Cuentas por Pagar

32 ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Ἀκουσόμεθά σου περὶ τούτου καὶ πάλιν. / When they heard about the resurrection from the dead, they scoffed, others said: “We would like to hear you again on this”.

This last section of the studied text also shows the results of the discourse. Reactions were quite diverse. Verse 32 states that some (οἱ μὲν) mocked (ἐχλεύαζον) Paul when they heard of Jesus and the resurrection. As noted earlier, these two groups could be identified as the Epicureans and the Stoics, respectively. Some scholars suggest that they could, in fact, have meant that “… we will hear you again; that is, we will not listen to you now, and we shall be careful not to fix a date for a second session” (Barrett 2004: 854). This is probably a misunderstanding of the text, because of the use of οἱ δὲ. It is also clear that Luke does not intend to sketch Paul’s speech as a total failure (Barrett 2004: 854). Germiquet (2001: 127-133) and Neyrey (s.a.: ad loc.) have already convinced us that the Epicureans reacted by scoffing and the Stoics responded more receptively. They did so by showing that, because Luke does things in pairs and with parallels, he intends the reader to link these different reactions of the Stoics and the Epicureans to the issue of theodicy in Acts 23:6-10, where the Pharisees and the Sadducees reacted in a similar fashion. (Neyrey s.a.: 3). This idea of a divided crowd is typical of Luke’s story. He often notes that the crowd of Jesus or Peter or Paul is ‘divided’ over what it hears (Neyrey s.a.: 10). This situation in Acts 17:16-34 was, in fact, already noted earlier in the same chapter. In Thessalonica, Paul had initial success (17:2-4), but then he meets with failure (5-8); similarly, in Berea, he had success (10-12) and ends with failure (13-14). With this pattern, Luke conditioned the reader to expect the same cycle of division among the crowds on the Areopagus, the climax in Chapter 17 (Neyrey s.a.: 19).

Other Athenians could have been involved in each group, as there were other reasons than those of the Epicureans, to react with scoffing. The idea of a resurrected human being in the flesh was incompatible with general Greek philosophy to which they were accustomed. It is likely that Luke knew of their strong belief that dead people do not rise from the dead (Barrett 2004: 854). Greek religion, in general, held that, if the human soul survives after death, it would be in a spiritual sense in, for example, the underworld (Price 1999: 12). According to tradition, while he was inaugurating the city of Athens (Wright 2008: 93), the god Apollo declared that once a person is dead, there would be no resurrection of the body (Bruce 1981: 364; Wright 2008: 93; Aescylus Eumenides 647).

As noted earlier, this scoffing should be viewed primarily in terms of the Epicureans. They believed that the human soul, like heat and breath, consisted of physical particles and that the soul perishes with the body at the time of death (De Villiers 1997: ad loc.; Russell 1996: 235). As they did not believe in an afterlife and focused their total existence on the here and now (Lohse 1976: 244), they too would not have liked the idea of resurrection. They adhered strongly to the view that there was no heaven or hell (De Villiers 1997: ad loc.), that human beings have free will, and that they are the masters of their own fate (Russell 1996: 236). Understandably, they would not have warmed to the thought that they were going to be held accountable by judgement. In the story of Paul on the Areopagus, the Epicureans were regarded as the chief antagonists of belief in divine theodicy (Neyrey s.a.: 6). Because of the fact that

it was not beneficial in ancient times to acknowledge atheistic beliefs, Epicurus defined God in terms of absence of divine providence. God is neither kind nor angry, because God is not moved by passions (Neyrey s.a.: 7). Consequently, God is not Judge, death holds no judgement and the soul dies with the body at the moment of death. There is no Judge, no survival after death, no resurrection and thus no post- mortem retribution (Neyrey s.a.: 7).

Atheist Epicureans, the scoffers

As noted earlier, Germiquet (2001: 90) argues very strongly that scoffing, laughing and even “insane and sardonic laughter” were typical of atheist reaction in the first century. Plutarch (On Superstition 169D), among others, confirmed this. He describes how atheists laugh at the manifestation of true religion (Germiquet 2001: 98; Plutarch On Superstition 169D). It could, therefore, be reasonable to think that Luke’s referral to scoffing can be traced to the Epicureans. Luke wants to link the scoffing of the atheists to the opposition of the Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection in Chapter 23 (Germiquet 2001: 131).

Besides scoffing, atheism was also characterized by indifference. In Acts 18, intellectuals and high officials such as Gallio display indifference. There are some striking parallels between this trial and the trial before Felix and Festus in Acts 23-24. The same is noted in Chapter 26 at Paul’s trial before Festus and Agrippa, both high officials who are attentive, to but entirely indifferent towards Paul’s message (Germiquet 2001: 114). In Chapter 17, the same spirit is noted in verse 32 when some scoffed, some (Stoics) indicated that they would want to hear Paul again. The Epicureans are also linked with indifference, an important theme in Acts.

The Stoics, intrigued but sceptical

Of course, the Stoics bring at least another view to the table. As stated earlier, there were conflicting opinions as to what happened to the soul after death. The majority of the Stoics agreed that the soul perishes with the body after death (Russell 1996: 247). Be that as it may, a resurrected man was not something in which they would have believed. This made them intrigued and more open-minded than the Epicureans, but also sceptical. They could be compared to Agrippa, in Acts 26, who listened attentively to Paul, but remained untouched and unconvinced (Germiquet 2001: 116). Luke constantly plays between the superstitious, the sceptical and those who refused to believe. In Chapter 17, they are the Athenians, in general, the Stoics and the Epicureans (Germiquet 2001: 116). This reference to the three groups achieves its climax at Paul’s trial in Acts 26. There is also superstition, scepticism and atheism in this instance (Germiquet 2001: 131).

Perhaps, one could understand another reason for the sceptical reaction on the Areopagus, as this may entail the enormous challenge of the Jesus story for the

hearers. In this instance I wish to repeat what I mentioned earlier, namely that this confrontational encounter in Athens does not consist of simply a few differences in theoretical opinions. They are rather rooted in all-encompassing differences between total configurations of life and conflicting claims to truth about the ultimate origin and destiny of humanity: “Human beings, created by the God of Israel, now find their ‘telos’ – in every significant sense of the word – on a particular day and in relation to a particular man … Human life is therefore to be lived in light of the intersection and existentially thick correlation between the whole world and the resurrection of Jesus” (Rowe 2010: 46). Briefly, the Greeks realized that accepting the revelation of Paul concerning the unknown God would have to result in directing human life towards one day, the day of judgement (Rowe 2010: 46). For the Athenians, turning from their pagan gods to the ‘unknown God’, now fully understood as the Creator God in Jesus, would imply that they live their lives in the world, according to a whole new all- encompassing life direction (Rowe 2010: 46).

Consequently, the majority of the people on the Areopagus did not react very positively toward Paul’s message. History seems to confirm this, as there was no Christian community in Athens that we know of prior to 170 AD (Lüdemann 1989: 194).

The resurrection of Jesus as the pivotal point in Luke-Acts

The resurrection of Jesus plays a central role in the gospel of Luke and Acts (Ladd 1989: 317). The crowd in Athens only reacts when Paul speaks of the resurrection of Jesus. The same happens in 26:23-24 when Paul defends himself before Festus and Agrippa: εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁ Φῆστος μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησιν, Μαίνῃ, Παῦλε· τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει / ‘… that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.’ As Paul was making these statements in his defence, Festus said in a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind” (Bible, English Standard version 2001). In both Acts 26 and 17, Paul was able to proceed with his speech uninterrupted until he spoke of the resurrection (Germiquet 2001: 84). A similar incident is noted in Acts 2:14-36, where Peter gave his famous speech on Pentecost, although the reaction was different; the people were deeply moved when they heard about the resurrection (Acts 2:37). Ladd (1989: 317) makes some interesting observations concerning the speech. He mentions that Peter said almost nothing of the life and earthly career of Jesus. He made no appeal to the personality and character of Jesus. He did not say anything about Jesus’ teachings or tried to compare him with contemporary rabbis. He made only passing remarks of the deeds that Jesus had done among them. The all-important issue was that God raised Jesus, who was executed as a criminal, from the dead and exalted him at His own right hand. On the basis of this single fact, Peter demanded that the people in Jerusalem repent (Ladd 1989: 317). The

earliest and primary function of the apostles was not to rule or govern, but to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Throughout the remainder of Acts, the resurrection remains the central theme. This is apparent in 10:44, where the people were filled with the Holy Spirit when Peter spoke of the resurrection. In Acts 5:33, with Peter before the Jewish counsel, the resurrection made them react with animosity. Paul was arrested over the issue of the resurrection (23:6). Luke intentionally uses these interruptions, specifically in the Acts speeches, as literary techniques to communicate the centrality of the resurrection and the seminal moments in the presentations (Germiquet 2001: 85-86). The resurrection proves to be the vital turning point in the speeches in Acts. Consequently, it is essential to understand why and to investigate the role that the resurrection of Jesus plays in the gospel and Acts. In his article on Luke-Acts, Germiquet (2009: 1) indicates that, within the genre of Luke-Acts as historiography, Luke uses the literary structure of a journey narrative. The thread of this journey narrative starts from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the gospel and climaxes with Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in Rome (Germiquet 2009: 1). This journey in Jesus’ ministry starts gaining momentum when Jesus sets out to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51). The initial goal is attained when he arrives in Jerusalem where he dies, is raised from the dead and ascends to heaven. The form of the journey narrative told in Acts is a mirror image of that in the gospel. Unlike the journey to Jerusalem, the direction is reversed and everything moves away from Jerusalem, in this instance. Patterns of this are evident in Acts 1:8; 8:1; Paul’s first (13-14), second (16-18:22) and third (18:23-21:17) missionary journeys, and culminate with Paul in Rome (Germiquet 2009: 2). This structure in Luke-Acts attributes a significant place to the resurrection by making it the turning point in the story. At the point of the resurrection, the journey towards Jerusalem changes into the journey away from Jerusalem. This change in direction takes place on the day of the resurrection in Luke 24:1-12, when Jesus is portrayed as walking away from Jerusalem, and meeting the two travellers on the road to Emmaus (Germiquet 2009: 2). Luke is the only gospel in which this story occurs, unlike the other gospel stories where Jesus meets people in the garden in Jerusalem. Luke does not tell the story of the women or of Peter and John going to the tomb. In Luke, the first people who encounter the resurrected Jesus are two persons walking away from Jerusalem. Following the Emmaus account, the initial conversions in Acts happen to the potential converts who were travelling away from Jerusalem (Acts 8:26-39; 9:22, 26). Jesus’ resurrection thus becomes the axis on which the entire Luke-Acts pivots. Even the Scriptures are supposed to be read and interpreted according to the resurrection (Acts 17:3; 26:22) (Germiquet 2009: 5). Healings in Luke-Acts resemble a resurrection, as they bring hope and new life (Germiquet 2009: 11). From the beginning of Acts, it is obvious that the resurrection is the core content of nearly all the speeches (see Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:2, 10; 4:33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30; 23:6; 17:31; 26:23). In Acts 17, Luke through Paul presents the resurrection as the reason to believe in the truth of his message. As proof that Jesus is God’s chosen one and that he will be the agency of judgement, God raised him from the dead.

33 οὕτως ὁ Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν: / And so Paul walked out from their midst.

This sentence indicates the end of Paul’s contact with the Athenians. The aorist indicative ἐξῆλθεν, together with ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν, indicates the end of the discussion and is contrasted with συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ in verse 18 and ἐν μέσῳ in verse 22. In verse 18, people joined Paul and, in verse 22, Paul went into the midst of people on the Areopagus. Now it is the opposite. The Athenians rejected Jesus and Paul dissociated himself from them, as is the general rule in Luke-Acts.

34 τινὲς δὲ ἄνδρες κολληθέντες αὐτῷ ἐπίστευσαν, ἐν οἷς καὶ Διονύσιος [ὁ] Ἀρεοπαγίτης καὶ γυνὴ ὀνόματι Δάμαρις καὶ ἕτεροι σὺν αὐτοῖς. / Some men joined him and believed among whom were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

The focus in this verse is the indicative ἐπίστευσαν, the action of some people turning to faith. However, before he left Athens, and despite the issue with the Athenian crowd, Paul secured a few converts, two of whom are mentioned by name. The mention of names is very important to Luke. One of the converts named in Acts 17, Dionysius, was a member of the Areopagus, an archon, and probably a very distinguished person. According to some classical Christian writers, he could also have been the first bishop of Athens, although this is not certain (Barrett 2004: 855). It is likely that Damaris was a foreign woman, a member of the class of educated Hetairai (Bruce 1981: 364; Witherington 1998a: 533). Besides what we know from the text in Acts, she is unknown. Luke’s interest in the part women play in the story of Acts and the gospel is familiar (Barrett 2004: 855).

However, Luke is trying to communicate a crucial point in mentioning Dionysius, Damaris, and ‘the others’. Throughout verses 16-31, it is clear that Luke endeavours to say that Jesus’ message is inclusive; it is a gospel for everyone. This is evident in the phrases τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πάντας πανταχοῦ in verse 30; τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ in verse 24, and πᾶν ἔθνος … ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς in verse 26. Luke completes this notion by making conclusive comments about Paul’s converts. Dionysius was an Areopagite, part of the Athenian elite, whereas Damaris was a woman, the lowest in the ancient social ladder. The name Dionysius forms an inclusio with Damaris, with ‘the others’ in the middle. Luke’s message is clear: Those came to faith include the highest in the social order (Dionysius) and the lowest (Damaris, a woman), with everyone else in between. Jesus’ message is for everyone; it is inclusive.

This conclusion of Paul’s speech should not be viewed as a “Christian addendum to an otherwise Hellenistic piece of rhetoric” (Witherington 1998a: 531). Drawing on Greek ideas, Paul’s argument was thoroughly biblical from the outset and is not at all unlike other Jewish examples of apologetics for monotheism (Witherington 1998a:

531). The first sentence is conceptually based on Aratus’ quotation in verse 28 (Barrett 2004: 849).

What did Luke and the early church mean by resurrection from the dead?

As the resurrection of Jesus is so important in Luke-Acts, it is critical to understand what Luke meant by resurrection. I shall investigate various views of life after death or ‘resurrection’, in both the ancient pagan and contemporary Jewish worlds, in order to establish what Luke did not mean by ‘resurrection’. Did Luke mean that the resurrection should be a parallel to some of the ancient pagan views on life after death? Like Jesus’ disciples ate, drank and conversed with him after his death so, say some, did some ancients with their late lamented friends (Wright 2003: 36). Jesus’ disciples saw him alive after he was killed. So have other peoples with their revered dead, as some modern scholars claim (Wright 2003: 36). I shall thus very briefly consider some examples of prominent ancient views on the afterlife. Previously an Oxford and Cambridge scholar, Wright (currently at St Andrews), in his seminal and monumental work The resurrection of the Son of God (2003), mentions several points of view that existed in, or had a great influence on the Greek world. I shall use Wright’s work as the main source, as it is presently the most complete and comprehensive work. However, I shall substantiate his views with additional works from other scholars.

The Pagan (Graeco-Roman) world

Senseless ghosts in a gloomy world

It was believed that some aspects of the human personality persist after death (Craffert 1999: 24). It is a kind of life lived in a dim world that can be regarded as neither enjoyable nor torturous (Gill s.a.: ad loc.). The human spirit lives as a disembodied entity (Higgins & Bergman s.a.: ad loc.). The god Hades is often seen sitting on the throne of the Underworld next to his queen Persephone (Gill s.a.: ad loc.). Homer’s two narratives, considered to be the Greeks’ bible, left huge imprints on the Greek world in Luke’s time, with several appearances of ghosts or shadows of dead persons (Wright 2003: 40). A vivid example is where the ghost of Patroclus appears to Achilles after the former was killed in battle:

“ἦλθε δ᾽ ἐπὶ ψυχὴ Πατροκλῆος δειλοῖο πάντ᾽ αὐτῷ μέγεθός τε καὶ ὄμματα κάλ᾽ ἐϊκυῖα καὶ φωνήν, καὶ τοῖα περὶ χροῒ εἵματα ἕστο: στῆ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς καί μιν πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπεν: εὕδεις, αὐτὰρ ἐμεῖο λελασμένος ἔπλευ Ἀχιλλεῦ. οὐ μέν μευ ζώοντος ἀκήδεις, ἀλλὰ θανόντος: θάπτέ με ὅττι τάχιστα πύλας Ἀΐδαο περήσω. τῆλέ με εἴργουσι ψυχαὶ εἴδωλα καμόντων, οὐδέ μέ πω μίσγεσθαι ὑπὲρ ποταμοῖο ἐῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ αὔτως ἀλάλημαι ἀν᾽ εὐρυπυλὲς Ἄϊδος δῶ. καί μοι δὸς τὴν χεῖρ᾽: ὀλοφύρομαι, οὐ γὰρ ἔτ᾽ αὖτις νίσομαι ἐξ Ἀΐδαο, ἐπήν με πυρὸς λελάχητε.” (Translation: Achilles held out his arms to clasp the spirit, but in vain. It vanished like a wisp of smoke and went gibbering underground. Achilles leapt in amazement. He beat his hands together and in his desolation cried: “Ah, then it is true that something of us does survive even in the Halls of Hades, but with no intellect at all, only the ghost and the semblance of man; for

all night long the poor ghost of Patroclus (and it looked exactly like him) has been standing at my side, weeping and wailing and telling me of all the things I need to do”) (Homer Iliad 23.65-76).

This excerpt from the Iliad portrays Patroclus, after his death, as being in Hades as a ghost or spirit, unable to cross the river Styx and find his proper place of rest until the appropriate funeral had been held (Wright 2003: 40). Spirits in the underworld are told to be under the rule of Hades’ (Wright 2003: 44; Lewis s.a.: ad loc.). The majority of them, whether their lives were lived well or not, had no form of comforts, prospects or hopes, but only a profound sense of loss (Wright 2003: 44). Some reports describe Hades in more positive terms (Patheos s.a.: ad loc.). Hades is often called the Underworld, because it is in sunless subterranean regions (Gill s.a.: ad loc.). Different traditions have teachings about the Underworld and no single belief is normative for all (Patheos s.a.: ad loc.). However, Luke could not have meant this by resurrection.

Without a body, but otherwise normal

Despite the murky and hopeless picture that Homer sketched, some Greeks hoped and expected that man would experience a disembodied immortality (Higgins & Bergman s.a.: ad loc.), while otherwise living a fairly normal life with hunting grounds, farms and cities (Wright 2003: 445). It was said that the rich had friends to keep them company, and even slaves to tend to their needs. In Plato’s Apology (40c-41c),