Yet another character needs to be discussed in order to determine the basic attitude of those in
134 He links the illogicality and ignorance evident in Festus' outburst with the ignorance of the Athenians.
See the discussion on the ignorance of the Athenian philosophers: P.G.R. de Villiers, E.A. Germiquet, Paul and the Athenians in Acts 17. Superstition in Early Christianity and Graeco-Roman society, Acta Patristica et
Byzantina 9 (1998): 38-40.
135 Conzelmann, 206.
136 Haenchen, 672.
137 Plutarch On Superstition 164E.
138 Ibid., 164E.
139 Plutarch On Superstition 164E.
140 Ibid., 167A.
high places that is so important to Luke. The reaction of Agrippa to the defence of Paul is important, for the whole speech was addressed to him. Yet, in spite of having the speech addressed to Agrippa, his response (v ι ίγ κε πείζεης Υρηζηηαvv πoηζαη Ac.26:28), is his first to the whole speech.
Notwithstanding the importance of Agrippa‟s response and despite the fact that Agrippa's words have been thoroughly examined on the grammatical and textual level, there is no consensus as to how Luke intended Agrippa's words to be understood. L'Éplattenier voices the difficulty that Agrippa's answer poses: “Mais sa réponse est une esquive don‟t il est difficile de dire si elle exprime la gêne d'un esprit ébranlé ou l'ironie d'un sceptique.”142 There are generally two ways in which Agrippa's words have been understood. The one interpretation concludes that Agrippa's words are derogatory and sarcastic.143 The other interpretation sees Agrippa's words as affirmative and indicative of his closeness to expressing a faith in Jesus Christ.144
Malherbe has provided illuminating insights into Agrippa‟s comment by examining it in the light of the contemporary philosophical debate on the question of instantaneous conversions.145 He examines Agrippa‟s response from the perspective of the strong protreptic element present in moral philosophy and the way that people responded to it. While Stoics and some Platonists held the view that a person who made consistent moral progress could suddenly experience a change to the stage of the wise man, others for polemical reasons, derided the idea of a sudden change.146 Malherbe adds: “Accounts of such conversions, or the claim that one had undergone a sudden change, expectedly met with ironic, if not outright sarcastic, responses.”147 Malherbe adds that Agrippa‟s response is all the more intelligible when understood in the light of the protreptic purpose of conversion accounts. The protreptic element of a conversion account is illustrated by Justin (Dial.8.2) “And further I could wish that all should form a desire as strong as mine, not to stand aloof from the Saviour‟s words.” That Luke intended Paul‟s account of his sudden conversion to have a similar persuasive element as that found in Justin‟s work, is confirmed by Paul‟s reply to Agrippa‟s comment: “Short time or long - I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may
142 L'Éplattenier, 257f. O'Toole also discusses the differing opinions concerning the interpretation of this
verse. “This verse has created difficulty and stimulated a variety of opinions.” O'Toole, Christological Climax, 141.
143 Jackson and Lake state that the use of „Christian‟ in the mouth of Agrippa can only be interpreted as a
„sneer,‟ Jackson, Lake, Beginnings, 322; Johnson 212,believes that v ι ηγφ is better understood in a non temporal sense, which therefore gives a meaning of “playing the Christian.” Harrison's view is that Agrippa was wanting to get himself off the hook by implying that the occasion had not been set up for evangelistic purposes. He compares Agrippa's comment to that of Jezebel to king Ahab (I king 21:7): “Is this how you act as king over Israel?” E.Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 381; Arrington 251, concludes that Agrippa's remark is “light hearted.”
144 O'Toole agrees with Loisy and Haenchen that the verse should not be understood as expressing sarcasm
and that Agrippa takes Christianity seriously. O'Toole, Christological Climax, 142, 144; Haenchen, 689 note 2, is in agreement with Overbeck, who explains that if Agrippa's answer were taken as sarcastic then the point of the scene would be blunted.
145 Malherbe, Not in a Corner, 16-18.
146 Malherbe, Not in a Corner, 16f. Of those who derided such a notion Malherbe indicates: Albinus, Didask.30.2; Plut. Prof.virt. 75C-E; Stoic, absurd. poet. 1057E-1058C.
become what I am, except for these chains.”(Ac.26:29).148 Therefore Malherbe‟s indication that the understanding of Agrippa‟s comment is to be found in the philosophical issue of instantaneous conversions, brings clarity to what has remained a perplexing comment by Agrippa. Paul‟s account of his instantaneous conversion on the road to Damascus and his subsequent linking of this to the proclamation of the resurrection, would have the protreptic effect on Agrippa that Paul had reached a stage not yet attained by Agrippa. Seen in this light, Agrippa‟s response is a contemptuous rejection by him of any desire to aspire to Paul‟s apparent advanced stage.
148 Ibid.
That Luke intended Agrippa‟s comment as sarcastic and as an indication to the reader that Agrippa remained aloof from Paul‟s appeal is also supported by Justin‟s explanation that it is not easy for a soul enchained by ignorance to change quickly (ιι πε γvφρίδoκεv oov γvoί θαηετoκέvεv υ στv ζσvηόκφς κεηαβάι ι εηv, First Apology 12.11). The relevance of Justin‟s explanation for Agrippa‟s rejection of Paul‟s proclamation is enhanced further by Justin linking it to the rejection of the charge of atheism. In the very next sentence Justin refutes the charge of atheism levelled against Christians by expounding on the qualities of God the Creator. Αζεoη κv ov ς oθ ζκv, ηv δεκηoσργv ηoδε ηoσ παvης ζεβόκ εvoη (First
Apology 13.1). By linking the charge of atheism to the concept of instantaneous conversion,
Justin therefore argues that the Christian‟s ability to change is a sign that he is not an atheist. By reversing Justin‟s argument, the conclusion is therefore drawn that one of the reasons for Agrippa resisting change is his atheistic tendency.
The importance of this concept in early Christian apologetics is further illustrated by Irenaeus‟ use of it in order to expose the weaknesses of those who oppose Christianity. Irenaeus shows that he understands it in a negative light for he links the slowness of change to the presence of error. “For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.”149
Unlike the ambiguous results achieved through grammatical analysis, Agrippa‟s sarcastic retort to Paul, when interpreted in the light of moral philosophy, is an indication that Luke intended Agrippa‟s retort “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” as a rejection of any desire to change and as a sign of his own atheistic leanings.