CREAR DATOS DEL SISTEMA

63 _{A.J.Malherbe, “Not in a Corner”: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26, The Second Century 5}

(1986): 13-15. 64 _{Ibid., 14.}

65 _{Dio Chrysostom Or. 45.1; cit.ap. Ibid., 15.}

66 _{“In Or. 34 he Dio begins by saying that Cynics are thought not to be of sober mind (ζφθρovζηv) but}

crazy (καηvoκέvoσς).” Malherbe, Not in a Corner, 15. The parallel with Acts 26:24-25 is striking.

67 _{F.Arrington, The Acts of the Apostles, (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1988), 250 therefore concludes that}

all this is beyond Festus and that the teaching of the resurrection, in his eyes, could not be supported by a mentally balanced person.

The proclamation of the resurrection, according to the narrative, causes the response of Festus. In responding thus, Festus is once again a representative of those in high places, since the resurrection could well elicit a negative response from those educated groups who reflected on the resurrection from a philosophical perspective. A guiding principle in this reflection was the assumption that the gods were considered to be eternal and therefore immutable. The claims of Christians that Jesus Christ was God made the proclamation of his death and resurrection unacceptable, because it contradicted divine immutability. To speculate about such things served no purpose. The uselessness of discussing such matters is explained by Aristotle who expounds on how impossible it is to discuss issues of “eternal significance.” One reason is to be found in the fact that such issues do not require a choice on a person's behalf. The sensible person, furthermore, is able to distinguish what can be deliberated upon, while those who are unable to make such a distinction, proceed to deliberate about them. The person who chooses to deliberate about such matters, Aristotle identifies as the fool (ι ίζηoς) or the madman (καηvόκεvoς): ι εθηέov δζφ ς βoσι εσηv oτ πρ o βoσι εύζαηη v ηης ι ίζηoς  καηvόκεvoς, ιι  πρ v  vov τφv.68 _“Things eternal” is the primary example that Aristotle gives concerning that which a “fool” or a “madman” deliberates upon. περ δ ηv χδίφv oδες βoσι εύεηαη.69 _{In an explanatory note} Capps, Rouse and Post indicate that for Aristotle “things eternal” includes the notion of immutability.70

Xenophon makes a similar comment when he ridicules people who discuss “the nature of the universe” by also comparing them to mad people (ιι  ηoς καηvoκέvoης κoίφς δηαθεζζαη πρς ι ι ήι oσς).71 _{In similar vein, Epictetus indicates that a philosophical} discussion on the qualities of God can elicit an indignant response from members of the educated elite. This comes through in his Discourses where he expounds on Zeus as Saviour, Rain-bringer and Fruit-giver72 _{and imagines how he (Epictetus) would be ridiculed by “some} white-haired old man with many a gold ring on his fingers” who would burst with indignation and call him mad.73

68 _{Aristotle Nic.Eth. 3.3.2.}

69 _{Ibid., 3.3.3.}

70 _{Ibid., 3.3.3 note “a”. Aristotle also explains this point in Nic.Eth. 6.3.2: “An object of Scientific}

Knowledge, therefore, exists of necessity. It is therefore eternal, for everything existing of absolute necessity is eternal (αχδηoς); and what is eternal does not come into existence or perish.” Paul's reference to the resurrection may therefore be interpreted as a futile attempt to deliberate about things that are eternal. Therefore within that context Festus' use of the word καηvόκεvoς concerning Paul‟s views on the resurrection is understandable. 71 _{Xenophon Memorabilia 1.1.13.}

72 _{Epictetus Discourses 1.22.16.}

73 _{Epictetus Discourses 1.22.17-21: Having expounded on the qualities of Zeus, Epictetus continues with}

the imaginary response: “What then, shall we do? - This is a subject of enquiry for the man who truly philosophizes and is in travail of thought. Says such a man to himself, „I do not see what is the good and what is the evil; am I not mad?‟ (καίvoκαη) Yes but suppose I set the good somewhere here, among the things that the will controls, all men will laugh at me. Some white-haired old man with many a gold ring on his fingers will come along, and then he will shake his head and say, „Listen to me my son; one ought of course to philosophize, but one ought also to keep one‟s head; this is all nonsense. You learn a syllogism from the philosopher, but you know better than the philosophers what you ought to do.‟ Man, why, then do you censure me, if I know? What shall I say to this slave? If I hold my peace, the fellow will burst with indignation (v ζηφπ, ήγvσηαη θεvς). So I must say, „Forgive me as you would lovers; I am not my own master; I am mad‟ (oθ εκ κασηo, καίvoκαη).”

These examples indicate that Luke is being consistent when he represents Festus as responding to the concept of the resurrection as superstition in one passage and describing its proponent as mad in another. These two responses of Festus to the topic of the resurrection are closely related to each other.

The outburst by Festus that Paul is καίv represents more than Festus' personal opinion. It reflects a widely held view that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection was an intellectual stumbling block. Luke is already keenly aware of the problem that the doctrine of the resurrection created. This understanding enlarges upon O'Toole's view that it was only a person like Festus who did not know the Scriptures or the Jewish religion who could call Paul “mad.”74 _{It represents a fundamental philosophical problem with the central issue of the} Christian faith: namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ contradicted the immutability of God.

An indication of Luke's awareness of this problem, is the number of references that he makes in his work to the reaction of disbelief in or of being perplexed by the proclamation of the resurrection. In Luke 24:11, for example, he describes the reaction of the disciples to the message of the women that the tomb was empty. They concluded that the women were speaking nonsense: θα θάvε ζαv vώπηov αηv ζε ιρoς η ρήκαηα ηαηα, θα πίζηoσv αηα. It is evident that this issue is of particular concern to Luke, for neither Matthew nor Mark have a parallel to this passage. The parallel between Peter's miraculous release from prison with the disciples' response that Rhoda is “raving” and Paul's testifying to the resurrection of Jesus and Festus' response that Paul is καίv, is nevertheless an indication that Luke is using the word καίvoκαί in a similar context. Johnson observes that the response of the disciples to Rhoda is similar to the response of the eleven to the message of the women concerning the empty tomb (Luke 24:11).75 In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees react to the announcement of the resurrection, by being greatly troubled (δηαπovoύκεvoη). Luke‟s depiction of Paul‟s discussion with the philosophers of Athens is particularly significant. In Acts 17:18 the philosophers respond to the message of the resurrection by asking in a derogatory way: “What is this babbler (ζπερκoι όγoς) trying to say?” and also equating Paul with the promotion of “foreign gods” (ξέvφv δαηκovίφv). This too was a term which indicated censure. At the end of Paul‟s speech (Ac.17:32), Luke once again portrays many of the philosophers as responding to the message of the resurrection with derision; θoύζαvηες δ vάζηαζηv vεθηv, o κv τι εύαδov. In Acts 25:19f, which is closely related to the text under consideration, Festus indicates to Agrippa that the issue of the resurrection is causing him to be perplexed: περί ηηvoς ‟Iεζo ηεζvεθόηoς, v θαζθ εv  Παι oς δv. πoρoύκεvoς δ.

There are other indications that Luke was also aware of a divide between powerful groups who reacted negatively to the gospel and groups who were lowly in the eyes of the status quo. The difference in response to the gospel is evident in the account of the sequel to the healing of the temple cripple (Ac.4:1-13). On the one hand there were many who heard and believed the message of Peter and John (Ac.4:4: πoι ι o δ ηv θoσζάvηφv ηv ι όγov πίζηεσζαv) while on the other hand those in powerful positions are presented as having a negative reaction to the gospel. The negativity of the high priest Annas, together with his entourage of influential people (Ac.4:6) is expressed by their astonishment that such boldness of speech (παρρεζία v) could emanate from as unlettered laymen as Peter and John (Ac.4:13; γράκκαηoί and δηηαη). Louw and Nida place both these words in the semantic domain of the uninformed and uneducated.76 _{MacMullen includes the word γρακκαηηθός in his Lexicon}

of Snobbery of words indicating the prejudice felt by the literate upper class for the lower.77 Thus if the upper class describe themselves as γρακκαηηθός in comparison to the lower class, the reversal of terms indicates the same prejudice when γράκκαηoς is applied to the lower class by the upper class.

As the resurrection is central to Luke's presentation of the Christian message, Festus' outburst highlights the point where the Christian doctrine is at odds with the philosophical world. The ability of being able to accept the resurrection despite the philosophical problems

75 _{Johnson, 213.}

76 _{Louw & Nida, 329: “γράκκαηoς, ov: pertaining to one who has not acquired a formal education}

(referring primarily to formal training) - uneducated, unlearned.; δηώηες, oσ: a person who has not acquired systematic information or expertise in some field of knowledge or activity - `layman, ordinary person, amateur‟.” 77 _{R.MacMullen, “Lexicon of Snobbery” Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C.- A.D.284, (New Haven: Yale}

University Press, 1974), 139. MacMullen gives the example of this use of the word in Dio Chrysostom Or. 7.114.

associated with it, is the crucial issue that Luke is dealing with.78