target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_63b80dc2-1644-5210-96bb-a8ef83994ed3">63. A Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2.
64. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.23–24; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 2.167.
65. Ps.-Heraclitus Ep. 4, 9.
66. Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 4.3.12–13; for their benevolence, cf. also Seneca Ep. Lucil. 95.50.
67. Some decided that the divine nature must be spherical, since this was the perfect shape (Cicero Nat. d. 2.17.45–46)!
68. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134; cf. earlier Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.1. Some earlier Stoics tended toward pantheism, but Stoicism generally distinguished between matter and the logical principle (the logos) which organized matter (I explore some of these ideas further in Keener 2003b: 341–47).
69. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.3–6.
70. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7.
71. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7 (LCL translation, 1:41).
72. Epictetus Disc. 1.16.8.
73. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.10; cf. Rom 1:19.
74. Cicero Nat. d. 2.54.133—58.146; Seneca Ben. 6.23.6–7; cf. Cicero Fin. 5.12.35–36; Let. Aris. 156–57.
75. E.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.59.147—61.153; Porphyry Marc. 26.410–11. They viewed knowledge of a deity as innate in people (Seneca Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.27–28; Iamblichus Myst. 1.3). Some also adduced in favor of deities’ existence the universal pervasiveness of belief in them (Cicero Tusc. 1.13.30; cf. Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.5).
76. For example, the Jewish philosopher Philo borrows various philosophers’ arguments for God’s existence (Wolfson 1968: vol. 2, 73–93), including Plato’s argument from creation (p. 74) and material from Stoic sources (pp. 75–83).
77. He may especially draw on the Wisdom of Solomon, a widely circulated Jewish work in Greek (cf. Wis 13:1–9, including “without excuse” in 13:8); there the consequences of idolatry culminate in a vice list (Wis 14:12–31). Cf. also Jewish stories about Abram reasoning back to a first cause and resisting idolatry. For subsequent Christian approaches to “natural theology” here, see concisely Bray 1998: 34, 37–38; Reasoner 2005: 11–17.
78. For humanity abandoning gratitude toward God, see also Josephus Ant. 1.72. Ingratitude was among the most despised vices in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.6; Mem. 2.2.2–3; Cicero Att. 8.4; Heraclitus Hom. Prob. 4.4; Seneca Ben. 1.10.4; Ep. 81.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 46, §128 B).
79. Useful for Paul’s audience, Greeks and Romans also believed that humanity had declined from a primeval golden age (Hesiod Op. 110–201; Ovid Metam. 1.89–312), but Paul’s biblical allusions and polemic against idolatry infuse his narrative with the Jewish subtext of Genesis (without claiming detailed allusions to Adam’s fall here, as some do). The glory and image are restored in Christ (Rom 8:29–30).
80. The term mataios (“vain,” “futile”) in 1:21 was sometimes associated with idols (e.g., Acts 14:15; 1 Kgs 16:26 lxx; Jer 8:19; 10:3, 15; Ezek 8:10; Wis 13:1; Sib. Or. 3.29, 547–48, 555), though the language here echoes Ps 94:11.
81. E.g., Wis 14:27; t. Bek. 3:12; Mek. Pisha 5.40–41; Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; 54.3.2. Later rabbis said it was the final stage to which the evil impulse would lead one.
82. E.g., Lucian Imag. 11; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.18–19; Let. Aris. 138; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.81, 128, 224.
83. “Beginning” included the entire primeval period, including the first people (e.g., Mark 10:6; L.A.B. 1:1).
84. This complementarity was especially sexual, designed for procreation (Gen 1:28).
85. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Prom. 17; Deor. conc. 7; Philops. 2.
86. Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.232–49, 275; cf. later Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Tatian 33–34.
87. For discussions, see e.g., Dover 1978; Greenberg 1988. On Paul’s view, see contrary arguments in e.g., Scroggs 1983; Gagnon 2001.
88. The latter practice did exist, although it was sometimes stereotypically associated with misogyny.
89. Zeus, for example, seduced and raped not only women, but the boy Ganymede, whom he eventually took up to heaven (e.g., Homer Il. 20.232–35; Ovid Metam. 10.155–61); as the satirist Lucian wryly points out, his wife Hera apparently tolerated this boy on Olympus more than her earthly women rivals (Lucian Dial. d. 213–14 [8/5, Zeus and Hera]). Other deities also loved boys sexually (e.g., Apollodorus Library 1.3.3; Ovid Metam. 10.162–219); Josephus ridiculed such portrayals (Ag. Ap. 2.275).
90. The babies so abandoned could be eaten by vultures or dogs, but were often adopted and raised as slaves. Jews and Egyptians, however, rejected this practice of child abandonment.
91. On this point, Scroggs 1983: 29–43, is certainly correct.
92. Socrates was known for having spent much time with handsome young men enjoying their beauty without intercourse (although satirists like Lucian suggested that everyone really knew better; Lucian Ver. hist. 2.19; Vit. auct. 15).
93. Cf. e.g., Seneca Ep. 47.7; Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.36; Suetonius Dom. 7.1; Bradley 1987: 115; cf. Ps.-Lucian Am. 10.
94. See Höcker 2008: 59–60; Hartmann 2005: 469–70; cf. Aeschines Tim. 21, 51–53, 74, 137; Polybius 8.9.12; Dionysius Epid. 7.291; Lucian Alex. 5–6.
