Introduction
The Acts of the Apostles, following the Gospel of Luke as the second part of a diptych (c. 80 – 110 CE), tells the story of the apostles preaching the good news about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in different parts of the Graeco- Roman world. In Acts 17, we read of Paul, having arrived from Beroea, spreading the kerygma of the “Risen Christ”. He spends entire days in the synagogue and the agora, and his teaching attracts interest from the Athenians (N. Clayton Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection [Acts 17:18, 32],” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 21–39; Michel Fattal, Saint Paul face aux philosophes épicuriens et stoïciens), who seize him and bring him before a meeting of the Areopagus (Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 152). There, Paul delivers his famous speech (Acts 17:22–31), which von Harnack has described as “das wunderwollste Stück der Apostelgeschichte” (Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, vol. 1, 321). Scholars widely agree that this speech, delivered in Athens – which, according to Charles H. Talbert, was the “epitome of Greek philosophy, religion, and culture” (Talbert, Reading Acts, 150) – is the narrative climax of Acts (Clare K. Rothschild, Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17, 1). The Athenians bring Paul before the Areopagus council because they want to understand “what this new teaching (διδαχή) is” (Acts 17:19).
Phaenomena
Paul justifies his claim that God wants to be sought, and that in reality he is close to every human, in these words: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being’ (ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν); as even some of your own poets have said (ὡς καί τινες τῶν καθ’ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν εἰρήκασιν), ‘For we too are his offspring (τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν).’” (Acts 17:28). The phrase τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν is readily identifiable. With the exception of the form ἐσμέν, replaced by the epic form εἰμέν, the sentence is identical to the passage in Aratus, Phaen. 5, in which the Hellenistic poet sings the praises of Zeus Pantocrator (Phaen. 1–5). There are two important conclusions to be inferred from this observation: (1) Lukan Paul cites pagan literature in the Areopagus speech. (2) Since in its original context the pronoun τοῦ in the phrase τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν refers to Zeus, one can assume the presence of interpretatio Graeca in Paul’s speech, according to which Jesus, whom Luke considers to be YHWH and God the Creator himself (Jan M. Kozlowski, “‘The Fruit of Your Womb’ (Luke 1,42) as ‘The Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth’ (Judith 13,18). An Intertextual Analysis,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 93 (2017): 339–342; Jan M. Kozlowski, “Mary as the Ark of the Covenant in the Scene of the Visitation (Luke 1:39–56) Reconsidered,” Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 31 (2018): 109–116), is the equivalent to Zeus, the supreme deity of the pagan pantheon. The Jewish association of the God of Israel with Zeus appears as early as the 2nd century CE in the Letter of Aristeas 16.
Eumenides
In Aeschylus’s Eumenides (a play certainly known to every graduate of the Greek paideia), a tragedy which recounts the founding of the Areopagus council and the introduction of new deities (the Erinyes/Eumenides), Orestes is brought before a tribunal for the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. The god Apollo steps in to defend Orestes (Aeschylus, Eum. 647–651). Long ago scholars identified the above passage from the Eumenides in Paul’s speech. Their comments boil down to the simple remark that both Eumenides and Acts contain declarations, made before the Areopagus, regarding the resurrection of man (ἀνήρ): Apollo says that such a feat is impossible, while Paul states the opposite, preaching anastasis (Hans Conzelmann, Acts, 146; Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles. Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 387; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts, 157). Summarizing the status quaestionis (Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods, 83) in his Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts (Lynn A. Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods. Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts, LNTS 277, 83–93), Lynn Allan Kauppi has shown that educated readers of Acts were able to pick up on the allusion to a text like the Eumenides. “It was fully possible for Luke’s Greco-Roman audience to be aware of and perhaps under stand literary allusions to Aeschylus’ Eumenides in the first century CE” (Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods, 92). As for the intertextual parallels between Eumenides and Acts, Kauppi mentions only one: “In both texts, the Areopagus is involved in judging the introduction of the new god(s). A Graeco-Roman reader, familiar with the Areopagus’s regulation of new gods, may have seen an allusion to Eumenides in Acts 17.16–34” (Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods, 89).
The dependence of Acts on Eumenides has been related by some scholars (Claire K. Rothschild, Paul in Athens, 77 n. 125; Flavien Pardigon, Paul Against the Idols: A Contextual Reading of the Areopagus Speech, 213 n. 83). At first glance, we see striking parallels between the two texts: (1) Two diametrically opposed statements are made before the Areopagus: on the one hand, there is no anastasis (οὔτις ἔστ’ ἀνάστασις) in Eumenides; and on the other hand, Paul preaches anastasis. (2) There is an important parallel between Zeus and the God of Israel. In Eumenides, Zeus is presented as a pantocrator (“he arranges all other things [τὰ δ’ ἄλλα πάντα], turning them up and down”), with a single exception: he cannot resurrect an ἀνήρ. Paul’s God is also presented as a pantocrator (Acts 17:24–26.28.30–31). In both texts πάντα stands out as a qualifier of the divinity’s actions: τίθησιν for Zeus (Eum. 651) and ποιήσας for the God of Israel (Acts 17:24). However, when Paul says that God has resurrected an ἀνήρ (Acts 17:31), there is an immediate negative reaction from the pagan audience (Acts 17:32). In both cases, therefore, we see an obvious empha sis on anastasis. If we consider that Paul alludes to the text of Aratus, whose main theological posit also involves Zeus as a cosmic pantocrator (see above), we can credibly make the case that by setting Paul’s preaching of anastasis before the Are opagus, Luke wants the reader to trace both a polemical and emulative allusion to Aeschylus’s Eumenides. Given this reference, we can see that the anastasis motif is implicitly present in Paul’s speech to a far greater extent than can be observed in the surface text.
A Poem on the Tomb of Zeus
In his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, the Syriac bishop Ishodad of Merv (9th century CE), who claimed Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th century CE) as his source, comments on the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν (Acts 17:28) (Margaret D. Gibson, ed., The Commentaries of Isho‘dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) in Syriac and English: Acts of the Apostles and Three Catholic Epistles, vol. 5, 29). Setting aside, for now, the issue of the authorship of the epic poem cited by Ishodad (it certainly not being the mythical Minos), there is no reason to doubt Ishodad’s testimony. This is substantiated by the following arguments: (1) There is a definite hexametric quality to ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν. If, after Ishodad, we replace the pronoun αὐτῷ with σοί, and the prosaic forms κινούμεθα and ἐσμέν with the epic κινεόμεσθα23 and εἰμέν – noting that this is pre cisely what Luke does in the reverse direction with regard to pres. ind. 1st person pl. when citing Aratus, replacing the epic εἰμέν with the prosaic ἐσμέν – we get a pure hexameter: ἐν σοὶ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινεόμεσθα καὶ εἰμέν (Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 1, 664 n. 1). (2) The lie of the Cretans, i.e. their claim that Zeus has died, was a topos in ancient literature (Anth. Pal. 7.725; Lucanus, Phars. 8.872; Lucian, Philops. 3; Tim. 6). As for the concepts themselves (Cretans as liars; alleged tomb of Zeus; the cosmic dimension of Zeus’s existence), we encounter it in Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus, in which we read: “‘Cretans always lie’. And indeed, lord, the Cretans built a tomb for you; but you are not dead, you live forever” (Hymn. Jov. 8–9; transl. by Susan A. Stephens).
(Acts 17:28) is a quotation from another ancient poem about Zeus. Thus, if this much is admitted, we find in Paul’s speech a reference to words whose purpose in their original context was to show that Zeus’s tomb is a fiction and that Zeus is alive. This suggests a clear analogy to the empty tomb of Jesus and the claim that Jesus is alive (Harris, “The Cretans,” 314; Norman Postlethwaite, “The Death of Zeus Kretagenes,” Kernos 12 (1999): 85–98). The association between these two “empty tombs” is not my invention, having previously been made by the 2nd-century pagan philosopher Celsus, quoted by Origen (Origen, Cels. 3.43). It is therefore likely that it was this analogy which prompted Lukan Paul’s quotation of those words. We can, there fore, assume that Lukan Paul wanted to allude to the reality of anastasis by invok ing the original context of the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν.
Epimenides
The next argument in favour of the claim that anastasis is much more present in Paul’s sermon than the surface text alone suggests, rests on Paul’s implicit invocation of Epimenides of Knossos, a semi-mythical seer, philosopher and poet of the 7th or 6th century BCE. Ever since the publication of the paper by Harris (who was the first to put forward this hypothesis) in 1906 (Harris, “The Cretans,” 305–317), scholars have been at odds about whether the said phrase should be ascribed to Epimenides (Clare K. Rothschild, Paul in Athens, 7–24; Vadim Wittkowsky, Warum zitieren frühchristliche Autoren pagane Texte? Zur Entstehung und Ausformung einer literarischen Tradition, 52–53; Flavien Pardigon, Paul Against the Idols, 187–188). This controversy has partly been resolved by Claire K. Rothschild, who has noted that for an interpretation of the Acts text it is more vital to determine whether Luke himself attributed the fragment to the Cretan prophet than whether we are actu ally dealing with Epimenides’s ipsissima verba (Rothschild, Paul in Athens, 17–18). The reasoning that leads to the claim that Luke believed the words ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν to have been uttered by Epimenides is as follows: (1) There is no reason to doubt that the passage quoted by Ishodad is an authentic fragment of Greek poetry (see above). (2) The author of the Epistle to Titus cites the hexameter Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί (Titus 1:12). The phrase corresponds to the fragment cited by Ishodad: “Cretans are liars, evil beasts, slow bellies!” Thus, the phrases Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν [≈] and Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί not only come from the same poem but there is also a logical connection between them. (3) Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 CE) identi fies the author of the words Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί (Titus 1:12) as Epimenides (Strom. 1.14.59.2).
Following Clement, Epimenides’s authorship is indicated by Jerome (Epist. 3.70.2), Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. 2.169) and John Chrysostom.
Other parallels to the text
The verb ψηλαφάω
In v. 27 of the speech, we read: “so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him [εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτόν] and find him.” Now, the verb ψηλαφάω, which figures in the New Testament on four occasions (Acts 17:27; Heb 12:18; 1 John 1:1; Luke 24:39), can conjure up anastasis, too. As for the meaning of ψηλαφάω, it suffices to cite the succinct Liddell and Scott definition: “I. 1. to feel or grope about (Ep. for –άων), of the blinded Cyclops, Od.; ψηλαφῶντες ὥσπερ ἐν σκότῳ Plat. like a blind man or one in the dark, χερσὶ ψηλαφόων 2. c. acc. rei, to feel about for, search after, Ar., NTest [scil. 17.27]. II. to feel, touch, stroke, Xen., NTest” (Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Although already in 1 John 1:1, we are dealing with the reality of touching Jesus – based on John 20:27, I believe that this is about touching the Risen Christ – Luke 24:39 is still of crucial importance. The verb ψηλαφάω appears twice in the Lukan diptych. When encountering ψηλαφάω in the Areopagus speech for the second time, readers of Luke-Acts still had freshly imprinted in their minds Jesus’s shock ing words: ψηλαφήσατέ με. We can draw two conclusions from this: (1) Luke 24:39 may serve as yet another argument against a one-dimensional and purely metaphorical interpretation of Acts 17:27 (see above). You cannot touch pneuma, that is God! (2) Knowing that for Luke, Jesus is YHWH himself and God the Creator (see above and footnote 11), in the literary reality of the diptych the verb ψηλαφάω may remind the reader of touching the resurrected Jesus.
Why did Luke bury such a fundamental message in the intertext?
- (1) A strictly literary purpose. We often forget that the Lukan diptych is also lit erature in the strict sense of the word, much more so than the other New Testament writings. As a recipient of the Greek paideia, Luke, who according to Jerome inter omnes evangelistas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus fuit (Epist. 20.4.4), treats his work not only as witnessing about Jesus Christ but also as his own original production of which – as the first-person prologues to the Gospel and Acts suggest – he is proud and which also showcases his literary refinement. The rich pagan intertext of Paul’s speech also tells about the addressee of the diptych. We should interpret Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), regardless of whether he is simply the “first-cen tury everyman” or a specific person who actually lived, as an educated person of literary taste. At the same time Luke seems to be trying to flatter Theophilus, for here the author of the dip tych presumes that he detects the allusions and literary tones undetected by the very venerable members of the Areopagus council themselves, for whom verse 31, as seen by their reaction, is a wholly unexpected conclusion.
- (2) An apologetic purpose. It was widely believed in Graeco-Roman culture that when it comes to religion, any trendiness or the introduction of previously unknown elements is downright wrong (Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters, WUNT 310, 40). Hence Luke’s concern – as noted by scholars – not to radically separate Christianity from Judaism, a religion accepted by the ancients (Marguerat, Paul in Acts, 77). In the 1st century CE the Athenians were reputed to be especially exacting in this regard (Josephus, C. Ap. 2.267). The Christian kerygma, whose main message was the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, was seen as some thing novel, recently concocted, not in line with the religious paradigm of the Empire in the 1st century CE (Suetonius, Nero 16.2), as evidenced not only by the reaction of the Areopagites (Acts 17:32) but also by the initial reaction of the Athenians, who desire to know “what this new (καινή) teaching is” (Acts 17:19). This is why Luke, as far as possible, would have camouflaged the kerygma preached by Paul before such a conservative assembly in an intertext with a double meaning.
- (3) A protreptic purpose. It is obvious that the main purpose of convincing an opponent is to get them to embrace our opinion as their own. This was the objective of Clement of Alexandria, who wrote the Protrepticus, addressed to a pagan readership, some 100 years later. Clement’s protreptic program is summed up in his statement to the reader: “I will show you the Word, and the mysteries of the Word, expounding them after your own fashion (κατὰ τὴν σὴν διηγούμενος εἰκόνα)” (Protr. 119; transl. by William Wilson). Luke would have employed the same protreptic method. In his sermon to the Areopagus, Paul is not really saying anything new, since “you, Greeks, already know about anastasis from your own mythology and history” – ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν.
Leave a Reply