officials supported and tyrants hated him (7.9, 11, 16), and “the defense led to protracted proceedings that constitute a good fourth of the book.” 650. Watson, “Speech,” 198 (on the revisiting of themes in different sections of the speech). 651. See Magness, Sense, e.g., 31. 652. Watson, “Speech,” 196, compares this to an orator who implies that he has accepted the case only because of duty (citing Cic. Part. or. 8.28; Quint. Inst. 4.1.7); Paul, however, speaks not of the present speech but of his entire mission. 653. Sometimes historians could “improve” characters’ fortitude (cf. Aaron in Lev 10:19 with Jos. Ant. 3.208), but Luke’s Paul fits the epistolary Paul here. 654. Conzelmann, Acts, 174, citing SIG2 613.25ff.; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.16.2; 5.65.4; cf. also Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 402. 655. E.g., Lysias Or. 2.25, §193 (soldiers); Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.68.2–3; Rhet. Her. 3.2.3; Cic. Inv. 2.54.163; Livy 5.46.2–3; Plut. S. Sp., Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; see further Keener, John, 875. The stalling technique in Test. Ab. 9:6–7; 15:10 A is exceptional. For definitions, see Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5b2, pp. 14–15.16–18. 656. Lucan C.W. 2.380–83 (trans. Duff, LCL, 85); for dying for one’s state, see also Cic. Fin. 3.19.64; cf. Cat. 4.2.3. A classical Athenian orator honors those who died for something worthwhile, since all must die eventually anyway (Lysias Or. 2.78–79, §198). 657. Lysias Or. 31.7, §187.

3018

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 74

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

This principle was expressed most obviously in war for service of the state. Military leaders were sometimes said to urge their troops on by their own example of suffering.658 Roman soldiers normally counted it shameful to flee from their post because of fear (Polyb. 6.37.10–11); they preferred death from enemies to shame among their colleagues (6.37.12–13).659 When one commander died in battle, the senate angrily suspended his legion’s pay for failing to protect him at the cost of their own lives (Val. Max. 2.7.15d); when Carthage captured six thousand Romans, the senate said that they would not have been captured had they chosen to die honorably (2.7.15e). Even eulogies, which are epideictic, could make fallen soldiers deliberative models for bravery (Thucyd. 2.43.4). In the literary ideal, heroes were unafraid to die. Josephus created a speech for Jonathan that bravely accepted execution at Saul’s hands (Ant. 6.126–27). By the time of the empire, Greeks and Romans embraced the portrait of Philoctetes, who suffered bravely in pain.660 Palamedes died unjustly but heroically, refusing to even lament for himself (Philost. Hrk. 33.37). Leaders could profess their willingness to die in battle (Diod. Sic. 13.97.5; 13.98.1). Romans might exhort their soldiers that they were reared to give their lives (Fronto Bell. parth. 1). Writers often used examples of bravery from the past to encourage the imitation of heroism, such as Demosthenes’s suicide to avoid capture (Lucian Demosth. 43–50).661 A noble death, many opined, must be preferred to an inglorious life (Dion. Hal. Isoc. 5).662 Courage in the face of death was appropriate for a sage’s character as well; Maximus of Tyre compares Socrates at his trial to the Spartan Leonidas, who died defending Greece without retreating (Or. 3.8). If many have faced death bravely in war or at sea, he reasons, why should a philosopher such as Socrates fear, clinging to life rather than virtue (3.7)?663 To one who claimed that he had already “lived long enough” for nature and glory, Cicero protested that his country loved him and he ought to stop “playing the sage” and making light of death, as philosophers did (Marcell. 8.25). Stoics such as Seneca warn against fearing death or the future, since life’s end is predetermined and not in our hands.664 The late first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus is representative of Stoic thought in this period: most supposed that suffering does not cause true loss;665 likewise, he opined that a philosopher who cannot endure hardship, much less death, is worthless.666 One must daily be prepared to die;667 one should 658. E.g., Alexander was noted for this (Arrian Alex. 5.26.7; 7.10.1–2; Plut. Alex. 45.3–4). 659. If a large group of Romans fled, one-tenth would be beaten to death and the others punished (Polyb. 6.38.1–4). 660. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 55–76, contrasting the renderings in this period with the louder Philoctetes of Sophocles. 661. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 60. To show a particular virtue even to the end, during death, was praiseworthy (Val. Max. 4.5.6). 662. Likewise, some warlike peoples looked forward to death in battle so that they might die gloriously (Val. Max. 2.6.11). 663. For Socrates’s bravery in the face of death, Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 60, cites Xen. Mem. 1.2.1; 4.8.2; Apol. 33–34; Plato Apol. 40CE; he also notes that Diogenes was employed similarly (Epict. Diatr. 1.24.3–10). 664. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 69.6; 93.2; 98.10; 101.8, 10; Nat. Q. 6.32.12. For Stoics valuing virtue by reason over innate tendencies toward self-preservation, see Hossenfelder, “Oikeiosis,” 68; for Stoics avoiding irrational emotions such as fear, see Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 73. A Cynic could define the heart of philosophy as being ready for any fortune (Diog. Laert. 6.2.63). 665. Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.18–22. 666. Mus. Ruf. 10, p. 76.23–24. A philosopher should not fear when facing dangers (8, p. 66.10). 667. Mus. Ruf. frg. 22, p. 130 (counting each day as one’s last).

3019

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 75

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

abandon fear of death;668 death “is a debt everyone owes”;669 and living without fear is living according to nature.670 Since death is everyone’s fate, “he is blessed who dies not late but well” (Mus. Ruf. frg. 34, p. 134),671 but one must choose life or death, depending on which benefits the greater number of people (frg. 29, p. 133).672 Those who viewed Paul as a sage would thus read his affirmation in Acts 20:24 as very honorable. (2) Sacrificial Devotion

Dying for someone was a special way to demonstrate one’s devotion.673 A beloved might be to the lover dearer than life (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). Courageous, heroic, and honorable death was an ancient Mediterranean virtue.674 Greek ethics highly regarded laying down one’s life for another675 or for one’s nation.676 Because great dangers normally obliterated the closest ties, even those of friendship,677 true friends were viewed as those who would share in one’s hardships,678 who would do for one whatever was necessary.679 The willingness to die together680 or to die for one another was regarded as the greatest expression of devoted friendship.681 Early Jewish sources prohibit sacrificing another to spare one’s own life but allow that one’s life takes precedence over another’s life.682 Nevertheless, though one was not required to love one’s neighbor more than oneself, Judaism did praise as heroic those rare persons who would sacrifice their lives on behalf of their friends.683 Moreover, in Jewish tradition, one could show love for God by martyrdom.684 Josephus honors 668. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.1; cf. also the philosophically trained woman, in 3, p. 40.35; p. 42.1–4. Still, even philosophers struggle with it and need to overcome it (6, p. 56.2). 669. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.2–3. 670. Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 110.12–13. 671. In keeping with Roman and Stoic thought (see comment on Acts 16:27), dying well might require suicide rather than awaiting a less honorable death (Mus. Ruf. frg. 28, p. 132). Certainly, Stoics argued that it required remaining virtuous rather than free from suffering (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11q, pp. 98–99.4–7). 672. Cf. Phil 1:23–26 for a similar thought in Paul. 673. I adapt here material from Keener, John, 1004–5. 674. Plut. S. Kings, Epameinondas 2, Mor. 192C; see some other sources in Keener, John, 875. Roman military oaths also demanded willingness to die on behalf of the state (IGRR 3.137; OGIS 532; ILS 8781 in Sherk, Empire, 31; cf. praises of Gaius Caesar in CIL 11.1421; ILS 140 in Sherk, Empire, 34); Iphigeneia is prepared to die to save (σῶσαι) Greece (Eurip. Iph. Aul. 1420). 675. Hengel, Atonement, 9; cf. deSilva, Honor, 136–37. See, e.g., Eurip. Alc. 12–18; Heracl. 547–601; Andr. 413–15; cf. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4.pref. 15; but such self-sacrifice is voluntary and not expected (Eurip. Alc. 689–90; some writers, e.g., Lucian, seem to have rejected it [see Pervo, “Friends”]). On slaves for masters, e.g., Appian Bell. civ. 4.4.26; one man also offered his life for a boy with whom he was infatuated (Xen. Anab. 7.4.7–10). Some similarly died because of love for spouses (cf. Apollod. Epit. 3.30; Val. Max. 4.6.2–5; 4.6.ext. 1–3); Cicero would have preferred his own death to his daughter’s (Fam. 9.11.1). 676. E.g., Livy 10.28.12–18; 10.29.1; Vell. Paterc. 1.2.1–2 (a leader); Lucan C.W. 2.380–83; Libanius Speech in Character 22.4. 677. Ach. Tat. 3.3.5. In a summons to war, some people scrambled to have others fight (and hence die) in their places (Xen. Ages. 1.24). 678. Isoc. Demon. 25; Val. Max. 4.7.pref. 679. Eurip. Orest. 652 (Orestes, in war); Aul. Gel. 1.3.4–8 (lawcourt); Max. Tyre 15.9; Philost. Hrk. 51.12; P.Oxy. 32.5, 8–14 (second century c.e.). 680. E.g., Eurip. Orest. 1069–74, 1155; Iph. Taur. 674–86; Char. Chaer. 4.3.5; 7.1.7. Cf. Sent. Syr. Men. 406–7; Syr. Men. Epit. 22–23. Romances also emphasized this for lovers (e.g., Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; 2.1, 7; 3.5; 4.5; 5.4). 681. E.g., Diod. Sic. 10.4.4–6; Epict. Diatr. 2.7.3; Mus. Ruf. 7, p. 58.23; Val. Max. 2.6.11; 4.7 passim (e.g., 4.7.2); cf. Iambl. V.P. 33.235–36; cf. others in Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 225. 682. Jacobs, “Love,” 42–44 (on Akiba). The sages reported Akiba’s own devotion in martyr accounts; cf., e.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:416–17, 443. 683. Jacobs, “Love,” 47. Leaders of the community had to act with the benefit of the community in mind (Exod. Rab. 27:9, citing R. Nehemiah, late second century). 684. E.g., y. Ber. 9:5, §3 (Akiba); cf. 4 Macc 6:27–30; 9:7; for Akiba’s devotion in martyrdom, see Urbach, Sages, 1:416–17, 443; Jacobs, “Love,” 42–44.

3020

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 76

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

those desiring to die nobly for their nation or for fame (e.g., War 1.43–44, 58); rabbis praised a Roman senator (probably fictitious) who died to spare the Jews.685 All this emphasis on self-sacrifice contrasts with the popular ancient understanding of self-love, by which ancient moralists usually686 meant selfishness687 (as distinct from the modern concept of self-respect and necessary identity formation).688 Paul readily relinquishes his life for the greater prize of fulfilling his calling.689 (3) Fulfilling His Ministry

Finishing690 the course is an athletic metaphor, as in Paul’s speech in Acts 13:25 for the end of John’s ministry (using the same term for “course” and a synonym for “finish”). The running metaphor appears frequently in Pauline literature (1 Cor 9:24, 26; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16; 3:12–14; 2 Tim 4:7–8; cf. Rom 9:16; Gal 5:7), though it is not limited to that body of texts (Heb 12:1). Other athletic metaphors also appear in Pauline literature (cf. Phil 1:30; Col 1:29–2:1; 1 Tim 4:8; 2 Tim 2:5). Such metaphors were commonplace among rhetoricians691 and especially in ancient moralist literature.692 (See fuller comment at Acts 13:25.) Given the massive athletic complexes in Ephesus,693 the image would be relevant there, as elsewhere in urban centers in the empire.694 Finishing the course also appears in 2 Tim 4:7 (employing the same term for “course” and a close cognate for “finish”) for the completion of Paul’s ministry. The ministry695 that Paul “received from the Lord Jesus”—that is, from Jesus himself in revelations on the Damascus road and afterward (Acts 9:3–4; 22:6–7, 21; 26:16)—was to testify as a witness (26:16) so that both Jews and (more distinctively for Paul) Gentiles could be saved (26:17–18). The commission is here summarized as a witness to God’s grace, just as the focus of Paul’s revelations in 26:16–18 was grace. 685. Deut. Rab. 2:24 (probably late, though citing early Tannaim). 686. Preferring a mean, see Arist. N.E. 9.8.2–5, 1168b. Stoic ethics can also begin with love of self (EngbergPedersen, Paul and Stoics, 54; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 14.1; 121.24; Epict. Diatr. 2.22.15; Marc. Aur. 5.2). Selfrespect could also be honorable (Plut. S. Rom., Cato the Elder 9, Mor. 198F). 687. E.g., Arist. N.E. 9.8.1, 1168a (on the common opinion); Hierocles Love 4.27.20 (in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 93); Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.90; Sen. Y. Nat.Q. 1.17.6; 4A.pref. 2; Plut. Flatt. 1, Mor. 49A; Praising 19, Mor. 546F; Epict. Diatr. 1.19.11; Philost. Hrk. 40.4–5; Philo Alleg. Interp. 1.49; 3.231; Sacr. 3, 32, 52, 58; Worse 32, 68, 78; Posterity 21, 52, 180; Unchangeable 16; Conf. 128; Names 221; Dreams 2.219; Jos. 143; Spec. Laws 1.344; 4.131; Rewards 12; Embassy 84, 193; Jos. Ant. 5.215; 2 Tim 3:2; Sent. Sext. 138. In Philo Prelim. St. 130, it is the greatest evil; for “lovers of self ” contrasted with “lovers of God,” see Flight 81; cf. 2 Tim 3:2–4. 688. Both ancient and modern interpreters sometimes have found this appropriate self-love presupposed in the command to love neighbor as self (see Grant, Paul, 41; but cf. Young, “Commandment”). 689. More common was the idea that if one lost everything else, one still had oneself (Cic. Att. 3.5; cf. Luke 12:4) or one’s skills (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.26.614). “Fulfilling an office or ministry” was one conventional topic in epideictic orations (Watson, “Speech,” 197, citing Cic. De or. 2.85.347). 690. For τελειόω and other “perfection” vocabulary in Luke-Acts, see Peterson, Perfection, 33–34. 691. E.g., Men. Rhet. 2.7, 406.14–24 (for the wedding night); 410.11–13; Hermog. Inv. 4.10.199 (citing Demosth. Or. 3.28). 692. E.g., Iambl. V.P. 9.49. Cf. also Cousland, “Athletics,” 142 (citing Epict. Diatr. 1.24.2; 4 Macc 17:11–16); Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 288–90. 693. See Harrill, “Asia Minor,” 131. For gymnasiarchs, see I. Eph. 6.6; 442; 633.3; 666a.9 (reconstructed); 702; 724.3; 824; 833; 924a; 938a; 980; 994; 1042; 1060; 1382a; 1552; 1587; 1603; 1722; 1882; 1944 (named Theophilus); 2069; 2948a; 2950f; 3016; 3058; 3062; 3071; 3422. The cognate verb appears fifteen times; the office (γυμνασιαρχία) five times; and “gymnasium” about as frequently as “gymnasiarch” (e.g., 6.17, 21; 295.9; 621; 633; 644; 661.19). Jews living in the Diaspora were familiar with the office ( Jos. War 1.423; Philo Good Person 6). 694. Racecourse images appear widely, e.g., the royal hippodrome in Tg. Onq. on Gen 14:17 (meant literally). That the games were viewed as offerings honoring the gods (Pucci, “Circuses,” 210) might also influence the metaphor’s relevance for Paul, though this would be, at most, a subsidiary consideration, given the frequent usage in moralists. 695. Applicable especially to apostolic ministry of teaching (Acts 1:17, 25; 6:4; 21:19) but also to service to the poor (6:1; 11:29; 12:25; cf. Luke 10:40).

3021

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 77

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Although “testify” and “witness” were not exclusively forensic terms (see comment on Acts 1:8), their frequent repetition in this speech (20:21, 23, 24, 26) suggests a forensic element. Everyone has been warned of the truth (cf. 20:31) and is thus responsible. Forensic elements can drive home pathos in a farewell speech (cf. 1 Sam 12:3–5). “Testifying” about the good news of God’s generosity (Acts 20:24) is equivalent to the message about repentance and faith, about which Paul also “testifies” (20:21); it is also equivalent to the message of the “kingdom” (20:25; cf. 8:12).696 iii. Sad Parting (20:25)

It was customary to express grief when apart from loved ones, as a way of showing love.697 In a farewell speech, when saying good-bye to friends, one should display grief and tears,698 indicating distress, or at least great fondness for those whom one is leaving.699 One who suffered might also express sadness that one’s plight brought sorrow to the loved ones one was addressing.700 In at least one ideal for farewell speeches, an individual moving to another city should praise its glories so that the audience will understand why he must go;701 he should also base his reason for going on necessity,702 amplifying this point especially if his destination is less attractive than the place he is leaving.703 Although Paul mentions his other destination, he does not imply that he is drawn by its greatness (20:22); instead he bases his reason for quickly leaving them (and not returning) on necessity (20:23–24). The introductory, pleonastic “and now, behold” (καὶ νῦν ἰδού) captures attention but also provides continuity, repeating the opening words of 20:22.704 In 20:22, Paul does not know what will happen to him (except being bound and suffering, 20:23); here he does know at least that he will not see them again.705 Paul mentions his preaching here to underline the pathos: though he has been tightly bonded with them, he will not see them again. Paul was “proclaiming” (κηρύσσων)706 the “kingdom” (as in 14:22; 19:8), as he does until the end (28:23, 31).707 The verse and its context connect varied soteriological language used by Luke (and some other writers), identifying the different phrases. Preaching the kingdom is synonymous with testifying of the gospel in 20:24 (though the ministry in 20:24 is future and in 20:21 and 25 is past).708 Like his preaching of repentance in 20:21, 696. Rhetoricians could employ different terms to reinforce a point (Anderson, Glossary, 33, citing Quint. Inst. 9.3.49; cf. synonymia, i.e., synonomy, in Rowe, “Style,” 133). 697. E.g., a man to his wife in P.Oxy. 528.6–9 (apparently heartfelt: weeping by night, mourning by day). 698. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.13–15; 431.31–432.2. 699. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 430.10–12. 700. Cic. Fam. 14.1.1. 701. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 432.2–6. 702. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 432.9–14. 703. Men. Rhet. 2.15, 433.28–434.1. 704. In successive clauses, repetition of a word would constitute anaphora (on which see Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 86, noting Rhet. Her. 4.13.19; Rowe, “Style,” 131; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579; Lee, “Translations: Greek,” 779; cf. also Demet. Style 5.268). Watson, “Speech,” 200, suggests instead epibole here, because more than one word is repeated, and suggests that the phrase serves as transition from the exordium to the probatio. 705. Both uses of “knowing” involve perfect forms of οἶδα, though the former appears as a participle. By itself, this is not very significant, since the verb appears nineteen times in Acts (almost 74 percent in the perfect tense) and the alternative verb γινώσκω appears only sixteen times in Acts. 706. In secular Greek, this often meant repeating the words of a ruler (Siegert, “Homily,” 426–27; cf. Exod 36:6; 2 Kgs 10:20; 2 Chr 36:22; Esth 6:9, 11). 707. For the kingdom as both present and future in Luke-Acts, see Nolland, “Salvation-History,” 68–70; for kingdom teaching in Paul’s letters, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 233–52. 708. Watson, “Speech,” 200, identifies this as an example of synonymy, “a form of amplification based on repetition” (citing Cic. Part. or. 15.53); for synonymy, see further Watson, “Rhetorical Questions,” 304.

3022

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 78

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Paul’s preaching the kingdom here connects his message with the message of Jesus (e.g., Luke 4:43; 6:20; 8:1, 10; Acts 1:3),709 the first apostles (Luke 9:2), Jesus’s other followers (9:60, 62; 10:9, 11),710 and Philip (Acts 8:12).711 Paul did not “know” what awaited him in Jerusalem (20:22), but he did “know” that he would not see the Ephesian elders again. This verse heightens the pathos already introduced in the speech, bonding speaker and hearers: he does not know what is coming (20:22) except suffering (20:23); but he is ready to die (20:24), and now they will not see his face again.712 To “not see his face” obviously means never to see him again (again in 20:38).713 It is difficult to be certain whether this concern was fulfilled historically or whether Paul’s words to this effect merely serve Luke’s narrative purposes of generating pathos and honoring Paul’s devotion to his calling. Does this mean, as most scholars think, that Paul believes that he will die? Finding Paul’s death here might contradict his uncertainty as to what would happen to him (20:22), but it certainly does parallel Jesus’s warning in his final discourse that he would not meet with the disciples again (Luke 22:15–16, 18). It does, then, sound as if he will die, but Luke does not carry the parallel this far within the scope of Acts.714 Because of where he will finish his work (in Rome), Luke may need this passage to function as Paul’s farewell (and something like a testament theologically) whether Paul dies in Rome at that time or not (i.e., it does not by itself settle the number of Paul’s Roman imprisonments). A narrative could include reliable predictions of what would occur within the narrative world after that narrative’s close.715

Excursus: Acts and the Pastorals Especially because some scholars argue for a close relationship between Luke and the Pastorals,716 consideration of their respective itineraries is valuable here. According to very early tradition, Paul apparently did return to somewhere near Ephesus (de709. The message is not associated with John the Baptist so much (see Luke 16:16; contrast Matt 3:2). Historically, Paul’s kingdom teaching probably does reflect knowledge of this aspect of Jesus’s teaching (see Donfried, Thessalonica, 248–51). 710. This fits other possible echoes of Luke 10 in this speech (e.g., Luke 10:3 in Acts 20:29; Luke 10:4 in Acts 20:33–35). 711. Unlike Matthew (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14) and Mark (Mark 1:15), Luke does not include the noun phrase “gospel of the kingdom”; also unlike them, he communicates the same concept by speaking of “gospelizing” (εὐαγγελίζω) the kingdom ( Jesus in Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Philip in Acts 8:12). 712. Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders,” sees Acts 20:25 as one of the speech’s central claims, along with 20:28. 713. Watson, “Speech,” 200–201, suggests that this is the rhetorical device emphasis (as in Rhet. Her. 4.25.67; Quint. Inst. 8.3.83; 9.2.64), sometimes “used for amplification” (Quint. Inst. 9.2.3). For a different approach to rhetorical emphasis, see Anderson, Glossary, 41–42; Rowe, “Style,” 127. 714. For attempts to reconstruct the history of Paul’s death from later sources, see Finegan, Apostles, 22–25; the earliest of these sources is 1 Clem. 5.6–7. 715. E.g., the fall of Troy in the tenth year (Hom. Il. 12.15; not narrated within the Iliad itself); Bruce, Acts3, 12–13n6, compares Achilles’s death being predicted but not narrated (Hom. Il. 20.337; 24.538–40; see also 21.110; 23.80–81), though he does not think that Acts clearly indicates Paul’s death. Because Hector was Troy’s last defender (6.403; 22.506–7), his death implies its fall. The Odyssey predicts but does not narrate Odysseus’s final trial (Hom. Od. 23.266–84). Without directly addressing Medea’s unpleasant slaying of Pelias, the Argonautica (written after Euripides) hints at that tradition (Ap. Rhod. 3.64, 75, 1135; 4.241–45). That Mark probably ends without resurrection appearances (Mark 16:8) hardly means that Mark wanted his readers to doubt that they occurred (cf. 14:28). 716. See, e.g., Wilson, Pastoral Epistles; Quinn, “Volume.” Because a commentary on Acts is not the place to enter a lengthy discussion of the Pastorals’ authorship, I will seek to accommodate various scholarly perspectives in the following comparison.

3023

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 79

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

spite Acts 20:25) and told Timothy to remain there, before Paul left for Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3). It is possible that Paul’s presence in Ephesus and his visit to Macedonia correspond to Acts 20:1, but most of those who accept the testimony of both the Pastorals and Acts assign this visit to Ephesus to a period after the close of Acts, before a second imprisonment. The Pastorals’ itinerary cannot easily be harmonized with Acts without Paul being released from Roman custody, returning to the East, then later being imprisoned in Rome again.717 And even on this view, he would have either seen (with the Pastorals) or not seen (with the prediction in Acts) the Ephesian believers again. Are the two traditions impossible to harmonize? Is Luke unaware of the tradition in the Pastorals? Conzelmann thinks that 20:25 “excludes the possibility that he was set free from Roman imprisonment (and succeeded in making another visit to the East).”718 The contradiction is a genuine one, but its textual basis is not compelling enough in itself to rule out the tradition preserved in the Pastorals.719 If, as noted above, the size limitations of the book of Acts force this passage to serve as a farewell, it may function in somewhat the same way as the Fourth Gospel’s promise of the Spirit climaxing in John 20:22: whatever may have happened later, John allows this passage to function theologically and representatively as his equivalent of “Pentecost.”720 That is, if other reasons support the tradition in the Pastorals, we ought not to press the pathos-inviting claim of Acts 20:25 against their accuracy on this point. Still, it is difficult to connect Acts with the Pastorals consistently, at least without the hypothesis of a second imprisonment. Certainly the style of the Pastorals differs too much from that of the earlier letters to have been written at the same time, if one argues for Pauline authorship (without unusually heavy dependence on an amanuensis), but this would not exclude accurate information about the itinerary. Yet even connections in the itinerary appear strained at points without a second imprisonment. Below is an attempt to chart the Pastorals’ itinerary against Acts and the undisputed (or less disputed) Pauline letters; if there was no release (see comment on Acts 28:30–31), significant problems arise in the traditions or reports found in the Pastorals. Pastorals Paul and Timothy are in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) Paul goes to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3) Timothy remains in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3; cf. 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12) Paul leaves Titus in Crete (apparently implying that both were there; Titus 1:5)*

Acts Paul and Timothy are in Ephesus before Macedonia, but Paul sends Timothy before he leaves (19:22) Paul goes to Macedonia (20:1–3; cf. 19:21–22) Timothy starts with Paul from Corinth to Jerusalem, and Paul does not stop in Ephesus (20:4, 15–17) Acts omits Titus entirely

Earlier Pauline Letters Paul sends Timothy from Ephesus to Corinth (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10); Paul is with him in Corinth (Rom 16:21) Paul goes to Macedonia (2 Cor 1:16; 2:13) Timothy is with Paul during his detention (Phil 1:1; Phlm 1), and Paul sends him to Macedonia (Phil 2:19); could he have settled in Ephesus afterward? —

717. Multiple imprisonments are not intrinsically implausible, as 2 Cor 11:23 reveals (though none of these are in Rome). Accepting the likelihood of early tradition in the Pastorals, Koester, Paul and World, 77–78, argues for Paul’s release and subsequent ministry in the East, followed by a new imprisonment and martyrdom (in Philippi, in his view). 718. Conzelmann, Acts, 174. 719. The obstacles to returning that probably stand behind Acts 20:16 (see comment there) and that could appear insurmountable during Paul’s final journey to Jerusalem may have diminished over time. In Luke’s immediate context, however, the problem with returning is what Paul will face in Jerusalem, not an obstacle in Ephesus. This focus fits the period of Paul’s life that Acts will cover. 720. See Keener, John, 1196–1200; idem, Acts, 1:789–93.

3024

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 80

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16) Pastorals Paul is in Nicopolis for a winter and will send Tychicus or Artemas to Titus (Titus 3:12) Paul wants Titus to join him after winter (Titus 3:12)

Acts Paul might journey west while in Macedonia (20:1, 3; cf. the period in 17:10, on some views) Acts omits Titus entirely

Apollos will pass through Crete (Titus 3:13)

Apollos’s destination is unknown after Corinth (18:27; 19:1)

Paul leaves his cloak in Troas (2 Tim 4:13)

Paul is in Troas most recently in 20:5–6

Paul is chained and detained in Rome (2 Tim 1:16) Onesiphorus finds Paul in prison in Rome; he settles in Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16; 4:19; but both are in an indeterminate past) Fellow workers are with Paul in Rome: Demas, Crescens, Titus, Luke, Tychicus (2 Tim 4:10– 12) Most leave (2 Tim 4:10); Luke remains (4:11); Paul sends Tychicus to Timothy in Ephesus (4:12) Apparently, local Christians are not supportive (2 Tim 4:16; is this an earlier hearing or an earlier imprisonment?) Aquila and Priscilla are in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19)

Paul is in custody in Rome in 28:16, 20 —

Erastus stays in Corinth (2 Tim 4:20) Paul leaves Trophimus in Miletus (2 Tim 4:20) Paul wants Timothy to come (2 Tim 4:11, 21)

They travel with Paul to Rome: at least Luke and Aristarchus (27:2) Tychicus is last mentioned traveling to Jerusalem with Paul (20:4)

Earlier Pauline Letters Paul evangelizes Illyricum (Rom 15:19) Titus goes into Macedonia before Paul does (2 Cor 2:13)—unless Paul leaves Macedonia (because of Corinthian intransigence) for Asia, then returns Apollos’s destination is unknown after returning to Ephesus from Corinth (1 Cor 16:12) Paul is in Troas in 2 Cor 2:12 (but presumably on his return journey to Jerusalem as well; Rom 15:25–26) Paul is detained in Rome (probably Phil 1:7; Phlm 10; cf. Eph 6:20) Onesimus finds Paul in his Roman detention, and Paul sends him back (Phlm 10, 12; cf. Col 4:9) Fellow workers are with Paul in Rome: Demas, Aristarchus, and Luke (Col 4:14; Phlm 24); also Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7) Paul sends Tychicus to churches in Colossae and around Ephesus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7)

(Paul may have some concern about his reception in Rome, though it is assuaged; 28:15)

Some local Christians are not supportive of Paul (Phil 1:15–17)

They are last mentioned in Ephesus (18:26; cf. 1 Cor 16:19; so it is plausible that they would return there)

They are in Rome when Paul is in Corinth (Rom 16:3–5), probably after Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19); may have left during persecution (when Paul was arrested) Erastus lives in Corinth (Rom 16:23) —

Erastus is in Macedonia sometime earlier (19:22) Paul stops in Miletus (20:17), but Trophimus accompanies him to Jerusalem (21:29); Paul never returns to Miletus —

Paul wants Timothy to bring Mark (2 Tim 4:11)

—

Presumably Timothy does come

—

*Cf. the use of ἀπέλιπον in 2 Tim 4:13, 20.

Timothy is with Paul during at least the early part of his detention (Phil 1:1; Phlm 1) Mark is in Rome with Paul before Paul sends Onesimus (Phlm 24; cf. Col 4:10; 1 Pet 5:13); does he leave (like others in 2 Tim 4:10–11) and now have to return? Timothy is later released from prison (Heb 13:23), probably in Italy (13:24); Paul is presumably deceased

If one tries to harmonize the elements above without postulating a release and second imprisonment after the close of Acts, one faces serious problems. These problems would still allow for substantial tradition in the Pastorals, but it appears that complete harmonization could be achieved only by forcing elements. Thus, if we assume that the Pastorals cover the same period as Acts: 3025

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 81

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

• When Paul “left” Timothy in Ephesus, it must mean simply that Timothy remained in Ephesus after Paul sent him there (presumably after Macedonia). • Trophimus must also have been left in Miletus after being sent there (instead of having accompanied Paul there), but surely, if much time had elapsed, Timothy in Ionia would have known of Trophimus nearby before Paul did. • If Erastus stayed in Corinth on Paul’s last journey there, Timothy would have known this as well. • Titus’s movements before Crete in the Pastorals could fit into Acts 20:1–2 and the corresponding material in 2 Corinthians only if Paul, having been in Macedonia, returned to Ephesus before Titus’s arrival (perhaps because of the Corinthians’ behavior), then sent Titus on ahead as 2 Corinthians records. None of this is impossible, but it requires considerable lacunae in each source coincidentally filled by the others, much more than the correspondence between Acts and the other sources. With a release from prison, one can harmonize elements much more easily, though partly because there is much less to harmonize; the Pastorals depict a ministry after the close of Acts and the earlier Pauline letters. A second imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim 4:16) in the Mamertine prison, as opposed to the house arrest depicted in Acts and probably implied in earlier Pauline letters, fits church tradition.721 The possibility of two imprisonments does leave apparently suspicious parallels between the imprisonments depicted in both the Pastorals and the earlier Pauline letters. But if Paul was imprisoned twice, apparent doublets would then simply reflect the likelihood that Paul kept the same people with him later in his ministry as he had throughout much of his earlier ministry and that in many cases (not Crete), he revisited earlier locations of ministry (as was apparently his custom; cf., e.g., Acts 14:21; 15:41–16:1; 1 Cor 16:1, 5). When revisiting the same churches, particular routes consistently proved the most convenient for visiting the optimum number of churches. Because of the way I read the close of Acts (see comment on Acts 28:30–31), I favor the possibility of two imprisonments. In this case, the Pastorals address a different imprisonment and attest traditions about Paul’s final years more generally (e.g., about the identity of his trusted companions), though not the same detention. The other major possibility (held by scholars who doubt the predominance of accurate Pauline tradition in the Pastorals) is simply that the Pastorals do not very accurately reflect Paul’s itinerary.722 Starting from this premise, however, one could try to fit the Pastorals’ tradition into the period depicted in Acts. In this case, the above table provides some striking correlations, suggesting that the Pastorals contain some legitimate tradition, probably trying to represent Paul’s activity and “voice” fairly accurately, even if they are not correct on every detail. Although our evidence does not yield easily to full correlation of the sources, it does suggest that even if one is skeptical about many Pauline traditions in the Pastorals, they could independently support some traditions about him also preserved in Acts.723

721. Early traditions sometimes sought to harmonize the sources, but the tradition of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome and at least some details surrounding it probably predate the collection and comparison of all the sources. Cf. 1 Clem. 5.7 (without specifying the location); fuller comment at Acts 28:30–31. 722. If I am mistaken in my interpretation on Acts 28:30–31, this position would make best sense of the evidence. 723. The alternative to “independently” is that the Pastor was extremely careless with his sources.

3026

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 82

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

e. Innocent of Ephesian Blood (20:26–27) In Acts 20:26–27, Paul shifts from recounting his example to explaining its significance vis-à-vis God’s judgment. As with Ezekiel’s watchman, God would hold Paul to account as to whether he made everyone within his sphere of influence aware of the gospel message.724 Paul recites this demand for hortatory purposes. Paul is innocent of people’s blood (20:26); this implies that leaders who fail to take care of the flock are guilty of the blood of its members (cf. 20:29). In the following context, indeed, they may even be guilty of squandering God’s own blood (20:28). i. Protesting Innocence

It was rhetorically appropriate for a speaker to protest his innocence, sometimes as a means of testifying against one’s hearers’ wrong choices (cf. Paul’s warning in 20:29–31).725 Perhaps the prototypical example for Paul’s audience would be Samuel’s protest as he prepares to give way to another leader: “Testify against me,” he demands (implying, “if you can,” in turn implying, “you cannot”); “whose ox or donkey have I seized, or whom have I cheated while being your leader? Whom have I mistreated, and from whom have I taken a bribe?” (1 Sam 12:3).726 Such a series of rhetorical questions was highly effective in Greek and Roman rhetoric as well, including in protesting one’s innocence. A speaker in classical Athens, demonstrating why the jury ought not to rule against him now, asks if anyone has ever found him seizing others’ property, or provoking troubles, or being insolent, and so forth (Lysias Or. 24.24–25, §170).727 Another asks what anyone could conceivably prosecute him for: “What decree have I proposed, what law have I repealed, what law have I kept from being passed” that was not approved by all the people? (Aeschines Embassy 160).728 Cicero also provides a series of rhetorical questions to protest innocence (twelve in Sest. 21.47).729 Apuleius opens the concluding peroration of his self-defense with a series of rhetorical questions, reducing accusations to the absurd (Apol. 102). The expected answer to all such questions is, “No, you have not wronged us.”730 Leaders could rehearse their benevolence to the people now refusing to follow them (Arrian Alex. 7.9.1–7.11.2). Protests that one is innocent of another’s blood appear frequently,731 but one element of Paul’s protest points most specifically to Samuel’s. When Paul says that he 724. That Paul historically felt accountable to God for his calling is clear (1 Cor 9:16–17), and that he would give account for making Christ known (1 Cor 4:2, 5; 2 Cor 5:10–11). 725. Watson, “Speech,” 201, notes claims of innocence in Jewish farewell addresses (1 Sam 12:2–5; Jub. 21:2–3). For forensic witness “this day,” cf. the expression in Gen 31:48; 1 Sam 12:5. For testifying against wrongdoers, see, e.g., Jub. 4:19, 22. 726. He also calls on his hearers as witnesses (1 Sam 12:2–5), as Paul does. With Samuel’s questions, compare the protests in the Hittite Crossing of the Taurus 2 (trans. Hoffner; in Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 1.73, p. 184). 727. Cf. also Lysias Or. 8.3, §112 (Let anyone mention any bad treatment they have received from me, or any good treatment they failed to receive when requesting it); 10.22–23, §118. 728. Trans. Adams, LCL, 281–83. Likewise Xen. Anab. 5.8.4–5, defending himself by offering a series of rhetorical questions that must be answered negatively. For the rhetorical force of repeated questions, see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 2.7.125; 3.10.155; 4.4.186–87; 2 Cor 11:29; cf. 2 Cor 7:11. 729. Cicero follows such an ironic question with ironic affirmations in Sest. 69.145–46. 730. For another protest of a “wronged” leader, cf. Tullius in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.33.1–36.3 (demanding what he had done wrong); for a defense of one’s integrity, e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.29.1–8.35.5. Tacitus’s speech for manipulative Poppaea employs the same form (Ann. 14.61). 731. Daniel of Susanna’s blood in Sus 46 (some find a particularly close parallel in Sus 46 Θ; Marshall, “Acts,” 596); one of another’s before a deity in Apoll. K. Tyre 32. On the horror of shedding innocent blood judicially, see, e.g., Aeschines Embassy 88; 2 Kgs 21:16; Xen. Eph. Anthia 4.2 (praying that his innocent body

3027

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 83

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

“testifies,” he continues the forensic language appropriate to his protest of innocence and found in the context (Acts 20:21; cf. 20:23). That Paul acts “this day” reflects frequent ot terminology;732 the one ot passage to which this phrase alludes, however, is 1 Sam 12:5: God is “witness” (μάρτυς) against you this day (σήμερον ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ) that I (Samuel) am innocent. Here, however, Paul follows a different model with the same function. Instead of ironically demanding whether there is evidence against him, he simply asserts his innocence (again, regarding potential exploitation of the flock, in Acts 20:33). Such assertions were acceptable rhetorically (e.g., Aeschines Embassy 182). One might even protest that one had never been accused by another.733 Forensic rhetoric also included appeals to the positive benefits one had conferred on hearers in the past,734 as Paul does in this context (Acts 20:18–21, 25, 27, 31, 35). ii. Ezekiel’s Watchman

The clearest model, however, is suggested by the verbal allusion to Ezekiel. Bloodguilt was a frequent image in the ot (see comment on Acts 18:6), but the passage here recalls especially Ezek 3:17–21 (esp. 3:18, 20) and, even more, 33:2–9 (esp. 33:8): if the watchman fails to warn the wicked, God will hold the watchman responsible for the wicked person’s blood.735 Paul has already told those who reject his message that their blood is on their own heads and he is “clean” (καθαρός, as here) from it (Acts 18:6).736 Paul is like Ezekiel’s watchman in Acts 20:26; he contends that the Holy Spirit, who is sending him to Jerusalem (20:23), has passed on this responsibility of being watchmen to the elders (20:28). Paul’s description of them as shepherds of God’s people in 20:28 carries forward the allusion to Ezekiel’s context (Ezek 34:1–8). Paul claims to be innocent because he did not shrink from declaring the whole truth (Acts 20:26–27);737 logically, this is an enthymeme, a syllogism with one proposition implied rather than stated.738 The implied, assumed premise is that one who speaks God’s message fully does not incur bloodguilt.739 (Conversely, the watchman who does not warn the hearers is responsible for their destruction.) That is, the speaker is judged by God not for the audience’s response but, rather, regarding the speaker’s own fidelity to God and God’s message.740 God’s providential “plan” must include the cross (2:23; 4:28; see comment on Acts 2:23), as spelled out in Scripture (13:27), and the continuing mission of the gospel, would not “pollute” the Nile); figuratively, Prop. Eleg. 2.17.1–2. For blood on one’s hands figuratively, see, e.g., Isa 1:15; Ezek 23:37, 45; Matt 27:24. 732. For “this day” evoking lxx style (hence claiming authority and reliability), see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 294. That one “testifies this day” is not, however, common (Gen 31:46–48; cf. Deut 31:21). 733. E.g., Lysias Or. 16.10, §146; cf. comment on Acts 24:16. 734. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 180–81. 735. In Ezekiel, Ezekiel the prophet is himself such a watchman (Ezek 33:7), and if he does not warn the people, he is responsible (33:8, as with the watchman in 33:6); if he does warn them, they bear the responsibility (33:9, as with the watchman in 33:3–4). Their responsibility is this: those who know of their sins have the opportunity to repent (33:10–20). God announces judgment on Jerusalem and exile because of Israel’s sins (33:21–29). 736. For texts on moral purity in antiquity, see comment on Acts 15:9; 18:6; Keener, John, 996. 737. On the sense of this claim, see comment on Acts 20:20; Paul reiterates, hence reemphasizes, that thought here. 738. On enthymemes, see Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a, lines 19–23; Vinson, “Enthymemes,” 119; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21; Anderson, Glossary, 44; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 150–57; in Paul’s letters, Holloway, “Enthymeme.” 739. With Watson, “Speech,” 201 (citing, on enthymemes, Arist. Rhet. 1.2.13–14, 1357a; 2.22–26; 3.17, 1418a6–1418b17; Rhet. Alex. 10; Quint. Inst. 5.10.1–3; 5.14.1–4, 24–26). 740. Paul sometimes speaks of his audience’s perseverance in terms of rewards (Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 3:5), but perhaps because their perseverance itself is his reward (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; cf. 3 John 4).

3028

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 84

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

which nothing could stop (5:38–39). Probably the phrase refers to God’s plan in the prophets741 for the mission of Jesus and the church, as summarized in Luke-Acts. This purpose made a claim on individuals’ lives (Luke 7:30).742 This claim summarizes climactically not only Paul’s faithfulness to preaching this message but also that of others (cf. Jesus’s death in Acts 2:23) who announced God’s purpose carried out in Jesus’s mission.743 f. Paul Warns Leaders to Guard the Believers (20:28–32) Although the largest part of the speech consists of Paul’s example (20:18–27, 33–35), his example serves a hortatory function that climaxes in Paul’s exhortation to the elders in 20:28–32. They must carry on his ministry. Although 20:28–31 is not directly a censure of his audience,744 it is a strong warning and exhortation and develops the impression of courageous speech found in 20:20, 27 (see comment on Acts 20:20). Farewell speeches, especially in the Jewish testamentary genre, often include warnings (e.g., those of Moses, Deut 32; Jos. Ant. 4.177–93).745 i. Guard God’s Flock (20:28)

When hearing about leaders’ responsibility to care for the flock, Luke’s ideal audience could recall leaders’ special responsibility and accountability before God (Luke 12:41–48).746 Although it does not read like a technical rhetorical thesis, this exhortation summarizes the primary point of the speech,747 which follows Paul’s example (Acts 20:18–27, the narratio) and is amplified and developed in what follows (20:29–35, with a return to Paul’s example in the peroratio in 20:33–35).748 (1) Taking Heed to Themselves and the Flock

The exhortation to “take heed” (cf., e.g., Acts 13:40; Luke 21:34; or “be alert” in Acts 20:31)749 was conventional in public speech750 and was especially typical of hortatory language,751 including in testaments.752 It was appropriate in exhortations to church leaders (e.g., 1 Tim 4:13, 16),753 in eschatological contexts (Luke 21:34; 741. Including patterns in historical books, considered to be by the prophets. 742. The term is one of Luke’s favorites; in Paul, it can refer to human plans (1 Cor 4:5; “counsel of the heart” is a familiar lxx phrase, e.g., Sir 37:13; cf. the contrast in Prov 15:22) or to God’s plan (Eph 1:11). 743. See Squires, Plan, 75–76. 744. Watson, “Speech,” 203, finds censure, noting that in epideictic rhetoric, the person censuring should “appear to be ‘doing so from goodwill’” (citing Rhet. Her. 3.6.11); this fits his comparison of the warning to ἀπειλή (202; the term can also mean “warning,” “rebuke,” or even, as in the nt, “threat”). The principle is relevant also for other forms of courageous speech. 745. Cf. a dying mother exhorting her children and grandchildren to live in harmony (Val. Max. 2.6.8). 746. Talbert, Acts, 183, compares Paul’s exhortations in Acts 20:18–35 with those of Jesus: leaders must feed others (Acts 20:28; Luke 12:41–48), remain alert (Acts 20:29; Luke 12:35–40), and avoid greed (Acts 20:33–35, esp. 35). Though not explicit in Talbert, the last fits Luke 12:14–34; other connections may include 12:32. 747. See also Kilgallen, “Ephesian Elders” (along with Acts 20:25). Luke’s audience may have visualized (and the lector may have reenacted) the gesture of insistence or emphasis—namely, pointing one’s finger to the ground (for the gesture, see Shiell, Reading Acts, 74–76); the voice would be energetic (88, citing Quint. Inst. 11.3.164). 748. Or Acts 20:31, 33–35. Rhetorical structures were rarely as neat as the ideals in the handbooks. 749. I include in the following survey not only προσέχω, which does occur, but also synonyms such as βλέπω. 750. In Greco-Roman rhetoric, see Watson, “Speech,” 202 (noting the device called comminatio, ἀπειλή; Arist. Poet. 19.1456b.7–9; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.138). In the Israelite tradition, where parallels are abundant, one may start with the obvious case of the Shema (Deut 6:4; cf. 5:1; 9:1; 20:3). 751. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.3.9 (ὁρᾶτε . . . καὶ προσέχετε); 1.6.22 (ὁρᾶτε); Marc. Aur. 10.8.1 (πρόσεχε); Deut 4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 23, 30; 15:9; 24:8; Prov 4:1, 20; 5:1, 3; Sir 1:29; 6:13; 7:24; 11:33; 13:8, 13; 16:24; 17:14; 28:26; 29:20; Tob 4:12, 14; 4 Ezra 5:32; 7:49; 10:38; 2 En. 2:1; 58:1; m. ʾAb. 3:11; cf. Philo Migr. 8, 174; Dreams 2.263. 752. Test. Dan 1:2; Test. Ash. 6:1; Test. Reub. 2:1; cf. 1 Chr 28:10. 753. That they should watch over both themselves and their flocks here fits 1 Tim 4:16.

3029

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 85

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Mark 13:33; 2 Pet 3:1–3; Rev 1:3),754 and in warnings against false teachers (Luke 12:1; 20:46; Mark 13:22–23; 2 Pet 3:17). At least two and possibly all three factors are at work here. (I am treating here the concept of vigilance found more explicitly in Acts 20:31 as well as the more general matter of “taking heed” in 20:28.) The importance of vigilance, of remaining sober, awake, and alert while guarding, may be reinforced by the recent account of Eutychus’s fall due to sleep (20:9); conjoined with the admonition to alertness in 20:31, it may represent an image to which Luke wishes to draw attention. Exhortations to vigilance appear elsewhere755 but may sometimes evoke the image of literal vigilance.756 The vigilance of sentinels was essential,757 for entire units and armies could be destroyed through their failure to watch adequately;758 warfare typically ended at night,759 making night attacks all the more unexpected and deadly.760 (For examples of the punishment of negligent guards, see comment on Acts 12:19.) Others emphasized the importance of vigilance (e.g., Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.4). Roman cities had vigiles to maintain nocturnal security, though they were more concerned with fire than with robbers.761 Being “watchful” or vigilant was appropriate for guards of all sorts, but in this context (Acts 20:28–29), it is particularly notable that it was appropriate behavior for shepherds (cf. Luke 2:8).762 Careful shepherds might count the sheep twice a day to make certain that none was lost.763 Shepherds often also employed dogs to help;764 their primary role was to guard the sheep.765 (We should not expect most Jewish shepherds to have used dogs, since they would have regarded them as unclean;766 but cf. Job 30:1.) 754. Lampe, “Wolves,” 255, thinks that προσέχετε (cf. Luke 21:34; Matt 7:15; 10:17; 16:6; perhaps Luke 12:1) and γρηγορεῖτε (cf. Mark 13:35, 37) reflect the language of the Gospels. He thinks that Acts 20:29 is characteristic of the emphasis on eschatological tribulation in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic (253–54), though orators not uncommonly portrayed their own generation as particularly depraved (Cic. Sest. 1.1). 755. Using γρηγορέω, as in Acts 20:31, see, e.g., Luke 12:37; Mark 13:34–35, 37; Matt 24:42–43; 25:13; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:6, 10; 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 3:2–3; 16:15; Did. 16.1; Ign. Pol. 1.3. Cf. 1 En. 82:3; 4Q418 55 4, 7, 9; Song Rab. 5:2, §1; for spiritual awakeness or sleep, see, e.g., Max. Tyre 10.6; Marc. Aur. 6.31; for recognition of danger as “awakening,” see, e.g., Val. Max. 7.2.3; Tac. Hist. 3.55; cf. Rom 13:11; Vell. Paterc. 2.1.1. For figurative comparison with night vigilance (on a ship), see Dio Chrys. Or. 3.65; Lucian Indictment 2. 756. The verb γρηγορέω can easily carry the literal sense (Neh 7:3; 1 Macc 12:27; Jos. Ant. 7.48; 11.47; cf. Mark 14:34–38; Matt 26:38–41), and the figurative sense sometimes contextually invokes this image (including in the other Lukan use, Luke 12:37). 757. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 3.3.28; 5.3.44; Anab. 4.5.19; Livy 24.28.2; 24.37.4; cf. Tac. Hist. 3.76; Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.1.19. For the night watch, see also, e.g., Polyb. 14.3.6; for texts praising soldiers staying awake for the army’s good, Hom. Il. 10.159, 164; Sil. It. 9.4–5; Dio Cass. 73.3–5; Jos. Ant. 3.50; for faithful servants watching for masters, Aeschylus Ag. 1–25. The captain of the temple guard could beat any guard whom he found asleep (m. Mid. 1:2). 758. Hom. Il. 10.309–12, 416–21; Thucyd. 4.32.1; Xen. Cyr. 1.6.35; Polyb. 11.3.1; Virg. Aen. 9.314–66, 375–445; Diod. Sic. 3.55.1; 19.95.5–6; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.47.1; 7.11.2–3; 9.34.4; Livy 24.46.4; 36.23.10– 36.24.6; 44.33.8–9; Sall. Jug. 58.1; Tac. Ann. 4.48; Plut. Cam. 23.6; 33.4; Jos. Ant. 18.356, 370; War 6.68–69; Life 405; cf. Polyb. 3.67.2; Dio Chrys. Or. 5.20. For the taking of cities thus, see, e.g., Thucyd. 2.2.3; Xen. Cyr. 7.5.21; Polyb. 7.15.6; 7.18.1–10; Plut. Cam. 35.3; for escape from cities thus, Polyb. 1.19.12. 759. Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Arrian Alex. 1.19.2. 760. Hom. Il. 10.100–101; Arrian Alex. 1.4.1. The same was true for midday attacks, when guards might take naps (Thucyd. 6.100.1; Polyb. 9.17.3; Jos. Ant. 7.48). 761. See Dio Cass. R.H. 55.26.4–5; Suet. Aug. 30.1; Purcell, “Vigiles”; Clarke, “Italy,” 472–73. 762. E.g., Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶1; Philost. Hrk. 4.3. Some rabbis viewed teachers of the law as Israel’s true guardians (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; y. Ḥag. 1:7, §2). 763. Virg. Ecl. 3.34. The strict owner of a flock could require a shepherd to repay any sheep found missing (Gen 31:38–39), and David apparently assumed that his protection of sheep against animals and bandits would be welcomed (1 Sam 25:7, 15–16). 764. E.g., Hom. Od. 2.11; Longus 1.21; Libanius Descr. 2.7; Fable 1.1–2; Chrys. Hom. Acts 17. Shepherds used dogs and crooks to protect themselves or their sheep (Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.12). 765. E.g., Aristoph. Wasps 952; Virg. Georg. 3.406–8; Phaedrus 3.15.1; Babr. 93.3–11; Plut. Demosth. 23.4; Val. Flacc. 1.158–59. When shepherds knew that a colleague had a useful dog, they sometimes wanted to keep their flocks near his (Xen. Mem. 2.9.7; for flocks mingling, see, e.g., Luke 2:8; Polyb. 12.4.11–12). 766. Cf. Exod 22:31. For dogs as scavengers, see the excursus on burial and mourning practices at Acts 8:2 (Keener, Acts, 2:1471–82). Philo often mentions them in more positive ways for his more

3030

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 86

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Leaders must guard themselves so as not to abuse the flock. Leaders abusing their subordinates appear commonly in ancient (no less than in modern) sources.767 The responsibility of shepherds caring for the flock probably suggests Ezek 34, in view of the allusion to Ezek 33 in the immediate context (Acts 20:26).768 This allusion also fits Paul’s warning about greedy predators who exploit the sheep (20:28–29), just as the God-appointed but unfaithful shepherds in Ezek 34:1–8 eventually did.769 It is not likely that the Ephesian elders brought a scroll or that Ezekiel was a lectionary reading, and probably not likely even that Paul was giving primarily an exposition of one text, but it is plausible that Paul’s complete speech made fuller, midrashic reference to these texts in Ezek 33–34, which are merely alluded to in Luke’s summary (here and in the context). (2) Overseers

That the Holy Spirit appointed770 the elders does not contradict the apostolic practice in Acts 14:23 “but throws the process further back”;771 Luke highly values the Spirit’s guidance in church leadership (13:2, 4). (The Spirit made them overseers when they were first appointed, but the emphasis in this context seems to suggest that, with Paul not returning, they will become sole overseers.) In first-century sources, the church retained the looser organizational pattern of the synagogue; by the time of Ignatius, however, a more centralized structure began to emerge, in which each city had a single ἐπίσκοπος.772 Our earliest sources that specify the nature of the use of ἐπίσκοπος identify it with “elder” and the function of “shepherd.”773 Title or function Elders Overseers or “oversight” Shepherd function§

Acts 20:17, 28 Acts 20:17 Acts 20:28 Acts 20:28

Titus 1:5, 7* Titus 1:5 Titus 1:7 (cf. 1 Tim 3:2) —‖

1 Pet 5:1–2† 1 Pet 5:1; cf. 5:5 Perhaps 1 Pet 5:2‡ 1 Pet 5:2

*Compare perhaps also 1 Tim 3:1 with 5:17. †Outside Luke (Luke 12:32; Acts 20:28–29), only 1 Pet 5:2–3 employs the term ποίμνιον in the nt, but it occurs nearly seventy times in the lxx. Specifying a particular lxx allusion, however, would be problematic (its uses in proximity to περιποιέω [1 Sam 15:9, 15] and προσέχω [Ps 79:2 (et 80:1)] are irrelevant). ‡The participle ἐπισκοποῦντες here is missing in some of the early manuscripts. Christ is both “shepherd” and “overseer” in 1 Pet 2:25. §The Qumran mebaqqer (“overseer”) is also compared with a shepherd in CD XIII, 9 (Fitzmyer, Acts, 679). ‖In earlier Pauline literature, cf. 1 Cor 9:7; Eph 4:11.

hellenized audience, however (Worse 55; Dreams 1.49; Abr. 266; Decal. 114; Rewards 89; cf. Giants 35; Spec. Laws 4.121). 767. Cf., e.g., tyrants’ sexual abuse of subordinates (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.36.1; 7.8.1; 11.10.3; Livy 3.44.4–3.48.9; Suet. Dom. 1.3; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.100–101; 2.212; Life 259). 768. Lövestam, “Nyckel,” in particular develops the parallels with Ezek 34 throughout Acts 20:28–35, following the hint of Ezek 33:6, 8 in Acts 20:26; see also idem, “Address”; Aubert, Motif, 90. 769. Shepherds (and kings) should protect, rather than mistreat, their flocks (Dio Chrys. Or. 4.44); sheep and goats might rebel against abusive keepers (49.2). 770. For this use of τίθημι, see esp. 1 Cor 12:28; BDAG compares also Appian Illyrica 13.37; scholiast on Pindar Odes 1.58b; 2 Macc 5:21; Athenag. Plea 12.2. 771. Barrett, Acts, 974. Philosophers have long spoken of different and often compatible levels of causation; for various forms of causality in Aristotle, see, e.g., Deacon, “Emergence,” 113; for the history of approaches to causation, see briefly Wilcox, “Blind,” 170–71. 772. Meeks, Moral World, 122; for the early second-century distinction between overseers and elders, distinct from the nt sources (including the Pastorals), see, e.g., Ign. Magn. 2.1; 3.1; 6.1; 7.1; Trall. 3.1; 12.2; Phld. pref.; 10.2; Pol. 6.1. See patristic evidence in Lightfoot, Philippians, 181–269. City bishops did not emerge at the same speed everywhere; in Rome, they appear in the late second century, even then not yet succeeding completely in uniting all churches under their leadership (Lampe, “Patrons,” 496). 773. See also Schnabel, Acts, 845, citing esp. Merkle, Elder, 67–160. The title ἐπίσκοπος does suggest the governing function (with, e.g., Du Plessis, “Rule,” 28). Bede Comm. Acts 20.28 allows the “bishops” here to be priests rather than bishops over cities. Caird, Language, 81–82, rejects the language of “bishops” as anachronistic for nt usage, since there were multiple overseers in one congregation in Phil 1:1.

3031

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 87

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Probably various forms of leadership existed in early Christianity.774 It is possible that “elder” might include an overseer of local overseers in 1 Pet 5:1 (which allows for later practice); but the emphasis there is egalitarian (5:1, 3–5), and church leadership in the nt remained primarily local, aside from the ministry of the apostles (and in the latter case sometimes both). The cognate ἐπισκοπή in Acts 1:20 does apply to the apostolic office. On the period in which the form of church leadership depicted in Acts may have arisen, see comment on Acts 14:23. The semantic range of the term ἐπίσκοπος is broad, the term appearing commonly in classical Greek for an overseer or guardian;775 it applied to financial oversight, temple administration, or inspectors of colonies or associations.776 Athenians used it for those they dispatched to manage states they had conquered;777 Plato used it for an educator.778 Jewish people writing in Greek were well aware of the Greek usage and had already adapted it for leaders, both Jewish and Gentile, in the lxx.779 Although Paul and other early Christians apparently borrowed this title “for officers in voluntary associations,” they lack other titles, such as ἄρχων (Latin magister), normally an association’s highest officer, and also those for treasurers, secretaries, and so forth.780 We lack concrete evidence for use of the term to refer to the oversight of synagogues, but certainly the lxx attests Jewish usage of it for “overseers,” with the same extensive range of meaning as that found in non-Jewish Greek.781 The Qumran scrolls employ an analogous Hebrew term for an overseer, mebaqqer,782 as scholars frequently point out.783 This official records offenses of those reported for community discipline.784 Because the earliest Christian use always appears outside Judea, however, it probably reflects Diaspora usage.785 The Greek usage of ἐπίσκοπος is already reflected as a leadership title in the lxx.786 It may be significant that the lxx uses the cognate verb 774. See Tyson, “Authority in Acts.” 775. As most nt commentators note (e.g., Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 30–31; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73; at greater length, see Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” esp. 610–14). 776. Fitzmyer, Acts, 678 (citing Aeschylus Eum. 740; Aristoph. Birds 1022–23; Plato Laws 6.762D; 9.872E); Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 54; Goppelt, Times, 188; Rhodes, “Episkopos.” See, e.g., the overseer of the Vestal virgins (Plut. Numa 9.5); a satrap (Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.53); a supervisory caste in India (Arrian Ind. 12.5); the verb cognate ἐπισκοπέω applies also to royal activity (Epict. Diatr. 3.22.72). 777. Selwyn, Peter, 182 (citing also Philo Migr. 115). 778. Johnson, Acts, 362 (citing Plato Laws 7.795D); also for guardians (cf. Rep. 6.506B, noted in Selwyn, Peter, 230). For Plato’s guardians, see Lodge, Ethics, 389–90. 779. E.g., Num 4:16; 31:14; Judg 9:28; 2 Kgs 11:15; 2 Chr 34:17; Neh 11:9, 14, 22; Isa 60:17; 1 Macc 1:51; so also Jos. Ant. 10.53; 12.254. See also Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15. 780. Jeffers, World, 80. Latin could employ speculatores, the equivalent of ἐπίσκοποι, as in Jub. 40:4. 781. See Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 614–15, and sources that he cites. 782. E.g. (of more than thirty references), 1QS VI, 12, 20; CD IX, 18, 19, 22; XIII, 6, 7, 13, 16; XIV, 8, 11, 13; XV, 8, 11, 14; 4Q265 1 II, 5; 4Q275 1 3. 783. E.g., Brown, “Scrolls,” 7; Cross, Library, 232; Yamauchi, Stones, 138–39 (following Albright, Horizons, 49); Vermes, Scrolls, 19; McNamara, Judaism, 139–40; Johnson, Acts, 362; Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; Goppelt, Times, 188–89; Daniélou, Theology, 349; Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 73–74; cf. Thiering, “Mebaqqer,” 72, 74 (who even thinks that Christians adopted the office from Essenes!). On the office, cf. further Harrison, “Rites,” 27; for possible identification of the term with pqd, which can be translated ἐπίσκοπος in the lxx, see Cross, Library, 233; also Driver, Scrolls, 522 (who is more interested in mbqr in rabbinic texts). Cf. the comparison of the mebaqqer with the Athenian practice (Steiner, “Mbqr”). For a particularly nuanced comparison of the mebaqqer and nt ἐπίσκοπος (arguing that this is not the source of the nt usage, which has plurality of elders), see Humble, “Mebaqqer.” 784. CD IX, 18–22; 4Q266 11 16. Cf. Eshel, “4Q477” (though here the overseers probably only recorded the rebukes, Hempel, “Who Rebukes?”). The overseer may command banishment in 4Q266 6 I, 12 (and other matters in 4Q271 3 14–15). 785. Fitzmyer, Acts, 679; cf. Beyer, “Ἐπίσκοπος,” 619. Though the Hebrew and the Greek terms share a common etymology and some similar functions, Fitzmyer doubts a direct connection (Essays, 293–94, esp. 294; idem, “Christianity in Light of the Scrolls,” 247–48). Might the Hebrew term have been adopted and employed with analogy to the Greek in the Hellenistic era? 786. See Num 4:16; 31:14; Judg 9:28; 2 Kgs 11:15, 18; 12:11; 2 Chr 34:12, 17; Neh 11:9, 14, 22; Isa 60:17; 1 Macc 1:51.

3032

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 88

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

ἐπισκέπτομαι for “overseeing” God’s people (although not always honorably), along with the title “shepherd” ( Jer 23:2; Ezek 34:11; Zech 10:3; 11:16).787 The term “overseers” here is functional rather than a formal title, but Luke’s audience would undoubtedly think of the title. The earliest nt use of ἐπίσκοπος is probably Phil 1:1 (surely earlier than Acts), but the Pastorals provide our earliest description of at least some early Christians’ expectations for qualifications and hence may shed light on what Luke’s audience assumed the function of the term would be here. Ideally, they should not be new converts (1 Tim 3:6),788 though most leaders of the Ephesian church addressed in Acts 20 could not have been Christians for more than four years (cf. 20:31).789 Thus they should be tested (1 Tim 3:10)790 and not ordained prematurely (5:22). The Pastorals desired heads of stable, successful households in church leadership (1 Tim 3:2, 4–5; Titus 1:6; cf. 1 Tim 3:12),791 at least given the local situations addressed (1 Tim 4:3; 5:11–14; 2 Tim 3:6–7; Titus 1:11).

(3) Shepherds

It is unlikely that Luke conceived of the shepherd image independently.792 Paul was apparently well aware of the shepherd image for church leaders (1 Cor 9:7; Eph 4:11), but it was also known elsewhere in early Christianity (1 Pet 5:2; John 21:16), probably derived from Jesus’s role as shepherd (1 Pet 5:4; John 10:11–16; cf. Mark 6:34; 14:27; perhaps Luke 15:4–7). This image was, however, in widespread use before early Christianity.793 As rulers of sheep,794 shepherds readily provided a natural image, in metaphorical contexts, for rulers;795 this was true in both Hellenistic796 and Jewish797 contexts. For example, many 787. Tannehill, Acts, 258. 788. For the ancient reluctance to appoint novices, see, e.g., for testing haberim, t. Demai 2:12; for testing judges, t. Šeqal. 3:27; Ḥag. 2:9; Sanh. 7:1; cf. 1QS VI, 16–17; Suet. Tib. 54.1; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 60. On testing, see further comment below. These instructions made more sense in an older church such as Ephesus than in a more recent one (Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 78). 789. In the new churches, Luke depicts Paul waiting as long as possible (Acts 14:21–23, visiting churches after their founding), though this was probably initially shorter than the ideal. 790. On the principle of testing leaders before promotion, see, e.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.14–1.1.5.16; Colum. Rust. 1.8.2; Let. Aris. 264; t. Ḥag. 2:9; y. Taʿan. 4:2, §8; for preliminary testing in other settings, cf. Thucyd. 4.80.3–4; Polyb. 3.31.7–8; Caesar C.W. 2.32–33; Mus. Ruf. frg. 45, p. 140.1; frg. 46, p. 140.8–9; Plut. Educ. 7, Mor. 4C; Heraclitus Ep. 9; Gaius Inst. 1.199–200; Iambl. V.P. 17.71–72; 20.94; 1QS VI, 14–23; in other societies, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 218, 247; in early Jewish sources, see comment above. 791. For discussion, cf. Keener, Marries Another, 89–95, 100–103; idem, “Husband.” 792. Cf. also Cadbury, “Names for Christians,” 390. 793. Here I am adapting material from Keener, John, 799–802; cf. also 805–6 (on the relationship between shepherds and sheep), 809–12 (on pasturing); idem, “Shepherd.” Although I develop here my earlier work, for a much fuller and more recent exploration of the image, especially its royal application, see Aubert, Motif, 90–92 (in Dio Chrysostom), 126–216. 794. See, e.g., Artem. Oneir. 2.12; cowherds as rulers of their cattle, Xen. Cyr. 1.1.2. 795. Before the Israelite period, see the Sumerians and subsequent Mesopotamian sources, such as “LipitIshtar Law Code” prol. (ANET 159); Hamm. prol. 1.50; epil. (ANET 164, 178); for Israel and the ancient Near East, see, e.g., Bruce, Time, 49; for Egypt, see Kügler, “König”; Manetho Aeg. 2, frg. 43, 45, 47–49 (Fifteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties); generally, Niehaus, Themes, 39, 41–42, 45, 48–50; Aubert, Motif, 127–32 (for ancient Near East), 132–44 (for ancient Israel). 796. Anacharsis Ep. 7, to Tereus; Greek writers about Persian warrior-rulers, Aeschylus Pers. 74–75; Xen. Cyr. 8.2.14; applied to generals (Sil. It. 7.123–27) and guiding philosophers (Eunapius Lives 464); shepherds could also view erotic love as a shepherd (Longus 3.12; 4.39). See further Koester, “Spectrum,” 14; this emphasis and others in Aubert, Motif, 145–87 (Roman sources in 187–96). Aubert also notes that many motifs of leadership in Paul’s Miletus speech fit ancient kingship motifs (317–29), which naturally served as a repository for many ancient reflections on leadership. 797. Thus Moses is both Israel’s shepherd and judge (L.A.B. 19:3, 10). See further this emphasis and others in Aubert, Motif, 196–216.

3033

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 89

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

of Egypt’s early rulers were called “shepherds.”798 As early as Homer, “shepherd of the people,” clearly an equivalent for “ruler of the people,”799 became a familiar label for both Greek800 and Trojan801 leaders and their allies, especially for Agamemnon, the leader of the Achaian host.802 Later writers continued to exploit this image.803 The shepherd image ideally implied benevolence. Xenophon’s Cyrus compared a good ruler to a good shepherd (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.14). The image was applied figuratively for leaders; for example, a general guarding his soldiers would be compared to a shepherd.804 Interpreters suggested that Homer called Agamemnon “shepherd” of the people because shepherds must care for the sheep’s safety and food (Xen. Mem. 3.2.1). Dio Chrysostom pointed out that Homer calls a king a “shepherd” (Or. 4.43) because he should protect and nurture the sheep, not exploit them (4.44).805 A philosopher might “shepherd” youths in a morally positive direction (Eunapius Lives 464). Shepherds provided an image of intimate concern for their sheep, both in ancient Israel (Ps 23:1; Ezek 34:2–6, 11–16) and in early Judaism (e.g., CD XIII, 9; Mark 6:34). The positive uses of the image here would necessarily override some negative ones for Luke’s urban audience. Some people in the western Mediterranean may have recalled nostalgically “the idyllic life of ” shepherds,806 but a more widespread perception, especially among urban dwellers, was one of suspicion, since many people perceived shepherds “as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other people’s land and pilfered wool, milk, and kids from the flock.”807 Despite the important shepherds in biblical times (Exod 3:1; 1 Sam 16:11; cf. Amos 7:14),808 they represented a frequently despised profession by this period,809 as scholars frequently point out.810 Texts often portray them as rogues, sometimes even responsible for brigandage and murder811 (though certainly not consistently enough to link them securely with the “wolves” in 20:29). Some Palestinian rabbis link them with Gentiles (t. B. Meṣiʿa 2:33);812 others treat them as a dishonorable profession like tax gatherers,813 counterfeiters, and perjurers814 or robbers and the financially 798. Manetho Aeg. 2, frg. 43 (Fifteenth Dynasty); 45 (Sixteenth Dynasty); 47–49 (Seventeenth Dynasty). On shepherds in Egyptian and ot sources, see Kügler, “König.” 799. Compare Hom. Od. 4.291 (ruler) with 4.24 (shepherd). It could also apply to usurpers (4.532). 800. Hom. Il. 4.296; 8.81; 10.73; 11.370, 842; 13.411; 16.2; 19.386; 23.389; Od. 17.109; 18.70; 24.456. The expression is sometimes equivalent to “captains of the people” (Il. 11.465). Philo Good Person 31 notes the Homeric royal usage. 801. Hom. Il. 1.263; 5.144, 513; 6.214; 10.406; 11.92; 13.600; 15.262; 20.110; 22.277. 802. Hom. Il. 2.85, 243, 254; 4.413; 7.230; 10.3; 11.202; 19.35, 251; 24.654; Od. 3.156; 14.497; Xen. Mem. 3.2.1. For Atreus, Hom. Il. 2.105; Menelaus, see Od. 4.24. 803. Hes. Theog. 1000 ( Jason); Max. Tyre 19.2 (Socrates). 804. Sil. It. 7.126–30. 805. Dio likes the image: a king who would not even care for his people as a shepherd cares for his flock is a tyrant (Dio Chrys. Or. 3.41). A good king must be like a shepherd to his people (1.13), for who cares for sheep better than a shepherd (1.17)? A foolish king is like a foolish shepherd (1.28). 806. Koester, Symbolism, 17, citing Virg. Ecl. 1.1–5. 807. Koester, Symbolism, 17. Shepherds were generally impoverished workers, like farmers (cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.103; 72.1), and were thought to relieve their sexual appetites by vulgar means (6.20). 808. Abel’s shepherding appears positively in Jos. Ant. 1.53; Greeks portrayed Hesiod as a former shepherd, whether favorably or unfavorably (Callim. Aetia 1.2.1; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.25–27; Max. Tyre 38.2). 809. Thus the irony implied in Hdn. 7.1.2; Paris of Troy was a poor shepherd (Ovid Her. 5.79; Val. Flacc. 1.549), but only before his royal blood was discovered (Ovid Her. 16.51–52); for many shepherds near Troy, see Philost. Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4. Cf. Jeffers, World, 21. 810. E.g., Tooley, “Shepherd,” 23; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospels, 118. 811. E.g., Appian Hist. rom. 1.2 (fragments); Livy 39.29.9; Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.12 (cf. Anderson, “Xenophon,” 154n17, citing also Ach. Tat. 3.9ff.; Heliod. Eth. 3.5ff.). Cf. shepherd-bandits in the Nile Delta (Rutherford, “Boukoloi”). 812. In CD XII, 8–9, one should not sell beasts to Gentiles lest they sacrifice them idolatrously. 813. B. Sanh. 25b, though one rabbi notes that this is the case only in Palestine. 814. In t. Sukkah 2:5, those who “raise small cattle” are evil like counterfeiters and perjurers.

3034

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 90

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

dishonest.815 A haber should avoid this profession,816 and at least in later times, their testimony was invalid.817 Like field watchmen, shepherds were normally unable to join communal prayers of local communities.818 Sanders may be right to doubt that they were social outcasts819 and is surely right that society depended on shepherds,820 yet he too readily dismisses evidence for their low social status.821 Throughout the rural empire, peasants were impoverished, but among the peasants there was but one class distinction: “Only the goatherds and shepherds constitute a separate and lower class.”822 Still, it should be observed that it was the elite and their urban audience who would most despise shepherds;823 shepherds themselves undoubtedly held a higher opinion of their rightful status. Thus the negative opinions of shepherds in Jewish literature generally stem from the rabbis, who represented an educated elite; most Roman lists of despised professions also originate from the elite.824 Although elite opinions usually trickled down to the masses, this evidence allows the possibility that those who looked down on shepherds were especially people with wealth and status. Various rural dwellers, however, may have shared antipathy toward shepherds if the latter gained a reputation for grazing their flocks on others’ farmland.825 Luke’s audience is largely urban, so they may have not viewed contemporary shepherds highly. As noted above, the negative status connotations would not be relevant to the traditional image of shepherds for leaders. Yet such negative images would not override Luke’s larger story, in any case. Shepherds appear positively in Luke’s work as early as Luke 2:8–20 and again in 15:6 (cf. 17:7), but especially relevant is 12:32, where Jesus calls his disciples a “little flock.”826 Nor would the general image be unfamiliar to the Ephesian audience in the narrative world; though obviously not part of urban 815. E.g., y. Sanh. 3:5, §1. 816. ʾAbot R. Nat. 41 A. 817. So y. Sanh. 3:5, §1. 818. Y. Ber. 4:7, §1. 819. But cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 2, arguing that they were outcasts (citing Firm. Matern. Math. 3.5.23; 4.13.7; Orig. Cels. 1.23; and modern Lebanon). 820. Sanders, Judaism, 461–64; for their importance, cf. also MacMullen, Social Relations, 2, following Büchler, Conditions, 35. That people depended on them no more raises their status than would a landowner’s dependence on ass-drivers or a municipal aristocracy’s dependence on rural peasants. 821. Sanders, Judaism, 461–64. He cites (464) Let. Aris. 112–13 and Philo Spec. Laws 1.133; but both texts speak of the people as a whole, and both derive from Egypt, where Jewish shepherds are known in the Ptolemaic period (CPJ 1:15). He could also have cited an apologetic work that does not mind mentioning that Israelites were once shepherds ( Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.91; Gen 46:32; 47:3); but views of past shepherds did not necessarily determine approaches to present ones. Without changing the general aristocratic disdain for shepherds, some imperial texts romantically idealized (and distorted) the rustic past of the republic (e.g., Virgil’s Eclogues). 822. MacMullen, Social Relations, 15; see further 1–2 (citing Marc. Aur. Ep. ad Front. 35; Lucian Book-Coll. 3). In Diocletian’s later edict (301 c.e.), shepherds, like other general laborers (such as farmworkers and sewer cleaners), made roughly half the wages of carpenters or stonemasons and far less than other skilled laborers (Toner, Culture, 19). Epict. Diatr. 2.9.3 uses sheep as a symbol of carnality. 823. Especially in the many cases when shepherds were distinct from the sheep’s owner (Polyb. 9.17.6; John 10:12; sources in MacMullen, Social Relations, 3); hirelings were also less inclined to care about the property (flocks and otherwise) than an owner was (Virg. Ecl. 3.3–6; Babr. 3.5; Phaedrus 2.8.27–28; 3.3.4–5, 16–17; Alciph. Farm. 18 [Eunapê to Glaucê], 3.21, ¶¶1–3; cf. Colum. Rust. 1.7.7; Statius Theb. 9.189–91). As with tenant farmers, most shepherds in the rural empire worked for others (MacMullen, Social Relations, 3; Bailey, “Shepherd Poems,” 6). 824. See MacMullen, Social Relations, 120. 825. For a partial analogy that helps one grasp the sensitivity of such behavior, in the late 1990s and early twenty-first century some farmers in some states in the Middle Belt of Nigeria reportedly reacted violently against Fulani herdsmen who repeatedly let their cattle graze on the farmers’ land. Many factors played a role in such conflicts, but the values conflict between pastoralist nomads and agrarian society was reportedly among them. 826. Cf. also Aubert, Motif, 47.

3035

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 91

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

life, shepherds were very common in the interior of Asia, especially in the Galatian highlands.827 Certainly Paul’s hearers knew what they were. Moreover, generally negative images would not negate significant exceptions from the past,828 such as Hesiod829 in the Greek tradition.830 More decisively for Luke’s ideal audience, with its background in the lxx and ultimately in the synagogue, early Judaism also often continued the portrait of Moses as the shepherd of Israel.831 For example, a few centuries after Acts, a rabbi told a parable in which Moses had to rescue Israel, a lamb, from a wolf, Pharaoh.832 David,833 the prophets,834 Ezra,835 the leaders God appointed over Israel836 (sometimes including important teachers837 or officers),838 and the Messiah839 also appear as shepherds.840 But the chief shepherd of early Judaism and especially of the ot was God himself.841 God acted like a shepherd for his people, carrying the young (Ps 28:9; Isa 40:11; 46:3–4) and leading his flock as in the first exodus.842 In Jewish tradition, Israel was God’s flock843 and God was the shepherd.844 But the image also applied to human overseers; thus Israel’s leaders in the ot were sometimes 827. Mitchell, Anatolia, 1:146, esp. n. 29. Troas and Mysia also had many shepherds (Philost. Hrk. 18.2–5; 22.3–4; 23.6). 828. See also the hero Protesilaus as a physician of sheep, bees, and trees (Philost. Hrk. 4.10). 829. E.g., Hesiod Theog. 1.22–34; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.8; Lucian Conversation with Hesiod 7; Libanius Comparison 5.21; Symm. Ep. 1.53.2; esp. Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 80.25–27 (who opines that the occupation helpfully allows time to think, p. 80.27–29); Lucian Book-Coll. 3 (who grants the hard work involved). But even in these traditions, he was a former shepherd, before the Muses met him (Callim. Aetia 1.2.1; Max. Tyre 38.2). Aesop was also a shepherd (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.15). 830. Paris was a negative example in Greek tradition (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.12). 831. E.g., Ps 77:20; Isa 63:11; 1 En. 89:35; L.A.B. 19:3, 10; Sipre Deut. 305.3.1; y. Sanh. 10:1, §9; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 2:8; Exod. Rab. 2:2; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 40:12 (Moses, Aaron, and Miriam); possibly 1Q34 and 1Q34 bis 3 II, 8 (Wise, Scrolls, 186; fragmentary); see further Meeks, Prophet-King, 311–12 (esp. on Mek. Pisha 1 on Exod 12:1); Glasson, Moses, 95–96; Odeberg, Gospel, 315–17. Rabbi Nehemiah understood Isa 63:11 to mean that all Israelites became shepherds as Moses was (y. Soṭah 5:4, §1). Moses’s title may relate to his occupation (Exod 3:1), but it is hard to suppose (with Enz, “Exodus,” 213) that the good shepherd of John 10:1–18 recalls Exod 3:1. 832. Exod. Rab. 5:20. 833. 2 Sam 5:2; 1 Chr 11:2; Ps 78:70–72; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; 4Q504 1–2 IV, 6–8; Gen. Rab. 59:5. The title also relates to his prior occupation (1 Sam 16:15, 34–37; Ps 78:70–71). 834. Mek. Pisha 1.162–63 (Simeon ben Azzai). 835. 4 Ezra 5:18. 836. Num 27:17; 1 Kgs 22:17; Jer 3:15; CD XIX, 8–9; Mek. Pisha 1.162–63. The prophets also applied the title ironically to unjust leaders (Isa 56:11; Jer 22:22; 23:1–4; 25:34–36; Zech 10:3; 11:5, 15–17; 13:4–7); the shepherds were often responsible for the scattering of God’s people ( Jer 10:21; 50:6–7; Ezek 34:1–10). 837. E.g., the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran (Painter, John, 42). Derrett, “Shepherd,” 26–28, argues that the relevant passage in John’s Gospel uses “shepherd” as teacher; God is their owner, he claims, not their shepherd. 838. Thus the mebaqqer of Qumran, watching over his group of Essenes (CD XIII, 9). 839. Mic 5:4; Jer 23:1–6; Ezek 34:23; Pss. Sol. 17:40; cf. Zech 13:7; Tg. Neof. 1 on Exod 12:42 (as a new Moses); Longenecker, Christology, 48–49. Cook in DSSNT 214 thinks that 4Q165 frg. 1–2 may apply to the Teacher of Righteousness. 840. In 1 En. 89:59–60, 62–63, it is the seventy nations appointed to judge Israel. 841. Pss 23:1–4; 28:9; 74:1–2; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 40:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Ezek 34:11– 17; Mic 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3; Sir 18:13; 4Q509 IV, 2–4 (possibly, but fragmentary); 1 En. 89:18; L.A.B. 28:5; 30:5; Philo Agr. 50–53; b. Ḥag. 3b; Pesaḥ. 118a; Exod. Rab. 34:3; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; see further Marmorstein, Names, 100–101. For Shamash as “my shepherd,” see the Akkadian source in van der Toorn, “Shepherd,” 771. 842. Pss 77:20; 78:52; 80:1; Isa 40:11; 63:14; cf. Exod 13:21; 15:13; Deut 8:2; Pss 78:14; 106:9; 136:16; Neh 9:12; Isa 48:21; Jer 2:6, 17; Hos 11:3–4; Amos 2:10. A seventh-century b.c.e. Assyrian hymn calls the sun deity a shepherd (ANET 387); so earlier Marduk, over other deities (Enuma Elish 7.131, in Heidel, Genesis, 59). 843. E.g., Pss 74:1; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 49:9; 63:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Mic 2:12; 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3; 4Q266 11 13; 1 En. 89:16–24, 51–53; L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod. Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2; cf. Bar 4:26. God was thus “Lord of the sheep” (1 En. 89:16, 20, 26, 33, 50, 52, 54, 70; 90:20). 844. Greek shepherds had patron deities (see Prescendi, “Pales”; Baudy, “Parilia,” 531); by contrast, one patron deity protected all of Israel (Ps 23:1).

3036

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 92

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

called shepherds, the most obvious background for early Christians’ application to their leaders.845 The image remained valuable in Judaism in the centuries just before this period; at Qumran an overseer (mebaqqer; see comment above) is compared to a father and a shepherd (CD XIII, 9). Sheep had various uses. Sheep were prized then as now especially for wool.846 At least in Egypt, sheepshearing occurred in January or February and, after sheep had grown another coat, in September. Although modern Westerners most often think of cheese as being from cow’s milk, Greeks and Egyptians preferred cheese from sheep’s milk and from goat’s milk. The skins of dead sheep, pigs, and especially goats were used as leather, particularly for carrying liquids.847 More relevant to the purpose of portraying God’s people as sheep, however, was the reputed character of sheep. Although most animal fables by the first century included an interpretation, animal fables from the start were often too obvious to require explanation;848 this degree of perspicuity presupposes a cultural milieu where much was known about the characteristics of animals. In Nat. An. 7.27, Aelian regards sheep as the most obedient of animals, submissive to others’ rule, following the shepherd and his dogs and even goats; they also remain near the rest of the flock.849 Sheep were considered gentle (placidum, Terence Brothers 534–35). The typical obedience of sheep to their shepherd provided a natural image of Israel as God’s sheep in Scripture,850 an image that continued in early Judaism.851 Leaders are shepherds in early Christianity (e.g., Eph 4:11; cf. John 21:16), an image meant to inculcate a gentle and compassionate leadership (1 Pet 5:2–4).852 In the early second century, Ignatius viewed overseers as shepherds (Phld. 2.1),853 exhorting the members of the flock to follow their shepherds (Phld. 2.1).854 (4) The Great Cost of God’s Church

Whatever the conclusions of particular debates concerning this phrase in Acts 20:28 (especially whether the blood is that of God or God’s own), obtaining the church by such precious blood suggests an infinite cost (cf. 1 Pet 1:19). Thus it communicates that God’s church is of priceless value to him; woe to those who do not care for it lovingly. The phrase “church [ἐκκλησίαν] of God” (or “churches of God”) appears here outside Paul’s letters (singular in 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 845. See Isa 56:11; 63:11; Jer 3:15; 10:21; 12:10; 22:22; 23:1–4, 34–36; 50:6; Ezek 34:2, 7–10; Mic 5:5; Nah 3:18; Zech 10:2–3; 11:5, 8, 15–17; cf. 1 En. 89:59–90:25; 4 Ezra 5:18; 2 Bar. 77:13. Cf. the ultimate Davidic ruler in Mic 5:4; Pss. Sol. 17:45. 846. E.g., Phaedrus 4.5.23–24. 847. Lewis, Life, 132; Ruffing, “Sheep,” 383. 848. Hesiod W.D. 202–11. For earlier animal fables, see, e.g., Ahiq. 120–22 (saying 36); 118–20 (saying 35). 849. The obedience of sheep also appears elsewhere, e.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.16.5. The “hearing” of sheep may include an allusion to Ps 95:7 (cf. Heb 3:7), but on a shepherd “leading” sheep, see also 2 Sam 5:2 and 1 Chr 11:2 (David); Ps 78:52 (God); and Jer 50:6 (the wicked leaders of Israel). 850. E.g., Pss 74:1; 77:20; 78:52; 79:13; 80:1; 100:3; Isa 49:9; 63:11; Jer 13:17; 31:10; Zech 9:16; 10:3. 851. L.A.B. 23:12; 30:5; 1 En. 89:16–24; 4Q266 11 13; Sipre Deut. 15.1.1; Exod. Rab. 24:3; Pesiq. Rab. 9:2; 26:1/2. (Sir 18:13; Philo Agr. 50–53; and y. Ber. 2:7, §2, appear to be exceptions.) Early Christians applied the image to the church (Minear, Images, 84–87; Ladd, Theology, 108); on the shepherd image in early Christianity, see also Keener, “Shepherd,” 1091–93. 852. Christ was, of course, the chief shepherd ( John 10:2, 11, 14, 16; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17; Mart. Pol. 19.2; cf. Mark 6:34). 853. He also noted that God could rule as shepherd in their stead if need be (Ign. Rom. 9.1; cf. Ezek. 34:11). 854. He does, however, claim less than apostolic authority for the bishops (Ign. Rom. 4.3; cf. Mart. Pol. 16.2). The shepherd is different in Hermas, a sort of guardian angel, an “angel of repentance” (Herm. Vis. 5.25.3, 7; Mand. 12.49.1; Sim. 2.51.1; 8.67.4; 8.68.5–8; 8.70.1; 8.72.1; 9.79.6; 9.82.7; 9.84.1; 9.87.1; 9.88.1; 9.100.5; 9.110.1; 10.111.1; 10.114.5). Hermas uses the title “shepherds” even for evil angels (Sim. 6.61.5–6.62.2; 6.63.2).

3037

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 93

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

plural in 1 Cor 11:16; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:4). It derives from a biblical title for Israel, rendered in the lxx as “the assembly [ἐκκλησία] of God” (Neh 13:1), “the assembly of God’s people” ( Judg 20:2), or “the assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:2–4, 9; 1 Chr 28:8; Mic 2:5). In the lxx, God “obtained” (περιεποιησάμην) his people (Isa 43:21).855 The term περιποιέομαι need not include the idea of payment (cf. Luke 17:33; 1 Tim 3:13; 1 Clem. 54.3), but especially in this context, where it is conjoined with “blood,” it might have some association with the idea of redemption, an idea common in early Christianity (cf. Rom 3:24–25;856 Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:2, 18–19; 1 Clem. 7.4; 12.7; 21.6; Barn. 5.1; perhaps Col 1:14, 20; Ign. Trall. 8.1; Rom. 7.3; Phld. 1 intro.; 4.1; Smyrn. 1.1; 6.1).857 That Jesus’s (or “God’s”) “blood” constituted God’s people likely reflects an allusion to Luke 22:20, where Jesus’s blood initiates a new covenant, and which employs language used for sanctifying sacrificial blood in ancient Israel (Exod 24:8).858 Regardless of debates about textual and interpretive details, the connection with the exhortation is clear enough: the elders have a great responsibility to shepherd a flock that God values so highly. The chief shepherd paid a great price for the flock, and so they must shepherd it well, in contrast to the wolves that seek to exploit the flock for their own interests (cf. John 10:11–15). Some other early Christians warned that prophets who sought long-term lodging or asked for money were to be deemed false prophets (Did. 11.5–6). The apparent claim that God obtained his church by “his blood” generated major variants in the textual tradition because it appeared so problematic.859 Should we read the text as a reference to God’s own blood? Luke elsewhere affirms Jesus’s deity (Acts 2:21, when read with 2:38; also 16:7; cf. Luke 3:4, 16) but not with the direct title “God.”860 If we read, “God’s own blood,” it might be imprecise language, yet it might perhaps be intended to imply the unity of Jesus with his Father to the extent that it was as if the Father offered his own blood (cf. Luke 10:16; Jesus’s sharing Christians’ sufferings in Acts 9:5; God’s blood in Ign. Eph. 1.1).861 855. Tannehill, Acts, 258–59. The verb appears in the nt only here, in Luke 17:33, and in 1 Tim 3:13. But for what it is worth, the cognate περιποίησις might function analogously in Mal 3:17; both Eph 1:14 and 1 Pet 2:9 employ this noun to reflect the idea in Exod 19:5; 34:9; Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2. 856. The term in Rom 3:25, however, refers to the mercy seat; but even this is used figuratively for the place of atonement in 4 Macc 17:22. On the sense here, cf., e.g., Hengel, Atonement, 45; Haacker, Theology, 131–32. 857. For Jesus and atonement, see, e.g., Morris, Cross in New Testament, 218–19, 404–5; for human blood and propitiation, see 4 Macc 17:21–22; for this and related ideas in Paul, survey, e.g., passages in Ware, Synopsis, §33, pp. 61–65. For fuller discussion, see comment on Acts 7:60. Peterson, “Atonement Theology,” shows the presence of sufficient appreciation for atonement in Luke’s theology to suggest (71) that he would have accepted that sense in Acts 20:28 (see concisely idem, Acts, 570). 858. Pace Barrett, Acts, 977, who doubts that Luke would have considered how the blood effected salvation. Parsons, Acts, 300, also finds vicarious atonement here; cf. also Marshall, “Acts 20.28”; for background on how vicarious atonement was understood in Judaism of this period, see, e.g., Kim, “Atonement”; idem, “Concept of Atonement,” 16–97; idem, “Targum Isaiah 53”; idem, “Hellenistic Thought.” Jesus’s blood was already prominent in early Christian soteriology (e.g., Rom 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16; Eph 2:13), and Luke’s ideal audience would probably be familiar with the idea of Luke 22:20 even before Luke’s Gospel; see 1 Cor 11:25; cf. Mark 14:24. In later rabbis, cf. God forgiving Israel on account of the blood of Passover and circumcision (Exod. Rab. 15:12). 859. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 480–82. Those reconstructing texts, as in, e.g., Acts 20:28, often consider theological factors; cf. Schmid, “Eklektische Textkonstitution.” 860. For a discussion of Jesus’s deity in the Synoptics, see, e.g., Benoit, Jesus, 1:47–70; for the view of the ancient Nazarenes (as opposed to Ebionites, Iren. Her. 5.1.3), see Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 110. 861. One could speak of kin in terms of “flesh” and “bone” (often in the ot); this does not supply the language, but it might ease the comprehension of the expression. But for the “kinship” approach to blood here as problematic from an lxx perspective, see Schnabel, Acts, 847. The link between human blood (representing human life, also in Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:23) and God’s image (Gen 9:4; Jub. 6:8; Philo Dreams 1.74) is more distant.

3038

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 94

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

According to the grammatically likeliest interpretations, the epistolary Paul is not averse to occasionally calling Jesus “God” (Rom 9:5;862 cf. 2 Thess 1:12; Titus 2:13– 14),863 though he usually prefers to use other divine titles (cf. Phil 2:6–11; wisdom language in 1 Cor 1:30; the Shema and perhaps wisdom in 8:6) or prerogatives (cf., e.g., Rom 1:7).864 Orators sometimes did use jarring language to seize hearers’ attention;865 even the idea of redemption through the Messiah’s blood (and, to many, the image of cleansing by blood)866 would be jolting. This interpretation, “God’s [i.e., Jesus’s] own blood” is not impossible if Luke depends here on a jolting line in Paul’s actual speech. Still, although “his [God’s] own blood” is how one would ordinarily translate the phrase, it is so unexpected in Luke (or even the nt in general)867 that most scholars find it too jarring here. More often scholars prefer to read the text as “the blood of his [God’s] own”—that is, the blood of Jesus—arguing that this construction appears frequently in the papyri.868 Some compare the expression to the Hebrew yachid, which appeared in Greek as “beloved” or “only.”869 But while this grammatical reading is possible, it is far easier to explain “his own blood” as a clear and normal expression than to so explain “the blood of his own.”870 It thus seems to me that either the first explanation or another, third one is likelier. Perhaps Luke deliberately provides a jarring statement to grip attention, functioning something like hyperbole.871 Or perhaps he simply has 862. See, e.g., with varying degrees of certainty, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233–38; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467–68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Harris, Jesus as God, 143–72. That the language is praise may make Paul’s interest devotional rather than dogmatic (Burridge and Gould, Jesus, 94), but this does not appreciably lessen the import. 863. For Titus, see Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 144–45; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Harris, “Titus 2:13,” 271; idem, Jesus as God, 173–85; Longenecker, Christology, 138; for the Granville Sharpe rule applicable here, see, e.g., Dana and Mantey, Grammar, 147. Second Thessalonians 1:12 is possible (Bultmann, Theology, 1:129; Longenecker, Christology, 138–39), but it is less clear and may not be applicable (Harris, Jesus as God, 265–66; Bruce, Thessalonians, 156–57). 864. Many later writers were more explicit ( John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rev 1:17–18; cf. Heb 1:8–9; 2 Pet 1:1), especially in the second century (Ign. Eph. 7.2; 18.2; Rom. 3.3; Pol. 8.3; Iren. Her. 3.19; cf. Pliny Ep. 10.96; Justin 2 Apol. 13; perhaps Lucian Peregr. 11). For the diverse range of views regarding exalted characters within Jewish monotheism, see Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 32–48. 865. Some sophists employed shocking claims to grip their hearers’ attention (e.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621; cf. the figure of controversia in Quint. Inst. 9.2.65–95; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 88; cf. emphasis, giving a term an unusual sense to grab attention, Rowe, “Style,” 127; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 579). Others used obscure teachings to weed out less committed disciples (see Xen. Mem. 4.2.8–40; Diog. Laert. 3.63; 8.1.15; John 6:52–58; Keener, Matthew, 378–79). 866. E.g., 1 John 1:7 (cf. 1 John 1:9; the variant in Rev 1:5). Jewish readers, however, would understand such images in terms of ritual purity (e.g., Lev 8:15; 14:52; 16:19; Ezek 43:20; Heb 9:13–14, 22; Jos. Ant. 2.312; cf. Barn. 5.1). 867. Matters had changed by the early second century, either making the variant more intelligible or reflecting the same figure that Luke uses (possibly generated by this text); see Ign. Eph. 1.1; cf. 3 Bar. 4:15. Later, Bede Comm. Acts 20.28b (L. Martin, 162; Martin, Acts, 254) finds “blood of God” acceptable because of the Son’s oneness with the Father (and uses this interpretation to combat Nestorianism). 868. Bruce, Commentary, 416n59; Witherington, Acts, 623; Walton, Leadership, 91, 94–99; more tentatively, Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 173; Harris, Jesus as God, 131–41; D. Williams, Acts, 358 (comparing also Rom 8:31–32; Eph 1:6); Metzger, Textual Commentary, 481. 869. Bruce, Commentary, 416n59. On this use of yachid, see Keener, John, 414–15, on John 1:14. 870. Fitzmyer, Acts, 680, rightly regards it as “a last-ditch solution”; but his trinitarian interpretation (referring to God, Spirit, and then “blood,” implying Jesus) is also strained (not because of its dependence on metonymy but because the “trinitarian” elements are not of the same character and Luke nowhere else teaches or assumes a developed trinitarian schema sufficiently clear to read it in here, where it is not clear). That “blood” here means “kin,” as often in Greek (cf. Acts 17:26 in the Western text; Dolfe, “‘Blood’ and Acts 20:28”), hence “Son,” is brilliant but also strained (Luke 22:20 suggests Jesus’s blood is in view; note also Luke’s use of “blood” elsewhere, where it does not mean “Son”). 871. On shocking language as a rhetorical device, see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 88; and figures mentioned above. One could even coin words (though usually recommended against in prose; e.g., Fronto Eloq. 1.4) for such effect; see Anderson, Glossary, 83–84; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.13.1.

3039

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 95

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

shifted, without concern for grammatical precision, to a new subject (Christ) that is simply implied by the audience’s knowledge that the redemptive blood was Jesus’s.872 Even in this case, however, the close relationship between the Father and Jesus undoubtedly would have facilitated this shift. The point in any case seems to be to emphasize the great cost to God.873 Paul is innocent of others’ blood (Acts 20:26)—that is, of bloodguiltiness; Jesus gave his own blood to purchase others (20:28),874 and the church’s shepherds dare not take lightly his sacrifice (or his example, cf. 20:24, 35). ii. Dangerous Wolves (20:29–30)

Just as shepherds must risk their lives to protect the flock from wolves, so these shepherds (20:28) must guard the flock against wolves (20:29). Ultimately this concern would require them to guard even against their own number (20:30), requiring them to value the welfare of the sheep above the normal expectations of collegiality. (1) Paul’s Departure (20:29)

Paul warns of coming wolves because he will not be there to protect the sheep himself. This was not necessarily because he was about to die but simply because he would be absent.875 On ancient beliefs about the ability of a person nearing death to predict the future, see the introduction, above, to Acts 20:17–38.876 But in Acts’ narrative, Paul is apparently four or (more likely) more years away from death, and the term used here for “departure” (ἄφιξις) means simply “departure” (or, from the modern reader’s vantage point, often “arrival”), not death (e.g., 3 Macc 7:18).877 Further, Acts 20:31 emphasizes that Paul has been preaching these same warnings all along. Ancient hearers would understand that “wolves” was a metaphor;878 moreover, this metaphor was frequent enough that they would have a fairly accurate sense of its meaning here. Biblical history, especially in the book of Judges, lamented Israel’s unfaithfulness after the deaths of godly leaders ( Judg 2:7–11, 19; 4:1; 8:33; 10:5–6; cf. 2 Chr 34:33). Some postbiblical sources879 suggested the same pattern; thus, after the death of Judas Maccabee, corruption spread ( Jos. Ant. 13.2), and Hegesippus offered the same complaint about the period following the death of the apostles (Euseb. H.E. 3.32.7–8). (2) Shepherds versus Predators

Warning about some of the shepherds (Acts 20:28) becoming predators (20:30, if not specifically the wolves of 20:29) flows naturally from the comments on Ezek 33–34 872. Cf. Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 173. 873. Morris, Cross in New Testament, 140–41, rightly notes the emphasis here on the great cost to God, rejecting (140) “the bizarre interpretations of purchase so common in patristic theology.” 874. Perhaps from guilt (cf. Rom 5:9; Eph 1:7; 1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5); surely for himself (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Luke certainly believes in the accomplished and future “redemption” of Israel (Luke 1:68; 2:38; 21:38; 24:21), though he emphasizes the aspect of deliverance more clearly than the “ransom” element of the language (cf. Acts 7:35). The association with blood appears in a diverse range of early Christian sources (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18–19; 1 Clem. 12.7). 875. Paul’s letters often emphasize concern for the church while he is physically absent (e.g., 1 Cor 5:3; Phil 1:27). 876. Though acknowledging the farewell character of Acts 20:18–35, Aune, Prophecy, 320, suggests that the “I know” reflects prophetic speech; but his evidence (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15) is too general to establish his case (cf., e.g., John 4:25; Acts 26:27; Rom 7:18). 877. Witherington, Acts, 619; cf., e.g., also Jos. Ant. 2.184; 7.247; 8.61; 11.191; 18.373; War 7.19, 240; Philo Heir 265; Prelim. St. 121; Names 171. “Departure” could provide a metaphor for death (cf., e.g., Jos. Ant. 4.315), but we cannot automatically read it into the term; an argument for such a metaphor here would require clarification from the context, which is part of the matter under dispute. 878. On the ancient use of metaphor, see briefly Rhet. Her. 4.34.45; Black, “Oration at Olivet,” 85; Anderson, Glossary, 73–77 (cf. 14); Rowe, “Style,” 124–26; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 578. 879. Cited in Talbert, Acts, 182.

3040

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 96

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

in Acts 20:26, 28. Reviewing Ezekiel’s description may therefore flesh out some of the fuller context that Paul’s or Luke’s speech assumes (or that a fuller original speech might have elaborated). Ezekiel prophesies as a watchman (Ezek 3:17; 33:2–7);880 in Ezek 34, God denounces the shepherds who feed themselves rather than the flock (34:2, 8), slaughtering the fat without feeding the flock (34:3). They do not help the sick or broken or seek out the lost but rule them by force (34:4); the sheep are scattered for lack of shepherd, and so beasts devour them (34:5).881 Thus God will punish the fat and deliver the weak (34:16), punishing the fat who scatter the weak and take all the pasture and waters for themselves (34:17–22). God himself will seek the lost (34:16; cf. Ps 119:176), a statement to which Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’s seeking the lost (Luke 19:10, with Zacchaeus as an example) refers. Ezekiel’s reference to beasts devouring the sheep (Ezek 34:5) because of careless shepherds is particularly relevant in Acts 20:29 (although Paul further stretches the image so that some of the shepherds themselves may become wolves; 20:30). Ancient writers contrasted shepherds, who sought to preserve the sheep, with the latter’s predators.882 Thus a caring shepherd protected his flock, but robbers, wolves, and other predators endangered the flock if he proved remiss in his duties.883 When pursued by wolves, helpless domestic animals had no protection except their shepherds or herders.884 Thus an ancient orator compares the Persian ruler Cyrus to a good shepherd warding off the wolves (other peoples) but (as in essence here; cf. 20:30) warns that Cyrus’s successors forsook shepherding and became wolves themselves (Max. Tyre 6.7). Scholars also cite the claim that Apollonius of Tyana protected his followers, his “flock,” from wolves (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22).885 Although writers could speak of the dangers of a single wolf (e.g., John 10:12), it was usually as a pack (hence the plural here; Luke 10:3) that they posed the greatest danger.886 Sheep faced various dangers,887 most notably a range of predators, such as lions888 and thieves.889 Ancient literature often employs the image of wolves as predators890—for 880. Although Luke’s pattern for the Gentile mission is especially from Isaiah (see esp. Pao, Isaianic Exodus), it appears interesting that in the context in Ezek 3:5–7, Israel proves no more receptive to the message than foreigners are. 881. The image of God’s people as a scattered flock is common (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ps 44:11; Jer 10:21; 23:1–2; 31:10; 50:17; Ezek 34:6, 12; Mic 2:12; Zech 11:16; 13:7) and carries into the Jesus tradition (Mark 14:27; Matt 26:31; cf. John 16:32), though Luke does not seem to develop it. The image of lost sheep appears often in early Jewish sources (Aubert, Motif, 337, emphasizing the Apocrypha). 882. E.g., Hom. Il. 3.10–11; Max. Tyre 19.2; Isa 31:4; Jer 49:19; 50:44; Amos 3:12; Zech 11:3; John 10:1–2, 10; 1 En. 89:65; 4 Ezra 5:18; see MacMullen, Social Relations, 2; Keener, John, 812–13. 883. E.g., Themistius Speeches 1.9d–10d (317–88 c.e.); John 10:12. 884. E.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 352–53. Sheep flee strangers but follow their shepherd’s signals (Polyb. 12.4.2–4; John 10:3–4). 885. Conzelmann, Acts, 175; see also Talbert, John, 167. 886. Lone wolves rarely ventured into farm country (Aratus Phaen. 1124–28), though cf. farmers battling wolves in Libanius Comparison 5.10. 887. E.g., storms (Aratus Phaen. 1104–12). 888. E.g., Hom. Il. 10.485; Statius Theb. 9.189–91; Mart. Epig. 9.71; Mic 5:8; 1 En. 89:55; against cattle, cf. Epict Diatr. 1.2.30; against people, Hom. Il. 22.262; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.39; Num. Rab. 18:22; as predators generally, see, e.g., Ovid Metam. 1.505; Mart. Epig. 1.60; Babr. 97; 103; 105.2–3; 106.15; 107.1; 136; Phaedrus 2.1; used of Rome in Sib. Or. 11.290–91. A shepherd might fear one (Max. Tyre 32.1; cf. Ps 152:2), but cf. the courage in 1 Sam 17:34–37. 889. Cf. MacMullen, Social Relations, 2; Shelton, Romans, 159 (citing Fronto Letters 2.12). For reports of shepherd-bandits, cf. Rutherford, “Boukoloi.” 890. E.g., Pindar Pyth. 2.84; Virg. Ecl. 2.63; Georg. 1.130; Phaedrus 1.8; Babr. 53.1–2; 94; Longus 2.16, 22; 4.15; Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1, 3; Callim. Iambi 12.202.70; Apollod. Bib. 2.5.6; Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147; Aeschylus Ag. 1259; fawns in Aeschylus frg. 23 (Glaucus [LCL, 2:393]); baby goats in Callim. Iambi 12.202.70; birds in Apollod. Bib. 2.5.6; domestic animals in Philost. Hrk. 33.14. Wolves

3041

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 97

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

example, of cattle,891 asses,892 and sometimes people.893 Most relevant here, however, is the frequent image of wolves preying on sheep894 (cf. Luke 10:3; Matt 7:15, in which the sheep are Christ’s followers, as here). (3) Figurative Wolves

Writers often used the image of “beast” figuratively for a terrible person,895 and so it is hardly surprising that “wolf ” would be so employed.896 Wolves had long been employed as a somewhat positive image for warriors;897 as wolves and lambs were natural enemies, warned Achilles, so must he slay Hector.898 But the quality most valued on the battlefield proved to be vice in other settings. Wolves were thought to be deceitful899 and eager to plunder.900 Figurative wolves could prove treacherous and unfaithful.901 Like ravens, figurative wolves could devour the resources of the unwary (Lucian Tim. 8). One writer used the image for rapacious moneylenders;902 such an image fits the warning against greed probably implicit in this context (cf. the contrast with Acts 20:33–35).903 Another writer compares a wicked king (Statius Theb. 4.361) to a wolf who is conquering among the herd (4.363) yet fears the pursuit of shepherds (4.368–69). Paris pursues Helen like a wolf stealing a heifer.904 Apollonius wanted to guard his “sheep” from “wolves,” by which he meant forensic orators, those who exploit people and profit from hatred and strife (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.22). are fierce, though kind to their cubs (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.14). Lucan C.W. 7.826 portrays them as scavengers, but this is rare. On the often violent portrayal of wolves, see also Hünemörder, “Wolf,” 691. 891. Aeschylus Suppl. 351. 892. Lucian Lucius 33. 893. E.g., Xen. Ages. 1.22; y. Ber. 1:5, §8; Šeqal. 5:1. 894. E.g., Hom. Il. 22.263; Aristoph. Wasps 952; Ap. Rhod. 2.123–24; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Ecl. 3.80; 5.60; 8.52; Ovid Metam. 1.232–37, 304, 505; 5.626–27; 6.527–28; Fasti 2.85–86, 800; Pont. 1.2.17–18; Tibullus 1.1.33–34; 2.1.20; 2.5.88; Phaedrus 1.1; Babr. 89; 93.3–11; 102.8; 105.1; 113.2–4; 132.1–4; Longus 1.11, 21–22; Apollod. Bib. 1.9.2; Statius Theb. 10.42–48; Plut. Demosth. 23.4; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.2; 2.7; Libanius Fable 1 (the LCL note cites also Aesop Fab. 158). 895. E.g., Cic. Mil. 12.32; 31.85; Pis. 1.1; 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Pet 2:12. See further detail in comment on Acts 10:11. 896. E.g., for the immoral, as in Cicero’s application of lupa, she-wolf (Mil. 21.55); or for Paris (Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147). But more often for predators; see, e.g., Ovid Fasti 2.800; Plut. Demosth. 23.4 (the image of Paris in Lycophron Alex. 102–3, 147 also fits here). Chrys. Hom. Jn. 23, on John 2:11–22, calls the devil a “wolf.” For wolf-like physiognomy, see Hünemörder, “Wolf,” 691. 897. Heroically, Hom. Il. 16.156–57, 352; 22.263; Virg. Aen. 9.566; Statius Ach. 1.704–8. In Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 2.7, Darius compared Alexander to a wolf among sheep. 898. Hom. Il. 22.263, 265. 899. Phaedrus 1.8.5–12; 1.10.9; Libanius Fable 1.1 (sheep being very gullible, 1.2). In addition to Matt 7:15 one may think of the fable of the wolf in sheepskin (Wojciechowski, “Aesopic Tradition,” 106, suggesting a possible common source). The theme of dressing in skins to deceive is common, including a human trying to sneak forward disguised in a wolf skin (Eurip. Rhesus 209–15; Longus 1.21) or seal skin (Hom. Od. 4.435–55), an ass disguised in a lion skin (Babrius 139), or Odysseus’s men escaping Polyphemus under the sheep (Hom. Od. 9.425–63; cf. Apollod. Epit. 7.8; Libanius Encomium 2.17). 900. Vell. Paterc. 2.27.2 (Romans, according to their enemies); Phaedrus 1.16.5; Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.21–22; Gen 49:27; a rapacious enemy in Artem. Oneir. 2.12; cf. Paris as a “hungry” wolf in Lycophron Alex. 147. In a Greek novel, one goatherd complained that no wolf had successfully seized any goats but that now the enemy (invaders) had taken the goats and would harm them (Longus 2.22). Thieves and wolves are often listed together as enemies of one’s animals (Virg. Georg. 3.406–8, which also lists roving “Spaniards” in a sense equivalent to “robbers”; Babr. 128.14). 901. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7, 9; for cleverness, Plut. Cleverness 16, Mor. 971A. For wolves symbolizing unfaithful friendships, see Wordelman, “Divides,” 227; also perhaps Lucian Tim. 8. A writer links the Lycus River with “wolf ” because of its forcefulness (Quint. Curt. 3.1.5). 902. Alciph. Farm. 5 (Agelarchides to Pytholaüs), 1.26, ¶3. Cf. all the selfish in Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.20–25. 903. One early Christian portrait of false teachers was that they greedily exploited God’s people (2 Pet 2:3, 14–15; cf. 1 Tim 6:5). 904. Lycophron Alex. 102–3.

3042

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 98

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Naturally, the image of a wolf as predator of sheep also appears in biblical and early Jewish tradition,905 sometimes representing Israel’s enemies906 or Israel’s evil leaders.907 Ezekiel compares Israel’s exploitive political leaders with wolves (Ezek 22:27) as he compares the false prophets with greedy lions (22:25, 28). Wolves became a regular symbol for false teachers in early Christian literature.908 Bad shepherds could become like predatory wolves themselves. One fictitious farmer’s wife complains that the hireling is continually falling asleep, so that a wolf seized their best she-goat; she warns that if her husband discovers what happened, the hireling will be beaten and the husband will go looking for the wolf.909 One slave is compared to a wolf, having sold or killed some of the goats; he will be shackled once captured.910 Whereas a caring shepherd protects his flock, robbers, wolves, and other factors would diminish a flock whose shepherd failed to care for them.911 Another writer opines that whereas Cyrus ruled Persia like a shepherd who lovingly guards his flock against wolves, his successors “turned from good shepherds into wicked wolves, ravaging the flock and straying from the path of knowledge.”912 The speech prefers wolves to a different predatory image, that of lions (more formidable than wolves);913 lions are a conventional image of courage,914 strength,915 and savage ferocity916 and are often the object of fear.917 Sometimes both images could be conjoined (1 En. 56:5). But the image of a “wolf ” was available in the Jesus tradition (Matt 7:15; John 10:12) and was more consistently portrayed as hostile specifically to sheep. 905. Isa 11:6; 65:25; Matt 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12; 4 Ezra 5:18. 906. Jer 5:6; Hab 1:8; 1 En. 56:5–6; 89:55; also Exod. Rab. 5:20; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52. A rabbinic parable compares Israel with a wolf, and its inferior enemies with dogs, but this is just to emphasize Israel’s superior strength ( Johnston, “Interpretations,” 596, citing Sipre Num. 137). 907. Ezek 22:27; cf. Zeph 3:3. Derrett, “Shepherd,” 43, argues that Jewish law did not punish a hired shepherd who fled from a robber or wolves but it did not excuse him from fending off a single wolf, as here (m. B. Meṣiʿa 7:9, 11; but cf. b. B. Meṣiʿa 93b). 908. See, e.g., Matt 7:15; John 10:12; later, Did. 16.3; Ign. Phil. 2.2; Justin Dial. 35.3; 1 Apol. 16.13 (Conzelmann, Acts, 175); for other negative wolves, see 2 Clem. 5.2–4. The Jesus tradition and early Christianity applied the image both to false prophets within (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29) and to external opposition (Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3). 909. Alciph. Farm. 18 (Eunapê to Glaucê), 3.21, ¶¶1–3. 910. Alciph. Farm. 21 (Philopoemen to Moschion), 3.24, ¶¶1–3. 911. So Themistius Speeches 1.9d–10d (317–88 c.e.). 912. Max. Tyre 6.7 (Trapp), second century c.e.; cf. the analogous images of exploitive shepherds in Ezek 34:2–10. 913. Aeschylus Ag. 1259; Babr. 101, 105 (cf. 90–91, 95); y. Ber. 1:5, §8; also compared to foxes, Plut. Comparison of Lysander and Sulla 3.1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:24; stronger than other beasts in Ach. Tat. 2.21.1. Cf. 1 Sam 17:34–37; Mic 5:8. A wolf rarely ventured by itself into farm country (Aratus Phaen. 1124–28). 914. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 4.11.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 62.7; Babr. 1; Phaedrus 1.5; Philost. Hrk. 27.3; 1 Macc 3:4; cf. Pindar Pyth. 5.58; “lion-hearted” in Hom. Il. 7.228; Od. 11.267. The image was a regular one for warriors, e.g., Il. 5.136, 161, 299, 476, 782; 7.256; 10.297, 485; 11.239, 548; 12.293, 299; 13.198; 15.592; 16.752, 756, 823; 17.109, 133; 18.161, 318–22; 20.164; 24.572; Od. 4.724 (bravery); 6.130 (strength); 22.402; 23.48 mss; Virg. Aen. 12.6; Philost. Hrk. 35.2; a general in Plut. Luc. 12.1. 915. E.g., Artem. Oneir. 1.37; 2.12; Babr. 65; Max. Tyre 25.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.14.497; Hrk. 33.21; 35.6; 48.3. For rulers, e.g., Gen 49:9–10; Rev 5:5; Alexander waging war, Plut. Alex. 2.3; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.8; 2.7; in some other societies, cf. Mbiti, Religions, 242. Some claimed that lions had the keenest vision and never slept (Manetho frg. 88, from Etymologicum magnum, s.v. Λεοντοκόμος). 916. E.g., Corn. Nep. 18 (Eumenes), 11.1; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.7; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.29; Babr. 65; Philost. Hrk. 25.15; pitiless (here, of Achilles) in Hom. Il. 24.41 (contrast Pliny E. N.H. 8.19.48, who fancies that lions show mercy). Because the lion was king of the beasts (e.g., Mart. Epig. 1.60.1–5; Babr. 65.6; 98.5; 102.1; Phaedrus 4.14.2), it appears readily as a metaphor for tyrants or evil rulers, Ap. Rhod. 2.26–29; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.30; Ezek 32:2; 4Q167 2 2; Jos. Ant. 18.228; 2 Tim 4:17; Gentile oppressors in 1 En. 89:55; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 13:15. But for tamed lions, see, e.g., Statius Silv. 2.5; Ach. 1.858–60; Philost. Hrk. 33.21. 917. Statius Ach. 861–62; Babr. 92, 139; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.6, 402.5–6; Test. Ab. 17:14 A.

3043

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 99

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Although βαρύς normally means “burdensome,” regarding people it can mean “troublesome” (LSJ). The expression “not sparing” (μὴ φειδόμενοι) is appropriate; a first-century Stoic compared selfish people to wolves or beasts (Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.21), “sparing nothing from which they may gain some advantage” (p. 92.21 [Lutz, 93]).918 (4) Who Are the False Teachers Here?

Warnings against false teachers were common (see comment on false prophets at Acts 13:6). Some philosophers also warned against false philosophers in order to recommend the true variety.919 Each philosophic school might, however, envision the false teachers differently; scholars debate what group this passage envisions. Some scholars have argued that the false teachers warned against here were (for Luke and his Pauline circle) the Johannine Christians in Ephesus.920 Yet this is not the only passage in Luke concerned about false teaching (cf., e.g., Acts 8:9–11; 13:8–10), and so Luke does not associate it solely with Ephesus;921 indeed, even the circumcisionists of 15:1, 5, though defeated, could perhaps resurface (cf. 21:21).922 Further, John appears positively in Acts, coupled with Peter, though not as often as one would expect from Gal 2:9 (yet more positively than in that passage also).923 Luke offers a much more thoroughgoing comparison of Paul with Peter, yet such comparisons in antiquity did not require us to assume competition (see discussion in the commentary introduction;924 also comment on Acts 19:1). Johannine Christians had a sectarian worldview vis-à-vis the larger world, probably related to their situation in that world, but they did not necessarily have such a relationship with all other Christians.925 Whereas some Jesus tradition appears in Paul,926 it seems to me, from working through John’s Gospel in detail,927 that John’s Gospel is closer to Paul than are the Synoptics; perhaps most obviously, their emphasis on the indwelling Christ reflects some theological connection.928 I would be inclined to conclude that “Johannine Christians” embraced more of the Pauline perspective than we find in some other streams of early Christianity (e.g., James). Some have suggested that Luke wishes to dissociate Paul from Gnosticism here.929 But only the relatively small minority of scholars dating Luke-Acts to the second 918. “Not sparing” could also express mercilessness, as in Job 16:13 lxx. 919. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.4–6; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” 920. Court, “Rivals,” 402–3. See also Price, “Paulus absconditus (2002)”; idem, “Paulus absconditus (2003),” remarkably contending that the original tradition behind “disciples of John” in Acts 19:1–4 referred to John son of Zebedee. 921. False teachers seem more threatening within the church here (though not exclusively here; cf. Acts 8:19; 15:1–2), but this is because this speech is Paul’s only long speech to the church in Acts (as well as in a section containing “we” narrative). 922. Cf. also the elders being protected by the message of God’s “grace” (Acts 20:32); but this is not the only place Luke employs that expression either (14:3). 923. Although my work on the Synoptics will show that I value redaction criticism in its place, I am convinced that reading individuals in texts as symbols for hypothetical later communities aligned with them is the sort of rampant speculation that has helped discredit more responsible redaction criticism. 924. Keener, Acts, 1:570–71. 925. See Keener, John, 149–52. 926. See discussion in, e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 46–48, 126; idem, Gospel according to Paul, 58–60; Davies, Paul, 137–40; Schoeps, Paul, 56; Gerhardsson, Origins, 33; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13; Ladd, Theology, 514; Richardson and Gooch, “Logia,” 52; Pfitzner, “School”; Stuhlmacher, “Theme,” 16–19; Gerhardsson, “Path,” 75–96; Dunn, Theology, 189–95; Donfried, Thessalonians, 233–52; esp. Kim, New Perspective, 259–90; Thompson, Clothed. Others have also found Paul and Jesus more compatible than some have supposed (see, e.g., Still, Jesus and Paul). 927. In Keener, John, a 1,636-page commentary. 928. E.g., ibid., 998–99, 1003, 1037, 1039. 929. Lüdemann, Paul, 15–16, seeing this as a major purpose; but opposition to “heresy” surfaces too rarely to see it as a major function of Luke-Acts. Despite Talbert’s usual brilliance on most other points, his early work on this topic, Luke and Gnostics (1966), fails to persuade.

3044

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 100

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

century can make an extrinsic argument for this, since we lack any evidence for the gnostic schools before that time.930 More important from an intrinsic standpoint is that nothing in this passage points specifically or characteristically to Gnosticism, as opposed to any other threat. Others have compared the false teachers to Jewish arguments against the church’s claim to be the true remnant of Israel.931 Although this view could have some more internal evidence within Acts to support it than the previous proposal (Acts 15:1–5; cf. 21:21), it is still beyond what Luke specifies. The primary emphasis here, as in Ezekiel, is individuals who exploit the flock, rather than a specific doctrinal system (Acts 20:29–30). Given the context, their dominant erroneous interest may be more pecuniary than theological (cf. 20:33–35).932 Their speaking “things that are perverted” (διεστραμμένα) does indicate false teaching, but unless it bears some association with magic (Acts 13:8, 10), Luke’s use of the term refers to any sort of distortion rather than a particular kind (Luke 9:41; 23:2; cf. Deut 32:5, echoed in Luke 9:41; Matt 17:17; Phil 2:15; Acts 13:10; Philo Sob. 10). That is, if Luke had a narrower focus of false teachers in mind, certainty regarding its character eludes us now. Rather, these are teachers who draw disciples “after themselves” rather than keeping Jesus central (see comments on Jesus’s name in Acts 3:6; 9:34), who build the faith around themselves rather than recognizing that it is not about them but about Jesus Christ (see comment on 13:36). False prophets like Judas the revolutionary attracted crowds to follow “after” (ὀπίσω) him (5:37), and so would later false prophets claiming to be Jesus (Luke 21:8), but disciples must follow only “after” Jesus (Luke 9:23; 14:27). Consistent with the view of a general warning applicable to various situations here, Greek sages also warned against charlatans, often in a general way.933 Thus some lamented that many people rejected all philosophers because of the many bad ones.934 Philodemus warns against γόητες who mislead many after they have experienced some hardship, luring them with kindness.935 Paul distinguishes himself from such charlatans in Acts 20:33–35 (see further discussion there). In this period in his ministry, Paul was already warning churches against false teachers in his letters (e.g., Rom 16:17–18; 2 Cor 11:12–15, 18–23;936 Galatians passim).937 If no mention of “wolves” is preserved for us, he at least did not hesitate to call them “dogs” (Phil 3:2, referring to the circumcisionists), a derogatory title used, 930. See Yamauchi, Gnosticism; Smith, Gnostic Origins; Keener, John, 164–69, and sources cited there. 931. Lampe, “Wolves,” 255. 932. Not that this does not itself reflect what early Christian writers considered a theological misunderstanding. Cf. also Jer 6:13; 8:10; Ezek 22:27–28; 1 Tim 6:5–10; 2 Pet 2:14–15; Did. 11.6, 12; warnings to church leaders in 1 Tim 3:8; Titus 1:7, 11; 1 Pet 5:2. 933. Though each group might be more inclined to link competing groups with charlatans, they recognized that there were hypocrites even in their own group. On stock language used to criticize rival teachers (sophists, magicians, etc.), see Liefeld, “Preacher,” 272–84. 934. Plut. Lect. 12, Mor. 43F. 935. Philod. Crit. frg. 60.8–12 (the mention of γόητες is in 60.8). 936. In contrast to the Jewish opponents in Galatia, those in Corinth need not be “Judaizers”; after all, most early Christian missionaries were Jewish (see, e.g., Bruce, Corinthians, 174; Witherington, Corinthians, 346; Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, 6; Keener, Corinthians, 144–46; for surveys of the Judaizing hypothesis, without agreeing with it, see esp. Sumney, Opponents, 15–42; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 928–32). Nor ought we to infer “Judaizing” opponents on the basis of 1 Clement and other later sources (pace Lampe, “Wolves,” 267–68). 937. Later, cf., e.g., Col 2:8, 16, 18–23; for eschatological false prophets, see 2 Thess 2:9; Mark 13:22; Rev 13:13–14; Did. 16.3–4 (this might reflect or influence Jewish tradition; Test. Jud. 21:9; perhaps Sib. Or. 3.63–68; on the antichrist tradition, though mostly later, see Keener, Matthew, 573–75). Cf. Marshall, Acts, 334. Dunn’s skepticism about parallels to this announcement in the undisputed Pauline letters (Acts, 273) is thus unnecessary.

3045

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 101

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

if anything, more frequently in ancient literature.938 The epistolary Paul also worked to distance himself from charlatans, sometimes in conventional ways (2 Cor 2:17; cf. 1 Thess 2:3–7; see comment on Acts 20:33–35). The warning also reflects a concern of Luke’s, however; early in Paul’s ministry, Bar-Jesus sought to turn a proconsul from faith (Acts 13:8), and Paul later confronted false teachers who required circumcision for salvation (15:1). (5) From among Yourselves (20:30)

The most startling claim about the false teachers is what Paul adds in 20:30: some of them would arise “from you yourselves.”939 Although it is not impossible that this means from the group of elders, implying future elders, it is far more likely that it is meant at face value: some of these very elders would distort the truth to gain followings for themselves. Luke’s audience may recall Jesus’s warning to his disciples that one of them would betray him (Luke 22:21), with the attendant promise of judgment (22:22). False teachers from “among you” drawing away God’s people was a serious offense (cf. Deut 13:13, referring to other deities).940 Probably this false speaking includes flattery instead of the sort of frank speech Paul is offering (see comment on Acts 20:20); early Christians recognized that false teachers sometimes flattered to achieve advantage over others ( Jude 16). A generous and benevolent leader might prove too trusting, but it was commendable when such a leader could also guard himself from manipulators (Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.4.12).941 Those mentioned here speak “twisted” things (διεστραμμένα); Luke applies the same verb (διαστρέφω) to Elymas Bar-Jesus the magician in Acts 13:8, 10; God’s way is straight (Luke 3:5). That selfish elders wish to draw disciples “after” (ὀπίσω) them may imply that they seek to make them their own disciples instead of those of Jesus (Luke 9:23; 14:27); they want others to follow them (Acts 5:37). True disciples of Jesus, however, dare not follow them (Luke 21:8). We have abundant evidence that false teachers flourished in Ephesus in the first century. Following the early tradition that Johannine literature circulated in Asia Minor (in the areas of Revelation’s seven churches, Rev 2–3), the false teachings condemned there are noteworthy (1 John 2:18–26; 4:1–6; 2 John 7–11; Rev 2:14, 20).942 Although the hints in Ephesians943 are minimal (cf. Eph 4:14), false teachers are clearly a problem in 1 and 2 Timothy, addressed to Ephesus944 (1 Tim 1:3–7, 19–20; 4:1–3, 7; 6:3–5; 2 Tim 2:16–18; 3:4–9, 13; 4:3–4).945 Since the Ephesian 938. See comment on Acts 10:11; cf. also Keener, Matthew, 416–17. 939. Luke’s audience might here envision Paul gesturing toward his audience (for gestures toward persons or objects, see Shiell, Reading Acts, 57–62) and/or, a gesture of aversion, turning his face from where his gesture pointed (a turning used only for abhorrence or aversion; see Shiell, Reading Acts, 76–77, citing Quint. Inst. 11.3.70). 940. Though “among you” is a common expression, including in Luke-Acts (Luke 11:5, 11; 12:25; 14:28, 33; 15:4; 17:7; 21:16; Acts 6:3; 27:22; some instances reflect Q—see Matt 6:27; 7:9) and Deuteronomy (Deut 1:15, 23; 4:3; 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:9, 21; 22:21, 24; 24:7). (Still, it is perhaps too inelegant for Josephus [only Ant. 4.208; 8.228; 19.304] and Philo [Drunkenness 14, 28; Mos. 1.290].) 941. Even Jesus (Luke 22:4, 6) and Paul (cf. 2 Tim 4:10) found trust betrayed, although, in Luke’s account, Jesus was not caught off guard (Luke 22:21–22, 48). 942. Cf. also power seekers (3 John 9–10), which is most explicitly in view in Acts 20:30. 943. Probably circulated around Ephesus; if, as seems likely, it was a circular letter, the manuscripts containing “Ephesus” (Eph 1:1) at least testify that Ephesus’s church was unambiguously included in—and, as the largest city and church, probably the primary recipient of—the letter. 944. Esp. 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 1:18; 4:12. Since Titus addresses similar problems, one could argue that the letters’ settings are incidental, but more likely the false teachings were widespread. 945. All Asia had turned from Paul (2 Tim 1:15); the warning of a present, eschatological apostasy (1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1–7, 13; 4:3–4) is probably relevant as well.

3046

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 102

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

church was faithfully rooting out false apostles at the end of the first century (Rev 2:2), these indications of conflict probably derive from the generation between Paul’s speech and Revelation’s circulation in the 90s. This fits observable patterns of church development elsewhere as well: only in the second or later generations can individuals profit much from holding positions of leadership in churches, and so corruption and seeking benefits for oneself become more common at that stage.946 iii. Continual Vigilance (20:31)

Paul has exhorted the elders to take heed to themselves and the flock (Acts 20:28); now he warns them to be on the alert (20:31), like shepherds guarding a flock against predators (20:28–29). Just as he prepared for his exhortation in 20:28 with his own example (20:18–27), so here he recalls his example (20:31) immediately following his exhortation (20:31). Being “alert,” as defined by Paul’s example, would involve warning everyone continually with tears (20:31), or, more likely, involves watching out for the behavior against which Paul warned. (1) Hortatory Language

Being on the “alert” could be eschatological language (Luke 12:37; cf. 12:40; 21:36); both γρηγορέω and other ways of expressing the same concept often appear in eschatological contexts.947 For the language and image of guarding (here shepherds guarding the flock from wolves; cf. Acts 20:28–29; Luke 2:8), see comment on Acts 20:28. Calling on an audience to “remember” was appropriate in rhetoric and moral exhortation.948 By calling on them to “remember,” Paul again appeals to what they already “know” (see comment on Acts 20:17); he makes the same appeal to memory in Acts 20:35. Apart from an appeal to Scripture in Luke 17:32, Acts 20:35 is the only other use of μνημονεύω in Luke-Acts,949 though it appears in Paul950 and elsewhere in early Christian literature.951 “Admonishing” (here νουθετῶν) is also appropriate for moral exhortation.952 The term νουθετέω is common in Paul’s letters (Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15); it appears nowhere in the nt except in Paul and here.953 “Each one” (ἕνα ἕκαστον) emphasizes the individual attention that Paul gave to his hearers, a practice of the best philosophers.954 946. Cf., e.g., early American Methodism, when institutional offices became more coveted than the ministry of circuit riders (Noll, History, 174, also noting other, analogous North American religious movements). I have heard similar reports from some second- or third-generation Christians from the Congo and northern Nigeria. 947. Mark 13:34–37; Matt 24:42–43; 25:13; 1 Thess 5:6, 10; Rev 3:2–3; 16:15. But this connection is less clear in Mark 14:34, 37–38; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; 1 Pet 5:8; and here. The idea is probably also present in Rom 13:11, but the connection is not clear in Eph 5:14. For an eschatological backdrop here, see Dunn, Acts, 274; Conzelmann, Acts, 175–76 (who thinks that Luke has “transposed” it according to his different eschatology); on Luke’s hortatory and present eschatology in Acts 20, see esp. Nielsen, Fulfilled. 948. E.g., Isoc. Demon. 21; Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.29; Cic. Font. 13.28; Amic. 22.85; Fam. 13.75.1; Epict. Diatr. 4.4.29; 4.13.23; Pliny Ep. 8.24.1, 10; Philod. Crit. col. 14b; Marc. Aur. 8.36; Porph. Marc. 10.187–89; m. ʾAb. 3:8; Rom 15:15; 2 Pet 1:12–13; 2 Tim 2:14; Titus 3:1. Johnson, Acts, 364, cites Isoc. Demon. 9, 11; Lucian Dem. 1–2; Nigr. 6–7; Plut. Educ. 13, Mor. 9F; Progr. Virt. 15, Mor. 85A; cf. also Aune, Environment, 191. 949. The idea also appears in Luke 22:61; 24:8; Acts 11:16; and esp. (in exhortation form) Luke 24:6. 950. Esp. 1 Thess 2:9; 2 Thess 2:5; also in Gal 2:10; Eph 2:11; Col 4:18; cf. 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; using different terminology, Rom 11:18. 951. E.g., Mark 8:18; John 15:20; 16:4 (cf. 14:26); Heb 13:7; Rev 2:5; 3:3; 2 Clem. 17.3; Poly. Phil. 2.3; using different terminology, John 2:17, 22; 12:16; Heb 13:3; 2 Pet 1:12; 3:2; Jude 17. 952. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 4.13.23; Marc. Aur. 8.36; Iambl. V.P. 22.101; Rom 15:14; 1 Cor 4:14; Col 1:28; 3:16; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15; often in Philo (e.g., Worse 3; Posterity 68; Giants 46); cf. Pss. Sol. 13:9; Stowers, Letter Writing, 125–27. Speeches could include censure and comfort; see Hermog. Method 36.454. 953. The term appears only twelve times in the lxx (1 Sam 3:13; Job 4:3; 23:15; 30:1; 34:16; 36:12; 37:14; 38:18; Job 40:4; Wis 11:10; 12:2, 26; also in Pss. Sol. 13:9). 954. So Malherbe, Philosophers, 153 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.37–38; Plut. Lect., Mor. 43–44A; Flatt., Mor. 70D–71D). In the nt, the phrase “each one” is Lukan (Luke 16:5; Acts 2:3; here; cf. Luke 4:40; Acts

3047

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 103

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

(2) Continuous Activity

The speech underlines Paul’s exhortation to the elders in various ways; one is to emphasize that his warning is not simply a last-minute suggestion but a continuous proclamation over a period of years (cf. also the emphasis on warnings in Acts 14:22; 1 Thess 3:4). “Day and night” reinforces the image of Paul’s exhortation to them by stressing its continual character and Paul’s sacrificial effort on their behalf; “three years” reinforces the image by emphasizing its duration; and the “tears” reinforce it by emphasizing his passion and appealing to pathos.955 That Paul worked hard in Ephesus is clear in Luke’s account, regarding both public ministry (Acts 19:8–13) and physical labor (20:34).956 “Day and night” is a common figure of speech. (The sequence of the phrase is sometimes stylistically significant but is inconsequential with regard to meaning.) 957 Luke likes the phrase “day and night” for describing worship or prayer (Luke 2:37; 18:7; Acts 26:7),958 but he can also use it other ways (Acts 9:24). It was a fairly familiar pairing, and Paul also applies it to his ministry, as here (1 Thess 2:9; 3:10; 2 Thess 3:8). The ot and Greco-Roman texts also use the phrase to depict hard labor that consumed parts of night as well as day.959 Although day laborers might work from dawn until dusk,960 some Romans carried the emphasis on work and not sleeping too much to great lengths. Pliny the Younger praises his namesake uncle for his long hours of work, even during parts of the night (Ep. 3.5.7–8). The uncle engaged in research and writing at night, sleeping as little as possible and counting only waking hours as part of his life (Pliny E. N.H. pref. 18).961 However 2:6; 17:27) and Pauline (1 Thess 2:11; cf. 1 Cor 12:18; Eph 4:7, 16; Col 4:6; 2 Thess 1:3), but it also appears elsewhere (e.g., 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2; 8:9; 16:24; Jos. Ant. 19.305; Philo Conf. 46; Eternity 56; Hypoth. 7.3; Mos. 2.291; Matt 26:22; Rev 21:21; Herm. 53.3; 67.5; 69.4; 77.2; 94.2; 95.5; Diogn. 8.3). 955. Aristotle urged use of rational arguments to generate pathos (Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 48–50), but Paul’s letter to the Romans used pathos as an appeal to stir or sway audience emotion (52–53); Paul employs it in his letters, formally like Roman orators but appealing to arguments like Aristotle (56). On Aristotle’s use of emotion, see Hall, “Delivery,” 232; Walde, “Pathos,” 599. 956. Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Vogels, 296; Bray, Corinthians, 299) divided the labor as Paul working during the day and teaching at night. Hock, Social Context, 31, thinks that Paul started work before dawn and then worked much of the day. 957. “Day and night” (perhaps more Semitic) appears seventeen times in the ot, twice in Luke-Acts, and five times in Revelation; “night and day” appears four times in the ot, once in Mark, three times in Luke-Acts, and five times in Paul. “Day and night” appears in 1QS VI, 6; 1QHa XVI, 30; XVIII, 17; 4Q389 frg. E.2; 4Q412 1 10; 4Q508 41 2; 11QT LVII, 10; 1 En. 18:6; 24:1; 72:22, 37; 104:8; 2 En. 11:2; 13:1; 16:7; Jub. 6:4 (cf. 25:2); 2 Macc 13:10; Jos. Ant. 5.60; 6.223; 12.347; 13.217; War 3.174; 5.31; 6.301; Exod. Rab. 47:5; twenty-seven times in Philo (e.g., Creation 56, 80; Conf. 151; Migr. 111, 157). “Night and day” appears in 1 En. 82:8; Sib. Or. 4.13; 4 Ezra 9:44; Philo Plant. 118; Heir 164; Abr. 155; Jos. 86; Mos. 2.122; Spec. Laws 1.156; 3.17, 39; Virt. 6; Rewards 151; Jos. Life 11; Ant. 2.274; 7.367; 16.260; War 1.492; 5.274; Ag. Ap. 1.164. The Greco-Roman evidence is also mixed, e.g., “day and night” in Diod. Sic. 38/39.9.1; Cic. Fam. 14.3.2; Att. 7.9; Handb. Elec. 44; Vat. 11.26; Tac. Ann. 4.74; Quint. Decl. 299.5; and “night and day” in Cic. Tusc. 5.25.70; Hor. Sat. 1.1.76; Vell. Paterc. 2.41.3; Libanius Topics 5.5; Porph. Marc. 10.177–78. The contrast that some commentators make between Gentile and Jewish usage is thus exaggerated. 958. This must have become familiar in early Christianity (1 Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3; Rev 4:8; 7:15; cf. Ode 8:71). This undoubtedly comes from the ot (e.g., Lev 8:35; 1 Chr 9:33; Neh 1:6; Ps 88:1; Jdt 11:17; 2 Macc 13:10; cf. Ps 134:1); for Scripture study, see Deut 6:7; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2. Studying in shifts may appear in 1QS VI, 6–7; praising in shifts in Test. Adam 1–2 (possibly redacted in the third century c.e.). 959. E.g., Gen 31:39–40; Neh 4:22; Quint. Inst. pref. 2; Diod. Sic. 38/39.9.1; Apul. Apol. 5; cf. 1 Sam 25:16; Isa 21:8. 960. Applebaum, “Economic Life,” 657 (citing m. B. Meṣiʿa 9:11). 961. A well-to-do Stoic might value leisure but recognized that many even in the elite preferred the activities of public life (Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 4A.pref. 1); but Plut. Cic. 36.3 praises Cicero’s diligence and long work days. Epicureans preferred a quietist withdrawal from public life (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 68.10; Max. Tyre 15.8; Jos. Ant.

3048

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 104

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

hyperbolic in Paul’s case, most ancients would view this picture of Paul’s labors as industrious and positive.962 “Day and night” is what some would call a merism,963 a combination of opposites suggesting the whole (e.g., Gen 1:1; Deut 6:7)—thus, in this case, “continually” or “all the time.” This phrase appears both in biblical964 and in Greco-Roman literature.965 In addition to being a figure encompassing the whole, the phrase here is also hyperbolic,966 since it is impossible that Paul literally warned everyone continually without sleeping.967 Had the author intended all day and night, he would have used the accusative; the genitive means “during the night and day,” hence parts of them.968 Paul may have been active during part of the night and most of the day, and he does speak of some “sleepless nights” (2 Cor 6:5; 11:27),969 but we need not think of supernatural sustenance that rendered sleep unnecessary! Normally people stopped work or other activities at nightfall,970 but some individuals (perhaps mentioned because unusual) did have different sleep schedules.971 Urban laborers normally worked from dawn till sundown, apart from their midday siesta,972 so that long hours were not unusual during daylight. Paul’s ministry at night is best illustrated by the account preceding Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders, where he spoke throughout the night to believers in Troas (Acts 20:7, 11).973 The “three years” counts, as was customary, part of a year as a whole; it includes both the “three months” of 19:8 and the two further years of 19:10.974 That one has acted in a positive manner for a significant period of time is appropriate information 19.32; cf. Warren, “Diogenes Epikourios”; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 25; idem, Moral Exhortation, 148; Meeks, Moral World, 57; Hock, Social Context, 46; Smith, Symposium, 58), but most disagreed (cf., e.g., Plut. Phil. Power, Mor. 776A–779C; Pliny Ep. 7.3.2; Max. Tyre 15.3–10). 962. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 31. Such hard work was necessary for those seeking prosperity (Hesiod W.D. 381–82). 963. For this sense of merism, see, e.g., Walton, Genesis, 71; Konkel, Kings, 273, though this is not the technical ancient rhetorical definition (on which see Anderson, Glossary, 70). 964. Gen 1:14–18; 8:22; Deut 28:66; 1 Kgs 8:29, 59; 2 Chr 6:20; Neh 4:9; Esth 4:16; Pss 1:2; 32:4; 42:3; 55:10; 121:6; Isa 27:3; 28:19; 34:10; 38:12–13; 60:11; 62:6; Jer 9:1; 14:17; 16:13; 33:20, 25; 36:20; Lam 2:18; Hos 4:5; Zech 14:7; cf. 3 Macc 5:11; Mark 5:5; Rev 12:10; 14:11; 20:10. Often this language applied to the pillar and cloud (Exod 10:13; 13:21–22; 40:38; Num 9:16; 14:14; Deut 1:33; Neh 9:12, 19; cf. Ps 78:14; Isa 4:5). Cf. also 4 Ezra 9:44; Exod. Rab. 47:5. 965. E.g., Cic. Att. 7.9; Fam. 14.3.2; Vat. 11.26; Tusc. 5.25.70; Virg. Georg. 3.341; Hor. Sat. 1.1.76; Sil. It. 1.604; Mus. Ruf. 11, p. 84.10; Arrian Alex. 7.11.4; Tac. Ann. 4.74; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.29–30; Porph. Marc. 10.177–78; Symm. Ep. 1.3.4 (working night and day); 1.53.1; Jos. War 6.301. Cf. “neither darkness nor day” in Sil. It. 6.562. 966. As Watson, “Speech,” 203, points out (citing, for hyperbole, Rhet. Her. 4.33.44; Longin. Subl. 38.1–6; Cic. De or. 3.53.203; Quint. Inst. 8.6.67–76; Demet. Style 2.124–27). On this figure, see further Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430b.16–19; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.139; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.7; Rowe, “Style,” 128; Anderson, Glossary, 122–24; for examples, see Philost. Hrk. 48.11; Song Rab. 1:15, §3. One should, however, avoid hyperbole in propositions and other places where literal language was expected (Rhet. Her. 2.20.32). 967. Cf. the son who spends “night and day” in banquets and brothels (Sen. E. Controv. 2.1.15): this means that he does this during night and during day, not that he commits all twenty-four-hour days to these activities. 968. Hock, Social Context, 31. 969. For various possible reasons for sleeplessness, see comment on Acts 2:14–15. 970. E.g., Hom. Il. 2.387; 7.282; 8.529–30; 11.209; 14.259–61; Philost. Hrk. 58.4; see comment on Acts 4:3; Keener, John, 779. 971. E.g., Scopelian, who studied all night (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.518); Cicero, unable to sleep (Att. 13.26, 38); obviously night guards (Val. Max. 8.1.damn.6). Some also urged late retiring and early rising as part of vigilance in household management (Philod. Prop. col. B.6–10; col. 11.30–41, disagreeing); cf. Prov 31:15. 972. Jeffers, World, 25, 28, 61. 973. Cf. also Acts 16:9, 25; 17:10; 18:9. 974. With Barrett, Acts, 903. Some add the “some time longer” of Acts 19:22 (Witherington, Acts, 576; Riesner, Early Period, 217–18); although this is possible, this might be reckoned in the “two years” if the latter was meant to cover the entire period till Paul’s departure.

3049

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 105

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

for self-recommendation (see introduction to 20:18–21), and it appears in some expectations for epideictic rhetoric.975 (3) Emotional Intensity

Emotional appeal is important in rhetoric (Quint. Inst. 6.1.9), and the best rhetoric should be able to move an audience to tears (4.2.114; 6.1.30).976 Tears can signify the intimacy of connection between a leader and followers,977 and they often generate tears also among the hearers or readers (cf. Acts 20:37).978 Paul’s writings also suggest that he wept as he delivered some exhortations (cf. 2 Cor 2:4; Phil 3:19).979 See further comment on Acts 20:19, 37. Ancient speeches often included pathos, or emotional appeal.980 Pathos was important in forensic speech and argument;981 rhetoricians recognized the affective aspect of human personality and that persuasion often had an emotional component.982 Alternating rational and emotional appeals helped add variety to speeches.983 One earlier Hellenistic handbook suggested that a speaker should appeal to friendly feelings (Rhet. Alex. 34, 1439b.15–1440b.3); one could conclude a prosecution speech by stirring the audience’s disgust for the opponents or pity for oneself (36, 1443b.16–21) or stir sympathy by reminding the audience of one’s kindness either to them or to those who have now wronged one (1444b.35–1445a.12).984 A first-century Roman handbook advocates expressing various emotions in seeking to persuade the judge.985 Sufferings often generated sympathy,986 as did reminders of benefaction.987 One could rouse indignation against how one has been wronged.988 One could even appeal to pathos while disclaiming it, portraying the emotion as too strong to be voluntary.989 For example, Cicero,990 defending Sestius, claims that he must stop his speech, moved by the sight of Sestius, who served Rome; Sestius’s weeping son; and others 975. Watson, “Speech,” 204 (citing Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.). He also finds among conventional epi­deic­ tic topics here beneficence (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a4–1366b6; 1366b17; Cic. De or. 2.11.46; 2.84.343–44; 2.85.346) and acting habitually honorably (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32; Rhet. Alex. 3.1426a.35ff.). 976. An attorney should identify with the person he represents in court (like an actor with his role), so feeling his position and weeping (Quint. Inst. 6.2.34–35). Tears on behalf of others were honorable (Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; 8.19.132), though restraint might also be honorable (8.12.82, 86). 977. E.g., Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3. Caesar’s tears motivated his soldiers’ loyalty (Suet. Jul. 33). 978. E.g., Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.3.3; Arrian Alex. 7.11.5; 7.12.3. 979. The public reader of Acts might move a hand toward the cheek and sound tearful here (Shiell, Reading Acts, 71, 88). 980. E.g., Sall. Sp. G. Cotta 5; Sen. E. Controv. 1.7.10; Dio Cass. 8.36.5; Libanius Declam. 44.78–81; more fully Arist. Rhet. 2 (even if this specific work was not widely used in this period); Quint. Inst. 5; Hermog. Method 31.448; cf. Hall, “Delivery,” 230–34; Mack and Robbins, Patterns, 55. Invective rhetoric appealed especially to anger, hatred, fear, and pity (Quint. Inst. 6.2.20); Quintilian applies the term πάθος especially to violent emotions (6.2.8–9, dividing emotional appeals into πάθος [pathos] and ἦθος [ēthos], but I employ the term more generally for any sort of emotional appeal. For various definitions of the term in antiquity, see, e.g., Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 48–49, 52–56. 981. Both sides would appeal to it (Quint. Inst. 6.1.9). 982. E.g., Olbricht, “Pathos as Proof,” 7. For a discussion of Plato’s views, see 8–12; for Aristotle’s, 12–17. Perdue, “Rhetoric,” 192–93, finds emotional appeal in Wisdom of Solomon. 983. Dion. Hal. Isaeus 3. 984. One discredited opponents by using the opposite technique (Rhet. Alex. 36, 1445.12–26). For one example of a speech with tears generating sympathy, see Jos. Ant. 17.106. 985. Quint. Inst. 4.1.33. 986. Pliny Ep. 2.11.12–13; 4.9.22. 987. E.g., Sall. Pomp. 1; Libanius Declam. 36.1–3. 988. Lysias Or. 10.27–28, §118 (also appealing to patriotic sentiments). 989. Cic. Mil. 38.105. 990. Cicero was so effective at pathos that Caesar was moved to acquit his enemy whom Cicero was defending (Plut. Cic. 39.6).

3050

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 106

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

who have served the state.991 Cicero further pleads with his hearers to remember his own sufferings for the state, contending that convicting his friends would increase his suffering.992 One might appeal to a defendant’s old age to urge hearers to act compassionately.993 Cicero believed that, when appropriate, a good orator should protest passionately, at other times pleading gently.994 It was, indeed, essential to be able to move the judge to indignation or tears “or in short (and this is the one supreme characteristic of the orator) sway his feelings in whatever direction the situation demanded.”995 One could appeal to pathos by invoking more sympathy-generating relatives.996 Thus, by appealing to the suffering of the defendant’s small children that a hostile verdict could produce, an effective speaker could secure acquittal.997 One’s aged mother could be without support;998 one’s aged father could be heartbroken.999 Likewise, Cicero could appeal to a long-standing Vestal’s sacrifice for the state and to the pain her brother’s conviction could cause her, since she could bear no children of her own.1000 Conversely, an opponent might respond that one’s resort to pathos (seeking mercy) was a tacit admission of guilt.1001 Orators needing to counter an appeal to pathos would appeal to rational criteria1002 or deliver a counterappeal to pathos (e.g., vividly recounting afresh the crime).1003 Instead of appealing to the defendant’s forlorn family, a prosecutor could appeal to the survivors of this evildoer’s victims.1004 A defendant could in turn respond to such rousing of emotion by noting that although indignation against the alleged crime is just, the defendant did not commit it.1005 Genuine feelings—for example, of grief—could add passion to one’s case.1006 Generally, speakers should genuinely feel the emotions they wish to stir in others.1007 Still, a rhetorician could advise that although one should not grow angry, one should 991. Cic. Sest. 69.144 (the use of pathos then continues to the end of the speech in 69.147). 992. Cic. Sest. 69.145–46; cf. Rab. Post. 17.47. Cf. a similar approach by Dio Chrys. Or. 40.12, complaining that Prusa was adding to his famous sufferings. A leader could ask what he had done, thereby protesting that he had been wronged (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.33.1–36.3; see comment on Acts 20:26). 993. Cic. Quinct. 30.91. 994. Cic. Or. Brut. 40.138. 995. Cic. Brut. 93.322 (LCL, 5:281). 996. Hall, “Delivery,” 227–28, notes that Cicero parades relatives before audiences to move them to pity (citing Flacc. 106; Font. 46, 48; Planc. 102; Sull. 88; Sest. 144–46; Verr. 2.1.151). A woman could be portrayed as baring her breasts before a judge to invoke pity; see Alciph. Court. 4 (Bacchis to Phrynê), 1.31, ¶4 (for a nonforensic example, cf. Hom. Il. 22.79–83). 997. Val. Max. 8.1.abs.2 (many of the acquittals in this context stem from appeals to pathos); cf. the prosecutor’s warning against succumbing to this approach in Libanius Topics 1.27. 998. Lysias Or. 7.41, §§111–12; for other appeals citing mothers, see, e.g., Aeschines Embassy 148. 999. Lysias Or. 20.35–36, §161; Aeschines Embassy 179. 1000. Cic. Font. 21.46–47. 1001. Lysias Or. 27.12–13, §§178–79; Libanius Topics 1.27, 29; 2.20; for complaints about the opponent’s use of pathos, Hall, “Delivery,” 228, cites Cic. Rab. Post. 24 and also Cicero’s lost Pro Vareno, as noted in Quint. Inst. 6.1.49; others denounced Cicero’s use in Verr. 2.1.151. Appeals to pity generally appear only when defendants know that they cannot be acquitted (Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 45). But one could also make such an appeal after a convincing array of facts (Isaeus Menec. 44, 47). For appeals to pity, see also Anderson, Glossary, 54; note prosecution examples (rejecting pity for the defendant or advocating it for the victims) in Libanius Topics 1.11, 27–30; 3.14; 4.19; 5.11–12. 1002. Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 14; Aphth. Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 35S, 20R; Nicolaus Progymn. 7, “On Commonplace,” 44. 1003. Hermog. Progymn. 6, “On Commonplace,” 14. 1004. Lysias Or. 13.46, §134. For pathos on behalf of the victim, see also, e.g., Cic. Cael. 24.60. 1005. E.g., Aeschines Embassy 5; Tim. 122. 1006. Sen. E. Controv. 4.pref. 6. 1007. E.g., Cic. De or. 2.46.189–90; Fredrickson, “Tears,” 175 (citing Quint. Inst. 6.2.25–28). Thus Pliny claims that he “gave full play to [his] feelings of wrath and indignation” (Ep. 6.33.10 [LCL, 1:479]).

3051

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 107

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

simulate anger when necessary (Isoc. Ad Nic. 23).1008 Pliny the Younger complains that an orator for the opposing side depended entirely on pathos (moving people to tears),1009 but believes that such appeals lose ground over time as reason prevails.1010 Intensity of passion was important in rhetoric (Plut. Cic. 5.3), but some ancients condemned others who shouted too much as not understanding the appropriate ways to use passion (5.4).1011 Stoics rejected the validity of emotional appeals1012 and believed that appeals and decisions based solely on emotion have little effect.1013 Thus Seneca claimed that he would prefer to express his feelings rationally instead of acting undignified like orators who stomp around, wave their arms, or raise their voices.1014 But while many thinkers about speech rejected oratory that depended solely on emotion,1015 most allowed it a role in persuasion. Against many philosophers, Cicero and Quintilian defended the rhetorical use of emotion.1016 Modern empirical studies have demonstrated that human reason and emotion are not as easily separable as those who are appealing solely to reason might prefer.1017 Paul also appeals to pathos in his letters (e.g., 2 Cor 2:4; 6:11–13; Gal 4:12–20);1018 he probably felt that his supreme ends justified such appeals, even though some modern critics would demur in the case of his polemic against opponents.1019 Intense emotion was not at all foreign to letters, though the emotion most commonly expressed is affection.1020 Yet such intense emotion appears no less commonly in speeches, and there is no reason to doubt that the epistolary Paul could have employed it in spoken rhetoric. As in Acts 20:20, where Paul ministered from house to house as well as publicly, so here Paul is emphatic that he warned “each one” (ἕνα ἕκαστον) of them (though the phrase does not require privacy; cf. 2:3; Luke 16:5).1021 Despite the importance of 1008. For an example of explicit anger, see Apul. Apol. 78. A Stoic, of course, would demur (cf. Sen. E. Controv. 2.pref. 2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–3). Isocrates elsewhere feigns being so overwhelmed emotionally that he does not know what to say (yet in speeches preserved in writing; Antid. 140, 310, 320); but aporia was a common technique (e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 47.12; see comment on Acts 25:20). 1009. Pliny Ep. 2.11.3. Of course, Pliny himself was not averse to passionate rhetoric (Ep. 6.33.9–10; 9.26.2) or to stirring his audience (9.23.1). 1010. Pliny Ep. 2.11.6. 1011. Some occasions invited a greater display of emotion than did others (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30). 1012. Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 170 (believing that their views had widespread effects on rhetoric); Anderson, Glossary, 61 (citing SVF 3.451). Yet unlike most others, Stoics rejected such emotion altogether (Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 116.1). 1013. Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16. 1014. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.2–3. Though approving the use of pathos, Cicero himself disapproved excessive physical displays of emotion, such as frequent stomping (Brut. 43.158). 1015. Cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 29. 1016. Leigh, “Emotions.” For Cicero, see Olbricht, “Pathos as Proof,” 17–19; for Quintilian, 19–21. Cicero could note his emotional appeals openly, portraying them as just (e.g., Sest. 2.4). 1017. Elliott, Feelings, 16–53. 1018. See, e.g., Sumney, “Rationalities”; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 181–82; Martin, “Voice of Emotion,” 181–202; Kraftchick, “Πάθη,” 61–63. Although noting that intonation and gestures were important factors contributing to building pathos (cf., e.g., Dion. Hal. Isoc. 13; Val. Max. 8.10), Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 341, recognizes the use of pathos in Paul’s letters. 1019. See Sumney, “Πάθος,” 160. 1020. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.9.1; 2.1.1–2; 2.2.1; 2.3.2; 2.10.1; 6.15.1; 7.14.2; 10.23.7; 12.12.1; 12.30.3; 15.20.2; 15.21.1, 3; Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.3–4; 1.5.2; Ad M. Caes. 5.2; 5.52 (67). Some scholars (e.g., Aune, Environment, 171) may play down feeling in letters too much; letters should reflect the writers’ personality (Malherbe, “Theorists,” 15; Demet. Style 4.227). 1021. In the nt, the phrase appears especially in Luke (Luke 4:40; 16:5; Acts 2:3, 6; 17:27; 20:31; 21:19, 26) and Paul (1 Thess 2:11; 2 Thess 1:3; Eph 4:7, 16), and especially Paul (1 Thess 2:11; Col 4:6; cf. Eph 5:33) uses it for personal exhortation. Elsewhere in the nt, only at Matt 26:22; Rev 21:21; in the lxx, see, e.g., 4 Macc 4:26; 5:2; 8:5, 9; 13:13, 18; 14:12; 15:19; 16:24.

3052

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 108

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

group education, ancients recognized the value of private instruction.1022 To win the people’s favor, one must be approachable “day and night,” showing even a welcome face whenever visitors come.1023 iv. Committing the Elders to God (20:32)

“Committing” the elders to God and to the message about his grace brings to a climax the emphasis on commissioning in the speech (see the section introduction, above). The verb “commit” (παρατίθημι) appears in this sense in Acts 14:23; as he is leaving, Paul entrusts their spiritual welfare to God’s gracious care—just as he did with earlier elders whom he had appointed to carry on in his absence. This verse looks back to the previous exhortations to the elders in 20:28–31a, but also forward (occurring in the midst of personal example in 20:31b–35). Some writers group this statement with 20:32–35 because its climactic role makes it suitable to open the speech’s peroratio.1024 Personification is a frequent rhetorical device,1025 and Watson suggests that the “message of grace” here is personified as a “builder.”1026 The building metaphor was frequent enough that early Christians may well have forgotten the image that originally stood behind their usage (i.e., it could have functioned as a dead metaphor; but see comment on Acts 9:31); the use of personification here is therefore likewise uncertain. “Build” appears with a spiritual sense in Acts 9:31; Rom 14:19; 15:20; 1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:4, 17; Gal 2:18; Eph 4:12, 16; 1 Thess 5:11; 1 Pet 2:5, 7.1027 “Word of grace,” meaning “message of God’s favor,” is a distinctly Lukan construction,1028 though, of course, “grace” is a frequent Pauline term (close to two-thirds of the nt uses). Against those who view the “set-apart ones” (ἡγιασμένοις) here as angels1029 (a legitimate and common use by itself1030 but not with regard to inheritance!),1031 the phrase refers here to God’s set-apart people, as with the cognate adjective in Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10. In early Jewish literature, such titles typically apply to the whole or the remnant of Israel1032 or (often the same in early Jewish ideology) to the righteous.1033 1022. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 48 (citing Plut. Flatt., Mor. 70D–71C). 1023. Cic. Handb. Elec. 44; cf. Theophr. Char. 24.7 (an arrogant person allows visitors only at daybreak). 1024. My division of the speech here is difficult; this statement could go with the previous or the following unit, since there is no definite break in thought. 1025. E.g., Rhet. Her. 4.53.66; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; Hermog. Progymn. 9, “On Ethopoeia,” 20; for examples, see Hor. Sat. 2.1.58; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 77/78.33; Fronto (Naber, 211, §7); Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9; 2.6, 404.29–405.13; Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; cf. sources in Keener, John, 347, 350–51, 353, 359–60. 1026. Watson, “Speech,” 204 (citing, on personification as amplification, Cic. De or. 3.53.205; Part. or. 16.55). The lavish language of Acts 20:32 fits the divine subject (cf. Jude 24), which could even use especially “grand” rhetoric (Max. Tyre Or. 11.1; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 335.21–22; 2.1–2, 368.9; cf. Ps.-Longinus Sublime). 1027. The language of 2 Cor 10:8 and 13:10 suggests that at least some of Paul’s usage echoes Jer 1:10. 1028. See Acts 14:3; cf. Luke 4:22; though also cf. Eph 4:29; Col 4:6. This sort of construction appears elsewhere (e.g., “word of his power,” Heb 1:3; “message of the kingdom,” e.g., Matt 13:19; most relevant, “message of the cross,” 1 Cor 1:18; “message of truth,” 2 Cor 6:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; 2 Tim 2:15; Jas 1:18 [cf. also Ps 119:43]; “message of life,” Acts 5:20; Phil 2:16; 1 John 1:1). 1029. Lohse, Colossians, 36 (cf. better p. 7). 1030. See, e.g., 1 En. 1:9; 9:3; 14:23; 20:1–7; 39:5; 46:1–2; 61:8, 10; 100:5; 103:2; Jub. 31:14; 1QM X, 12; XII, 1, 7; 1Q20 II, 1; 4Q201 I, 3; 4Q403 1 I, 31; 4Q491 5 + 6 1; 1Qap Genar II, 1 (see Fitzmyer, Apocryphon, 81); Sir 45:2; Test. Job 33:2; 43:10/8; probably Zech 14:5; 1Q20 VI, 20; 3 Macc 2:2; perhaps Deut 33:2; cf. 1QM VII, 6; X, 11; Jub. 15:27; Test. Ab. 16:9 A. In some texts, it is more difficult to tell whether angels or people are in view (e.g., 1QM XII, 4; XVIII, 2); although 1 Thess 3:13 is not clear, many (e.g., Ross, “Thessalonians”; Richardson, Theology, 278; Marshall, Thessalonians, 102–3) take its “saints” as angels. 1031. Cf., e.g., 1QS XI, 7–8; though cf. 1QHa XIV, 16; 4Q181 1 II, 4. 1032. E.g., 1QM X, 9–10; XVI, 1; 1QHa XIX, 12; 1Q34 + 1Q34 bis 3 II, 6; 4Q274 1 I, 6; 4Q511 2 I, 6; Wis 18:9; cf. Jub. 2:19; 15:27; 22:29; 30:8; 1QM XII, 1; 1QS VIII, 21, 23; IX, 6; Sib. Or. 5.161; 3.573. Schnabel, Acts, 850–51, helpfully cites Deut 33:3–4 lxx. 1033. E.g., 1 En. 38:4; 39:4; 50:1; 51:2; 100:5; Test. Iss. 5:4; cf. Test. Ab. 13:5 B. Clearly, 1 Enoch applies the title both to humans and to angels (with Decock, “Holy Ones”). The “holy ones” of Dan 7 are

3053

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 109

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

“Inheritance among those set apart” thus plays on the language of Israel’s inheritance, translated into eschatological terms in early Judaism. Although this is ot language for Israel, Acts 26:18 applies almost the same expression to Gentile believers as well (26:17). In Scripture, Israel was to “inherit” the promised land; in early Judaism, this image extended to the entire earth.1034 In Luke-Acts, the inheritance includes especially “eternal life,” the life of the kingdom (Luke 10:25; 18:18).1035 g. Paul’s Example of Sacrifice (20:33–35) Paul’s self-sacrificial service (Acts 20:18–21) was also expressed in giving to others rather than seeking from others (20:33–35). Following the ultimate model of Jesus (20:35), Paul again offers himself as an example (explicit in 20:35a), this time in contrast with greedy false teachers (20:29). In 20:35, Luke recalls and encapsulates some of Jesus’s life and teaching from his Gospel. i. Introduction

In Acts 20:33–35, Paul’s speech reaches its stirring conclusion. Watson sees 20:32– 35 as the speech’s closing peroratio and finds techniques here often characteristic of peroratio, with hortatory use of exempla, inviting generosity and displaying affection.1036 The exhortations in a peroratio carry the greatest weight.1037 On the use of personal examples, see comment on Acts 20:18–21; on the appeal to ēthos, see comment on Acts 20:20–21. Paul’s example in 20:34 also would reduce the likelihood of artisans taking offense at the portrayal of hostile artisans in 19:24–28. (1) Leaders and Greed

Paul’s example of sacrifice here can guard leaders from becoming greedy false teachers (20:29) and harks back to Paul’s example in the beginning of the speech (20:18b–21), bracketing the speech. Paul’s example is dominant here, as earlier in the speech (20:18–27).1038 Such an appeal makes sense. One of Paul’s letters written a year or two before this journey cites his own example, explaining why he works rather than accepts patronage (1 Cor 9:1–18).1039 A hero leader’s example could motivate others to join in (e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1.363–64), though the ultimate hero leader’s example implicit behind Paul’s here is that of Jesus (cf. Acts 20:35). One’s conduct adds persuasiveness to one’s speech (Rhet. Alex. 38, 1445b.30–34). probably human (Hasel, “Identity”; Di Lella, “Likeness”; Poythress, “Holy Ones”; though Dequeker, “Saints,” argues for angels). 1034. See Rom 4:13; 1 En. 5:7; Jub. 17:3; 22:14; 32:19; 4Q171 II, 4, 8; III, 9; 4Q418 81 14; 2 Bar. 51:3; Mek. Besh. 7.139–40; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 35b; Ber. 4b; Gen. Rab. 11:7; Exod. Rab. 15:31. For the ot notion, see Hester, Inheritance, 22–29; in early Jewish sources, see 30–36, 84. 1035. Jewish people expected to “inherit” the coming world as well as the land; cf. 4Q418 69 II, 13; 1 En. 40:9; 2 En. 50:2 (cf. 55:2); Pss. Sol. 14:7; Sib. Or. 1.85; Rom 8:17; Eph 1:14; 4 Ezra 6:59; 7:96; 2 Bar. 44:13; b. ʿ Abod. Zar. 35b; Ber. 4b; Qidd. 40b; Pesaḥ . 113a; y. Peʾ ah 1:1, §8; Qidd. 1:7, §6; Exod. Rab. 2:6; 20:4; Lev. Rab. 14:1; Pesiq. Rab. 23/24:2. By contrast, the wicked would “inherit Gehinnom” (m. ʾ Ab. 1:5; b. Yoma 72b), not the coming world (m. ʾ Ab. 3:11). 11QT LI, 15–16 may refer exclusively to the promised land. 1036. Watson, “Speech,” 207, citing Cic. Part. or. 15.52–17.28 (esp. 16.55–56). Cicero also suggests metaphors, of which “building” here may be one (Watson, “Speech,” 207; cf. comment on Acts 9:31). Even legal speeches appealed more to exempla than to laws (Ungern-Sternberg, “Tradition,” 148). 1037. Watson, “Speech,” 207, citing Cic. Part. or. 17.58. 1038. On the use of models, see Kurz, “Models,” 175–84; comment on Acts 20:18–27. 1039. Witherington, Acts, 614 (who notes that Paul also cites a saying of Jesus there, 1 Cor 9:14). From Acts 20:34, Strelan, Artemis, 271, naturally infers that Paul did not accept patronage in Ephesus; but while he rejected it for himself, I believe that he accepted it for the public ministry in Tyrannus’s hall (19:9; see comment on Acts 19:31).

3054

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 110

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

A teacher would normally be expected to receive payment of some sort, but Paul had refused to receive pay from churches that might view him as a dependent (1 Cor 9; see comment on Acts 18:3).1040 Paul refused pay especially to avoid the unsavory reputation that attached to any teachers who could be remotely accused of teaching only for money (cf. 2 Cor 2:17; 7:2; 11:7–13; 1 Thess 2:5).1041 Luke provides numerous examples of those who act for personal gain (Simon in Acts 8:20; Paul’s accusers in 16:19; 19:24–27; Pharisees in Luke 16:14; scribes in 20:47). Many ancients believed (probably often rightly) that impostors became rich off the gullible whom they could deceive.1042 The motif of greedy sophists was a polemical topos deployed by Plato and others, perhaps to distance themselves from potential competitors.1043 Commitment to avoid personal gain thus authenticates leaders or heroes, as Brawley notes:1044 Part of Socrates’ defense is that he does not profit from his philosophy (Plato Apology 19D–E), and he denounces those who do (Xenophon Memorabilia 1.2.6–7). Philo notes that some people travel for pleasure or financial advantage, but he portrays Abraham in contrast as one who migrates in obedience to God and gives no thought to personal gain (On Abraham 62–67). Josephus charges that his colleagues accept bribes to allow John of Gischala access to imperial grain, but he defends himself as unswayed by monetary enticements (Life 13 §§70–73).

Such authentication and separating of oneself from charlatans are not Luke’s fiction for Paul; they appear in Paul’s own letters, including his earliest letter.1045 Distinguishing oneself from charlatans was essential for a wandering preacher (2 Cor 2:17; 1 Thess 2:5), and many other sages offered the same kinds of distinctions that Paul did. Popular preachers such as Dio Chrysostom (vis-à-vis bad Cynics) and Philostratus’s Apollonius (vis-à-vis magicians) sought to distinguish themselves from disreputable preachers.1046 Plutarch notes that most philosophers are worse than average persons but that this should not be held against the minority of genuine philosophers.1047 Lucian enjoyed the pastime of mocking phony, greedy philosophic preachers.1048 Good sages criticized,1049 or are sometimes portrayed as exposing,1050 the bad sages and religious practitioners, further differentiating honest from dishonest speakers. Criticizing 1040. Paul did hope that the Corinthian (2 Cor 10:15–16 if I understand it rightly) and Roman (Rom 15:24) churches would help him evangelize other regions, and he accepted help from the Macedonian church (2 Cor 11:8–9; Phil 4:15–16). But he refused Corinthian support in Corinth (2 Cor 12:13–15) and was certain that the Corinthian believers could not charge Titus with having exploited them either (12:18). 1041. Cf. Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse.” 1042. E.g., Phaedrus 1.14.17–18; for this prejudice against ancient preachers and sages, see also Dahl, Studies, 32. Even a true philosopher could be hoodwinked at times (Mus. Ruf. frg. 50, pp. 142, 144). 1043. For Plato and the theme of sophists’ association with fees, see Tell, “Wisdom.” For Socrates’s lack of possessions, see, e.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 174. 1044. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 61. Displaying one’s avoidance of covetousness strengthened one’s rhetorical ēthos (Watson, “Speech,” 205, citing Cic. De or. 2.43.182). A defense speech could include the point that one did not act from desire for gain (Apul. Metam. 3.6). 1045. Walton, Leadership, 172, shows parallels with Acts 20:33–35 in 1 Thess 2:5ff., 9; 4:11–12; 5:14. Paul’s presentation of himself elsewhere is also often apologetic (see, e.g., Lyons, Autobiography). 1046. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 285–87; Malherbe, “Gentle as Nurse,” 214; Cynics against their opponents in Neumann, “Gewinn.” Thus Dio Chrysostom distinguishes himself from hucksters (Or. 35.4) who become popular solely by people’s talking them up (Or. 35.8); he notes that they go wherever crowds gather (35.15). 1047. Plut. Lect. 12, Mor. 43F. Others also complained that the genuine philosophers were a minority among professed philosophers (Max. Tyre 1.8). 1048. E.g., Lucian Dial. D. 374 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 10); Runaways 4, 20; Fisherman 42; Tim. 54–57. 1049. E.g., Plato Rep. 2.364BC; Laws 10.908DE. 1050. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.41; Ep. Apoll. 3, 5, 15, 35, 51.

3055

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 111

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

impostors became a serious enough pastime that rhetoricians themselves criticized the insincerity of “sophists.”1051 Other rhetoricians protested against the dismissal of all rhetoricians because of the abusive behavior of some.1052 Leaders in general had to beware of suspicion of greed1053 (see Luke 12:13–48, esp. 12:41–48). Thus one ruler avoided the extravagance of other rulers to avoid suspicion and set a good example (Isoc. Nic. 37 [Or. 3.34]). Athenian officials who coveted the city’s possessions were to be executed (Lysias Or. 28.3, §179). A Roman soliciting an office might emphasize that he sought glory, not the salary;1054 letters of recommendation might emphasize that the person recommended avoided seeking personal gain.1055 Exploitation of office,1056 including provincial office,1057 was common, and so a governor who avoided the temptation of a rich province such as Asia was praiseworthy (Tac. Agr. 6).1058 Lack of greed appears even among qualifications for midwives (Soranus Gynec. 1.2.4), and so it is hardly surprising for church leaders (1 Tim 3:3; 1 Pet 5:2). Philosophers and others who refused money, or at least were very discerning about the people from whom they would accept it, were praised.1059 Thus a probably pseudepigraphic letter attributes such an attitude to Apollonius.1060 Socrates is said to have disdained personal gain, not influenced by his greedy wife.1061 An Athenian orator insists that he has always lived with moderation, satisfied with only a little money (Aeschines Ctes. 218). Plutarch praises Aristides for remaining poor (and valuing his poverty) despite his office.1062 Many ancients believed that good teachers should not care about money.1063 Plato’s guardians (though not all the community) would share their property in common.1064 Even philosophers who were not Stoic or Cynic could regard wealth and poverty as inconsequential.1065 Some philosophers also believed that they should avoid any situation that would obligate them to wealthy patrons, prejudicing their free speech.1066 Among the stock criticisms of traveling teachers (especially those who begged or charged fees) was that they were greedy for gain.1067 1051. E.g., Isocrates Antidosis; Against Sophists; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.32–34; Max. Tyre 27.8. Philosophers, of course, had long criticized those more interested in winning debates than in truth (Plato Theaet. 164CD; against sophists, e.g., Plato Hippias major; Hippias minor; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.36–37; Philo Worse 38); for sophists as “peddlers,” see Plato Prot. 313C; Soph. 231D; Max. Tyre 27.8; cf. 2 Cor 2:17. 1052. Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 247, §76D. Sophists’ enemies may have had rhetorical reasons for painting them as greedy (see Tell, “Wisdom”). 1053. The ideal ruler employed his office only for the corporate good (Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23, 65). 1054. Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 9.2 (in a letter of recommendation). 1055. E.g., Pliny Ep. 7.31.3. 1056. E.g., Suet. Tit. 7.1; see comment on Acts 24:26. 1057. E.g., Pliny Ep. 7.31.2; see comment on Acts 24:27. 1058. Emperors who sent governors who were not greedy were also praiseworthy (Men. Rhet. 2.1–2, 375.18–21). 1059. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621 praises a sophist who maintained poverty despite his opportunity for profit. Stoics in this period differed regarding propriety in receiving pay (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.14–29); nevertheless, fondness for money was a vice (2.7.5f, pp. 30–31.30; cf. Sen. Y. Nat. Q. 1.16.1), as many other thinkers concurred (e.g., Xen. Oec. 1.22 [Socrates]; Val. Max. 9.4; Max. Tyre 5.1). 1060. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 42. 1061. Dio Chrys. Or. 54.3. 1062. Plut. Arist. 25.3 (Aristides even refused aid, choosing to remain poor, 25.5). 1063. So, e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 289 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9, 11; Lucian Nigr. 25–26); Philost. Ep. Apoll. 4. 1064. Plato Rep. 6.499CD (noted by Capper, “Reciprocity,” 506). 1065. Diog. Laert. 2.67, 94. 1066. Peterson, Eloquence, 67–68 (citing Lucian Posts passim; Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.69; Plato Apol. 19DE; Arist. N.E. 9.1.7; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 77/78.34–35). 1067. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 247–51, 256. Philo criticized sophists for greed, shown in their charging fees (Winter, Philo and Paul, 95–97).

3056

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 112

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Jews had charlatans like anyone else,1068 but as a minority movement, they sometimes suffered from public prejudices resulting from generalizations based on the exceptional charlatans among them.1069 Christians could expect the same. Some later rabbis warned that those who taught Torah only for their own benefit would perish eternally;1070 in an apologetic context, such attitudes would surely translate into the need to distinguish true from false teachers. Early Christians warned church leaders against greed (1 Tim 3:3; cf. Exod 18:21)1071 and recognized that false teachers were often eager for money (1 Tim 6:5; 2 Pet 2:3, 14; Did. 11.6, 12). Given their commitment to share with the needy, however, early Christians were sometimes viewed as gullible targets for charlatans (Lucian Peregr. 13). Not only in this speech in Acts but also in his letters, Paul follows Greco-Roman philosophers’ convention of distinguishing between true and false teachers (e.g., 1 Cor 9:12b–18; 2 Cor 2:17).1072 (2) Austerity

Not only were condemnations of avarice widespread,1073 but austerity was respected. Romans highly valued austerity and self-control, though more in traditions about the past than in this era.1074 Thus they praised the values of earlier Rome, when the senate expelled an otherwise virtuous man for procuring a ten-pound silver plate;1075 it also expelled a tribune for revoking a law limiting the amount of money that could be spent for banquets.1076 Most writers especially praised strict discipline and a rugged lifestyle for military camps and their leaders.1077 Moralists could employ such examples to provoke more disciplined living among their civilian audiences.1078 For them, those who were extravagant in their lifestyles could not be trusted with public funds.1079 Leaders should not treat money as important (Val. Max. 4.3.4–12); a leader who remained poor was particularly trustworthy and praiseworthy (4.3.6a). Because people are apt to complain against their leaders in difficult times,1080 being above reproach was all the more important (see comment on Acts 6:3). Leaders were sometimes charged with being eager for personal gain (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.58.3) and sometimes had to defend themselves against charges of misappropriating funds.1081 1068. E.g., Jos. Ant. 17.327 (fortunately, Caesar was merciful, 17.338). 1069. E.g., Juv. Sat. 6.542–47. 1070. Moore, Judaism, 2:97 (citing m. ʾAb. 1:13; 4:5; b. Ber. 50a); Sipre Deut. 48.7.1. Later rabbis were also concerned about appearances regarding money (Exod. Rab. 51:2, 6). 1071. Overseers must not love money (1 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7; likewise deacons in 1 Tim 3:8); some had gone astray for money (1 Tim 6:10; cf. 2 Tim 4:10). 1072. See Watson, “Bathe”; Witherington, Corinthians, 208. 1073. E.g., Polyb. 13.2.3–5; Val. Max. 9.4; Mus. Ruf. 1, p. 34.31–33; 3, p. 40.27–28; 4, p. 48.9; 8, p. 62.17; 14, p. 92.22; 20, p. 126.18–21; frg. 34, p. 134; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.32; 17; Let. Aris. 277; Jos. Ant. 15.89; Rom 1:29. Writers often included it in vice lists (Plato Laws 1.649D; 3.677B; Cic. Pis. 27.66; Mur. 6.14; Mus. Ruf. 17, p. 108.13; Dio Chrys. Or. 34.19; Lucian Charon 15; in a suffering list in Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.9–10), but it was sometimes the foundation for other vices (Thucyd. 3.82.8; Dio Chrys. Or. 17.6; Iambl. V.P. 17.78; 1 Tim 6:10), as the worst vice (Diod. Sic. 21.1.4a). 1074. Esp. the noted example of Cato, Sall. Catil. 54.5; Plut. M. Cato 2.1–2; 4.1, 3. 1075. Val. Max. 2.9.4. By Paul’s day, the elite had, in practice, moved further beyond these traditional Roman values, but they remained among the examples recited and praised. 1076. Val. Max. 2.9.5. 1077. E.g., Sall. Catil. 54.4; Jug. 85.33; Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 126.6–7, 9–10; Philost. Hrk. 27.10–11. 1078. See Mus. Ruf. 20, p. 126.6–21. Some pursued austerity to be an example (Plut. M. Cato 4.1; 5.1). 1079. Polyb. 10.22.5. 1080. E.g., 1 Sam 30:6; Aeschylus Suppl. 485. 1081. 1 Sam 12:3; Xen. Anab. 7.6.11–22; Aeschines Embassy 160, 180–82. A leader might thus boast of his generosity, as in Res Gestae 1.5; 3.15, 17 (though Augustus, unlike Paul, did not earn his own money).

3057

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 113

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Authentic philosophers would defend themselves by “disavowing the vice” of love of money.1082 Love of money was a conventional accusation that some philosophers had leveled against other philosophers from Socrates’s day onward.1083 Pythagoreans insisted that those who charged for learning, which should be free, are worse than common laborers.1084 Philostratus’s later story of Apollonius of Tyana illustrates the ideal of one without ambition: despite his many invitations (Vit. Apoll. 1.1; 4.1), Apollonius chose a modest home over a palace (1.33), and he refused the gift of a camel, continuing his journey on foot (3.50–51).1085 Some ancients also complained about prophets who spoke for financial gain.1086 Moralists advised seeking such contentment;1087 this emphasis was particularly prominent among Stoics, who were popular.1088 Even Epicurus was “content” with little,1089 and even hypocritical philosophers praised contentment when they spoke in public.1090 Jewish moralists agreed (Let. Aris. 223; Ps.-Phoc. 6). The emphasis on contentment appears in Pauline literature (Phil 4:11; 1 Tim 6:6, 8). (3) Relevance for Ephesus

Paul addresses the elders in Miletus, but they will be returning to Ephesus. Romans associated Asia, especially Ionia (which included Ephesus and Miletus), with indulgence and luxury (Val. Max. 2.6.1),1091 and so the temptation would be especially prominent there. Ephesus itself was prosperous (see comment on Acts 18:19; 19:27), but this general prosperity for the city did not translate into prosperity for all individuals.1092 A later writer praises a wealthy Ephesian for his benefactions to the city, including helping the poor of Ephesus (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.605). Apollonius allegedly taught the Ephesians that they should share goods (Vit. Apoll. 4.2). Although labor and the issue of wealth were both relevant in Ephesus, we cannot yet reconstruct the precise venue for Paul’s work. If Paul had taught at the auditorium 1082. Johnson, Acts, 365 (citing Dio Chrys. Or. 32.9, 11; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.34). Thus Bias claimed that his own possessions were in his heart, not lost by exile like those of the other fugitives (Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 3); also, true philosophers despised gold (Eunapius Lives 471). 1083. Mason, “Chief Priests,” 141 (on Luke 16:14, citing Diog. Laert. 6.56). 1084. Iambl. V.P. 34.245. The translation (Dillon and Hershbell, 239n7) compares also Plato Prot. 313D; Soph. 231D; cf. Hillel in m. ʾAb. 4:5, condemning those who profit from Torah. From a different, sophistic perspective, one stored his treasures in the hearts of those who paid for his learning (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.547). Fathers normally paid their sons’ fees for grammar, rhetoric, or Scripture teachers (Watson, “Education,” 311–12). 1085. These observations on Philostratus Vita Apollonii are from Liefeld, “Preacher,” 246, who also notes that in this work the king of India, being philosophically inclined, also lived simply (Vit. Apoll. 2.25). 1086. E.g., Soph. Antig. 1061 (though in this story the prophet is true and the complainer mistaken); Mic 3:5, 11; Jer 6:13; 8:10; Test. Levi 14:6 (priests); Did. 11.5–6, 9, 12. Pindar Isthm. 2.9–11 complains that all follow the adage that money matters most but notes (2.6) that the Muse was once not greedy. 1087. E.g., Plut. Virt. 3, Mor. 101B; Dio Chrys. Or. 6; 17; Lucian Dial. D. 436 (8/26, Menippus and Chiron 2); Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.291; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.2.55–59; Odes 2.18; 3.16; Publ. Syr. 626; Plut. L. Wealth 1–2, Mor. 523DE; Crates Ep. 11; Diogenes Ep. 46; Diog. Laert. 6.1.11; Porph. Marc. 27.429–34; 28.447–50; 29.457–59. One with modest desires might thus prove happier than another better endowed materially (Xen. Oec. 2.2–4; Val. Max. 7.1.2; Pliny E. N.H. 7.46.151; Marc. Aur. 3.12; b. Tamid 32a; cf. Arist. N.E. 1.7.6–8, 1097b; Juv. Sat. 14.308–14; Crates Ep. 35; Aul. Gel. 13.24); virtue could be sufficient for happiness (Cic. Parad. 16–19). 1088. E.g., Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 9.1; 55.4; Mus. Ruf. frg. 43, p. 138.15; Epict. Diatr. 1.1.27; 2.2.3; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11h, pp. 74–75.31–32; Marc. Aur. 3.11.2; 8.45.1; cf. Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 61.4; 94.43; Sevenster, Seneca, 113; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 101. Among Cynics, cf. Diog. Laert. 6.2.23; 6.5.93. 1089. Cic. Tusc. 5.32.89; Diog. Laert. 10.1.11; but he did pursue absence of pain (10.128, 131). 1090. Lucian Icar. 29. 1091. Valerius Maximus wrote before Ephesus’s current phase of expansion; it was now even more prosperous. Ephesus was also Asia’s greatest emporium (Strabo 12.8.15; 14.1.24, also writing earlier). Cf. also the financial scandal in the comment on Acts 19:25 and possibly the exhortation in Eph 4:28. 1092. McRay, Archaeology, 251.

3058

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 114

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

when in Ephesus, he would have had only a short distance to travel if he worked in the commercial agora;1093 but scholars now question the auditorium identification (see comment on Acts 19:9), and we cannot be certain that either represented the site of his activity. Wherever Paul lived and worked, however, he would have had some contact with various strata of society; people of all social classes lived in close proximity to one another in much of Ephesus.1094 ii. Paul’s Example of Generosity (20:33–35a)

Not only has Paul not coveted others’ possessions (Acts 20:33); he has labored to have resources to share with others (20:34). (1) Avoiding Covetousness (20:33)

One who has and preaches a secure “inheritance” (20:32) has little need of silver, gold, and clothing (20:33; cf. 3:6).1095 “Silver,” “gold,” and “clothing” is an example of rhetorical “amplification by accumulation” (as in 20:19).1096 Textiles were important in Asia—for example, the black wool of Laodicea1097 and the dyers’ guilds of Thyatira (see comment on Acts 16:14). Romans liked bright colors, provided they were not too bright.1098 Moreover, expensive garments were sometimes part of wealth.1099 Most silk, for example, was imported from China and hence expensive;1100 dyes, too, could be expensive (see comment on Acts 16:14). In the ancient world, clothing was expensive enough to appear in wills, divorce settlements, and dowries, sometimes alongside gold and jewels.1101 Thieves also readily stole clothes, whether those left unguarded at the baths or sometimes those from the backs of passersby at night.1102 We should not, however, think of the terms in ascending order of worth1103 (contrast Rev 18:12); although some clothes could be more expensive than (a given amount of) gold, this was not always the case, and the term is too general to allow us to infer this here. This is, in fact, the usual sequence in the ot (Gen 24:53; Exod 3:22; 12:35; Josh 22:8; 1 Kgs 10:25; 2 Kgs 5:5; 7:8; 2 Chr 9:24; Jer 10:9; also 1 Macc 11:24), though occasionally gold appears before silver (Ezra 2:69; Neh 7:72; Zech 14:14). Paul has not merely avoided exploiting his followers financially; he has even avoided “desiring” or “coveting” their possessions. Judaism heavily emphasized the avoidance of coveting (Exod 20:17),1104 a principle easily illustrated, for example, in prohibitions 1093. See, e.g., McRay, Archaeology, map, 251, reproduced above on p. 2902. 1094. See ibid., 88. 1095. Gold and silver are linked with idols in Acts 17:29 (cf. 19:24; Deut 7:25; 29:17; Pss 115:4; 135:15; Isa 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; Ezek 16:17; Hos 8:4; Rev 9:20). 1096. Watson, “Speech,” 205. 1097. Cf. Ramsay, Letters, 429; Hemer, Letters, 199; Caird, Revelation, 56. Pliny E. N.H. 2.106.230 curiously attributes the various colors of animals in different regions to their water supplies; the most popular black wool came from Spain (8.73.191). 1098. Croom, Clothing, 26. 1099. See Josh 7:21, 24; 22:8; 2 Kgs 5:5, 22–23; 7:8; Jas 5:2–3. 1100. Bauckham, Climax, 355; Frye, Heritage, 153–57; Herbert, “Silk Road”; Casson, Mariners, 198, 204, 206. A smaller amount was available nearer Asia (Pliny E. N.H. 11.26.76; 11.27.77). 1101. Croom, Clothing, 29. In Diocletian’s price edict, when farmers might earn twenty-five denarii a day, the most expensive garments ran to eleven thousand denarii; for three thousand denarii, one could buy an extravagant “face-cloth from Tarsus—or a four-wheeled carriage (minus the ironwork)” (29). People could also hire clothes (Croom [27] cites Juv. Sat. 6.352). 1102. Croom, Clothing, 24 (citing Tibullus 1.2.26; Bath tablet 10). 1103. As Watson, “Speech,” 205, does, though he is correct that “making each successive word or phrase stronger is one type of amplification by accumulation” (Quint. Inst. 8.4.27). Gold was devalued under Nero (White, “Finances,” 233–34), but not enough to presume that garments in general would be more expensive than gold in general (whether we think in terms of volume or of weight). 1104. Le Cornu, Acts, 1138.

3059

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 115

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

regarding sexual desire outside one’s spouse.1105 Regarding wealth, too, one should not “covet” (Let. Aris. 223, μὴ ἐπιθύμει; cf. Philo Jos. 144). Again, though ancient speeches were never direct quotations (unless memorized, usually by the author), the sentiments (cf. 1 Cor 9; see pp. 3054–55 above) and language appear Pauline. Whereas Luke nowhere else uses ἐπιθυμέω in the negative sense of “covet,” as here (Luke 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 22:15), Paul does so (Rom 7:7; 13:9; 1 Cor 10:6; cf. Gal 5:17).1106 (2) Providing for Others (20:34)

As in his opening in Acts 20:18, Paul is able to appeal to the elders’ knowledge of his behavior (see comment on Acts 20:18). One could even justifiably boast about one’s behavior if it were for the designated purpose of provoking others to emulate what was good.1107 The appeal would be rhetorically effective. Watson finds several conventional rhetorical topics in 20:32–35, many relevant here: “presenting a past action without argument” (Cic. Part. or. 21.71), “emphasizing acts of . . . generosity done for the sake of others,”1108 and “noting the performance of an action chiefly alone” (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1368a38).1109 Although manual labor normally bore a stigma among the elite (see comment on Acts 18:3), it would appeal to other laborers, and we know of many artisans with high status in Ephesus.1110 A laborer is worthy of support (Luke 10:7), but Paul gave up this right (Acts 20:34; cf. 1 Cor 9:12–15). In his letters, he also speaks of work with his “hands” (1 Cor 4:12) and praises the value of such work (Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11).1111 One purpose of such work, according to a Pauline letter circulated most prominently in Ephesus, is that one can then share with others who are in need (Eph 4:28). In his letters, Paul reports his excessive labors (1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 6:5; 11:23, 27).1112 He defends himself in advance against being compared with a charlatan by emphasizing that he worked hard with his hands night and day (cf. Acts 20:31) so that he could preach to the Thessalonians freely (1 Thess 2:9). He did this, as here, as an example (2 Thess 3:8–9; cf. 1 Cor 4:12, 16);1113 they too should work (1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:10–12; Eph 4:28), as here (Acts 20:25).1114 Likewise, he emphasizes to the Corinthians that he worked manually (1 Cor 9:3–18) to avoid hindering the gospel (9:12).1115 The aorist ὑπηρέτησαν presumes a period of fixed duration that has ended; it need not imply that Paul supported himself and his colleagues during his entire ministry in 1105. Cf., e.g., Sir 9:8; 23:5; 25:21; 41:21; Sus 8; 1QS I, 6–7; IV, 10; CD II, 16; 11QT LIX, 14; 1QpHab V, 7; Sib. Or. 4.33–34; Pss. Sol. 4:4; Test. Iss. 3:5; 7:2; 4:4; Test. Reub. 4:1, 8; 6:1–3; Test. Jud. 17:1; m. Nid. 2:1. 1106. Also Jas 4:2; cf. Matt 5:28. Johnson, Acts, 364, notes that Paul singles out this command. 1107. Plut. Praising 15, Mor. 544D. 1108. Citing Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1366a3–1366b13; 1367a19–20; Cic. De or. 2.11.46; 2.84.343–44; Her. 3.6.11. 1109. Watson, “Speech,” 206–7. 1110. See Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 114–16. 1111. In dreams, hands can stand for work, like that a craftsman does (Artem. Oneir. 1.13; more generally, 1.42). Some later rabbis opined that one could use one’s hands for charity or for robbery (Gen. Rab. 67:3). 1112. Although the mention of “labors” in the Corinthian correspondence need not be current, it probably supports the idea that he was working in Ephesus, from where he was writing (cf. also Hock, Social Context, 26). 1113. Marcus Cato’s work with his hands set an example (Plut. M. Cato 4.1). 1114. Bruce, Acts1, 383, suggests that “exaggerated eschatological expectations” required Paul’s emphasis on working. If so, Luke has obscured this element, less relevant for his audience. Whether the grain shortages of the early 50s c.e. (Winter, Left Corinth, 216–20) affected Ephesus or not (much of Asia’s grain was for export; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 66–67), it would not have been relevant in the mid-50s. 1115. As in Acts 20:34–35, the epistolary Paul quotes one of Jesus’s sayings (1 Cor 9:14) and also insists on giving rather than receiving. Barrett, Acts, 982, thinks that in Acts 20:35 as in 1 Cor 9, the point of the saying is that preachers should be supported, a support that Paul refuses for himself in Acts 20:34. This sense for 20:35, however, is probably too narrow.

3060

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 116

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:3–5). The term ὑπηρετέω can apply to ministering to others by financial support (24:23) as well as to ministry of the word (13:36).1116 Those “with him” might suggest that they were staying with him (as in 18:3),1117 but it could simply refer to their having come with him from outside Ephesus. When teachers had large classes (up to two hundred), they often used their income from fees to hire assistants.1118 Ancient moralists opposed laziness.1119 Idleness or inactivity was a vice.1120 Socrates thought genuine work good and idleness (cf. ἀργούς, the “idle”) evil (Xen. Mem. 1.2.57). Musonius Rufus, though born an equestrian, valued earning one’s living by working hard with one’s hands.1121 Philostratus claims that Apollonius tried to turn the Ephesians from idleness to philosophy.1122 Some scholars think that the emphatic position of “these hands” (αἱ χεῖρες αὗται) at the end of the sentence suggests “a rhetorical gesture.”1123 Although lack of mastery of more complex physical gestures could have been among Paul’s rhetorical weaknesses (cf. 2 Cor 10:10),1124 hand movements were basic, and they appear elsewhere in Acts (Acts 12:17; 13:16; 19:33; 26:1). Paul’s emphatic language draws attention to the sacrifice involved (1 Cor 4:12). (3) An Example of Serving the Weak (20:35a)

That 20:33–35a represents Paul’s example is explicit in 20:35a. Paul “showed” (ὑπέδειξα)1125 them how they should labor by his own example (“in this way,” οὕτως); teachers often used themselves as examples (see comment on Acts 20:18–21). Despite Luke’s appeal to people of status, he does not allow the despising of toil (18:3; cf. Luke 5:5); the purpose of having enough was to “help” (ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι; cf. Luke 1:54; 10:40) the weak. Paul expresses the same idea in 1 Thess 5:14; for working so that one has enough to help others, see Eph 4:28. (On hard work, see comment on Acts 17:5; 18:3.) Paul wants the elders to work, to help others; his example is intended to motivate them (cf. similarly 1 Cor 4:12, 16; 2 Thess 3:7, 9; cf. 1 Thess 1:6). Presumably most of these elders do not belong to the elite, whose colleagues would be alienated by such behavior (see comment on Acts 18:3). Some others in antiquity emphasized defending the helpless (e.g., Libanius Declam. 36.1). Stoic philosophers, for example, insisted that Nature gives society a responsibility to share in common protection for its weaker members (Cic. Fin. 3.20.66). 1116. The term διακονέω allows for the same ambiguity (Luke 8:3) and may also suggest coworkers who also helped to support the work by indirect means (Acts 19:22). 1117. Cf. “with me” in Luke 11:7; 15:31; 22:21; 23:43, where the person was present. In 2 Tim 4:11, Luke was, presumably, only in the same city, since Paul’s companions were free to go (4:10). 1118. Watson, “Education,” 311. Procuring the pay to fulfill promises was not always easy (cf. the admiral in Xen. Hell. 5.1.14). 1119. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 2.2.23–25. 1120. Cic. Sest. 10.22 (including inactivity in public affairs, 10.23). See further documentation at Acts 17:5. 1121. Grant, Paul, 54, cites Mus. Ruf. frg. 11, p. 80.15; p. 82.24; for his equestrian status, see Paul, 52. 1122. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.2. 1123. Watson, “Speech,” 205 (noting Quint. Inst. 11.3.85–124 for hand gestures in rhetoric); C. Williams, Acts, 235 (“a vivid touch, suggesting that Luke remembered how Paul gestured as he spoke”). Shiell, Reading Acts, 164, suggests that Paul’s (and the lector’s) hands would be clasped, since (165) clasped hands could signify reconciliation (see comment on Acts 23:19). But one could also imagine Paul displaying calloused hands the way speakers sometimes displayed their wounds (e.g., Quint. Inst. 6.1.30; Keener, John, 1202); the lector, meanwhile, might need at least one hand to hold the manuscript (or, much less likely, a toga). 1124. Gestures were important to rhetoric (Cic. Rosc. Amer. 32.89; Val. Max. 8.10.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.537–42), though some disliked its exaggeration (Cic. Brut. 43.158; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 75.1–3; Mus. Ruf. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16); cf. Keener, Corinthians, 218–19. 1125. The verb, by itself, need not imply use of example (Luke 3:7; 6:47; 12:5; if it is so in Acts 9:16, it is because of usage), in contrast to ὑπόδειγμα.

3061

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 117

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

The term for being “weak” (ἀσθενέω) and its cognates can apply to those who are sick, though status and wealth may be involved as well (1 Cor 1:26–27). The terms sometimes applied specifically to the physical weakness of sickness or infirmity (this is always the case in Luke-Acts),1126 and some scholars see an emphasis on this idea here.1127 Certainly, among the weakest who most needed help were the infirm, unable to procure a living in ancient society (cf. Acts 3:2–3); hospitals (in the later sense) and health insurance did not yet exist.1128 Helping the weak appears also in Paul’s writings (1 Thess 5:14; cf. Rom 15:1), at least sometimes financially (Rom 12:13; cf. Heb 6:10). Paul’s writings oppose the “weak” to the “strong,” sometimes in terms of conscience (Rom 14:1–2; 15:1; 1 Cor 8:7–12) but sometimes also probably in terms of social status (1 Cor 1:27; 4:10). Paul may summon the elders, as congregational leaders, to follow Jesus’s teachings on status inversion (Luke 14:10–11; cf. 1:52; 18:14).1129 Some scholars apply Acts 20:35 partly to the support of church leaders, a support that Paul rejects for himself in 20:34.1130 Although this application would fit 1 Cor 9:4–18 (cf. 2 Cor 11:7; 12:14, 16) well, it is too narrow for what Acts 20:35 says, especially given Paul’s ideal model here for church leaders. On the historical level, Paul may have urged especially help of the poor1131 (who usually overlapped substantially with the socially weak and included most of the sick). It is noteworthy that in Paul’s letters, caring for “the poor” usually applies specifically to the needy saints in Jerusalem (Rom 15:26–27; cf. 1 Cor 16:1–2; 2 Cor 8–9; probably Gal 2:10). Given the climax of this sermon in Acts 20:35, if this is Luke’s summary paraphrase of a sermon he actually heard (as argued above from the “we” in 20:15), it is possible that Paul historically concluded by affirming the offering of the Ephesian church for the saints in Jerusalem.1132 This would be a natural and important topic on a journey to Jerusalem; many recognized the risks involved (Rom 15:31; Acts 20:23; cf. 21:4), inviting Paul to explain the mission’s importance. Luke is so focused on the Spirit’s leading Paul to suffer in Jerusalem (and ultimately to bring him to Rome) that he barely mentions the offering (Acts 24:17), but he does not obliterate all possible traces of it. In Luke’s text, the exhortation therefore bears a more general sense, but it may well bear inadvertent witness to a pre-Lukan Pauline concern from a historical speech. iii. Jesus’s Teaching on Generosity (20:35)

In 20:35, Paul claims not only to model working hard to help the weak but also to model following Jesus’s example.1133 Paul’s closing appeal to Jesus’s authority appears 1126. The verb (Luke 4:40; Acts 9:37; 19:12), cognate noun (Luke 5:15; 8:2; 13:11–12; 28:2), and adjective (Luke 10:9; Acts 4:9; 5:15–16; cf. the variant in Luke 9:2). This appears in a few of the references in Pauline literature (Gal 4:13; Phil 2:26–27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20), though this is not the dominant sense; is Luke using Pauline language here or his own? 1127. Bruce, Acts1, 383. 1128. But the more specific proposal that Paul here alludes to their need to care for Trophimus, who became sick en route to Miletus (2 Tim 4:20; so Gineste, “Trophime”), does not take sufficient account of the more general character of the exhortation. As noted above, it is difficult to harmonize Acts and the Pastorals if they refer to the same journey; this is, however, a valiant attempt. 1129. Cf. Witherington, Acts, 625–26; on social power inversion in Paul, see, e.g., Marshall, Enmity, 376. 1130. Barrett, Acts, 982. 1131. See Brown, Apostasy, 25. 1132. Though the focus of the collection in his extant letters is Achaia and Macedonia (Rom 15:26), he had planned the offering mostly from Asia (1 Cor 16:1, 8, 19). The presence of an Asian representative in Acts 20:4 (specifically, Ephesian; see 21:29) strongly supports this contention; Paul invited representatives from local areas (1 Cor 16:3). 1133. That is, he presents himself as a model for imitation because he himself imitates Jesus (1 Cor 11:1). Grammatically, the infinitive μνημονεύειν may parallel the infinitive ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι (“to help”) rather than

3062

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 118

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

rhetorically effective.1134 Acts, like Paul’s letters, does not regularly cite Jesus,1135 but sometimes it does cite him at strategic points (such as in the climax here; likewise the climactic citation of 11:16). Although a citation of an authority would prove effective only among those who accepted that authority,1136 Jesus would be the highest authority for Paul’s (and Luke’s) audience. Moreover, in the mid-second century, Justin Martyr climaxes an argument even to Trypho, who does not accept Jesus’s authority, with such an agraphon (Dial. 47.5).1137 Most important, Peter climaxed his case in Acts 11:4–17 with an appeal to a saying of “the Lord,” Jesus (11:16). Appealing to what hearers already remembered was frequent in paraenesis (Rom 15:15; 2 Pet 1:13; see comment on Acts 20:31). (1) Climactic Maxims

Speakers and writers often cited proverbs, the points of which were illustrated in particular events.1138 School exercises in rhetoric included developing anecdotes (χρεῖαι), wise sayings, into essays or doing the same with maxims (γνώμαι, basically the same as anecdotes except usually unattributed).1139 This is no exercise, however, and the saying is not “developed” here;1140 Seneca points out that simple maxims can often communicate adequately with no explanation (Ep. Lucil. 94.27–28). Rhetorical handbooks treated the use of maxims to advance one’s case;1141 they were important in Greek writing and speeches,1142 and unattributed maxims could be invented for the occasion.1143 Handbooks could suggest ending both a section of a speech1144 and the speech as a whole1145 with an enthymeme and a maxim. As Watson notes, “Maxims give the speech an ethical quality and a clear moral purpose which increase the speaker’s ethos” (Arist. Rhet. 2.21, 1395b16). Maxims “should be brief and placed at the end of the sentence, at the end of an element of arrangement, or at the participle κοπιῶντας (“working hard,” pl.), on which it might depend, but even this participle (though plural, with reference to them) depends on Paul’s example. 1134. Watson, “Speech,” 207, notes the conventional rhetorical topic of “upholding actions as consistent according to a moral purpose” (Arist. Rhet. 1.9, 1367b32). 1135. Strange, “Jesus-Tradition.” 1136. Thus Pythagoreans sometimes settled debates by citing Pythagoras, though this carried no weight outside the school (Val. Max. 8.15.ext. 1). 1137. On this saying, cf. Baker, “Justin’s Agraphon” (uncertain whether the saying is genuine); Bellinzoni, “Sources of Agraphon.” An agraphon is a saying of Jesus not written in the extant Gospels. 1138. E.g., Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.19. 1139. Heath, Hermogenes, 13–14; Gibson, “Notes,” 43, 87 (and sources there). For the importance of learning maxims, cf. Isoc. Demon. 12; Arist. Rhet. 2.21.15, 1395b; Petron. Sat. 4; Sir 18:29; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 35EF; Libanius Maxims; also Epicharmus Gnomai C.1–15, in SPap 3:440–43. Often they upheld aristocratic social values (Sinclair, “Sententia”). 1140. The development usually began by praising the saying’s author, followed by paraphrasing it, demonstrating it with analogies and examples, supporting its point by other authorities, and concluding “with an exhortation” (Heath, Hermogenes, 14). Some were also interested in the historic context of sayings (Plut. Themist. 11.2). 1141. Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430a.40–1430b.29; Hermog. Progymn. 4, “On Maxim,” 8–10; Aphth. Progymn. 4, “On Maxim,” 25S, 7R; Nicolaus Progymn. 5, “On Maxim,” 25–29. For the use of maxims and other forms as proofs, see Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19–23. 1142. Silk, “Gnōmē”; Gärtner, “Gnome”; Anderson, Glossary, 30–32, 126–27; Rowe, “Style,” 148; Ramsaran, “Paul and Maxims,” 430–34; Hock, “Paul and Education,” 199–201. The epistolary Paul also uses maxims (e.g., Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 583). 1143. Rhet. Alex. 11, 1430a.40–1430b.3. Stenger, “Apophthegma,” notes that in contrast to some other forms authorized by their attribution, gnomes derived their authority from the universal wisdom that they conveyed. 1144. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.20. 1145. Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441b.10–11 (on epideictic speeches). When it was used as a “final touch,” rhetoricians could designate the figure more technically as ἐπιφώνημα (Anderson, Glossary, 55, citing many sources supporting such a closing quote).

3063

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 119

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

the conclusion of an epideictic speech. All three cases are true here.”1146 They could even be translated from another language when necessary (relevant to at least many of Jesus’s sayings at some point in the tradition).1147 The literary form beatitude1148 appears throughout the Hebrew Bible and the lxx1149 and continued in use in early Judaism afterward.1150 Although most pervasive in Jewish sources, the form also appears in Greek sources.1151 For example, “How happy you kings are” because of your advantage;1152 or the one “is blessed [μακάριον] who dies not late but well.”1153 (2) Jesus’s Teaching?

Some scholars doubt that the saying is genuinely from Jesus, for two major reasons. First, they argue that it is not multiply attested. Others argue that the saying is multiply attested, noting what may be a variant of the saying in 1 Clem. 2.1.1154 One could argue that 1 Clement depends on Luke’s source without reflecting genuine Jesus tradition. But it is precisely the skepticism about preserved Jesus tradition at this date that is problematic.1155 We should not think that Luke included in his Gospel all the sayings of Jesus he knew or that the oral Jesus tradition or written sources had vanished by the time he wrote (Luke 1:1–2).1156 This is not the only agraphon Luke quotes in Acts (see Acts 11:16; cf. 1:5). Moreover, it is the criterion of multiple attestation 1146. Watson, “Speech,” 206, citing, for the end of a sentence, Quint. Inst. 8.5.2 (though noting Arist. Rhet. 2.21, 1394b7; Demet. Style 2.110); for the end of the element, Rhet. Alex. 35, 1441a.20ff.; 35, 1441b.1ff.; for the end of the speech, 35, 1441b.10ff., as noted above. 1147. Most of Cato’s Latin maxims were translated from Greek (Plut. M. Cato 2.4); most relevant here, Jesus’s Aramaic sayings could be translated into Greek. 1148. On which see further Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 37–38, 75–78. 1149. See, e.g., Pss 40:4; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4–5, 12; 94:12; 112:1; 119:1–2; 128:1; Isa 56:2; Jer 17:7; Dan 12:12; Bar 4:4; with a different term, Jdt 13:18; 14:7; 15:10. The term μακάριος appears sixty-six times in the lxx, including twenty-five times in the Psalms (including Pss 1:1; 2:12; 31:1–2 [32:1–2 mt]), eleven times in Sirach (Sir 14:1–2, 20; 25:8–9; 26:1; 28:19; 31:8; 34:15; 48:11; 50:28), and four times in Proverbs (Prov 3:13; 8:34; 20:7; 28:14). 1150. E.g., 1 En. 99:10; 2 En. 42:6–14; 44:5; Pss. Sol. 4:23; 5:16; 6:1; 10:1; 17:44; 18:6; 4 Macc 7:15, 22; 10:15; 17:18; 18:9; Jos. Asen. 16:14/7; 19:8 mss; Sipra VDDeho. par. 5.44.1.1; b. Ber. 61b; Ḥag. 14b; Hor. 10b, bar. At Qumran, see 4Q525 (see de Roo, “4Q525”; Brooke, “Beatitudes”; Viviano, “Beatitudes”; idem, “Qumran”; idem, “Publication”). In early Christianity, μακάριος appears about fifty times in the nt and forty times in the Apostolic Fathers; this includes Luke 1:45; 6:20–22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27–28; 12:37–38, 43; 14:14–15; 23:29; in Acts, only here and 26:2 (Luke-Acts constitutes 34 percent of nt uses). 1151. E.g., Contest of Homer and Hesiod 322; Hom. Hymns 25.4–5 (to the Muses and Apollo); Eurip. frg. 1057 (from Stob. 4.22.72); Pindar Threnoi frg. 137 (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 3.3.17; using ὄλβιος); Polyb. 26.1.13; Mus. Ruf. frg. 35, p. 134; Apoll. K. Tyre 31; Babr. 103.20–21; Philost. Hrk. 4.11; Porph. Marc. 16.276–77; Aune, Prophecy, 61, 64; Guelich, Sermon on Mount, 63–66. For some philosophic consideration of μακαριότης (although the article focuses primarily on εὐδαιμονία), see Hossenfelder, “Happiness.” For μακάριος in Stoic and Christian literature, see Vorster, “Blessedness.” 1152. Polyb. 26.1.13 (μακάριοί ἐστε ὑμεῖς). 1153. Mus. Ruf. frg. 35, p. 134 (trans. Lutz, 135), though this saying does not conform closely to the conventional beatitude form (cf. also 16, p. 104.26; Porph. Marc. 16.276–77). Stoics highly emphasized happiness or blessedness (see Vorster, “Blessedness”). 1154. Witherington, Acts, 626. Many who note the parallel in 1 Clement do not argue from multiple attestation (e.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 176), but it is a plausible inference. 1155. See discussion in Keener, Historical Jesus, and sources noted there. Similarly, pre-Matthean tradition appears in the Didache (Draper, “Didache”). 1156. Oral sources often long persisted after their origin. Nor are collections typically complete; thus we have fragments of Dio Chrysostom’s speeches preserved in Stobaeus (ca. 450 c.e.) and Maximus the Confessor (580–662 c.e.) that do not appear in our original collection (so Crosby, introduction to Dio Chrysostom fragments, Dio Chrysostom, LCL, 5:345). Nunnally, Acts, 351–52, suggests that Luke avoided recounting this saying in his Gospel because his source, Paul, was not an eyewitness (thus not meeting Luke’s standard noted in Luke 1:2), whether because he had it from others or (noting the view of Horton, Acts, 343–44) because he had it from revelation.

3064

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 120

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

here that is flawed, when employed in its negative, minimalist form.1157 Certainly the concept is multiply attested in Jesus’s teaching, whether the particular wording is or not. Because agrapha become less and less dependable in later periods, however,1158 a valid argument against reliability can shift the scales in that direction, which is why the second argument is important. Second and more important, the saying resembles Greek wisdom and is usually thought to be a Greek aphorism.1159 Greeks attributed to a Persian ruler the claim that it was “more kingly to give to one who has than to take away.”1160 What has usually been considered the closest form of the saying also describes a Persian custom (Thucyd. 2.97.4);1161 if the parallel is not precise,1162 it at least reflects the sentiment. In Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23, the ideal ruler enjoys bestowing benefactions more than their recipients enjoy receiving them. The sentiment is widespread and is attributed to a variety of sources (who may or may not have drawn on their earlier analogues).1163 We grieve to give money and rejoice to receive it, Musonius Rufus complains (6, p. 56.3–5); we must discipline ourselves, he advises, to value giving more than receiving (p. 56.10–11).1164 When a saying was so widespread, it was frequently employed (in diverse forms) by various sages, all of whom could be quoted as its “source.”1165 Jesus did, however, adapt the Kaddish and/or other Jewish prayers (Matt 6:9–13; Luke 11:2);1166 he also may have adapted other sayings, such as that in Matt 7:12// Luke 6:31 (which is paralleled in both Greek and Jewish settings).1167 Eastern wisdom became common property, and Jewish and Gentile proverbs often are similar, whether because of direct influence or not. If Greeks attributed their version to Eastern 1157. Such criteria do not work well in their negative form unless one is clear that one’s objective is to recover the minimum that is surely historical (instead of writing as if the criteria exclude from being historical whatever does not meet them). For challenges, see, e.g., Theissen, Gospels, 5; Porter, Criteria; for a balanced approach, see Tuckett, “Sources,” 134; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 33–34; for ancient use of this criterion, see Ael. Arist. Defense of Oratory 78, §25D. The criterion of dissimilarity has fallen hardest (see, e.g., Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 19; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 143; Young, Jewish Theologian, 257). 1158. See, e.g., Hofius, “Sayings,” 336–60; cf. Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 483–91, esp. 491. Many simply adapt earlier nt sayings (Charlesworth and Evans, “Agrapha,” 487). Note the brief survey and evaluation of agrapha in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 28–29. 1159. Haenchen, Acts, 595n5; Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 32–33 (following Haenchen); Conzelmann, Acts, 176. 1160. Conzelmann, Acts, 176, citing Plut. S. Kings, Artaxerxes 1, Mor. 173d. Another alleged Persian source appears in Thucyd. 2.97.4 (see below). 1161. Plümacher, “Thukydidesreminiszenz” (also idem, Geschichte, 127–34), thinks that Acts 20:33–34 depends on Thucyd. 2.97.3–4, noting similar topic, sequence, and, at some points, language. Thucydides cites the Odrysian custom “of taking instead of giving” as being the opposite of the Persian practice. 1162. Kilgallen, “Thucydides 2.97.4,” argues (against Haenchen) against any proverb based on Thucydides. The parallel is nowhere close to verbatim. See also the critique in Padilla, “Παιδεία,” 427–28, who finds Sir 29:9–11 closer. 1163. Scholars cite also Plut. S. Kings, Ptolemy son of Lagus, Mor. 181F; Epicurus in Mor. 778c; Caesar 16; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 81.17; Aelian Var. hist. 13.13 (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264; Kee, Every Nation, 243; Johnson, Acts, 365); see also (later) Libanius Anecdote 3.16. 1164. Van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309, also cites here Mus. Ruf. 6, p. 56.10–11. 1165. Cf. Larkin, Acts, 298–99. 1166. Bonsirven, Judaism, 133; Jeremias, Prayers, 98; idem, Theology, 21; Moore, Judaism, 2:213; Smith, Parallels, 136; Hill, Matthew, 136–37; Perrin, Language, 28–29; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 43; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:595; Luz, Matthew, 371; Keener, Matthew, 215–16; pace Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:361–62n36; Lachs, Commentary, 118. 1167. See, e.g., Isoc. Demon. 21; Ad Nic. 38; Nic. 49 (Or. 3.37); Diog. Laert. 1.36, 59 (Thales, Solon); Sent. Syr. Men. 245–51; Publ. Syr. 2; cf. Arist. Rhet. 1.5.16, 1361b; Stoic parallels in Epict. Diatr. 1.11.25; Hierocles Love 4.27.20; see van der Horst, “Hierocles,” 157. In a negative form, Tob 4:15; Philo Hypoth. 7.6; later attributed also to Hillel in b. Šabb. 31a; for the idea in Judaism in a positive form, see Sir 31:15 [34:15]; ʾAbot R. Nat. 26 A; 29, §60 B; Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev 19:18; straddling both forms, Let. Aris. 207. See more extensive comment in Keener, Matthew, 248–49.

3065

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 121

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

sources (the earliest attributions are Persian) and Jewish sources emphasize giving to the poor (e.g., Prov 11:25; 19:17; 28:27; see comment on Acts 3:3), sometimes in beatitude form (e.g., Ps 41:1; Prov 22:9; beatitudes, as already mentioned, were most commonly Jewish), one need not attribute the saying’s composition to someone who knew Greek sources. Compare the sentiment in Sir 4:31, sometimes cited in this regard: “Let not your hand be extended to receive but closed from giving.” A mediating position is possible. Luke may summarize some of Jesus’s sayings material, using a familiar Greek way of phrasing this summary for the sake of his audience; he appears to do precisely the same thing in Acts 26:14. This could even allow for a direct allusion to Thucydides (or at least the classical tradition) in Luke’s way of wording the saying;1168 at the least it could help explain the use of the comparative form of the beatitude.1169 As noted in the commentary introduction, writers of speeches were under no obligation (and usually had no means) to preserve the exact words of a speaker.1170 Though using Pauline thought, Luke provides rhetorically acceptable summaries for him and makes no secret of the fact that his speeches are not transcripts (2:40). The problem with this proposal is that the briefer sayings of the Jesus tradition were mediated in a different way, and his Gospel shows us that Luke did not polish Jesus’s sayings or conform them to Hellenistic wisdom.1171 The problem does not rule out the possibility of the mediating position, but it does remind us of the limits of our access to secure details at the remove of two millennia. Since this is “we” material, perhaps it reflects Luke’s awareness of a form of a Jesus saying or summary quoted by Paul, who may draw on such teaching in his own words (as in 1 Thess 4:15–5:2), though he sometimes quotes Jesus more closely (as in 1 Cor 7:10–12; 11:23–25).1172 By appealing to Jesus’s teaching, in any case, Luke reminds his audience that the portrayal of the church’s sharing of goods in Acts is grounded in Jesus’s teaching in the Gospel.1173 The saying probably recalls Jesus’s use of beatitudes1174 and could be read as a summary of Luke 6:20–21, 24–25, 35, 38.1175 It may well be an independent agraphon, but whether it is independent or Luke’s hellenizing summary, it is certainly in keeping with Jesus’s message as reported in Luke’s Gospel. The epistolary Paul occasionally appeals to Jesus’s teaching (1 Cor 7:10; 11:23–25), though no more commonly, proportionately, than does the Paul of Acts.1176 (3) Benefaction Ideology

Showing benefaction to others, the opposite of harming them (cf. Luke 6:9; Mark 3:4), authenticates a speaker, as Brawley points out: 1168. As in Plümacher, “Thukydidesreminiszenz” (fitting Luke’s interest in Hellenistic history; though cf. again Kilgallen, “Thucydides 2.97.4”). 1169. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264, contend that Greek sayings were more often comparative than Jewish ones (though cf. Deut 33:24; and the influence of Greek forms on Jewish sayings). 1170. Keener, Acts, 1:258–319. 1171. He does sometimes place them in typically Greek symposium formats (esp. Luke 14:1–24; cf. Aune, Environment, 122; Smith, Symposium, 253); Diaspora Judaism adopted this format at least as early as Letter of Aristeas. 1172. On Jesus’s sayings in Paul’s letters in general, see, e.g., Kim, “Jesus, Sayings of ”; idem, New Perspective, 259–90; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus; Davies, Paul, 137–40; Donfried, Thessalonians, 233–52; and material cited above; on the state of discussion more generally, cf. Barclay, “Jesus and Paul.” 1173. See esp. Kisau, “Sharing.” 1174. Cf. Luke 1:45; 6:20–22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27–28; 12:37–38, 43; 14:14; 23:29; cf. 14:15. The only other use of μακάριος in Luke-Acts is Acts 26:2, which is not relevant. 1175. Cf. also love of neighbor (Luke 10:27). Johnson, Acts, 365, also finds the gist in Luke 6:35–36, 38 and notes Did. 1.5; Herm. Mand. 2.4–6 (cf. Witherington, Acts, 626, probably following him). 1176. Because the ot was textual and he probably lacked access to a written Gospel, Paul naturally quotes the ot much more frequently.

3066

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 122

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Socrates claims that he merits no punishment, since he has been the benefactor of Athens (Plato Apology 36A-D). Demosthenes defends himself as worthy of a golden crown, awarded to him by Ctesiphon, because he has acted for the genuine benefit of the city (De Corona passim). Josephus claims that the Galileans in Gabaroth rally to him and proclaim him benefactor and savior (Life 47 §244).1177

The way of showing benefaction here would challenge the patronage system known to Luke’s audience,1178 a system in which (in its strictest form) clients followed patrons about in their civic business, forming a retinue and providing political honor.1179 In an honor-shame culture, giving would be significantly more honorable than receiving.1180 h. Tearful Parting (20:36–38) Although Luke describes intimate details of Paul’s departures on the journey only rarely (here and in Acts 21:5), these examples represent what Luke expects us to recognize as a larger pattern of the way Paul must have parted in each place he stopped. The description of Paul’s departure here, replete with abundant signs of affection, resembles ot departure and reunion scenes.1181 People in the ancient Mediterranean world emphasized honorable partings. In addition to farewell speeches (see comment on Acts 20:18–35), there were even poems wishing farewell to departing friends.1182 Departures, like death and other events, often involved sorrow, and genre conventions also existed for poems1183 and letters of1184 (as well as essays about)1185 consolation.1186 i. Establishing Paul’s ēthos

The disciples here mourn to see Paul leave; this portrayal fits a number of pictures of affection that others showed Paul (9:25; 19:30–31; 21:5, 12). What was the literary function of such sometimes lavish descriptions of love? They probably provide the narrative equivalent of Paul’s expressions of affectionate longing in his letters (e.g., Rom 1:11; 1 Thess 2:7–11; 3:1, 5, 8), expressions that typically underlined and reinforced the bond between individuals.1187 In narratives, we may compare the affectionate description of Socrates as one whom everyone would love, so that all who knew him now missed him more than anyone else (Xen. Mem. 4.8.11); or descriptions of how Cyrus was loved by all his 1177. Brawley, Luke-Acts and Jews, 61. 1178. With Mitchell, “Friends by Name,” 237–49, esp. 249; Witherington, Acts, 626. 1179. On this behavior of clients in the technical sense, see Winter, Left Corinth, 188–89. Reciprocity also demanded an exchange of gifts rather than monetary payment, which made the recipient an “employee” (Marshall, Enmity, 32). 1180. Even in the United States, religious giving tends to have positive psychological benefits by reducing stress (Krause, “Support”; idem, “Exploring”). 1181. Fitzmyer, Acts, 682, citing Gen 33:4; 45:14. 1182. E.g., Callim. Iambi 6 (such a poem is a propemptikon; on this genre, see Russell, “Propemptikon”). 1183. E.g., Catull. Carm. 96.1–6; Statius Silv. 2.1 (unlike most philosophers, he encourages the recipient to go ahead and grieve, 2.1.14–15); 2.6 (again, cf. weeping in 2.6.12–14); 3.3; 5.1, 3, 5. Cf. in dramas (e.g., Soph. El. 1171–73; Ajax 852; Eurip. Hipp. 834–35). 1184. E.g., Cic. Fam. 4.5; 5.16; Att. 13.20; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 99.1; Plut. Apoll., Mor. 101F–122A; Consol., Mor. 608B–612B; cf. Stowers, Letter Writing, 142–46. Letters of condolence are rare among the papyri (Lewis, Life, 80–81). 1185. See briefly Scourfield, “Consolation.” Some essays are like letters in that they are addressed to specific mourners (e.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 6; 11; 12). 1186. For consolatio as a genre, see Kierdorf, “Consolatio”; in rhetoric, see, e.g., Theon Progymn. 8.53; Men. Rhet. 2.9, 413.5–414.30; for speeches, e.g., Thucyd. 2.44.1–4; see comment on Acts 8:2. 1187. E.g., Cic. Fam. 5.6.5; 8.15.2; 10.23.7; see comment on Acts 20:16. Cf. also Paul’s “epistolary presence” (1 Cor 5:4; cf. Col 2:5; Cic. Fam. 3.11.2; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 67.2; P.Oxy. 32; Ach. Tat. 5.20.5; it should not be read metaphysically). Note also texts’ aesthetic value; see esp. Robbins, Texture, 29–36.

3067

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 123

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

friends (Xen. Cyr. passim); or details about the loyalty of many of David’s subjects (2 Sam 15:19–23; 17:27–29).1188 Praising the elders whom Eleazar the high priest was sending to Ptolemy, Pseudo-Aristeas notes how clearly they and Eleazar loved (ἠγάπησαν) each other; their love was clear from the distress they experienced in parting (Let. Aris. 123). Such descriptions contribute to the character’s ēthos: if all those who knew an individual best loved him, he was a lovable person who could, for example, have obtained many letters of recommendation had he needed them (on these, see comment on Acts 9:2). Among qualities that would commend a person to an audience were love for and loyalty to friends;1189 since this was usually mutual,1190 the loyalty of Paul’s friends reflects well on his character. He loved and helped others and hence gained their affection and trust; by contrast, Paul’s enemies in Acts usually do not know him well. Jesus demands more than the traditional Greek emphasis on friendship (Luke 6:27–28); he certainly does not demand less.1191 ii. Parting Prayer (20:36)

Formulas such as “when he had finished speaking” (cf. esp. here Luke 5:4) were natural and common in ancient texts.1192 After a farewell speech, one should pray for those one is leaving (Men. Rhet. 2.15, 431.23–24) as well as for oneself and one’s journey (433.10–13). Prayer with others is a theme in Acts (Acts 1:14; 2:42; 4:24; 13:2–3; see comment on Acts 1:14). Kneeling accompanies prayer in Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; and another farewell scene in Acts 21:5.1193 Kneeling sometimes accompanied prayer in the ot,1194 as here, although, for Jewish people standing was more common.1195 (See comment on Acts 7:60a.) Prostration was common before kings and deities (see, fully, BDAG). Gentiles sometimes prostrated themselves before rulers,1196 and Jewish people apparently often followed suit;1197 even looking at another’s feet instead of another’s face showed respect for the other’s higher status.1198 Prostration could connote intense respect (e.g., Rev 3:9) or that one was begging or seeking mercy.1199 1188. I believe that this portrayal praises David, despite his severe flaws also depicted in the narrative. 1189. Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.11–12. 1190. See Keener, “Friendship,” 382–83. 1191. Grassi, Laugh, 60. On friendship in antiquity, see Fitzgerald, Friendship; Keener, “Friendship”; on love of enemies in Luke-Acts, see Owczarek, Sons. Pathos such as in this farewell scene could readily serve an apologetic purpose (for its usefulness in legal appeals, see Mauck, Trial, 146). 1192. E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 66.26; Jub. 32:20; 50:13; 1 Macc 2:23; 3:23; Matt 7:28. 1193. Johnson, Acts, 365–66, suggests perhaps an allusion to “what Jesus did after his farewell discourse” (Luke 22:41). This fits other parallels to that discourse, though the immediate connection with Acts 21:5 is stronger. 1194. 1 Kgs 8:54; 2 Chr 6:13; Dan 6:10; cf. Ps 95:6; 1 Esd 8:73. In other early Jewish sources, cf. 4Q512 11 4; Test. Jos. 8:1; As. Mos. 4:1. 1195. E.g., John 17:1; Lachs, Commentary, 115, cites, e.g., Luke 18:11, 13; m. Ber. 4:5; b. Ber. 10b; 26b; 30a; y. Ber. 4:1; Midr. Pss. 4:9; Tg. Esth. 4:1; cf. also 1 Chr 23:30; 35:5; Pss 24:3; 135:2. 1196. Especially in the East, e.g., Val. Max. 7.3.ext. 2; Char. Chaer. 5.2.2; often with connotations that Jews would have avoided, Arrian Alex. 4.11.8; Corn. Nep. 9 (Conon), 3.3; Greeks disliked it because they valued freedom (Plut. Themist. 27.3–4; Heliod. Eth. 7.19); Jews, because they venerated only one God (Esth 3:2, 5; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 19:1; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 26:35; though cf. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 18:2; 24:48; 33:3; 42:6; 43:26). 1197. E.g., 3 Macc 5:50. The Gentile family of Pentephres προσεκύνησαν before Joseph in Jos. Asen. 5:7/10, but Joseph recounts that he προσεκύνησα before Pentephris in Test. Jos. 13:5. Perhaps this was less than the complete prostration that Eastern monarchs required (and to which Greeks also objected). 1198. PGM 13.704–5, of the deity. 1199. Jos. Life 138; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.27; Hdn. 7.5.4. One ancient Greek form of supplication included clasping the knees of the person from whom one needed help (Hom. Il. 1.427; Eurip. Orest. 382).

3068

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 124

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

iii. Weeping and Displaying Emotion (20:37)

Emotion was appropriate in sending-off speeches, particularly love and the emotions related to it.1200 But whereas a superior sends off an inferior with advice (Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.8–10), a friend sending off a friend (or other equal) omits advice and just expresses deep love (395.12–17). Thus it is not surprising that the elders in Luke’s narration here, having received advice from Paul, display affection rather than give counsel. Stoic philosophers argued against the use of negative emotions such as grief insofar as was possible.1201 Traditional Romans had also been known to display fortitude by resisting mourning if the higher interests of the state were against this.1202 Most people, however, expressed their emotions more freely. Thus, for example, husbands and wives displayed grief to emphasize their love for each other when apart (P.Oxy. 528.6–9); so also a young minister apart from his mentor (2 Tim 1:4). “Even . . . sober historical accounts” included “such outbursts of emotion.”1203 Tears were an appropriate sign of familial affection for another in danger (Diod. Sic. 34/35.11.1) and for loved ones who had returned safely from danger (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1).1204 More to the point at hand, tears were appropriate at partings, where they demonstrated the intimate bonds of those being separated.1205 Thus, in Josephus’s Hellenistic version of Israel’s history, people wept when they heard Moses’s farewell speech (Ant. 4.194), and women beat their breasts and children lamented when they realized that he would die (4.320; cf. Deut 34:8). One could grieve not only for relatives but for friends or virtuous public figures (e.g., Pliny Ep. 9.9.1).1206 This sentiment could extend to sadness when a prominent person—for example, a town’s patron—was departing (4.1.4). Tears could be used to stimulate sympathy—for example, by those entreating favor or mercy or by those portrayed as wronged.1207 A speaker’s tears (cf. Acts 20:19, 31) could move an audience,1208 and rhetoricians prized this skill;1209 the tears of one person often stimulated another’s tears (e.g., Hom. Il. 1.413). Narration of tears, as in Luke’s account here, could have similar effects. Orators could vividly narrate imaginative scenes to provoke pathos.1210 A careless historian would overdo such scenes of pathos; Polybius condemns Phylarchus for his scenes “of clinging women with their hair disheveled and their breasts bare” or of children and “aged parents weeping and 1200. See (on speeches for a departing governor) Men. Rhet. 2.5, 395.26–30. 1201. E.g., Sen. Y. Dial. 1.4.5; 1.5.8; 6.7.1, 3; 11.4.1; Ep. Lucil. 116.1; Mus. Ruf. 3, p. 40.21–22; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.20; 1.29.65–66; Encheir. 14. Also some other thinkers, e.g., Philodemus Death 25.34–36; Val. Max. 7.2.ext. 2b; Socratics Ep. 21; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 55; Iambl. V.P. 32.226; 33.234; cf. Soph. Ajax 852; El. 1171–73; Cic. Fam. 4.5.6; 5.16.2 (but cf. Cicero’s demurral in 5.16.3); Dio Chrys. Or. 27.9; Plut. Consol. 2, Mor. 608C; Sent. Syr. Men. 463–69. 1202. Ovid Fasti 4.845–48 (though cf. 4.849–52); Val. Max. 5.10 (cf. Val. Max. 3.3.ext. 1); cf. Tac. Ann. 3.5 (and one explanation noted in 3.3); 4.8. 1203. Johnson, Acts, 366, citing Philo Embassy 243; Jos. War 2.402; cf. also Tac. Ann. 3.1. 1204. Those reunited typically kissed, embraced, and wept (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 45). 1205. E.g., 1 Sam 20:41; Test. Mos. 11:23; Philost. Hrk. 33.30. 1206. Pliny the Younger’s grief is far greater, however, when his wife dies (Ep. 9.13.4). Cf. mourning over one’s doomed people, e.g., 4 Bar. 2:5. 1207. E.g., Lysias Or. 32.10, §505; Cic. Verr. 2.3.18.69; Rab. Post. 17.47 (toward the speech’s end; it concludes in 17.48); Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Men. Rhet. 2.13, 423.30; Jos. Life 205, 210. 1208. E.g., Livy 1.26.12; 23.8.4; Cic. Sest. 11.26; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.561; cf. Appian Hist. rom. 8.12.81; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.18.3 (crowds moved by the sight of young men’s relatives weeping before they faced death); Tac. Ann. 4.9 (the senate moved to tears by Tiberius’s speech). 1209. E.g., Quint. Inst. 4.2.114; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.19.512; 2.9.582; 2.10.586; Libanius Declam. 36.41. Cf. the use of visual aids to further stimulate such signs of sympathy (Quint. Inst. 6.1.30). 1210. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 157; Libanius Descr. 17.7; Hermog. Inv. 2.7.124; 3.15.169–70.

3069

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 125

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

lamenting as they are led away to slavery.”1211 Granted, such scenes may be safely inferred in the events that even Polybius describes; but a rhetorical historian would elaborate such scenes excessively, manipulating his readers’ emotions. Other historians felt that one could scarcely muster sufficient pathos to communicate adequately the sorrows of a period covered (Vell. Paterc. 2.67.1). Luke makes only restrained use of such scenes;1212 but no historian entirely avoided scenes that stirred emotion, and like most speakers or storytellers, Luke knew the sort of feelings his accounts could stir.1213 See further discussion of tears at Acts 20:31 and especially 20:19. Such tears build toward the climax here; rhetorical design often built toward an emotional climax toward the end of a speech (see, e.g., Hermog. Inv. 3.13.162–63). “Falling on the neck” and “kissing” both appear in an earlier emotional scene in Luke’s work (the reunion of the father with the prodigal son in Luke 15:20). Embracing was employed for partings,1214 reunions,1215 protecting a relative,1216 and other emotional events.1217 A person of rank might also show favor by embracing one.1218 In earlier generations, some Romans regarded negatively any public displays of affection; Cato allegedly expelled a prominent member of the senate “because he embraced his wife” publicly in front of his daughter.1219 Greeks and even Romans of Luke’s period, however, would not have shared this degree of rigor. Some scholars provide literary parallels to embracing while kneeling, or raising up kneeling persons for embracing;1220 these images may be relevant, although we need not suppose that Paul remained kneeling after the prayer (Acts 20:36). iv. Kissing (20:37) 1221

Kissing normally expressed love; the term φιλέω, indeed, can mean either “love” or “kiss,” and occasionally writers played on words to signify both (Diod. Sic. 9.37.1). In dramatic situations kissing and weeping were conjoined as here1222—for example, 1211. Polyb. 2.56.7 (trans. Paton, LCL, 1:377). Phylarchus, Polybius complains, always keeps “horrors vividly before our eyes” (2.56.8 [LCL, 1:377]). 1212. See, e.g. (but most obviously), Luke 23:27, 48 ( Jerusalemites lamenting Jesus). Luke omits Paul’s martyrdom and narrates quite concisely mourning over Stephen (Acts 8:2). 1213. Tears stirred pathos in narrative; e.g., Gen 37:35; 42:24; 43:30; 45:2, 14–15; 2 Sam 15:23, 30; Livy 23.8.4; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11; Jos. Ant. 20.58; rhetorical narratives, e.g., in Cic. Rosc. Amer. 9.24; Livy 1.26.12. Sorrowful texts could also move rabbis to tears ( Jacobs, “When Rabbis Cry,” on b. Ḥag. 4b–5b). Pelikan, Acts, 227, notes that Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Luther all recognized the value of affections. Thinkers both ancient and modern have disagreed among themselves as to whether “aesthetic” emotion is stronger or (more likely) weaker than the direct experience; see Munteanu, “Misericordia.” 1214. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 6.23. 1215. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.1.47; Heliod. Eth. 7.7; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.12–13; Apoll. K. Tyre 45; for relatives, Gen 33:4; Jub. 31:6; Test. Benj. 3:7; Num. Rab. 9:9; Song Rab. 5:16, §3; 8:1, §1; Livy 4.40.3; Appian Hist. rom. 2.5.3; Heliod. Eth. 5.11; for a friend, e.g., Jos. Ant. 14.446; Plut. Cic. 39.4. 1216. Vestals in Cic. Cael. 14.34; Font. 21.46. 1217. Such as meeting a relative for the first time (Gen 29:13; 48:10; Jub. 31:7, 11, 21), delight at a religious experience (Philost. Hrk. 56.4, with tears; cf. 11.2), and, of course, sexual contexts (Song 2:6; 8:3; Jub. 39:9; Test. Jos. 3:8). Some Stoics opined that wisdom showed the best ways to show affection and embrace (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 88–89.24–25). 1218. E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.534 (Antoninus to Polemo). Cf. Polyb. 13.7.8 (but the text may be confused by the epitomator). 1219. Plut. M. Cato 17.7 (trans. Perrin, Lives, LCL, 2:353); Cato said that he embraced his own wife only during thunderstorms, which made him glad for thunderstorms. Some traditional Greeks disdained as feminine excessive hugging between fathers and sons (Eurip. Erechtheus frg. 362.32–35). 1220. See Shiell, Reading Acts, 165–66 (citing Thucyd. 1.137.1; Char. Chaer. 3.5.3; or for kneeling to touch what is low, Soph. Ajax 1171–75). 1221. See further Keener, “Kiss” (which I have adapted and expanded at points here); Binder, “Kiss” (Greco-Roman, 55–59; Judaism, 59–60); Hurschmann, “Kiss”; Klassen, “Kiss.” 1222. E.g., Gen 29:11; 45:15; Tob 7:6; Luke 7:38.

3070

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 126

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

as signs of mourning the deceased1223 or of the joy in being reunited.1224 The imperfect tense may suggest repeated kissing, more emphatic than everyday greetings (although it should also be noted that Paul would have received repeated kisses even if each person kissed him only once). Relatives greeted one another with kisses,1225 notably when reunited1226 or about to be separated.1227 Kissing was a conventional greeting for family members.1228 Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen;1229 likewise, a child should kiss his mother1230 and father.1231 A mother’s kissing a son1232 or a father’s kissing a daughter1233 was normal, considered suspicious only if excessive and immodest. Male friends could embrace and kiss without sexual connotations;1234 the kiss functioned as an intimate greeting.1235 Kissing between friends was apparently less common in urban settings, however.1236 Kisses could be conveyed by proxy, often in secondary greetings in letters.1237 Kisses further served as respectful greetings to one of higher status;1238 they showed respect among social peers as well as connections between patrons and clients;1239 one could also offer congratulatory kisses.1240 Disciples and pupils kissed teachers,1241 often on the head;1242 in such cases, the kiss could be an affectionate contact on the mouth.1243 One person who wished to honor his teacher in a particularly extreme way 1223. E.g., Tac. Hist. 2.49; Suet. Otho 12.2; Gen 50:1; Jub. 23:5. 1224. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 45; Ahiq. 5.12; Gen 33:4; Jub. 31:8; Philo Jos. 182. For parting, see Ruth 1:14; 1 Sam 20:41; cf. Jos. War 7.391. 1225. E.g., Suet. Otho 10.2 (with embracing, as here); in Persia, Xen. Cyr. 1.3.2–3; 2.2.31; 5.5.6, 36 (to fail to grant the kiss signaled trouble in the relationship, Xen. Cyr. 5.5.37). 1226. E.g., Hom. Od. 16.190–91; Xen. Cyr. 1.4.28; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.7.1; 4Q158 1–2 14; 4Q538 1 6; also bodies of those killed (Tac. Ann. 4.63). One might kiss a relative who had just arrived from a distant land, weeping for joy (Gen 33:4; Tob 7:6–7), or any other relative whom one had not seen for a long time (Exod 4:27; 18:7). A kiss might also function as an affirmation (e.g., 1 Sam 10:1) or welcoming back into fellowship (2 Sam 14:33), as when John kisses the repentant Callimachus in Acts John 78. Discovering that a relative was safe might produce the same emotional response (Song Rab. 8:1, §1). 1227. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 1.4.27; 6.4.10; one might kiss a child (Gen 31:28, 55; Tob 10:13) or other relative (Ruth 1:9, 14; 1 Kgs 19:20) who was about to depart. See also Binder, “Kiss,” 57. 1228. Longus 4.22–23. One might rise and kiss a cousin who had greeted him (Ach. Tat. 1.7.3); sisters would kiss (Num. Rab. 9:9), as would a sister and brother (Song 8:1; Jos. Asen. 8:4/3). For more distant relatives, cf. discussion in Deissmann-Merten, “Kinship,” 53. 1229. Plut. Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B. 1230. Ovid Metam. 10.525. 1231. Eurip. Andr. 416. Sons also kissed fathers in Jewish culture (Gen 27:26–27; Jub. 22:10–11; 26:21). 1232. Heliod. Eth. 1.9. 1233. Val. Max. 1.5.3. Fathers kissed their children (Virg. Georg. 2.523; Gen 31:28, 55). Jewish people also counted it natural for a father to kiss and embrace a son whom he loved (Jub. 31:21; Test. Sim. 1:2; Song Rab. 5:16, §3). 1234. E.g., Val. Max. 7.8.9 (a dying man kisses his friend, though deceitfully, since he has just disinherited him). 1235. E.g., Hom. Od. 21.224–27; Jewish friends also kissed at separation (1 Sam 20:41; Acts 20:37) and in greeting (2 Sam 15:5; 19:39; 20:9). Pagans thought kissing a friend signified a good omen in a dream (Artem. Oneir. 2.2). 1236. Dio Chrys. Or. 7.59, recounting the urban laughter attending a rural person kissing his friend. 1237. Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7 (if original); 5.33 (48); 5.42 (57). 1238. Arrian Alex. 4.11.3; cf. Lucian Dial. D. 365 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 2), involving a tyrant; 4Q550c II, 8; Luke 7:38, 45; see further Binder, “Kiss,” 55–56. A monarch might expect others to kiss his image (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.27). 1239. Toner, Culture, 135. 1240. On the neck, hands, eyes, or other body parts (mocked in Epict. Diatr. 1.19.24). After coming to an agreement, a Roman general and an Armenian prince parted with a kiss (Tac. Ann. 15.29). 1241. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.13.2. 1242. E.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.3.3; Eccl. Rab. 9:5, §1. The kiss of a disciple is relevant to Luke 22:47–48 (as is Prov 27:6). 1243. Fronto Ad verum imp. 2.8; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.25.537 (both adults). One teacher who practiced this exclusively with boys, not with adults, gave grounds for suspicion (Lucian Alex. 41).

3071

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 127

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

kissed his feet.1244 An arrogant person of wealth might offer his hand to be kissed.1245 A general needing to secure soldiers’ favor might go about, greeting them with kisses (Suet. Vit. 7.3). Kissing was such a standard salutation that neglecting it could function as an obvious insult.1246 A person might kiss another who pleased him;1247 a kiss was generally seen as pleasant (Prov 24:26) and hence might function as a suitable reward. A king might rise to kiss a teacher whose wise discourse had pleased him (1 Esd 4:47). A rabbi might rise and kiss the head of a student who expounded well;1248 a Roman patron could also greet a client with a kiss.1249 Kissing could also have sexual overtones, however, under some circumstances;1250 demanding labial as well as genital virginity, a strict father executed his freedman for kissing the father’s daughter.1251 Traditionally, Roman values condemned public erotic kissing, restricting it to the private sphere,1252 but erotic banquets had given way to excesses.1253 Some kissing may have been on the cheek.1254 Most kissing, however, was on the mouth1255 (closer to, e.g., one older Russian form of greeting than to, e.g., the contemporary way of kissing cheeks in France or much of Latin America). This included kissing teachers, as noted above. One typically kissed relatives on the lips.1256 Thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen on the lips;1257 mothers kissed daughters on the lips;1258 a Roman father might kiss his son on the lips, albeit lightly,1259 or his daughter on the lips in pure innocence.1260 A mourning sister might wish to kiss her 1244. E.g., y. Peʾah 1:1, §13; cf. Luke 7:45. 1245. Lucian Men. 12 (mocking one who thought that this granted others happiness to so kiss him); Alex. 41, 55 (Lucian bites him instead [55]); sycophantic supplicants kissed the emperor’s hand in Tac. Ann. 15.71; a parasite like a slave kisses the master’s hand (Quint. Decl. 298.11). In one Jewish story, Abraham, in respectfully kissing Death’s hand, died (Test. Ab. 20:8–9 A); cf. Moses dying by the Memra’s kiss in Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 34:5. Eventually, even hands might appear too elevated for kisses; in the later empire, people counted it an honor “to be allowed to kiss the hem of the emperor’s purple cloak, while lying prostrate on the floor” (Toner, Culture, 136). 1246. E.g., Nero toward senators (Suet. Nero 37.3); perhaps Simon toward Jesus (Luke 7:45; cf. Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 6, 8; on the stock character of the insulted guest in symposium settings, cf. Smith, Symposium, 49). 1247. Thus God is said to have kissed some Israelites who became circumcised (Exod. Rab. 19:5). One source similarly reports that Miriam’s father kissed her hand when he thought her prophecy fulfilled, though he struck her head when he later (wrongly) concluded it a false prophecy (b. Soṭah 13a). 1248. This practice is reported for Johanan ben Zakkai (t. Ḥag. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 13, §32 B; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4), R. Gamaliel II (y. Roš Haš. 2:9, §2), R. Simeon ben Yohai (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3), and R. Abba bar Kahana (y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Eccl. Rab. 6:2, §1). In Lucian Critic 23, one kisses his pupils or hearers. 1249. Binder, “Kiss,” 56. 1250. See ibid., 58–59. 1251. Val. Max. 6.1.4. Numidian kings allegedly avoided kissing, to retain the proper use of kisses; but this claim appears only in Valerius Maximus (Val. Max. 2.6.17). 1252. Cf., e.g., Suet. Tib. 34.2; on public reticence, cf. also Brown, Death, 255. Still, few went so far as Cato, who expelled from the senate a man for kissing his own wife in front of their daughter (Plut. Bride 13, Mor. 139E). For erotic kissing, see, e.g., Fronto Ad Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Prov 7:13; Song 1:2. 1253. The basium was an “erotic banquet kiss” distinct from the innocent, familial osculum; the basium “may have been just a slight brushing of the lips,” a hint pointing to something more (Dupont, Life, 285). 1254. Ellington, “Kissing.” An aged priestess might kiss a departing hero merely on the hand (Ap. Rhod. 1.313); a sick person might kiss the physician on the hand (Libanius Topics 3.15); R. Akiba reportedly respected the Medes because they kissed only on the hand (b. Ber. 8b). 1255. With, e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 323n2 (following Benko, Rome and Christians, 79–102). This could apply even to casual greetings (Lucian True Story 1.8, though he is writing science fiction). 1256. Jos. Asen. 8:6 takes this for granted; in Persia, see Xen. Cyr. 1.4.27–28. 1257. Plut. Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B; see also Fitzgerald, “Egnatius,” 120–21. 1258. Ovid Metam. 2.356–57. 1259. Virg. Aen. 12.434. 1260. Ovid Metam. 10.362.

3072

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 128

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

dead brother on the mouth;1261 children might do likewise with a deceased mother.1262 Facial kissing may have sometimes compromised hygiene; it was said that social kissing in Rome led to “at least one outbreak of an infectious facial disorder among the leading citizens.”1263 A kiss of greeting could become the occasion for lustful abuse,1264 but such abuse could be betrayed by the kiss’s character. Kissing on the lips was common, but a kiss on the lips of a sister (Ovid Metam. 4.334) or mother (4.222) was naturally said to be less passionate than that of a lover; likewise, maidens kissed one another on the lips, but only modestly. Thus a lustful deity in disguise might give himself away (2.430–31). That Pauline (and other) Christians greeted with a kiss is clear in our early sources,1265 where it appears less a rite than an expression of familial affection.1266 Later the “kiss of peace” even achieved a liturgical role ( Justin 1 Apol. 65).1267 The earliest form of this practice probably was not limited to one’s own gender (Tert. Wife 2.4), producing condemnations for those who kissed a second time (Athenag. Plea 32); concerned with abuses, Christians eventually restricted its practice to members of one’s own gender (Apost. Const. 2.7.57).1268 It came to express Christian ideals of spiritual equality.1269 Conjoined with embraces and weeping, the kisses here in Acts mean more than the casual kisses typically used to greet family, friends, or teacher; they resemble the stronger expressions of emotion encountered at sad partings (as here) or reunions. v. The Final Parting (20:38)

For the warning Paul had made that the elders of Ephesus would not see him again, see comment on Acts 20:25. They “sent him off ” by accompanying him to the boat (cf. Acts 21:5). Farewell customs mentioned in rabbinic literature include escorting as well as embracing and kissing.1270 Sometimes such “sending off ” implied providing financial provision (Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6; 2 Cor 1:16; Titus 3:13; 3 John 6), but such assistance would not likely be implied in the act of seeing Paul to the boat, especially at one stop among many on the way to Jerusalem. 1261. Eurip. Phoen. 1671. 1262. Eurip. Alc. 403–4. Likewise, for a deceased father; cf. facial kissing in Gen 50:1. 1263. Toner, Culture, 135, citing Pliny E. N.H. 26.3. On 133, Toner notes the frequency of foul breath (citing, e.g., Philogelos 231, 235; also noting 232–34, 236–40, 242), which may have reduced the duration of much social kissing. 1264. Char. Chaer. 2.7.7; cf. Jos. Asen. 8:3–7. 1265. The “holy kiss” in Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; the “kiss of love” in 1 Pet 5:14. Given the pervasiveness of ancient kissing documented above (and utter lack of initiatory significance in our nt texts), a writer’s association of early Christian kissing with Mysteries’ “rites of recognition” (Mack, Lost Gospel, 220) unfortunately reflects the writer’s inadequate acquaintance with the range of sources. 1266. Cf., e.g., Conzelmann, Corinthians, 299; Morris, Romans, 537; Banks, Community, 88; Mounce, Peter, 92; for the perspective that it expresses traditional Mediterranean “tactile” culture, see Malina, Windows, 22–23. Some others read the later liturgical significance back into these passages (e.g., Cullmann, Worship, 20). Paul would hardly need to command a rite; rather, he encourages such greetings on the receipt of his letter. Secondary kissing, as a greeting sent through letters, appears elsewhere at least occasionally; see, e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.8.7 (if original); 5.33 (48); 5.42 (57). 1267. See further (Bray, Romans, 375) Tert. On Prayer 18; Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:16 (CER 5:258). 1268. Cf. also Grant, Paul, 101; for concerns with abuses, see (Bray, Romans, 375) Clem. Alex. Instr. 3.11; Ambrosiaster Comm., on Rom 16:16 (Vogels, 487). Neil, Thessalonians, 135–36, notes that later Christians believed that they were returning to the original custom. Given charges against the church (such as incest, Athenag. Plea 3; Theoph. 3.4; Min. Felix Octavius 31.1; Tert. Apol. 2.5, 20), such restrictions were perhaps ultimately necessary even without abuse. 1269. Chrys. Hom. Rom. 31 (on 16:16; Bray, Romans, 375). 1270. Ehrlich, “Rituals” (also noting that the person bows and steps backward, probably not a widespread custom presupposed here).

3073

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 129

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Accompanying Paul to the ship was a way of showing affection and loyalty.1271 As with patrons and clients, the greater the retinue, the greater the honor of loyalty displayed; thus a later novel reports that the protagonists had so impressed Rhodes that the entire city “saw them off ” when their ship sailed.1272 One might think also of some letters’ lingering farewells meant to express affection (Fronto Ad M. Caes. 4.7, though this is not typical); many in the ancient Mediterranean world were lavish in their displays of affection.1273 Paul had secured the affection and loyalty of the leaders of the Ephesian church—at least so long as he was near (Acts 20:30; cf. Phil 2:12; 2 Tim 1:15).

5. Voyage and Warnings in Tyre (21:1–7) In Acts 21:1–16, Luke portrays Paul as much loved by the disciples in the Diaspora churches and as hosted warmly by Philip, the first pioneer of the Gentile mission (8:5–40). Likewise, Luke shows that Paul’s captivity will be no surprise or sign of God’s rejection, because, like Jesus, Paul knew of it in advance yet chose to follow God’s plan (21:4; esp. 21:11–14; cf. 20:23). After mentioning again the sad parting of 20:36–38 in 21:1,1274 Luke focuses on details of the voyage. Why might Luke emphasize its details? First of all, ancient readers appreciated them (even in mainly entertaining narratives) much more than do many modern Bible readers, sometimes eager only for “theological” capital (see comments on Acts 16:11; 20:13–16). Records of journey itineraries were common both in historical and in fictitious texts;1275 writers kept track of days at sea.1276 Second, such details grounded the narrative in the real world known to Luke’s audience. Whereas some writers included such details to display geographic knowledge, Luke demonstrates that his message, though grounded in Israel’s ancient story, is also relevant to his audience’s Greco-Roman geographic horizons. Conversion required Gentile believers to forsake old gods and myths, but the real places that figured in those stories and in subsequent historical and geographic discourse remained valid locations for the true God’s activity. a. En Route to Tyre (21:1–3) Because of uncertain breezes, ships’ voyages along the south coast of Asia Minor were normally slow and tedious; ships frequently stopped at Rhodes.1277 Commentators often observe ancient itineraries that list two or more of these sites together (e.g., 1271. Relatives and close friends would encourage the traveler by accompanying them to the ship (Hierocles Parents, in Stob. Anth. 4.79.53). Accompanying a departing guest is similarly a sign of proper hospitality in much of Africa today. 1272. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.12 (trans. Anderson, CAGN 136). 1273. E.g., Cic. Fam. 7.14.2; 12.12.1; Fronto Speeches 2; Ad M. Caes. 1.3.1–2, 4; 3.2; 4.1; 4.2.1; 5.52 (67); Ep. graec. 7.1–2; 2 Cor 2:4. 1274. The verb for “parting,” ἀποσπάω, however, does not, by itself, specifically convey the sense of anguish or force (which Bruce, Commentary, 420, suggests; cf. Acts 20:30; Luke 22:41), though it does where the context warrants ( Job 41:17; Jer 12:14; 4 Macc 13:18). 1275. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 178 (citing Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11–12; Ps.-Clem. Hom. 13.1.2–3; see further comment in the introduction to Acts 27; esp. comment at 20:13–16). Such narrative itineraries may be distinguished from list itineraries used by the Roman military (adapted for geographic description only much later; see Purcell, “Itineraries”) and earlier literary descriptions of coastlines (periploi) (Purcell, “Periploi”; probably rarely available to sailors; Souza, “Navigation”). 1276. E.g., Philost. Hrk. 6.3. Such observations are in addition to Luke’s still more detailed emphasis on Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (see Parsons, Acts, 301, regarding Luke’s lingering on this topic), which climaxes the pattern of Jerusalem’s rejection of God’s agents (cf. Luke 19:41–44). 1277. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 380.

3074

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 130

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Livy 37.16; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.6).1278 The “straight course” that Luke mentions fits northeasterly winds;1279 Cos was southwest of Miletus, but the next stop, Rhodes, was to the southeast, and Patara roughly due east from there.1280 i. Cos (21:1)

The island of Cos is one of the Sporades (near Patmos), about sixty-five miles (105 km.) around its coasts.1281 It was the most famous of islands near Rhodes1282 and known for its excellent wines.1283 The people of Cos (like those of Rhodes) were supposed to be Dorian colonists from after Homer’s era (Strabo 14.2.6); they had opposed the Romans in 88 b.c.e. (Appian Hist. rom. 12.4.23) but had long since accepted Roman rule. The coastal city of Cos, named for the island on which it lay, was said to be very beautiful when approached by the sea (Strabo 14.2.19). For its loyalty, Rome made it a free city until Augustus attached it to the province of Asia.1284 The Asclepius temple at Cos had a reputation similar to that of the famous one at Epidaurus, with cures reported on tablets.1285 The medical establishment at Cos was well known,1286 and Hippocrates was from there.1287 For this reason and because of its climate and hot springs, Romans viewed it as a resort, and in 53 c.e., the emperor Claudius, under the influence of his personal physician from Cos, made the city free from taxes (Tac. Ann. 12.61).1288 Cos also had an imperial cult at some point.1289 We know of a Jewish community in Cos from Josephus (Ant. 14.112–13, 233; War 1.424) and inscriptions.1290 ii. Rhodes (21:1) 1291

Those with much knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean world recognized that Cos was near Rhodes;1292 at times they had acted together (Polyb. 30.7.9). Thus one 1278. E.g., Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 264; Hock, “Novel,” 139; Johnson, Acts, 369. 1279. With Bruce, Acts1, 384. 1280. Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Cos was 51 mi. (82 km.) beyond Miletus, and Rhodes 79 mi. (128 km.) beyond Cos. 1281. For archaeological and geographic details, see briefly Vos, “Cos”; Laidlaw and Sherwin-White, “Cos”; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 67–73; Wallace and Williams, World, 202–3. Greek islanders saw themselves differently from Greek mainlanders (see Constantakopoulou, “Islander”). 1282. Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.134 (also mentioning Mount Prion there). 1283. Strabo 14.1.15; 14.2.19; Pliny E. N.H. 14.10.79. Some also associated the painter Apelles with it (N.H. 35.36.79) because some of his paintings were there. Pliny thought that Cos originated the process of weaving silk (11.26.76) and also that the island had silkworms (11.27.77); cf. also Pekridou-Gorecki, “Silk,” 463. 1284. Laidlaw and Sherwin-White, “Cos”; Sonnabend, “Cos,” 858. 1285. Strabo 8.6.15; 14.2.19; Pliny E. N.H. 20.100.264; Tac. Ann. 4.14. For the excavated Asklepieion, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 71–73; Klauck, Context, 157; Engels, Roman Corinth, 101; on the temple’s design, see Owens, City, 120. At much greater length, Schazmann, Asklepieion. Cos sought renewal of the sanctuary’s asylum status in Tac. Ann. 4.14. Philost. Hrk. 8.14 might recall local mythology. 1286. Casson, Mariners, 141. Strabo 14.2.19 also mentions physicians, as well as poets and singers, from Cos. 1287. Lucian True Story 2.7. 1288. Also Larkin, Acts, 301; Sonnabend, “Cos,” 858. Nero may have made Rhodes free from tribute as well ( Jones, Chrysostom, 27). 1289. Klauck, Context, 323–24 (citing Price, Rituals, catalogue nos. 3–4). For Egyptian cults there, see Koester, Paul and World, 146–47. 1290. Stern, “Diaspora,” 154. 1291. On Rhodes, see further briefly Dio Chrys. Or. 31 (whether actually heard by the Rhodians or merely written as an academic exercise); Couch, “Rhodes”; Fant and Reddish, Sites, 111–15; Sonnabend, “Rhodos”; Carroll, “Rhodes”; for early and late bronze-age Rhodes, see Knapp, “Aegean Islands,” 20–21; inexpensive guidebooks provide photographs (e.g., Decopoulos, Rhodes). For more extensive archaeological reports, Clara Rhodos; Kypriou and Zapheiropoulou, ΡΟΔΟΣ; much earlier, Torr, Rhodes. Pliny E. N.H. 2.89.202 named it as an island formed from the sea during seismic activity. 1292. Xen. Hell. 1.5.1; Strabo 10.5.14; Jos. Ant. 16.17. Pliny E. N.H. 2.112.24 estimates Cnidus (Acts 27:7) at 86.5 mi. from Rhodes, Cos at 25 mi. beyond Cnidus, and Samos (20:15) at 100 mi. beyond Cos;

3075

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 131

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

novelist noted that once a ship passed Cos and Cnidus, “beautiful” Rhodes became visible (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11). It was a natural stopping place on voyages near Ephesus (5.10–11, 15); after sailing beside Asia, travelers moved away from land on the left as they moved southeast toward Rhodes (Tac. Hist. 2.2). Generals and magistrates en route to eastern provinces always stopped in Rhodes (Suet. Tib. 12.2). It was so well recognized that the geographer Strabo often calculates nautical distances from Rhodes (Strabo 2.4.3; 2.5.9). The island was also massive.1293 The city of Rhodes, the capital of Rhodes built later than the island’s other most prominent cities, was well designed.1294 Rhodes was known for its wealth (Polyb. 5.90.3; 31.31.1–3), naturally attributed to its location by the sea (5.90.4; Strabo 14.2.10). Its leading city, also called Rhodes, was said to have an incomparable harbor (as well as roads and walls; Strabo 14.2.5); this city was on the northeast, toward Patara and easily approached from Cos to its northwest. In the early second century b.c.e., Rome and Alexandria controlled maritime trade in the East;1295 although this monopoly was broken soon afterward, Rhodes remained a prosperous island. The memory of earlier prosperity also remained; later Dio Chrysostom praises the Rhodians for their sense of honor in rejecting the debt forgiveness accepted by other peoples, despite being devastated by wars (Or. 31.66–67). Like other nearby islands, Rhodes was known for its wines.1296 Rhodes appears in Homer, supplying more Greeks to war against Troy (Il. 2.652– 54); it was an island “of ancient fame” (Aul. Gel. 15.31 [LCL]). It surrendered to Alexander of Macedon.1297 Its present inhabitants were said to be Dorian colonists (Strabo 14.2.6); even in the empire, they continued to speak a Doric dialect of Greek (Suet. Tib. 56). Rhodes was reputed to be a healthy place to reside (Tib. 11 passim).1298 As other famous cities were associated with particular deities, so Rhodes was known for its association with Helios, the sun deity.1299 Rhodes was also known for its old Helios statue known as the Colossus,1300 a massive, seventy-cubit-high construction earlier broken by an earthquake.1301 Like the Artemis temple in Ephesus, it was one of the traditional Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.1302 Presumably reflecting on the island’s beauty and climate, some Greeks claimed that Rhodes was the offspring of Aphrodite and bride of Helios (Pindar Olymp. 7.14). As this version of the story went, Helios was absent when the gods divided the earth, but when Rhodes was formed he offered to take that land rather than have the lots recast (7.54–63).1303 these estimates are high, but approximate the relations among the locations. Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates Rhodes as 79 mi. (128 km.) beyond Cos. 1293. The island is 540 sq. mi. (1,398 sq. km.). Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132 estimates 103–125 mi. around. 1294. It bears some similarities to Piraeus, which tradition attributes to the same architect (Owens, City, 57). 1295. Casson, Mariners, 164. In the first century, Rhodes continued to control many smaller islands in its vicinity (Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.133). 1296. Pliny E. N.H. 14.10.79. Rhodian wine was imported into Jerusalem, especially under the Seleucids (Avigad, Jerusalem, 79). 1297. Quint. Curt. 4.5.9 (remaining on good terms with him, 4.8.12). 1298. On Tiberius’s sojourn there, see also Tac. Ann. 2.42; 4.15. 1299. Dio Chrys. [Favorinus] Or. 37.12 (noting that Corinth had some association with Helios, 37.11); Lucian Affairs 7; Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.11. 1300. E.g., Strabo 6.3.1; Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.41; Statius Silv. 1.1.104; Lucian Hist. 24; Z. Rants 11; Paus. 1.18.6; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21. The term was used for massive statues even before Rhodes’s Colossus, though this was the most famous (Dickie, “Kolossos”; Neudecker, “Kolossos”; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 34.18.39–47, esp. 43; also 34.19.78). 1301. Polyb. 5.88.1; Strabo 14.2.5. 1302. Brodersen, “Seven Wonders.” 1303. Though cf. his island in Hom. Od. 12.269, 274.

3076

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 132

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Most of the island’s cities supposedly derived their names from the sons of Helios and Rhodes (Pindar Olymp. 7.72–74). In one of these, Lindus (near the city Rhodes), was a famous temple of Athena.1304 Apollo had a temple there,1305 as did Dionysus (Lucian Affairs 7). Isis and Serapis worship, an Egyptian import, was prominent in both Rhodes and nearby Cos (as in Samos, Acts 20:15).1306 Rhodes was known for its learning.1307 This city provided better elementary education than most others.1308 The famous classical Athenian orator Aeschines settled in Rhodes to teach rhetoric.1309 It remained an excellent place to study rhetoric and philosophy in the late republic (Plut. Cic. 4.4)1310 and the early empire (Suet. Tib. 11.3).1311 Rhodes was also famous for its art.1312 Dio Chrysostom regarded Rhodians as particularly dignified and honorable, walking with an honorable gait and avoiding running in the city.1313 Rhodes was well known even in Rome, not least for its political activities when Rome began to conquer the East. It was famous for its fleets and earlier supremacy over the sea (Strabo 14.2.5). After the general who defeated the Rhodians at Samos (Livy 37.28.6) lost to Rome, the Rhodians became eager allies of their Roman benefactors.1314 Rome was pleased by a speech in which the Rhodians stressed their services to Rome against Antiochus (Polyb. 21.22.5; 21.23.13), and hence it handed over some of Antiochus’s territories to Rhodes (21.23.7–8) and was even ready to renew war to provide more for the Rhodians if they insisted on it (21.23.10–14). Rome gave nearby Lycia and Caria to Rhodes, but this gift created conflict with these regions (22.5.1–10). After they eventually achieved freedom from Rhodes (30.31.4), these places sought the restoration of their property (31.4.3). The emperor Claudius had by now restored Lycia to Rhodes (Suet. Claud. 25.3). Many Rhodians, however, did not want to support Rome’s fight against Macedonia (Polyb. 29.10.1–7), thereby incurring Roman anger (29.19.5–11).1315 Once Rome defeated Macedonia, the Rhodians quickly sought to execute any of their leaders who had 1304. Strabo 14.2.11; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 8.30; Philost. Elder Imag. 2.27. On Lindus, see further Rice, “Lindus” (including mention of the Temple Chronicle of Lindus, FGH 532); Sonnabend, “Lindus” (including discussion of the Athena temple, 611–12); Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132; it was supposed to be the island’s most rugged part (Philost. Elder Imag. 2.24). 1305. Sonnabend, “Lindus,” 612. 1306. Tinh, “Sarapis and Isis,” 103; Koester, Paul and World, 144–46, 164–65. For Rhodian cult and myth, see further Rose and Dietrich, “Rhodes.” 1307. It appears alongside Athens in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 104.8 and (as second to Athens) Tac. Dial. 40. Educating sons was a high priority there (Polyb. 31.31.1), and Dio Chrysostom points out that no one would mistake it for Syria or Cilicia (Or. 31.163). In one account, a disciple of Socrates shipwrecked there was greatly rewarded for his teaching (Vitruv. Arch. 6.pref. 1). 1308. Thomas, “Literacy,” 869. 1309. Plut. Demosth. 24.2; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.18.509; negatively, Libanius Comparison 3.15. 1310. Cf. Suet. Jul. 4, where the most prominent rhetorical teacher was at Rhodes early in Caesar’s career. In Sorabji, Emotions, 432, note also the Stoic thinker Posidonius (ca. 135–51 b.c.e.). 1311. Cf. also Suet. Tib. 32.2, though Diogenes was a “grammarian,” not a rhetorician. For Tiberius’s stay, see also Vell. Paterc. 2.99.4; 2.103.1. 1312. Aul. Gel. 6.3.1; Lucian Affairs 7. The famous painter Apelles helped another painter become known in Rhodes (Pliny E. N.H. 35.36.88). 1313. Dio Chrys. Or. 32.52, 54. 1314. Livy 37.31.7; Aul. Gel. 6.3.2–55. Dio Chrysostom diplomatically emphasizes their many victories (Or. 31.19). For Rhodes’s strategic allegiances with major Greek city-states even in the fifth century b.c.e., see, e.g., Androtion Atthis frg. 46 (Paus. 6.7.4–7). 1315. See also Vell. Paterc. 1.9.2. Rhodians participated in a battle against Macedonians near Chios in Polyb. 16.7.4–16.8.5, and Macedon used a noted Rhodian tactician in Lucian Zeuxis or Antiochus 9. Rhodes and Chios (Acts 20:15) sometimes acted in concert (Polyb. 5.24.11; 5.28.1; 5.100.9); ships traveled between them frequently (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21). Rhodes did support Rome against Mithridates (Vell. Paterc. 2.18.3); Cassius, battling Augustus, subdued Rhodes against the Rhodians’ will (Vell. Paterc. 2.69.6).

3077

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 133

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

sided with Macedon (Livy 45.10.14–15; 45.24.6), and they begged Rome to forgive them and restore their alliance (Polyb. 30.4.1–30.5.16; Livy 45.20.9–10; cf. 45.25.10). Displeased by their former ally’s recent ambivalence, Rome reduced their territories (Polyb. 30.21.1–5) and was reluctant to reestablish the alliance (30.23.2–4). These actions ended Rhodes’s “commercial supremacy as the centre of the Mediterranean transit trade,” leading Rhodes to accept “an unequal alliance to Rome” and the end of “its political independence.”1316 The island remained strategic; Caesar drew fleets partly from there (Caesar Alex. W. 1.1);1317 Cassius subdued Rhodes under his authority during the Roman civil war in 43 b.c.e. (Appian Hist. rom. 4.9.65–73). Nevertheless, by maintaining its “friendship” with Rome, Rhodes remained relatively autonomous (Strabo 14.2.5), a “free” island (Pliny E. N.H. 5.36.132; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.52). Even without much geographic sophistication, Diaspora Jews would recognize the name Rhodes (Sib. Or. 3.444, probably from pre-Christian Asia). The Jewish community there was apparently influential, having left inscriptions (IG 12.1.11, 593); in the last decade of the first century b.c.e., we also hear of a Jewish teacher who lectured there (Suet. Tib. 32.2).1318 That the Romans informed Rhodes, among other places, of their extradition treaty with Judea (1 Macc 15:21–23) suggests an early Jewish community there. iii. Patara (21:1)

Patara1319 was in Lycia, a region once controlled by Rhodes (see comment above). Some Diaspora Jews also might recognize the name Patara (Sib. Or. 3.441). It was a large port city with a temple of Apollo (Strabo 14.3.6);1320 on the basis of various sources, including local inscriptions, scholars suggest that the form of its name is neuter plural.1321 Like some of the most notable ports, it had a lighthouse.1322 Patara was an important “transfer harbor for the Roman grain fleet” sailing from Alexandria.1323 (Myra, mentioned on the westward voyage in Acts 27:5, was an even more famous Lycian port to the east of Patara that also transferred Alexandrian grain; the Western text may add it here at 21:1 on the basis of 27:5 and/or a knowledge of Asian geography.)1324 Patara is difficult to excavate, because the ancient harbor has sanded up and the coastline has advanced; nevertheless, evidence of Patara’s prominence is accumulating, even as Roman Lycia’s “metropolis” and first city.1325 This prominence is evident from a pillar, inscribed in 45 c.e. and found in the harbor, that lists all important communities in the new province with distances and routes between them.1326 1316. Mee and Rice, “Rhodes,” 1316. 1317. Rhodian ships also appear in Caesar Alex. W. 1.11, 14–15. 1318. Stern, “Diaspora,” 153–54, esp. 154. In an earlier period, Jerusalem also imported wine from Rhodes (Avigad, Jerusalem, 79). 1319. Further on Patara, see Fant and Reddish, Sites, 259–64; Marek, “Patara”; Wineland, “Patara.” Wilson (correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011) estimates that Patara was 63 mi. (102 km.) beyond Rhodes and that Patara was 432 mi. (697 km.) beyond Alexandria Troas by ship. 1320. For the oracle of Apollo there, see Bryce, “Lycia,” 386; Marek, “Patara,” 594; it was known and condemned by the Jewish author in Sib. Or. 3.441. 1321. Hemer, Acts in History, 125. 1322. “Trade Routes,” 1179–80. 1323. Riesner, Early Period, 316; Hemer, Acts in History, 125; Fitzmyer, Acts, 687. 1324. Some (e.g., Hanson, Acts, 206, 208; some follow Ropes, Text; Clark, Acts) suggest that the reading may be original, but this seems less likely (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 482, also noting the tradition in Paul Thec. 40). 1325. Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 167. 1326. Ibid. Mitchell also notes the necropolis, the large Roman “bath building and the paved, orthogonal R [Roman] street system adjoining it,” and some Roman temple tombs.

3078

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 134

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

iv. Passing Cyprus (21:2–3)

From Patara Paul is able to catch a larger ship making the 350-mile (ca. 550 km.) voyage to Tyre without needing to hug the coast and put in at ports along the way.1327 Only a large ship would commit to open sea between Patara and Tyre in a way that would leave Cyprus (cf. 13:4) “on the left”;1328 no other land would be visible during the voyage. One sailing south from Asia would often pass Rhodes and Cyprus, then go across open sea to Syria.1329 Paul would have earlier sailed to Syria directly had it not been for a plot against him (20:3). b. Visiting Tyre (21:4–6) Travelers needed to wait for ships sailing toward their own destination, a destination normally determined by where ships would unload cargo (21:3).1330 Although Luke omits the number of days from Rhodes to Tyre, Xenophon of Ephesus gives an estimate of four days for the voyage (Anthia 1.11–12; 1.14.6).1331 This seems to be a not-unreasonable estimate; thus Chrysostom estimates a five days’ voyage from Patara to Tyre (Hom. Acts 45). The Roman province of Syria (Acts 20:3; 21:3) “included old Phoenicia,” whose capital and main port was Tyre (21:3;1332 on which see comment at Acts 12:20). Phoenicia (21:2) had been famous in nautical matters from an early period,1333 and this fame continued in later times (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 1.3). The church had already been established there (Acts 11:19; 15:3).1334 i. Staying in Tyre (21:3–4)

A week’s stay in Tyre (21:6) was a significant layover (contrast 21:7), but a ship with a major cargo unloading at a major port could take much longer than that.1335 One ancient sunken ship from the first century b.c.e. transported 4,500–7,800 amphoras of wine, “between 225 and 390 tons”; another, 11,000–13,500 amphoras—that is, “500 to 600 tons.”1336 Elsewhere archaeologists have found ships with cargoes of stone. One carried 39 blocks altogether weighing 350 tons (the biggest stone weighing “over 28 tons”); the other carried 15, overall weighing 172 tons (the biggest stone weighing “40 tons”).1337 Many freighters during the empire carried 340 tons, and grain ships typically carried 1,200 tons; we know of one from about 40 c.e. that carried about 1,300.1338 In a period that lacked modern equipment on its docks, moving such a cargo could take a considerable amount of time. 1327. Chrys. Hom. Acts 45 estimates a five days’ voyage from Patara to Tyre. 1328. This term for “left” was originally a euphemism because the left hand was considered unlucky (Fitzmyer, Acts, 687). Although a negative association with “left” sometimes remained (Matt 25:33, 41; Test. Ab. 12:10 A; Court, “Right”; Lachs, Commentary, 394), it was not always present (e.g., Prov 3:16; Song 2:6; 8:3; Matt 20:21), and certainly not in geographic contexts (e.g., Jos. War 1.413) like this one. 1329. Tac. Hist. 2.2; cf. Ann. 2.78. 1330. See esp. Hock, Social Context, 28 (citing Epict. Diatr. 3.9.14; Dio Chrys. Or. 7.2–7; Ach. Tat. 2.31.5–6; Lucian Lucius 55); Casson, Travel, 152–58; idem, Mariners, 209; cf. Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 390. 1331. Conzelmann, Acts, 178. The pirates’ lair near Tyre (Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.14) was not their only one (3.4). 1332. Witherington, Acts, 629. 1333. E.g., Isa 23:1, 8; Ezek 26:2–6, 17; 27:3, 9, 29, 32; Hom. Il. 23.743–45; Od. 14.288, 295. On Phoenicia, see, e.g., Niemeyer, Röllig, and Eder, “Phoenicians”; also my comment at Acts 11:19; 12:20–21. 1334. Many plausibly suggest, by those scattered in Acts 11:19 (e.g., Dormeyer and Galindo, Apostelgeschichte, 318). 1335. Casson, Mariners, 210, estimates a month for Alexandrian grain ships in Puteoli. In one second- or third-century papyrus, the ship landed June 30, unloaded July 12, went to Rome July 19, but had not yet (with the rest of grain vessels) been allowed to leave (August 2). 1336. Ibid., 172. 1337. Ibid., 173. 1338. Ibid., 191.

3079

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 135

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

More than likely, the group need not have stayed at Tyre for this layover. Tyre was only about forty-eight kilometers (ca. 30 mi.),1339 no more than two days’ walk, from Ptolemais,1340 and so Paul probably stayed longer in Tyre less for reasons of transportation than for ministry (contrast one day in Ptolemais in 21:7); smaller vessels would probably be traveling between the two cities regularly. Perhaps by this point in their voyage, they have made good enough time to exercise more flexibility with regard to visits (cf. 21:8, 10; contrast 20:16). Perhaps Paul wanted to have more “fruit” among the believers there than before (cf. Rom 1:11, 13); it is also possible that he knew many Christians here from previous journeys and that hospitality conventions and mutual affection obligated him to visit these believers and perhaps teach (the situation that Paul may have avoided in Acts 20:16, except there at a significantly greater level).1341 Luke’s point in mentioning the stay, in any case, is probably to underline the wide and hospitable network of this new Christian “family” in the eastern Mediterranean world, and Paul’s acceptability to this spiritually united movement. Roman historians such as Quintus Curtius Rufus believed Tyre to be ancient.1342 By the time of Alexander of Macedon, the old city was on the mainland,1343 separated, by a strait of the sea, from the newer island kingdom of Tyre.1344 The island fortress of Tyre appeared to the Tyrians impregnable, so that they risked enduring a siege.1345 Alexander built a land ramp out to the island kingdom,1346 capturing it after seven months of siege in 332 b.c.e.1347 The ramp that Alexander built connected Tyre thereafter with the mainland about seven hundred yards away.1348 By Paul’s day one could thus walk on a paved road from the mainland into the city, entering through a monumental arch; burial places surrounded the road. Tyre’s main street, inside the archway, was colonnaded and lined with shops.1349 Beside this street was also an aqueduct, which brought the city water from a spring on the mainland.1350 Tyre housed one of antiquity’s largest known hippodromes, and the city had “a large bathhouse and forum.”1351 Given the limited space available on the island, it is not 1339. Fitzmyer, Acts, 688. Mark Wilson, who has measured carefully, suggests 46 km./29 mi. (personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011). 1340. Several ancient writers comment on their close proximity (Strabo 16.2.26; Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.76). Tombs lined the Roman road outside Tyre, which resembled Rome’s Appian Way (McRay, Archaeology, 193). 1341. People normally considered it an honor to extend hospitality to members of their in-group, and by the guest refusing them that honor the refusal of hospitality could prove offensive. The honor would be all the greater when shown to influential leaders (such as Paul) and to people of status; most people who could afford to travel much were people of status or wealth. Receiving the representatives of the northern Mediterranean churches would be viewed as hospitality shown to their churches, to whom they would report. 1342. Quint. Curt. 4.4.19 credits it as the place that invented writing and as founder of various Phoenician colonies. Classical Athenian myth portrayed ancient Europa (one of Zeus’s love interests) as being from Tyre (Eurip. Hyps. frg. 752g.21–22; cf. the Phoenician connection in Hom. Il. 14.321). In fact it was already famous in the second millennium b.c.e. (Liverani, “Tyre,” 932–33), and appears even in Ebla texts and excavations from the third millennium b.c.e. (Katzenstein, “Tyre,” 686–87, followed in Long, “2 Samuel,” 435, 485). 1343. Quint. Curt. 4.2.4. 1344. Quint. Curt. 4.2.1, 7. 1345. Quint. Curt. 4.2.7–9. The Tyrians also depended on their colony Carthage for aid (4.2.10–11), a hope in which they were disappointed (4.3.19–20). 1346. Quint. Curt. 4.2.18 notes rocks from old Tyre and wood from Mount Libanus. Obviously, the plan faced numerous obstacles (e.g., 4.2.22–24; 4.3.3–7). 1347. Quint. Curt. 4.4.19. Angry over the city’s long resistance and his consequent delays, Alexander massacred the men who failed to escape (4.4.14–17). 1348. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.76. 1349. Ward, “Tyre,” 249. In the Byzantine period, these colonnaded streets were, if one includes the sidewalks, ca. 70 ft. wide, probably about the same as the earlier Roman street (McRay, Archaeology, 193). 1350. Ward, “Tyre,” 249. 1351. McRay, Archaeology, 193.

3080

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 136

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

surprising that Strabo (16.2.23) claimed that houses in Tyre had even more stories than those in Rome.1352 Following ancient conventions of hospitality (see comment on Acts 16:15), Paul and his companions could assume that they would receive hospitality wherever they went.1353 That they “sought” or “looked up” (ἀνευρόντες, a temporal use of the aorist participle) the disciples may suggest that they went looking for them; the verb can apply to looking for something one expects to find (Luke 2:16; 3 Macc 3:13–14; cf. BDAG). Paul already knew that there were disciples there (Acts 11:19), and had likely visited some of them a few years earlier (15:3; cf. also in Sidon, 27:3),1354 but given the intervening years and the possibility that some had moved and that he did not remember directions in every city, it is not surprising that he would need to look for some of them. Once he and his companions found any disciples, however, they would quickly locate the entire group.1355 ii. Ambiguous Prophecies (21:4)

The imperfect “were saying” (ἔλεγον, 21:4) probably indicates either multiple voices at different intervals or the group’s insistence (cf. 21:12; also 20:23). Many modern interpreters stress prophecy’s role for the entire community (cf. 1 Cor 14:4) and hence minimize prophecy to individuals;1356 but in emphasizing its community function, Paul’s letters need not negate other uses, and in ot narratives, recorded prophecies to individuals outnumber those to the community. (Granted, these are typically to kings, given the narratives’ focus, but the narratives are also clear that prophets did not limit their activity to what directly affected the community [e.g., 1 Sam 9:5–6, 20; 2 Kgs 4:3–4, 16].)1357 What happens to Paul affects the community, but personal concern for Paul likely also motivates the community (Acts 21:12–14; cf. 20:37–38). Ancients sought to discern the plans of deity or fate before proceeding, by auspices or other means (Val. Max. 2.1.1).1358 Prophecy was often implicitly conditional and thus sometimes provided warning of future events so that people could escape them (2 Kgs 6:9–10). Most people believed that this foreknowledge allowed them to evade the danger by changing plans or persuading the deities.1359 Sometimes, though, people believed that such revelation of future events should not be used to evade events if God wanted one to go through them (e.g., b. Ber. 10a, where Hezekiah, seeing the future, wrongly sought to refrain from procreating). In other cases, the nature of the prophecy was such that even attempts to evade it (especially without repentance) could not succeed (see comment on Acts 2:23). 1352. Ibid., 84. On multistory buildings, see comment on Acts 20:8. 1353. With Malherbe, Social Aspects, 68. 1354. Sidon was roughly 24 mi. (38 km.) from Tyre (Wilson, personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011). 1355. We also know of Jewish people living in Tyre ( Jos. War 2.478; Stern, “Diaspora,” 142; cf. 1 Kgs 7:14; Jos. Ant. 8.76)—not surprisingly, given the proximity. 1356. See the survey of views in Hill, Prophecy, 7. 1357. Israelite prophets were not like Arrian’s portrayal of Indian sophists, whose oracles addressed only public affairs because private affairs were less important or less dignified (Ind. 11.5). 1358. See discussion of divination in the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:887–88 and esp. 897–98); more briefly, comment on Acts 16:6–7. 1359. Rives, Religion, 27, on divination. I have noticed analogies in societies today where many people still anticipate supernatural revelation. To give one example of which I am aware at close hand: When my wife was an infant in central Africa, someone prophesied that she would go to a far country yet return in a time of war, and perhaps die during fighting in the airport. The family prayed until they were convinced that the danger had been averted. Years later, war, indeed, began when she was doing doctoral work in Paris; when she finished, she inadvertently missed her flight, and the day she would have arrived, there was fighting around the airport. She returned safely by another route. Examples of such prophecies even in her own life could be multiplied, but often the meaning or application of them appeared clear only in retrospect.

3081

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 137

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

Prophecies were often (indeed, among Greeks, usually) ambiguous,1360 such as the famous Delphic promise to Croesus that if he waged war, he would destroy a great empire (in the end, he destroyed his own).1361 A minority of critics viewed such deliberate ambiguity in oracles with skepticism,1362 including in the case of Croesus.1363 Others opined that the gods kept most of the future from mortals, revealing only very limited elements.1364 Given mistrust of failed prophecies or those that contradicted other sources of knowledge,1365 Luke presumably would not have invented a prophecy (attributing the guidance somehow to the “Spirit”) worded as if prohibiting his reliable protagonist from doing what he in fact did. Some prophecies became intelligible only in retrospect (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 15.2–3), but recipients tended to interpret them favorably while awaiting their fulfillment. Cyrus interpreted an oracle favorably, but in retrospect it applied instead to his death (28.11–12). Hamilcar dined in the city as he had dreamed, but as a prisoner rather than, as he had supposed, a victor (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 8). Oracles were often obscure, like riddles, until they were fulfilled;1366 attempts to obey them sometimes led to one’s demise through misinterpretation, and not only in the case of Croesus!1367 For professional oracles, such ambiguity reduced the dangers of error, but early Christians could also recognize such ambiguities in the biblical prophets.1368 Although Luke offers far less in the way of apocalyptic-style revelation than John of the Apocalypse does, he would undoubtedly have shared his conviction that revelations could sometimes seem obscure (see Luke 2:34–35). iii. The Prophecies Here (21:4)

If it was God’s will for Paul, like Jesus in the Gospel, to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:13–14), why do these disciples warn him not to do so, “through the Spirit”? Scholars have proposed various interpretations. The least likely, given the direction of the narrative and parallel with the Gospel, is that Paul simply failed to heed God’s true warnings.1369 The text implies not that Paul failed to recognize that the Spirit was 1360. For the ambiguity of such oracles in general, see, e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.98–101; Quint. Curt. 4.7.26–28; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.4; Lucian Z. Cat. 13; Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445; Aune, Prophecy, 51–52; Klauck, Context, 189; cf. Judg 20:18–28. Retrospect provided the appropriate perspective on purported oracles (e.g., Aeschylus Ag. 1112–13; Soph. Oed. tyr. 439; Wom. Tr. 1169–73; Lycophron Alex. 1–15; Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; 3.5.7; 3.15.6; Statius Theb. 1.495–96; Plut. Alex. 37.1; Arrian Alex. 7.26.2–3; Dio Cass. 62.18.4; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6–7; Philost. Hrk. 15.2–3, 5; Jos. War 1.80). 1361. See Hdt. 1.46–48; 1.53.3; 1.91; Max. Tyre 5.2. Cf. Philip of Macedon (Diod. Sic. 16.91.2–3); Cyrus (Philost. Hrk. 28.11–12); Hamilcar (Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 8); cf. also Val. Max. 1.5.4; 1.8.10. Misplaced political agendas could be held to distort the interpretations of oracles (Plut. Lys. 22.5–6). 1362. E.g., Quint. Curt. 4.7.29; Lucian Z. Rants 28, 31; Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1). 1363. E.g., Lucian Z. Rants 20, 43; Alex. 48; Charon 11; Lucian Patriot 5; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 10.23–27. 1364. In Valerius Flaccus, see Manuwald, “Humans.” 1365. Lucian Conversation with Hesiod passim, esp. 2, 8. 1366. E.g., Aeschylus Ag. 1112–13; Soph. Oed. tyr. 439; Lycophron Alex. 1–15; Apollod. Bib. 2.8.2; 3.5.7; Dio Chrys. Or. 13.9 (solved in 13.10); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.11, 13; 6.11; Hrk. 15.5; Sib. Or. 5.14–42; cf. Marcus Aurelius in Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.12. Vague and unfalsifiable predictions appear in some groups today (e.g., the spirit mediums studied in Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 89). 1367. Cf. the supposed Jewish misinterpretation of messianic prophecy, which really applied to Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 5.13; Suet. Vesp. 4.5; cf. Jos. War 3.401). Yet sometimes deities offered prophecy to those who they knew would disobey (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.16–17). 1368. See comment at Acts 20:23; compare also the divergent approaches of early Christian and other Jewish interpreters to biblical “messianic” prophecies. 1369. Cf. Josiah in 2 Chr 35:21–24 (perhaps modeled on the unrighteous Ahab in 2 Chr 18:27, 33). Given the emphasis on moving from Jerusalem to the nations in Luke’s pneumatology (Acts 1:8), one might suppose that the mention of the “Spirit” (21:4) involves this larger pattern. But the mission keeps circling back to Jerusalem (15:4; 16:4; probably 18:22) and the Jewish people (13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8; 28:17), grounding mission in heritage; the Spirit was involved in Paul’s decision to

3082

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 138

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

speaking (cf. 20:23; 21:13) but, rather, that he was certain that he himself acted in God’s will (21:14). Another unlikely interpretation is that Tyrian Christians warned him against going to Jerusalem, on the basis of Tyrian hostility toward Jews.1370 Paul himself was Jewish, and Luke was perfectly able to exploit explicit portraits of hostility toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:53) and so need not have suppressed this sentiment had it been expressed on the journey. Nor were most Gentile Christians (much less Diaspora Jewish Christians among them) so disposed, at this early date, to despise Jerusalem’s leadership (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:3; Gal 2:12–13). Others argue that Paul evaluates and rightly rejects prophetic speech here (cf. 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22).1371 Certainly many early Christians viewed even accurate prophecy as partial knowledge (1 Cor 13:9).1372 Yet Luke is explicit that those who warn Paul speak “through the Spirit,” the agent of prophecy, and that it is not the warning of coming suffering (which is fulfilled) but the application (to not go) that his hero Paul rejects (Acts 20:23). Certainly, in 21:13, Paul does not deny the content of Agabus’s prophecy (21:11) but instead expects that he may suffer in Jerusalem, just as Agabus has said. Most scholars recognize that “through the Spirit,” while suggesting that prophetic speech is involved, is ambiguous in attributing the advice itself to the Spirit. The warning not to go is the Tyrian disciples’ application rather than the Spirit’s self-contradiction.1373 The more extended example in 21:10–14 suggests that the experience in Tyre is “a ‘condensed’ version” of the same pattern.1374 The Tyrian disciples’ warning to Paul not to go is based on the Spirit’s revelation of what he will suffer (cf. 20:23; 21:11); it is not the offering of a direct prophecy not to go. The Spirit’s message is the occasion for, rather than the substance of, their warning.1375 Through prophecy they (in this case) foreknow some events, but Paul has a higher assurance of God’s will for him to undertake this journey. Because of the partial nature of prophecy, however, balancing competing partial revelations in a charismatic setting, even apart from the question of error or deception (cf. 1 Kgs 13:18–26; 2 Kgs 8:10), requires discernment.1376 Interpretation of accurate prophecy could be fallible (e.g., Jer 35:5; Luke 7:19–20). In probably the closest ot model (or perhaps simply analogy) for Luke’s accounts of prophecies en route to Jerusalem, prophets in various locations tell Elisha that his master is about to be taken from him (2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7). Their knowledge is so partial, however, that they expect to find his body (2:15–18); only Elijah and Elisha have the fuller understanding (2:2, 4, 6, 9–10). Why do the others have this knowledge at all when its lack of context does go (probably 19:21); and Luke accepts the more general early Christian association of the Spirit with prophecy (e.g., 2:17–18). 1370. Theissen, Gospels, 77–78. 1371. Cf. Aune, Prophecy, 264 (cf. 217–22). 1372. A prophet could revise an earlier understanding (2 Sam 7:3–5); God could under new circumstances revise a prophecy (1 Sam 2:30–36; Jer 18:7–10; Ezek 18:21–29; Jonah 3:10); he could even give a command simply to test or teach the prophet (Gen 22:2, 12; Jer 35:2–19). Appearances could also be deceptive; in Gen 19:27–28, it could appear that God had not heard Abraham’s prayer, but the reader knows better (19:29). 1373. E.g., Conzelmann, Acts, 178; Gaffin, Perspectives, 66; Mittelstadt, Spirit, 123–24. 1374. Rapske, Custody, 407–8; cf. similarly D. Williams, Acts, 360. Some philosophers linked intellect with prophecy (as a manifestation of divine intellect; e.g., Max. Tyre 13 passim, esp. 13.2–3), but this does not fit Luke’s portrayal. 1375. See further Longenecker, Ministry and Message, 78. Although more a Pauline than a Lukan emphasis, their love for Paul could also be seen as motivated by the Spirit (Rom 15:30; Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1; Col 1:8). 1376. As Tannehill, Acts, 263, notes here, “It is seldom easy to separate divine revelation from human interpretation.” Cf. further Miller, Convinced, 226–29, 238.

3083

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 139

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

them little good? Although we might assume that narrators would clean up these kinds of tensions,1377 such narratives probably reflected the ambiguities of genuine charismatic experience (1 Cor 13:9–12; 14:29; 1 Thess 5:20–22) and highlight superior protagonists able to surmount such ambiguities (cf. 1 Cor 14:18, 37–38). One suspects that ancient “charismatics” experienced problems with the ambiguities of prophecy often analogous to the best of their modern counterparts, especially regarding interpretations supplementing the revelations themselves.1378 That “Luke felt no embarrassment” about such conflicting interpretations1379 probably should simply reinforce our conviction that he remained accustomed to such charismatic phenomena in the church he knew. It also reinforces our conviction that he did not invent these reports. Nevertheless, Luke has reason to record the warnings: such prophecies (also Acts 20:23; 21:11) fit one level of his apologetic. Ancients might assume that people would not make mistakes if accurate prophets were among them (Philost. Hrk. 23.5). Like Jesus, Paul did not simply suffer captivity and eventually martyrdom by accident. It was God’s plan, and God’s servant accepted it. Just as Jesus had to expect serious hostility in Jerusalem after challenging the temple yet remaining in the city (Luke 19:45–48),1380 Paul’s earlier experiences would hardly dispose him to doubt the possibility of suffering there (Acts 9:29; Rom 15:31; cf. Gal 1:23; 1 Thess 2:15). Paul’s own writings before he began the journey already suggest an awareness of danger there, though at least at that time he still hopes to avert the danger by prayer (Rom 15:30–31). iv. Farewells (21:5–6)

This farewell scene evokes the pathos of the one that precedes it (Acts 20:36–38), without needing to repeat all the details. A crucial element that Luke does repeat is kneeling to pray (see comment on Acts 20:36), fitting Luke’s consistent theme of prayer and Jesus’s invitations to prayer in a farewell scene preceding the passion (Luke 22:40–46). As noted above at Acts 20:18–35, orators even devised special forms of speeches for offering farewell; this occasion is much less formal than those envisioned by ancient orators, but the formal speeches reveal how seriously farewells were taken in ancient Mediterranean society. The distress of parting expressed the depth of affection shared (Let. Aris. 123). Luke’s point in describing these farewell scenes (offering details not strictly necessary for the story’s action) seems to be to provide character witnesses (if we may borrow forensic rhetorical categories for Luke’s narrative apologetic) supporting Paul’s ēthos by showing how loved he was by those who knew him best. Luke uses a correct term for the smooth “beach” outside Tyre (αἰγιαλός, Acts 21:5), as distinct from ἀκτή, “a rocky shore.”1381 In besieging the ancient island cita1377. Uncomfortable with the ambiguity of a true prophet misleading another in 1 Kgs 13, Josephus turns him into a false prophet (Ant. 8.236–45). 1378. These also characterized prophecy in ancient Israel, e.g., 2 Sam 7:3–5; 1 Kgs 13:18; 2 Kgs 8:10; esp. Jer 18:7–10; 35:2, 14; Jonah 3:10–4:2. Most relevant here is the partial revelation in 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 16–18, noted above. For one modern example from a society with an oracular tradition: Though the white percentage in her country is less than 1 percent, multiple unrelated Christians from the mainline church in Congo-Brazzaville independently prophesied to my wife that someday she would marry a white minister (one or two also prophesied, an American). When my wife thought of a different white minister she knew, a prophetess objected, “Not this white man, but a different one.” One, however, expressed severe displeasure concerning interethnic marriage, foreseeing it happening but personally disapproving of it. My wife was not charismatic and did not accept all prophetic claims, but years later could retrospectively count those prophecies accurate—despite one prophetess’s disapproval! 1379. Strelan, Strange Acts, 97. 1380. On the historical probability that Jesus would have foreseen his death, given what we know of his activity (he provoked it!), see Keener, Historical Jesus, 287–92, 295–301; idem, Matthew, 431–32. 1381. Hemer, Acts in History, 125. The latter term does not necessarily emphasize rocks, however ( Jos. War 2.643), and can even include a shore with sand (Philo Mos. 2.42).

3084

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 140

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

del, Alexander had a mole constructed connecting the island to the mainland. Sand accumulated over the centuries, creating “two smooth beaches.”1382 Strabo claims that the shore between Tyre and Ptolemais (21:7) was notably sandy, used for making glass (Strabo 16.2.25).1383 Whereas the elders bidding Paul farewell in Acts 20:36–38 (having traveled themselves from Ephesus) had not brought their families (cf. 20:17–18), here Luke allows us a picture of a broader cross section of the church that was seeing Paul off. Portraying wives and children, who were culturally more apt to mourn (see comment on Acts 8:2) and more readily objects of pity than men, often increased pathos.1384 That the group includes “children,” unlike some official delegations,1385 makes sense: early Christians met in homes, parents with younger children could not leave them unattended if both parents1386 came,1387 and Pauline household codes address children as well as their parents (Eph 6:1–3; Col 3:20).1388 In any case, women and children had long been welcome at Israel’s assemblies (Ezra 10:1; Neh 12:43).1389 On the literary level, Luke’s mention of this detail may add pathos (cf. Num 14:3; Esth 3:13; Isa 13:16; Jer 18:21), even beyond his references to women in some texts (Acts 8:3); pathos was helpful in farewell scenes (see comment on Acts 20:36–38). c. Visiting Ptolemais (21:7) Greetings (21:7) were an essential part of Mediterranean culture.1390 This practice occurred in formal court settings (Acts 25:13; 1 Macc 11:6; 3 Macc 1:8; Let. Aris. 173, 235; Ahiq. 6.1; 7.21) but was far more widespread (e.g., in lxx, cf. Exod 18:7; Judg 18:15; Tob 5:10; 1 Macc 7:33). One should return greetings to another with whom one is on good terms.1391 Those who failed to return greetings normally angered those who greeted them (cf. Jos. War 2.319, 325), though Socrates reportedly opined that one should be angry when meeting neither those healthier than oneself nor those ruder (Xen. Mem. 3.13.1). Sometimes people used greetings deceptively because such greetings were supposed to communicate friendship (1 Macc 7:29; Luke 22:47–48). Because greetings, ideally, were social markers of respect and affection, they appear prominently in Luke-Acts, whether from angels (Luke 1:29),1392 God’s servants 1382. Bruce, Commentary, 422n6. Idem, Acts1, 385, notes that the smooth beach remains today. 1383. Pliny E. N.H. 36.65.191 (this one is closer to Ptolemais). On Sidon’s glass industry, see 5.17.76; 36.66.193; on glass uses in antiquity, see Stern and Schlick-Nolte, Early Glass. 1384. See, for the principle, Hermog. Issues 52.14–17; for examples in histories, see Polyb. 2.56.7; Cic. Sest. 69.144; Quint. Curt. 3.13.12; 5.6.7; Jos. Ant. 4.320; Life 207. In most of these cases, even if the mention heightens the dramatic element, the claims remain historically plausible (i.e., they need not be invented). 1385. Though even these might include wives and children, when welcoming a new provincial governor (Men. Rhet. 2.3, 381.8–10) or even groups hailing a hero passing through (Cic. Pis. 22.51). 1386. Or one caretaker while the other remained at work, depending on the nature of their employment. Situations would vary widely—e.g., household slaves who could not easily come themselves, and persons who could sacrifice some income by leaving their booth temporarily. Perhaps the ship left early in the morning, before the normal workday. 1387. On children’s presence in house churches, see, e.g., MacDonald, “Reading,” 49; Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 69–78, esp. 74–78. 1388. On the last point, see Stamps, “Children,” 200. 1389. Despite some later exemption of women from such duties (apparently, primarily men attended the festival in Jos. War 2.515; cf. women’s exemption from some commandments in m. Naz. 9:1; y. Ber. 2:2, §5; from some festival requirements, m. Sukkah 2:8; Ḥag. 1:1; t. Taʿan. 2:14). 1390. Greetings constituted an essential aspect of social etiquette in Mediterranean antiquity (Soph. Oed. tyr. 596; Isoc. Demon. 20; cf. y. Taʿan. 1:4, §1; 4:2, §8), and social convention dictated particular rules for who was to greet persons of varying rank and how to do so (Matt 23:7; cf. t. Ber. 2:20; y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Ketub. 12:3, §6; 2 John 10), as they still do today in most Middle Eastern societies (Eickelman, Middle East, 234). 1391. Xen. Cyr. 5.5.35 (here it is a kiss, 5.5.36); Sir 41:20; b. Abot 6:10. 1392. Cf. other angels (1 En. 71:14) and revelatory figures (Herm. 1.4; 2.2; 23.2; 25.1).

3085

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 141

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

visiting relatives (1:40–41, 44), or God’s servants visiting spiritual kin (Acts 18:22; 20:1; 21:19). By contrast, religious pretenders desire the respect that such greetings communicate (Luke 11:43; 20:46), and on urgent missions of proclamation, greetings would have to be omitted (10:4; cf. 2 Kgs 4:29). Greetings are pervasive in Paul’s letters (Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–21; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–18; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Thess 3:17; cf. 2 Tim 4:19–21; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23), as in many letters from the period, Christian (Heb 13:24; 1 Pet 5:13–14; 2 John 13)1393 and otherwise.1394 Why did Paul’s company spend only a day in Ptolemais whereas they spent seven days in Tyre (Acts 21:4) and “some days” in Caesarea (21:10)? It is possible that the ship on which they had come was spending only a day at this port and that Paul did not wish to risk the delay of locating passage for his entire company on another ship.1395 But the next destination, Caesarea, was a short distance even on foot (see comment on Acts 21:8). They may have stopped in Ptolemais only because that was the next destination of their ship; Paul may have known fewer believers there (it was smaller than Tyre). But as with Tyre, Luke probably mentions the hospitality to emphasize the wide (hence rapid) spread of the early Christian movement, its virtuous display of hospitality and affection, and the acceptability of Paul within a wide geographic range of this movement’s representatives. In contrast to most nt authors, Luke makes comparatively little use of explicit “love” language; he offers frequent narrative displays of affection, however. Ptolemais was formerly Acco (which ancient Israel had failed to subdue, Judg 1:31);1396 it lay at the northern side of a harbor, with Mount Carmel on the southern side.1397 It was a strategic city from which Persia mounted its operations against Egypt (Strabo 16.2.25), but Ptolemy II Philadelphus reportedly refounded it and named it Ptolemais.1398 It came under Roman control in 65 b.c.e., and Caesar later found it strategic in his military campaigns (C.W. 3.105). Jews knew it as a notable port like the nearer harbors at Ashkelon, Joppa, and Gaza (Let. Aris. 115). Claudius made Ptolemais a Roman colony in 51; it thus preceded Caesarea by nearly two decades.1399 Although Claudius settled veterans there as a colony,1400 it remained relatively independent and continued its central role in northern Palestine from the time of Alexander until 70 c.e.1401 Not surprisingly in view of the sand, as already noted, in the region, Ptolemais was known for its glass industry.1402 It had a Jewish population1403 and would be well known to cosmopolitan Judeans.1404 Perhaps some members of Luke’s ideal audience might have known the city’s history soon after Paul’s visit: in 66 c.e., Greeks massacred many Jews there; in 67, Vespasian 1393. See also Ign. Magn. 1.0; 15.1; Trall. 1.0; 12.1; 13.1; Rom. 1.0, 1; 9.3; Phld. 1.0; 11.2; Smyrn. 11.1; 12.1–2; 13.1–2; Pol. 8.2–3. 1394. Letters frequently included greetings to or from others than the main recipients and senders (e.g., Cic. Att. 5.9, last ¶; 6.3, last ¶; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.8.3; 3.12; 4.10; Ep. graec. 6; Char. Chaer. 8.4.6; P.Oxy. 114.16–18; 1296.9–19; CPJ 2:210–11, §424; Let. Aris. 41; cf. Weima, Endings, 39–45). 1395. People were also prudent to prepare in case winds delayed a ship at sea (Philost. Hrk. 53.9). 1396. For ancient Acco and the later history of the site, see Porter, “Acco” (including a photo of rebuilt fortifications there); Dothan, “Acco”; briefly Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75. 1397. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 267; cf. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75. 1398. Let. Aris. 115. Rajak, “Ptolemais,” cites here P.Cair.Zen. 25004. 1399. Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75; Sherwin-White, Levick, and Bispham, “Colonization,” 364; Rajak, “Ptolemais.” 1400. Fitzmyer, Acts, 688, citing Pliny E. N.H. 5.17.75; Rajak, “Ptolemais.” 1401. See Kashtan, “Akko-Ptolemais.” Syria’s new governor wintered there when Gaius Caligula sent orders to erect his statue in Jerusalem ( Jos. Ant. 18.262). 1402. Pliny E. N.H. 36.65.190–91. Cf. Nissen, “Ptolemais.” 1403. See Jos. War 2.477 (mentioning at least two thousand); Stern, “Diaspora,” 142. The Isis cult catered to some Gentiles there (see Bricault, “Deities”). 1404. It appears seventy-seven times in Josephus.

3086

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 142

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

marched from there into Galilee.1405 We cannot be certain how these events would have affected the Christian community (especially Jewish Christians) there, but they could add pathos to a post-70 c.e. reading of the narrative as well as a sense of urgency to Paul’s mission to establish churches in politically stabler areas of Achaia and Asia. This would be even truer for Caesarea, soon to figure so prominently again in Luke’s narrative (Acts 21:8; 23:23, 33); Josephus, exaggerating (it is hoped),1406 claims that more than twenty thousand Jews were killed there in a single hour and the Jewish population there was exterminated (War 2.457–58).1407

6. Warnings in Philip’s Home in Caesarea (21:8–14) The stay in Judean Caesarea is particularly eventful, reconnecting Paul with one of the leaders who previously fled his persecution and who probably supplied some of the earlier scenes for Luke’s volume. Luke focuses on a particular incident that climaxes and provides a more detailed illustration of the earlier warnings (Acts 20:23; 21:4), building further suspense concerning Paul’s reception in Jerusalem. a. Visiting Philip in Caesarea (21:8) Caesarea was as much as forty miles from Ptolemais, a day’s journey by ship;1408 Paul and his companions might also have reached there (if they rented animals, which is unlikely, or walked long and briskly, which could make completing the journey on the same day more difficult) by the road along the coast.1409 Given the relatively short distance, it would have been more economically feasible for the company to have covered it by land, at least if they could avoid an overnight stay on the road. It was quicker by boat if they knew that a boat was going their way (or if their fare from Patara covered the full distance to Caesarea without anticipating the duration of the layovers). Some understandably suggest that Luke’s language is not clearly decisive as to their means of travel.1410 If 21:8 suggests that the group arrived in Caesarea the same day that they left Ptolemais, they surely took a boat; what makes this interpretation less than certain is that Luke elsewhere employs such language ambiguously.1411 That we find Philip here in Caesarea is not surprising. Just as Luke’s narrative leaves Saul in Tarsus and revisits him there (9:30; 11:25), and probably the narrator himself in Philippi (16:10; 20:6), so it returns to Philip in Caesarea, where an earlier 1405. Rajak, “Ptolemais.” 1406. Atrocity reports tend to be exaggerated by both sides for rhetorical effect (though Josephus never enters the category of rabbinic laments about Bethar, e.g., y. Taʿan. 4:5, §10; Lam. Rab. 3:51, §9). Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing can be rapid and large scale, especially if preplanned; cf., e.g., among others, the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915, the well-known Nazi Holocaust (against Roma [Gypsy] and other peoples and best known for its attempt to annihilate Jewish people), the massive slaughter of Igbos in Nigeria’s civil war (1966–69), and the Rwandan genocide (mostly with machetes and other traditional weapons) in 1994. 1407. Some argue that Caesarea had probably had the fourth or fifth largest urban Jewish population of any city in the ancient world (Cornfeld, Josephus, 190n457b). 1408. The distance is roughly 59 km./36.7 mi. (Mark Wilson, personal correspondence, May 13, 2013). 1409. Hemer, Acts in History, 125, estimating 30 mi. Others estimate nearly 40 mi. (Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 267) or 50 km. (Conzelmann, Acts, 178). Wilson measured 40 mi. (64 km.; personal correspondence, Nov. 25, 2011). 1410. Although διανύω (Acts 21:7) usually means “to complete” (hence that the sea voyage ended at Ptolemais), it can also be used for continuing a journey (Conzelmann, Acts, 178, noting Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.11.2, 5; 1.14.6). 1411. See 14:20, though in that case it may be significant that the arrival is not emphasized with its own verb, in contrast to here.

3087

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 143

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

evangelistic itinerary left him (8:40).1412 The location was strategic and is historically plausible.1413 Caesarea bordered Samaritan villages on the east and reportedly had a Samaritan minority (Pliny E. N.H. 5.68); this may have been one factor in drawing Philip there.1414 More important in inviting any strategically planned ministry, however, were Caesarea’s sizable and mixed population and strategic importance as an influential center (see discussion at Acts 10:1). It is possible that Philip and many other Christians left Caesarea a few years after this encounter. Papias and Polycrates suggest that Philip and his daughters later migrated to Hierapolis in Phrygia, perhaps because of the ethnic tensions in Caesarea that led up to the hostilities of 66 c.e.1415 In view of the positive role of hospitality in Luke-Acts, Philip’s role here is positive.1416 Luke uses Philip’s title “evangelist” here to remind us that this is the Philip who was “evangelizing” (εὐαγγελίζω) in Acts 8:12, 35 and in 8:40 (where Luke’s narrative left him; cf. 8:4, 25). The term εὐαγγελιστής probably bears the same sense in Eph 4:11 and 2 Tim 4:5, all from the Pauline circle: an individual specially adept in making converts but without the same charismatic authority for leading the church given to the apostles (unless the evangelist is also an apostle).1417 The office of a proclaimer of good tidings (εὐαγγελιστής) reflects especially the herald of Zion’s restoration in Isaiah (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1), refracted through the prism of Jesus’s ministry in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 16:16; 20:1; Acts 10:36)1418 and the apostles (Acts 5:42; 8:25; 13:32; 14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18) and their followers (11:20) in Acts.1419 Given the ethnic composition of Caesarea, it is not surprising historically that the disciples there (cf. 21:16) would have received Paul favorably. Even if the Jerusalem church’s leadership opposed Paul’s mission to Gentiles (which I will argue is unlikely), a church in a mostly Gentile area1420 (probably even one with ethnic tensions)1421 would likely appreciate him and show hospitality. (When Publius Clodius Pulcher ordered that no one within five hundred miles of Italy should provide Cicero shelter, most people nevertheless respected him and helped him on his way [Plut. Cic. 32.1].) 1412. See Witherington, Acts, 326, who compares the same technique in Hellenistic historians. 1413. Lüdemann, Christianity, 235. 1414. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 57 (though suggesting the reverse, that Philip’s Samaritan mission began there, which fits Luke’s chronology less well). On Samaritans in Caesarea, see also Zangenberg, “Samaria,” 402 (noting Pummer, “Samaritanism”). 1415. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 58, citing Euseb. H.E. 3.31.2–5; 3.39.9; 5.24.2 (see also Martin, Acts, 259–60). That Philip’s daughters remained virgins into their old age may reflect an emphasis of later generations, but in any case, it seems likely that many Judeans did emigrate (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.256) to Asia in the wake of the war (see Keener, John, 144; cf. Beasley-Murray, John, xlvi; Bruce, Peter, 121–22; Aune, Revelation, l [Roman numeral 50], 164), and it is not implausible that Philip and his daughters would have been among them. One might think also of the possible association of a later church with Philip, suggested in Avner, “Account,” but this is neither certain nor early. 1416. See Spencer, Philip, 250–62. Hospitality also provided leisure and opportunity to renew strength (cf. 1 Cor 16:18; 2 Cor 7:13; Phlm 7; 2 Tim 1:16; Sen. E. Controv. 1.pref. 15). 1417. Cf. Spencer, Philip, 262–69 (citing also Euseb. H.E. 3.37; 5.10), who hinges the distinction between evangelists and apostles instead particularly on the latter’s direct commission by Christ. 1418. Also angels (Luke 1:19; 2:10), John (3:18), and the apostles (9:6). 1419. Moses appears as a herald of good news in 4Q377 2 II, 11 (possibly alluding to Isa 61:1–5, since 2 II, 5 calls him “anointed”; see Wise, “Introduction to 4Q377,” 338). 1420. Even if the church remained mainly Jewish, both the conversion of Cornelius’s household (Acts 10:1–48) and the activity of Philip there (8:40, in light of 8:26–39) strongly suggest that this church had welcomed Gentiles from its early years. New converts may have brought with them some of the growing prejudices of the larger society, however, especially if house churches remained mostly segregated according to the ethnic enclaves in which they would be located. 1421. Though tensions could be a matter of degree among different groups. For example, Josephus, who favors elites, emphasizes the presence of moderates among the Jewish elite there (Ant. 20.178).

3088

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 144

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

We cannot know the size of Philip’s house, but the Jewish community in Caesarea as a whole was fairly wealthy ( Jos. Ant. 20.175–76).1422 It is safe to assume that the several days’ visit (Acts 21:10) included conversation; hospitality obligations would entail time with the guests. Paul and his former nemesis Philip will have stories to tell; news spread whenever people from different cities came together (e.g., Polyb. 18.46.1–2), and guests carried news.1423 Because this is part of the “we” narrative, Luke would have had access to Philip as an informant or through listening to Philip’s conversations with Paul, including about Stephen. This could be a natural way for a Hellenistic historian to indicate his access to sources—in this case, at least for Acts 6, 8, and 10 (esp. Acts 8).1424 (He already had Paul as an eyewitness for some of Acts 6 and all of Acts 7.) Thus, for example, Plutarch considers one source about Demosthenes reliable because the source claimed that he had heard the accounts “from Demosthenes himself, now grown old” (Demosth. 11.1 [LCL]). Hellenistic historians (unlike their Roman counterparts) sought to interview witnesses;1425 although Luke is a more popular historian than many extant historical writers (see comment on Acts 25:13–22), the genre still could invite informed members of his first audience to consider his sources. Most important in this respect, once Luke was so introduced to Philip, he would undoubtedly have had further opportunities to consult with him during the lengthy period that Paul was detained in Caesarea (Acts 24:27). There are, however, other literary reasons to report Paul’s stay in Caesarea. That Paul is now a guest in Philip’s home is ironic, part of the irony that permeates Luke’s (and much other early Christian) understanding of the gospel and God’s sovereignty (cf. Gal 1:23–24). Paul had aided in killing Philip’s colleague Stephen,1426 and his persecution had forced Philip from Jerusalem on the evangelistic tour that led him to Caesarea.1427 But Stephen’s colleague here welcomes Paul, bringing Paul’s recorded life full circle directly before he himself will confront essentially the same charge in the temple as led to Stephen’s death (Acts 6:13; 21:28).1428 (It is possible that Paul already met Philip [cf. 9:30; 18:22]; Luke reports their encounter, however, only in this more detailed “we” material.) Paul’s acceptance by a wide range of early Christians is part of Luke’s apologetic for Paul and for early Christianity; as Spencer puts it, Philip’s hospitality “represents part of a cluster of events demonstrating the prevailing unity between Paul and those Christians he had formerly persecuted.”1429 1422. For the Christian community in Caesarea in later (third and fourth) centuries, see Levine, Caesarea, 113–34; for the Byzantine period, 135–39. For a summary in the nt period, see 24–26. 1423. By travelers, e.g., Ezek 24:26; Eurip. El. 361–62; Pindar Nem. 5.2–3; Apul Metam. 1.26; Apoll. K. Tyre 8. In letters, e.g., Cic. Fam. 2.4.1; 14.1.6; 15.18.1; Att. 1.1–3; 6.3, last ¶; 10.4; Quint. fratr. 2.12.5; Pliny Ep. 2.11.24; 2.12.7; 4.11.15; 5.5.1; 5.17.1, 6; Symm. Ep. 1.15.1; sometimes supplemented orally, Cic. Fam. 1.6.1; 3.1.1; 9.2.1; 12.30.3; Symm. Ep. 1.11.2; 1.28; 1.46; P.Oxy. 32; Col 4:9. 1424. See Barrett, Acts, 51; Chance, Acts, 6. Many early Christian traditions were probably associated with prominent named individuals in the movement, sometimes named in the narratives (see Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses” [also noting Euseb. H.E. 3.39.3–4]; idem, Eyewitnesses, 55). Spencer, Philip, 249, thinks it reasonable to suppose that Luke learned much of Philip’s story there, but doubts that Luke mentions this simply to signal Philip as his informant. Hengel, Peter, 80, 85, suspects that Luke’s time in Judea helped reshape his Paulinism. 1425. See Fornara, Nature of History, 47–48, 56. 1426. Although Luke mentions Philip as “one of the seven” to distinguish him from the apostle by that name (Acts 1:13), this designation also draws attention to the circle of which Philip was originally a part, a circle that had included Stephen. On groups designated by their numbers, see comment on Acts 1:26. 1427. See further Spencer, Philip, 246. 1428. It seems historically more likely than not that Paul and Philip had already met and perhaps “reconciled” during a previous visit to Caesarea (Acts 9:30; 18:22), but as I have often observed, the “we” narratives are more detailed. 1429. Spencer, Philip, 260.

3089

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 145

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

(This also contrasts starkly with the negative reception of Paul by some Asian Jews in Jerusalem in 21:27–30.)1430 We also dare not miss the salvation-historical significance with which Luke invests the meetings in 21:8–18 (with Philip, Agabus, Mnason, James, and unnamed disciples). Representatives from the newer Pauline churches of the Diaspora (20:4–5) are now meeting leaders from the church’s earliest days.1431 Although Luke barely mentions the collection and there is no church council as in Acts 15, the uniting of two cultural streams of faith interests him. Luke’s own narrative suggests another reason for the report, however, especially for the chronological information here (several days, 21:10) and earlier (20:16; 21:4, 7). Luke offers evidence of how short a time Paul was in fact in Jerusalem before his arrest (cf. 21:18, 26–27), which left no time at all to foment a rebellion (24:11). When Paul, on trial in Caesarea, claims that he entered Jerusalem only twelve days before, he speaks in a city where witnesses could be on hand to testify precisely when Paul left for Jerusalem (21:16). As noted in the commentary introduction,1432 part of Luke’s apologetic appeal is to show that the apostolic movement posed no threat to Roman order (for that matter, even its initial challenge to the power of Jerusalem’s religious elite may have settled into semitolerant coexistence; cf. 21:20–21); the apostles proclaimed the kingdom but waited for God himself to establish it. b. Philip’s Virgin, Prophetess Daughters (21:9) Although not directly germane to the point he is making about Paul, Luke reports Philip’s four daughters still at home,1433 information that he considers interesting and that may further cast Philip in a favorable light1434 besides reinforcing Luke’s prophetic emphasis and his balancing of genders (see esp. 2:17–18). Although scholars debate exactly what Luke intends by using the participle προφητεύουσαι with Philip’s daughters,1435 Luke likely emphasizes that they prophesied regularly, not simply on the occasion when Paul was present.1436 That is, Luke wishes to underline their activity as prophetesses.1437 1430. Ibid. Cf. also Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 58, though Spencer is right to eliminate James from the contrast (Philip, 260–62). 1431. With Knox, Jerusalem, 350. Paul, too, had highlighted such an encounter on previous occasions, even in a context emphasizing his independence; see Gal 2:7–10. 1432. Keener, Acts, 1:447–48, 457. 1433. Ancients might think of other hosts in travel narratives whose families included daughters (nothing unusual in itself); for the biblically literate, the most obvious example would be Jethro’s daughters in Midian (Exod 2:16); but that Luke does not compose the account on the basis of such an example is suggested by the different number (four instead of seven) and the fact that this is eyewitness “we” material. In contrast to Agamemnon’s three daughters in Homer, Cypria frg. 20, from scholiast on Soph. El. 157 (GEF 99, 101), gives him four, but Acts offers no allusions here (no sacrifice of a daughter, for example); more relevant would be Job’s three daughters ( Job 42:13–14), said in Test. Job 48–50 to prophesy—but this later source might reflect Acts (except for, presumably, the charismatic cords or sashes, which would hardly reflect Agabus’s belt). Charismatic girding appears in L.A.B. 20.2 as well as Testament of Job (cf. also the garment in Apoc. Zeph. 8:1–4; see the thorough study of charismatic girdles in Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 90–94, esp. here 93), but here the girdle illustrates, rather than induces, prophecy (cf. Jer 13:1–11). 1434. Children’s activity often reflected on parents in antiquity (see, e.g., Sir 3:10; Xen. Apol. 31; comment on Acts 21:9; 23:6). For a connection between Philip’s earlier prophetic activity by the Spirit and his prophetic daughters, cf. Stronstad, Prophethood, 91. As Philip crossed the “all flesh” barrier of Acts 2:17 in 8:5–40, here he is shown to have crossed the gender barrier of 2:17. 1435. Fitzmyer, Acts, 689, focusing on the verb’s sense, suggests perhaps “inspired preaching” or “charismatic speech.” See the excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909). 1436. Hill, Prophecy, 100–101; Schnabel, Acts, 856. 1437. Dunn, Acts, 282. A number of scholars (e.g., Kisau, “Acts,” 1337) have adduced them as an example to support women in ministry today (see further discussion at Acts 2:17).

3090

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 146

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Why not then simply employ the noun προφῆτις (“prophetess,” Luke 2:36) to designate them “prophetesses”? Although a distinction between office and ministry is probably anachronistic for this period,1438 it is reasonable to think that Luke lays emphasis on their activity (including while the visitors were present) rather than on an accepted title (in contrast to the more widely recognized itinerant Agabus and his colleagues [11:27; 21:10] or the leaders in Antioch [13:1]). Paul often employs the present participle (albeit with the article, unlike here) for those who prophesy (1 Cor 11:4–5; 14:3–5) and likewise uses the title “prophet” for all who prophesy (14:29, 32).1439 While Luke seems to expect prophetic speech among believers even more widely than Paul does (Acts 2:17–18),1440 he apparently reserves the title “prophet” for a special group (11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10), as he usually does (albeit with rare exceptions; 14:4, 14)1441 for “apostles” as the Twelve. But if the basis of the reservation is that “prophet” applied only to recognized, senior prophets,1442 he could hardly apply the title already to virgins (by which Luke probably indicates their youth; see comment below); if, by contrast, he reserves it for those who prophesy regularly, his present participle here indicates that he expected it to apply to these young women. He could not, in any case, have denied the title to them on account of their gender; prophetesses appear in the biblical record (see below), which Luke accepts as authoritative; and Luke himself affirms this role (Luke 2:36).1443 Just as Luke pairs Simeon and Anna as male and female prophetic figures (Luke 2:25–38), he here pairs the famous prophet Agabus with Philip’s four virgin daughters (Acts 21:9–10). Luke often links male and female figures in healing narratives (e.g., 9:32–42), summary reports (8:3; 17:4, 34), and parables (Luke 15:4–10; 18:2–14), and here he probably provides narrative examples of the programmatic text in Acts 2:17: “your sons and daughters will prophesy” (just as the Gospel’s mission program in Luke 4:18–19 echoes later, e.g., in 7:22). One sign of the Spirit’s coming, for Luke, is the transcending of traditional gender barriers. Some scholars object that Acts 2:17 is not yet fulfilled, because the daughters do not speak in the narrative and Agabus takes center stage.1444 This objection would be more reasonable if we thought that Luke played down the significance of the young women because of their gender, but various other factors made Agabus’s prophecy more focal for Luke’s narrative: he was a much older and much more prominent prophet;1445 he had a much wider geographic ministry; he came “down from” Judea—that is, probably from 1438. Pace Barrett, Acts, 994, who thinks Luke prefers the participle because “for Luke prophecy was a function rather than an office” (contrast Acts 21:10). See Belleville, Leaders, 142, 146–47, 182. Origen Comm. 1 Cor. 4.74.6–16 (Bray, Corinthians, 146) wishes to emphasize that their prophesying occurred outside the church, but by this standard, so did that of Agabus (Acts 21:10–11; cf. Luke 1:67). Yet the church met in homes in this period, and so the distinction is not relevant in any case. 1439. The lxx also often conjoins the title with the verb’s present participle, both for true (1 Sam 10:5; 1 Esd 7:3) and false ( Jer 14:15; 23:26, 32; 34:15–16; Ezek 13:16) prophets. 1440. Probably because Acts 2 portrays the theological ideal whereas Paul emphasizes especially those filling the role in practice (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28–29); Paul’s ideal, however, is apparently also universal prophetic activity (1 Cor 14:1, 39 and esp. 14:31). 1441. These exceptions for apostles constitute about 7 percent of his uses in Acts or 3 percent in Luke-Acts. 1442. Some held leadership roles (Acts 13:1; 15:22, 32), but so did Deborah ( Judg 4:4–5). 1443. Luke’s term in Luke 2:36 is the lxx term in Exod 15:20; Judg 4:4; 2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22; Isa 8:3. 1444. Spencer, Acts, 197. Others demur (e.g., Gaventa, Acts, 294; Schnabel, Acts, 856n124; see further below). 1445. We may assume that Agabus is at least not young, on the basis of the span of years that have passed since Acts 11:27–30 (at least in Luke’s narrative world, if some would move Agabus’s prophecy at that point instead to the later collection). Although Luke’s attention to a more prominent figure would not need to be sexist, the attitudes that determined prominence in Christian (and other communities) may have been sometimes shaped by such factors.

3091

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 147

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

the city he was warning about (21:11);1446 he had apparently brought bad news north about Jerusalem before (11:28–29);1447 and he was demonstrative in ot prophetic fashion in a way that would certainly attract attention (both for those present and for Luke’s audience hearing the narrative). Most important, it is Agabus’s prophecy that specifically relates to the action that follows in the narrative, both in Caesarea (people urging Paul to turn back) and in Jerusalem (Paul’s mistreatment and Roman custody). Moreover, since the daughters probably discouraged Paul from going (21:12), reporting their words would not in itself honor them. The fact is that Luke need not mention them at all, or at least not specify their gender and age, to maintain his central plot focus surrounding Paul; others had prophesied to Paul without such details being mentioned (20:23; 21:4).1448 Luke mentions them and specifies their gender here, in connection with Agabus, partly because they provide gender balance. That he also probably indicates their age (“virgins”) confirms the connection with 2:17, where young and old also prophesy as here. That he does not report their words may even draw attention to these other factors for mentioning them. These four prophetesses not only provide gender balance but shine a favorable light by association on one of the protagonist pioneers in his narrative. Whatever Luke’s relationship with the Testament of Job,1449 it is likely that just as the narrator honors Job’s piety by recounting his daughters’ spiritual proclivities (cf. Prov 22:6),1450 Luke also highlights that Philip the evangelist, while now settled in Caesarea instead of itinerant, continues to have a godly influence.1451 In Luke’s day the behavior of children could shame their parents1452 and, presumably, honor them as well.1453 Given the authority that society granted fathers over their children, the latter’s behavior could even be used to evaluate the fathers’ fitness for office.1454 Historically, Luke’s theological interest in these prophetesses does not suggest that 1446. As Reimer notes, denying competition between Agabus and the women, “He had come directly from Judea and could give prophetic interpretation to the situation in Jerusalem” (Women, 249; so also Gaventa, Acts, 294). That one could come from “Judea” to Caesarea, though the latter was part of Roman administrative Judea, suggests a Jewish Judean perspective that “excluded pagan Caesarea” (Hemer, Acts in History, 126), perhaps reflecting what Luke heard from Agabus himself (or the many others who would have shared this perspective). 1447. Though Luke reintroduces him here for first-time readers unfamiliar with his name. Luke himself may have focused more on Agabus than other prophets (Acts 11:27) in part because he knew of him more than other Diaspora Christians did, precisely because he was present (and active) in this “we” section (21:10–14). 1448. Agabus’s prophecy is the climax of this series of warnings (with Haenchen, Acts, 603–4). 1449. Some allow that the work is independent of the nt, sharing common motifs because of the lxx and Hellenistic Judaism (Rahnenführer, “Testament des Hiob”); some date the work to the first century b.c.e. (McNamara, Judaism, 91); others allow an early date for most of the work (first century b.c.e. or c.e.; Spittler, “Introduction,” 833–34) but attribute the account of Job’s daughters to Montanist redaction (834). If the account of Job’s daughters does not belong to later redaction, however, the work as a whole might be later (though before Tertullian; for Jewish Christian authorship, see, e.g., Forbes, Prophecy, 45–47, 182–87); others contend that the entire work can be explained without recourse to Christian activity (Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 88–89). Job’s daughters are exceptional, and so this section should not be treated as a separate source from the rest of the work on the basis of contrasts with Sitis (Omerzu, “Emancipation,” 95). 1450. The depiction of Job’s daughters in this document fits contemporary Jewish descriptions of heavenly journeys and revelatory trances (see Omerzu, “Emancipation,” esp. 89, 94). 1451. The transition is not implausible; other young itinerants in history have also sometimes transitioned to a more settled life, especially after having a family (see, e.g., Wolffe, Expansion, 76). 1452. E.g., Eurip. Hel. 136, 200–202; Xen. Apol. 31; Corn. Nep. 15 (Epaminondas), 10.1; Cic. Invect. Sall. 5.13; Plut. Themist. 2.6; Gaius Inst. 3.221; Parth. L.R. 35.1, 3–4; Prov 15:20; 19:26; 28:7; 29:15; 4Q213 2 18–20; 4Q541 24 II, 5; Sir 3:10; 22:3–5; 42:9–11; cf. Diog. Laert. 2.114. Cf. Garland, “Delinquency.” 1453. Less common in the sources but nevertheless evident (e.g., Val. Max. 4.4.pref.; Prov 10:1; 15:20; 23:24–25; 27:11; 29:3). 1454. Cf. Isoc. Nic. 41 (Or. 3.35); 1 Tim 3:4–5; less relevant, Eurip. El. 386–87; Isoc. Demon. 35; Ad Nic. 19; Diod. Sic. 12.12.1; Diog. Laert. 1.70; Sipre Deut. 32.5.12.

3092

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 148

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

he fabricated them.1455 Papias reportedly knew Philip’s daughters after they later moved to Hierapolis in Phrygia (Papias frg. 6 [Euseb. H.E. 3.39]). While Luke’s literary and theological interest in prophetesses recalls his Joel quotation and biblical prophetesses, it also reflects their pervasiveness in early Christianity, where they probably constituted a higher percentage than they had in ancient Israel (see 1 Cor 11:4–5),1456 presumably including in circles known to Luke (cf. Acts 2:17–18; Luke 2:36). (Their acceptability in Gentile converts’ culture may have cultivated an environment more conducive to developing this particular gift. Women were also more prominent in Philippi, where Luke apparently ministered [Phil 4:2–3].)1457

Excursus: Prophetesses Luke was familiar with prophetesses in the Greek tradition (see, e.g., the “pythoness” in Acts 16:16).1458 Even more certainly, Luke would be familiar with the significant number of biblical prophetesses. For Jewish or other biblically immersed hearers, prophetesses might evoke Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah ( Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 34:22),1459 and, perhaps more closely, Isaiah’s initially virgin (hence young) prophetess wife (Isa 8:3 taken in light of 7:14).1460 Believing that early Christians continued to live in the biblical era, in the time of fulfillment, Paul also expected Christian women to prophesy (1 Cor 14:1, 31, 39), albeit with their heads covered. Since Philip’s daughters were unmarried, they would presumably be exempted from this Eastern custom of married women wearing head coverings.1461 Jewish tradition continued to acknowledge biblical prophetesses.1462 Targum Jonathan on Judges 4:4; 5:3, 7, 9 remains explicit that Deborah prophesied;1463 Amoraim also claimed that the matriarchs were accurate prophetesses (Gen. Rab. 67:9; 72:6).1464 Although later rabbis often portrayed prophetesses respectfully, they could also attribute to them any negative traits that such rabbis normally associated with 1455. Lüdemann, Christianity, 235, thinks them historically credible, though his appeal to Test. Job 48–50 for a Hellenistic preaching context may be anachronistic. 1456. The suggestion that the women prophesied only in “non-church” gatherings (Holmyard, “Prophesying”) is difficult to sustain, given the issue of head coverings, the appeal to angels (1 Cor 11:10) and appeal to other churches (11:16), and especially the fact that the church was meeting in homes, so that Christian meetings there de facto constituted “church.” 1457. For women in Philippi, see comment on Acts 16:13. 1458. On the Sibyl, see the section “Surmounting Gender and Other Barriers” at Acts 2:17 (Keener, Acts, 1:882–86); on the Pythia, see comment at Acts 16:16. 1459. Contrary to what some suppose, people’s coming to inquire of Huldah does not make her of less authority than male prophets; it means that she was the most notable prophet to whom Josiah could send, analogous to Isaiah during Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 19:5). That Deborah received inquirers ( Judg 4:5) again reflects her authority (cf. Samuel in 1 Sam 9:6–7; Ahijah in 1 Kgs 14:2); she was, after all, judge of all the land ( Judg 4:4). 1460. Some have also counted Noadiah, though she appears in the canon as a false prophetess (Neh 6:14), like John’s “Jezebel” (Rev 2:20). 1461. See Keener, “Head Coverings,” 445–46; cf. Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.2; Plut. S. Sp., Charillus 2, Mor. 232C. In some romance novels, premarried girls conceal their beauty anyway, but these might be portrayed as exceptionally diligent. 1462. Cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 95. 1463. But whereas Josephus notes that Deborah was a prophetess, he omits her being a judge (Ant. 5.201). 1464. Views toward Huldah varied from positive to negative (van der Horst, “Graf ”). On Huldah’s grave, see t. B. Bat. 1:11; ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A; comment on Acts 2:29; for her prophetic authority, see, e.g., L.A.B. 33:1–2; but Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2 limits her prophesying to women (against the clear sense of the biblical narrative, which includes her).

3093

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 149

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

women;1465 affirmation of prophetesses did not necessarily give them or their contemporaries modern sensibilities regarding gender. The tradition most closely resembling Luke’s portrayal here is the charismatic speech of Job’s daughters in Test. Job 48–50. This document may well stem from a century after Luke; scholars debate whether the portrayal reflects Christian influence (especially because it is one of the few possible examples of inspired speech in another [here an angelic] language, which resembles early Christian glossolalia).1466 If it reflects Christian influence, it may depend partly on Philip’s four daughters (adjusted to three per Job 42:13–15);1467 if not, it may attest to a tradition on which Philip and his daughters drew in their prophesying or on which Luke drew in his portrayal (though the brevity of his description may count against the latter solution). For prophecy more generally, see the excursus at Acts 2:17.1468

Excursus: Why Mention Their Virginity? Some pagan texts tell us about consecrated virgins with special spiritual power (especially the Vestals and oracular virgins). Some texts also connect celibacy with spiritual revelations. The vast majority of texts about virgins, however, simply designate them as young women not yet married, an interpretation more relevant to Philip’s Jewish family (although some of Luke’s audience may have thought of additional connotations). Most likely, then, Luke’s point is that these daughters are young; together with the now older male prophet Agabus in this passage, they serve to illustrate that the prophetic Spirit is for males and females, young and old alike (Acts 2:17–18). This is not the only point at which Luke shows respect for young (probably teenage) women (see the account of Mary in Luke 1:26–56).1469 Mentioning their virginity, and hence their unmarried status, also helps explain why they remain in Philip’s home. Nevertheless, it is appropriate here to survey the wider range of sources that could have informed the understanding of Luke’s first-century audience.

1. Consecrated Virgins1470 The best-known consecrated virgins in the Roman Empire were the Vestals,1471 although more-local models may have come to mind first in the eastern empire. 1465. Bronner, “Prophetesses through Rabbinic Lenses,” on b. Meg. 14b. 1466. Spittler suggested Montanist influence; others disagree (see discussion above). Despite Montanist prophetesses, however, it appears that even Montanists limited women’s authority (Montanist oracles in Cat. Cor. 14.36 [Bray, Corinthians, 147]). Others rejected Montanism not for its view of creation or Christology, nor only for its women prophetesses (Priscilla and Maximilla; the male prophet Montanus was also rejected), but for the alleged content of their revelations (cf., e.g., Hippol. Ref. 10.21). 1467. The charismatic sashes of Test. Job 46–50 do not appear to be derived from Christian influence; one could seek to argue even for their dependence on this passage (Acts 21:11), but the lack of verbal echoes makes this suggestion unlikely. 1468. Keener, Acts, 1:886–909. 1469. His approach is not unique; e.g., L.A.B. 40:4 views Jephthah’s daughter as wiser than Jephthah himself (as Luke presents Mary as more receptive to Gabriel’s message than Zechariah is). 1470. Some scholars have also suggested placing 1 Cor 7 in the broader context of Greco-Roman cultic virgins (Cha, “Virgins”; cf. Oster, Corinthians, 159). In an earlier era, cf. the apparent cultic use of virgins among Hittites (ANET 349). 1471. For regulations for the Vestals, see, e.g., Aul. Gel. 1.12; for further discussion, see Worsfold, Virgins; Cancik-Lindemaier, “Vestals” (noting on 340 that the pontifex maximus recruited them between the ages of six and ten); Lefkowitz and Fant, Life, 249–50.

3094

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 150

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

The Vestals were in a sense a living sacrifice on behalf of Rome; their defilement brought judgment on the state.1472 The Vestals were so much part of Roman identity that an orator could stir a patriotic audience by promising not only to defend the city more generally but also to protect the Vestals from outrage.1473 Augustus’s will was deposited with the Vestal virgins (Suet. Aug. 101.1), and Tiberius both donated funds to a Vestal (Tac. Ann. 4.16) and left legacies to Vestal virgins in his will (Suet. Tib. 76). This office was one way for a woman to achieve fame; a statue could commemorate a famous Vestal.1474 Thus Tarquinia was so honored that her testimony was accepted, though this was not true for other women.1475 Senators could hear respectfully a Vestal’s request on behalf of her condemned brother (Tac. Ann. 3.69). Vestals were so influential that they managed to reconcile Julius Caesar to Sulla (Suet. Jul. 1). It was understood in return that their consecration sacrificed the opportunity to bear children.1476 Many spoke of the Vestals as “holy”—that is, consecrated (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.69.4; 1.76.3); Plutarch calls them “completely holy [παναγῶν] virgins” (Rom. Q. 96, Mor. 286E). As the chief example of virginal modesty, they were the very antithesis of prostitutes.1477 To be chosen for the order, a virgin had to be chaste, pure, and of chaste and pure parents.1478 Any virgin who stammered or spoke indistinctly could not be chosen.1479 The six virgins served a minimum of thirty years and were no longer counted as part of their family of origin.1480 Although they had to remain celibate, their garb recalled that of matrons, and their hair was apparently arranged like that of a bride.1481 When a Vestal virgin became too sick and needed care instead outside the Vestal hall, she was entrusted to a married woman.1482 After thirty years in the order, they were free to leave it and marry if they chose to do so; but few, by then past childbearing, did so, and it was thought that those who did so regretted their choice.1483 Vestals were required to remain chaste, on penalty of death. A Vestal could be severely punished for negligence in guarding the “eternal fire.”1484 But the most severe 1472. E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.40.3–4; Plut. Rom. Q. 83, Mor. 284AC. 1473. Cic. Cat. 4.1.2; 4.6.12. 1474. Pliny E. N.H. 34.11.25. Using Mary Douglas’s approach to purity and danger to explain the Vestals’ ambiguous status, Beard, “Virgins,” argues that the Vestals were viewed partly as virgins but partly as matrons and perhaps partly as men; I am not fully persuaded. 1475. Plut. Publ. 8.4 (noting that she was even granted permission to marry but refused to use the privilege). 1476. Cic. Font. 21.46–47. One king was said to have made Rhea Silvia a Vestal to keep her from having children (Appian Hist. rom. 1.1.2). 1477. Ovid Tristia 2.311–12. 1478. Sen. E. Controv. 1.2.intro. The case is argued both ways as to whether a virgin captured and forced to work in a brothel, who nonetheless kept herself chaste, could be a Vestal (1.2.1–16). On the necessity of the virgins’ mothers being just once-married, see Schneider, “Univira” (citing Propertius 4.11.36; Tac. Ann. 2.86). A father’s divorce could count against one, other factors being equal (Tac. Ann. 2.86, noting that the rejected potential Vestal was consoled with a million sesterces for her dowry). 1479. Fronto Eloq. 3.1 (Fronto naturally dislikes stammering, Speeches 8). 1480. Gordon, “Vesta.” The process for appointing Vestals developed in the three centuries before Paul’s time; see Mekacher and van Haeperen, “Choix.” 1481. Gordon, “Vesta.” For their special hair arrangement with ribbons, see the description in Croom, Clothing, 114. 1482. Pliny Ep. 7.19.2. 1483. Gardner, Women, 25 (citing Plut. Numa 10.4; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 2.67). One served fifty-seven years, through the Augustan era and beyond (Tac. Ann. 2.86). 1484. Val. Max. 1.1.6 (in this case, a flogging); another Vestal was allegedly vindicated by placing her cloth on the extinguished hearth, with new fire coming out (1.1.7). The Vestals guarded Vesta’s sacred fire (Plut. Cam. 20.3).

3095

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 151

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

case was unchastity. Sexually defiled Vestals were to be buried alive,1485 and a Vestal’s unchastity could bring judgment against the entire state until she was so buried.1486 One Vestal, though found innocent, was warned to avoid immoderate dress and jesting, since these had led to the charge.1487 Another Vestal proved less fortunate; suspected of unchastity because she dressed unbecomingly, she was accused by a slave, then convicted and buried alive.1488 It was expected that the goddess could vindicate those falsely accused.1489 The basis for charges could be flimsy,1490 and the politically powerful exercised control over the verdicts. Thus one of the sexual scandals reported about Nero was that he debauched a Vestal named Rubria.1491 Domitian banished a senator on the charge of having defiled a Vestal virgin (Pliny Ep. 4.11.4–6), but the charge may have been concocted merely as a pretext so that the emperor could have Cornelia, the chief Vestal, burned alive.1492 Men were not permitted to go among the Vestals.1493 Nevertheless, their virginity did not exclude all male contact; thus a Vestal could embrace a father1494 or brother1495 to protect him. Nero even began permitting the Vestals to watch athletic contests.1496 Vestals also aided in other ceremonies, such as the feminine rituals of Bona Dea, “the Good Goddess.”1497 They were supposed to have special powers; it was popularly believed that they could use a spell to help capture escaped slaves.1498 In addition to Vestals, some other priestesses remained permanent virgins (e.g., Paus. 8.13.1) or were young and had to leave office once married (e.g., 2.33.2–3).1499 It was natural to envision as a virgin a priestess consecrated to Apollo.1500 In the eastern 1485. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.78.5; 2.67 (cf. 3.67.3); Livy 14 summary; Plut. Rom. Q. 96, Mor. 286EF (Babbitt in LCL, 4:143 n. e, cites also Plut. Numa 10, 67AC; Ovid Fasti 6.457–60; Pliny Ep. 4.11.6); Hdn. 4.6.4. Parker, “Vestals,” suggests that Rome could treat young Vestals’ lives so cavalierly because they symbolized the state, with which they were connected by the sort of analogy present in sympathetic magic. 1486. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.40.3–4. In another case, the corruption of three Vestals’ virginity brought judgment until the gods were appeased by sacrificing two Greeks and two Gauls (Plut. Rom. Q. 83, Mor. 284AC). 1487. Livy 4.44.11–12. Another Vestal was found innocent in the case in Plut. Crass. 1.2; cf. Cic. Brut. 43.160. 1488. Livy 8.15.7–8; her name was Minucia. Symmachus claims to have condemned to death an unchaste Vestal (Salzman, “Introduction,” xxiii–xxiv, noting Symm. Ep. 9.147, 148). 1489. E.g., Val. Max. 1.1.7; perhaps Hdn. 1.11.4–5 (unless this is a priestess of Magna Mater; the text may be corrupt). 1490. Sen. E. Controv. 6.8 (this hypothetical case is argued both ways). 1491. Suet. Nero 28.1 (but some of what Suetonius reports may be simply anti-Nero gossip). Later the emperor Antoninus married one of the Vestal virgins, excusing his behavior as manly passion (and divorcing her soon afterward; Hdn. 5.6.2); yet Antoninus allegedly buried Vestals alive for unchastity (4.6.4). 1492. Pliny Ep. 4.11.5–6. Pliny (who had reason to hate Domitian) thinks that she was innocent (4.11.9) and that the senator invented a confession only to prevent worse punishment for himself from Domitian (4.11.11, 13). Suetonius, however, thinks her guilty (Dom. 8.4), reporting that one of those whom he executed he buried alive (8.3–4). Technically, they were supposed to be buried alive, but Domitian chose some different methods (Dio Cass. 67.3.3–4). Apollonius allegedly denounced Domitian for executing three Vestals on the charge of breaking their vows (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.6). 1493. Appian Bell. civ. 1.6.54. They could testify in court but were not to be interrogated at home (Tac. Ann. 2.34). 1494. Cic. Cael. 14.34. A Vestal who defended her father could be praised (Val. Max. 5.4.6). 1495. Cic. Font. 21.46. 1496. Because Ceres’s priestesses had this privilege at Olympia (Suet. Nero 12.4). 1497. See North, “Bona Dea.” Cf. Plut. Cic. 19.3–4. 1498. Pliny E. N.H. 28.3.13. 1499. King, “Chastity,” 320. The priestess of Heracles at Thespiae remained a virgin until death (Paus. 9.27.6). In the cult of Pudicitia, priestesses were allowed to have been married once (Schneider, “Univira,” citing Val. Max. 2.1.3; Livy 10.23.3–10). 1500. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54 (portraying Cassandra as a κόρη, a young girl, a term not applicable in the sense of age by the end of the Trojan War). Cf. Käppel, “Manto.” One could also be consecrated to Isis for temporary virginity (Xen. Eph. Anthia 3.11; 5.4).

3096

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 152

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

Mediterranean, hearers might think first of the Pythia, a young virgin serving Apollo’s Delphic sanctuary.1501 If so, the prophesying of these four virgin daughters of Philip contrasts favorably with that of the slave girl in Acts 16:16. In later traditions (perhaps shaped by the growing ethos of late antiquity, which also shaped ascetic Christian piety),1502 Artemis’s priestesses remained cloistered and virgins (Apoll. K. Tyre 27).1503 Soranus (early second century) was probably the first Greek physician to recommend chastity (Gynec. 1.30–32).1504 On virgin priestesses, see also comment on Acts 16:16; 19:24.

2. “Prophetic” Virginity Virginity was sometimes associated with prophecy in antiquity.1505 This is especially true for women viewed as mouthpieces of Apollo, though the connection between their virginity and their oracular powers is Apollo’s weakness for young women and sometimes that they remained virgin by eluding Apollo; such a connection is, naturally, irrelevant in a Jewish-Christian theological framework. It has already been mentioned that the Delphic pythoness was a virgin.1506 Cassandra1507 and the Sibyl were both virgins. Normal gender considerations aside, Romans obeyed the Sibyl (and the Sibylline books traced to her) as a prophetess.1508 Even the inspiring Muses are virgins:1509 despite some traditions about the pythoness (a Delphic virgin) raving, Dio Chrysostom opines that the Muses, who inspire, would not be indecorous; they are “virgins” (παρθένους), indicating their modesty and selfcontrol (Or. 32.56).1510 Some rabbis apparently believed that, to receive revelations, biblical prophets had abstained temporarily from sexual activity.1511 Some scholars suggest that a variety of early Jewish circles (as diverse as those reflected in Philo and 1 Enoch) urged temporary abstinence so as to receive revelations.1512 Such approaches were not, however, pervasive so far as we can tell from our sources. 1501. Cf. Pindar Paeans 8.81; see fuller comment at Acts 16:16. 1502. Second-century theories of Christian asceticism mirrored those of philosophic schools; see Rousseau, “Asceticism.” 1503. This also reflects earlier tradition (cf., e.g., eunuch priests in Ephesus’s Artemis temple in Strabo 14.1.23; the Greek Artemis’s request for perpetual virginity in Callim. Hymns 3 [to Artemis], lines 4–6), though it was not practiced for the leading priests of Paul’s day (see comment on the Artemis cult at Acts 19:23–41). 1504. King, “Chastity.” Later, Galen respected that of the Christians ( Judge, Athens, 65). 1505. Reimer, Women, 248–49; Hill, Prophecy, 101. 1506. Lucian Astr. 23. 1507. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54. 1508. E.g., Strabo 12.5.3; Aul. Gel. 1.19. 1509. E.g., Heracl. Hom. Prob. 76.16. 1510. Probably, the original point of their virginity was more likely that their purity and necessary lack of subordination to a male allowed them to inspire males. 1511. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 100–101; ʾAbot R. Nat. 2 A; 2, §10 B; cf. Le Cornu, Acts, 475; Baer, Categories, 101–2; Moses’s abstinence for holiness in the Tannaim and Aphrahat (Koltun-Fromm, “Sexuality”). The rabbis did not approve of this behavior for their own era. 1512. Marx, “Racines” (but the Philo reference is more concrete and persuasive than 1 En. 83:2; 85:3). For Moses, see esp. Philo Mos. 2.68; also Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 5:31. In Test. Naph. 8:8, a husband may temporarily abstain for prayer; the same might be implied in Rachel’s abstinence in Test. Iss. 2:1 (a portrait possibly rooted in Hellenistic conceptions; see Jonge, “Behavior”). Cf. similarly 1 Cor 7:5, a position that Paul concedes rather than promotes (7:6; cf. Fee, Corinthians, 282), though some scholars think that Paul himself abstained for prophetic ability (Poirier and Frankovic, “Celibacy”). Some Corinthians may have linked abstinence and inspiration (cf. Gundry-Volf, “Pneumatics”). The link between abstinence and prayer seems to have become more common later (e.g., Aug. Serm. 209.3; Bray, Corinthians, 61).

3097

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 153

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

It is possible that Luke does associate the sacrifice of forgoing marriage with prophetic endowment;1513 Anna had long been a widow (Luke 2:36–37), and it seems that Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul were all unmarried, at least during their ministries; Paul’s long-term traveling companions, such as Barnabas, probably shared the same status (cf. 1 Cor 9:5–6). From Luke’s perspective, family ties can be an obstacle to the kingdom (Luke 14:20) and sometimes must be abandoned for the kingdom (14:26; 18:29).1514 Luke himself (or his eyewitness source) was likely single1515 (at least much of his life), given the time between the “we” in Acts 21:18 and 27:1; it seems difficult to think that he failed to return to a wife for roughly two years (24:27)1516 and sailed to Rome without informing her, and still less plausible to suggest that he returned to Macedonia during Paul’s custody yet was coincidentally back on hand when Paul was suddenly scheduled to voyage to Rome. At the same time, Luke knows that some of his protagonists were married (Luke 1:13; 2:5; 4:38; 8:3; Acts 18:2), including some who prophesied (Luke 1:67).1517 Although celibacy may have aided in prophetic sensitivity, along with other spiritual sacrifices such as fasting (Acts 13:2), Luke does not seem to have viewed it as obligatory. Indeed, despite the preference of later Christians (and their late antique environment) for celibacy, they preserved the tradition that Philip’s daughters later married (Euseb. H.E. 3.30.1).1518

3. Views on Marriage and Celibacy in Antiquity The vast majority of people in antiquity, both Jewish and Gentile, recognized marriage as the norm and urged its value, especially for procreation.1519 A minority of people, however, thought otherwise. Some favored short- or longterm celibacy or, far more often among Gentiles, avoidance of marriage (but not necessarily of intercourse). On eunuchs, see comment on Acts 8:27; the severely 1513. Seim, Double Message, 184, rightly notes that of Luke’s particular prophesying women, only Elizabeth (herself following the biblical model of the barren wife) is neither a virgin nor a widow. But I would not regard this exception as insignificant; although Elizabeth’s prophetic activity is less explicit, we may compare similar proportions of celibates among males and the lack of any virginity specification in Acts 2:17–18 (where Luke emphasizes diversity of age as well as gender). Among the prophetesses, Anna is a widow; only Mary (Luke 1:27, 34) and Philip’s daughters are virgins, and this probably partly because of their age. The pool of examples is too small to play down “exceptions” or infer more than that Luke (like Paul and apparently Jesus) appreciates the commitment of celibacy. 1514. In view of Luke 16:18, this probably supposes the believer’s spouse abandoning the believer over the believer’s obedience to God’s calling rather than the reverse (cf. 1 Cor 7:10–16) or is hyperbolic for temporary separations for ministry (cf. Luke 5:11; 9:58; 1 Cor 7:5; 9:5). 1515. Contrast the pleasant speculation that he married Lydia, since he stayed behind in Philippi (Wagner, Acts, 391). Luke and Lydia were probably not the only single Christians in Philippi, and commentators are not always accurate matchmakers! 1516. At least under normal circumstances, many would protest such arrangements (m. Ketub. 5:6; ʿEd. 4:10). As for taking his wife with him (cf. 1 Cor 9:5), Luke would likely have mentioned such an arrangement, given his interests (Luke 8:2–3). In practice, it would have been more difficult to supply housing for a mixed-gender group, especially if one was attempting to keep spouses together; mixed-gender groups also did not normally travel on such errands (presumably especially if intending to make a favorable impression when arriving in Jerusalem). 1517. Contrary to one possible reading of Luke 20:35, Luke certainly does not make celibacy a prerequisite for eternal life. Osiek and MacDonald, Place, 6, contend that, in general, “women in ministerial roles in the first century were more likely married or widowed than celibate ascetic.” 1518. Some argue that the reference does not cover all of them, but all agree that it covers at least one (Reimer, Women, 248; Witherington, Acts, 633). 1519. Keener, “Marriage,” 681–82, and sources cited there.

3098

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 154

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

insane could not legally marry.1520 Some girls did not wish to marry,1521 and the mythical Amazons were thought to spurn marriage;1522 but Greco-Roman society did not approve or grant such sentiments. A few men refused marriage for fear of broken trust,1523 warned against marriage for misogynist reasons,1524 or, more often, avoided remarriage for various other reasons.1525 More commonly than such individual reasons, some philosophers said that it was better to avoid marriage.1526 Cynics opposed marriage as an encumbrance and distraction.1527 An Epicurean insisted that it was better to avoid sexual passion if possible,1528 and Epicureans normally opposed marriage,1529 prompting a Stoic critique based on social utility.1530 Many philosophers rejected sex for pleasure; it was only for intercourse, the purpose for which nature designed it.1531 Some philosophers and others warned against intercourse, at least in wrong amounts, as being unhealthy.1532 Temporary celibacy was more common.1533 Neither widows (Ovid Fasti 2.557–58) nor virgins (2.559–60) were to marry during days of the year devoted to mourning the dead.1534 Intercourse could normally defile a sacred precinct and hence might be prohibited for a set time before one entered.1535 (On virgin priestesses, see also com1520. Schiemann, “Furor,” 625 (citing Paulus Sent. 2.19.7). 1521. In stories, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 1030–32; Callim. Epig. frg. 401. 1522. E.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 287; Statius Ach. 1.352–53; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 3.25; see comment at Acts 8:27. It could be said that they hated all men (Aeschylus Prom. 723–24). 1523. Plut. Dinner 21, Mor. 164B. Some ancients cited the adage of not being able to keep a beautiful woman to oneself, or wanting an ugly one (Diog. Laert. 4.48; 6.1.3). 1524. Ach. Tat. 1.8.1–2. 1525. A grieving widower might wish to avoid remarriage (Orpheus in Guthrie, Orpheus, 31–32), but the no-remarriage ideal more often applied to widows (see Keener, Marries Another, 92–95). Some may have avoided remarriage to spare children a hostile stepmother (cf. Diod. Sic. 12.14.2–3). 1526. Carneades avoided marriage, though he had a woman to feed him (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 5). 1527. E.g., Epict. Diatr. 3.22.69–76; Lucian Phil. Sale 9; True Story 2.18; Diog. Laert. 6.2.29, 54; cf. Max. Tyre 36.5; Diogenes Ep. 44, 47. For the exception, Crates and Hipparchia, see Goulet-Cazé, “Hipparchia”; comment on Acts 17:34. Diogenes allegedly recommended masturbation as the least expensive method of relieving appetites (Dio Chrys. Or. 6.16–20; cf. Diogenes Ep. 42). 1528. Lucret. Nat. 4.1146–48; cf. Brennan, “Epicurus.” 1529. Diog. Laert. 10.119. 1530. Epict. Diatr. 3.7.19. Even the early Stoic Zeno wanted to abolish marriage (as part of his larger anarchist vision of doing away with the state and institutions; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 75); but Stoics generally supported marriage (Mus. Ruf. 14, p. 92.6–17; Hierocles Marr. 4.22.21–24 [in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 102–3]; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.9–11; cf. Epict. Encheir. 33.8; Diog. Laert. 7.1.21; Deming, Celibacy, 51–57), albeit not always eagerly (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.8, pp. 52–53.11–14; 2.7.11b, pp. 64–65.18–21; cf. Epictetus’s personal reluctance in Lucian Dem. 55). 1531. Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.1.3. 1532. Cf. Pliny E. N.H. 28.16.58; Soranus Gynec. 1.7.30, 32; discussions in Brennan, “Epicurus”; Martin, Body, 222–26; Balch, “Families,” 266–67; but cf. also the important critique (against some scholars’ application to Paul) in Deming, Celibacy, 44–45. Lack of intercourse could be unhealthy for women (Martin, Body, 222–24; cf. Soranus Gynec. 1.7.31). Cf. the practice in Pliny E. N.H. 34.166 (on which Dugan, “Ciceronianism,” comments). 1533. Some traditional societies have a long postpartum sex taboo (two years in Fernandey, “Brotherhood,” 343–44; Nukunya, Kinship, 159; cf. Stephens, Family, 68), but I have not so far detected this in Greco-Roman sources. 1534. For marriage on auspicious days more generally, see Hesiod W.D. 782–84; Apul. Metam. 2.12; cf. Plut. Rom. Q. 86, Mor. 284F; Virg. Georg. 1.276–86; Ovid Fasti 3.393–94; 6.221–24; for inauspicious days more generally, see Aul. Gel. 5.17; Ovid Fasti 1.8, 45–48; Plut. Alc. 34.1; Cam. 19.1; Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67; Iambl. V.P. 28.152; b. Pesaḥ. 112b; Šabb. 129b. Widows married on a different day of the week than virgins (Plut. Rom. Q. 105, Mor. 289A); in the rabbis, virgins married on the fourth day, and widows on the fifth (m. Ketub. 1:1; b. Ketub. 2a; y. Ketub. 1:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2). 1535. Grant, Religions, 6; deSilva, Honor, 251; cf. Apoll. K. Tyre 27. Alciph. Court. 1 (Phrynê to Praxiteles), frg. 3, cites an exception; Pythagoras disagreed with the prohibitions (Iambl. V.P. 11.55). So also Israel’s high priest before Yom Kippur, in Jewish tradition (Bonsirven, Judaism, 160). Sometimes this prohibition also occurs in anticipation of a revelation, as in the ten days before Dionysiac initiation in Klauck, Context, 116.

3099

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 155

6/18/14 10:31 AM

To Rome via Jerusalem (20:1–28:31)

ment on Acts 16:16; 19:24.) Pythagoras urged abstaining from intercourse during summer, when it was unhealthy.1536 Some urged procreating late—for example, after twenty for males.1537 Others were glad to escape the sexual urges of youth and stop having intercourse when they were older.1538 Although marriage had its advantages, one would also have to endure the evils of a wife or children.1539 Because intercourse was often viewed as impure,1540 abstinence from sex could contribute toward purity in some sources.1541 Virgins could be seen as pure or associated with purity (e.g., Diod. Sic. 4.7.3);1542 Aseneth’s virgin attendants had never so much as spoken with males (Jos. Asen. 2:6/10–11). Some ancients even thought of virginity as asexual.1543 Judaism emphasized marriage and childbearing even more consistently than Roman thinkers did, but there were exceptions, though usually temporary or isolated in particular sects. Later rabbis (here reflecting earlier traditions) normally recommended divorce if a husband withheld intercourse for more than two weeks,1544 but even they allowed prolonged abstinence for some extenuating circumstances.1545 With their wives’ permission, husbands could leave home to study with a rabbi for extended periods of time,1546 like Jesus’s disciples (Luke 18:28–29). An early second-century rabbi is said to have supported the standard rabbinic requirement of procreation yet insisted that he had to abstain himself for study of the Torah.1547 In extreme situations, rabbis permitted temporary abstinence. Noah was said to abstain on the ark,1548 and one rabbi hiding from Roman soldiers was said to have concealed his location from his wife to prevent her betraying it.1549 But nonrabbinic, often prerabbinic, sources approved of celibacy far more often than the rabbis did.1550 Examining Philo’s approach to the Therapeutae, many scholars see in his thinking an adoption of Greek views on abstinence.1551 Others note, as the rabbis did, special circumstances: thus Jacob abstained until he was over the age of sixty because he would not marry a Canaanite,1552 and Israelites started abstaining to prevent having sons for Pharaoh to kill.1553 Second Baruch 56:6 thinks that childbearing stems from the fall (contrast Gen 1:28). Wilderness sages and prophets such as Banus ( Jos. Life 11) and John (Luke 3:2) likewise may reflect necessity and are also exceptional, though perhaps not temporary. 1536. Diog. Laert. 8.1.9. Pythagoreans apparently esteemed, but did not mandate, celibacy (Wilson, Gnosis and New Testament, 41). 1537. Iambl. V.P. 31.209–10. 1538. Val. Max. 4.3.ext. 2. 1539. Hesiod Theog. 607–12 (claiming women’s nature as evil in Theog. 601–2). 1540. E.g., deSilva, Honor, 251. 1541. E.g., Porph. Marc. 28.439–40 (though this is late). 1542. One could be praised as holy and keeping perpetual virginity (Ovid Tristia 4.2.14). 1543. E.g., Orph. H. 32.7, 10 (on Athena); 42.4 (a deity both male and female). In philosophy, cf. Porph. Marc. 33.511–16, esp. 515–16. 1544. M. Ketub. 5:6; ʿEd. 4:10. A worker’s absence may not exceed a week without the wife’s permission (y. Ketub. 5:7, §4). 1545. Cf. Ostmeyer, “Sexualethik.” 1546. Without permission, for thirty days (m. Ketub. 5:6; y. Ketub. 5:7, §2), but longer with the wife’s permission (y. Ketub. 5:7, §2); note stories in ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; Gen. Rab. 95 MSV. 1547. T. Yebam. 8:7. 1548. So y. Taʿan. 1:6, §8; cf. Num. Rab. 14:12. 1549. So b. Šabb. 33b. 1550. Cf. McArthur, “Celibacy”; nonrabbinic sources in Chapman, “Marriage,” 211–15. 1551. See Horsley, “Marriage” (also suggesting a spiritual marriage with Wisdom). 1552. Jub. 25:4; cf. Test. Iss. 2:1–2. 1553. L.A.B. 9:2 (but cf. 9:5).

3100

_Keener_Acts_10_Pt3_TW_djm.indd 156

6/18/14 10:31 AM

Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

The case of Jewish celibacy most clearly indicated in ancient sources, however, concerns the Essenes.1554 Many scholars doubt whether the Essenes were genuinely celibate, at least throughout their history,1555 but a range of sources indicate that at least some were widely assumed to have been.1556 Women’s skeletons might suggest that some women lived at Qumran during part of its history,1557 but their role, and whether they lived there during the duration of the sect’s time there,1558 is debated. Some Qumran texts also describe women,1559 though not all scholars agree that this means that women lived at the site. (See also comment on Acts 1:15.)

4. Luke’s Point All of the above cases, however, are rare exceptions, and it is more probable that Luke simply intends “virginity” in its most common sense. “Virginity” in its most general sense referred to any woman who had not had intercourse.1560 Preserving a girl’s virginity till marriage was crucial (Deut 22:13–21; Ach. Tat. 2.25.1); “virgin” was a suitable term for a bride at her wedding (Men. Rhet. 2.6, 404.11).1561 The Mishnaic definition of “virgin” normally refers to those below puberty, whether married or not, which might suggest that Philip’s daughters may have been prepubescent.1562 Children were also often thought more susceptible to inspiration1563 (though naturally it was not limited to them).1564 If 1 Cor 7:36–38 refers to fathers and daughters as some scholars suggest, it may depict early Christian fathers facilitating their daughters’ celibate singleness, at least temporarily and with their consent, for promoting spiritual maturation. Thus perhaps Philip and his daughters have prolonged the daughters’ virginity for spiritual reasons. This is not, however, the dominant view of 7:36–38, and even if it were, Luke could hardly take for granted that his audience would take “virgins” in a restrictive sense instead of its more common applicati