Pérdida Integral Básica por Acción

22 σταθεὶς δὲ Παῦλος ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ Ἀρείου Πάγου ἔφη Ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, κατὰ πάντα ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς θεωρῶ: / Paul then stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said: Athenians, I can see that you are very religious in all things.

In this instance, the focus is on the indicative, ἔφη, stating that this is the beginning of the highlight of this passage. Paul starts his discourse as a representative of the Christian faith.

Σταθεὶς δὲ … ἐν μέσῳ suggests that Paul assumed the position of an orator, ready to deliver his discourse (Witherington 1998a: 517). This standing position would be expected in Athens and not in a Jewish synagogue, where the rabbi sat down when he started teaching (Barrett 2004: 834).

His opening address to the Athenian crowd, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, was a rhetorical convention of starting speeches in the Greek-speaking world and also specifically in Athens (Witherington 1998a: 520). In this regard, see Plato (Apologia A1): ὁ τι μὲν ἡμεῖς ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. (How you, men of Athens …) [Translation: H N Fowler]. As a rule, Luke uses this form of address in Acts. See Ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι (1:11), Ἄνδρες Ἰουδαῖοι (2:14), Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται (2:22), Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (2:29), and Ἄνδρες Ἐφέσιοι (19:35), although Ἀθηναῖοι in Acts 17 reminds the reader of Socrates (Barret 2004: 834). Ἀνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι became the collective name for all the groups present, namely the Epicureans, The Stoics and the ‘others’. Luke is addressing a mixed group of Athenian citizens.

Why does Paul start by showing them that he recognises their religiosity? It is assumed that he is first stating a fact about the Athenians. Indeed, it was true that they were known for their devotion to religiosity (Conzelmann 1987: 139).

“Ἀθηναίοις δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ ἄλλα ἐστὶν οὐκ ἐς ἅπαντας ἐπίσημα καὶ Ἐλέου βωμός, ᾧ μάλιστα θεῶν ἐς ἀνθρώπινον βίον καὶ μεταβολὰς πραγμάτων ὄντι ὠφελίμῳ μόνοι τιμὰς Ἑλλήνων νέμουσιν Ἀθηναῖοι. τούτοις δὲ οὐ τὰ ἐς φιλανθρωπίαν μόνον καθέστηκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεοὺς εὐσεβοῦσιν ἄλλων πλέον, καὶ γὰρ Αἰδοῦς σφισι βωμός ἐστι καὶ Φήμης καὶ Ὁρμῆς: δῆλά τε ἐναργῶς, ὅσοις πλέον τι ἑτέρων εὐσεβείας μέτεστιν, ἴσον σφίσι παρὸν τύχης χρηστῆς.” (Translation: In the Athenian market-place among the objects not generally known is an altar to Mercy, of all divinities the most useful in the life of mortals and in the vicissitudes of fortune, but honored by the Athenians alone among the Greeks. And they are conspicuous not only for their humanity but also for their devotion to religion. They have an altar to Shamefastness, one to Rumour and one to Effort. It is quite obvious that those who excel in piety are correspondingly rewarded by good fortune.) (Pausanius Description of Greece 1.17.1).

Is Paul trying to compliment them? Scholars differ on this and there is tension between two options, as both arguments are strong (Germiquet 2001: 72). It is significant to note that δεισιδαιμονεστέρους is probably not used in a neutral manner, and scholars are divided as to the meaning in this text (Germiquet 2001: 61, 72). The term is ambiguous: it could mean ‘religious’, in which case Luke uses it as a compliment, or it could mean superstitious, in which case it is meant as a derogatory term. Vince (s.a.: ad loc.) suggests that the term is more likely to be a compliment, because Paul wanted the Greeks to accept his message. It was, therefore, highly unlikely that he would begin his speech with an insult. “‘I perceive that you are all superstitious’ would hardly qualify as a rhetorically suave captatio benevolentiae” (Rowe 2010: 39). If δεισιδαιμονεστέρους really serves as a compliment, it would be a very important point. Vince’s opinion might have some truth in it, but that of Bruce (1981: 355) should also be considered. He states that Paul is stating a point and not paying a compliment, although he is doing so very courteously. Bruce (1981: 355) points out that it was forbidden, especially in the hope of securing goodwill, to use “complimentary exordia” when addressing the Areopagus. Aristotle (Rhetoric 1354a), among others, complained about the fact that some orators use emotions such as

anger, envy or compassion to drive their hearers towards a specific outcome. He states that οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸν δικαστὴν διαστρέφειν εἰς ὀργὴν προάγοντας ἢ φθόνον ἢ ἔλεον: ὅμοιον γὰρ κἂν εἴ τις ᾧ μέλλει χρῆσθαι κανόνι, τοῦτον ποιήσειε στρεβλόν (For it is wrong to warp the dicast’s feelings, to arouse him to anger, jealousy or compassion, which would be like making the rule crooked which one intended to use) (Aristotle Rhetoric 1354a).

Witherington (1998a: 520) suggests that, in light of verses 16 and 25:19, Paul probably used it in a negative, confrontational way. Germiquet (2001: 72) supports Witherington, suggesting that “[i]t refers to be superstitious, religiosity off the mark, gullible, or unenlightened about religious matters”. According to Witherington (1998a: 520), Paul was accusing the Athenians of being too superstitious and ignorant of important religious matters, as they even built altars to gods they did not know, simply to spiritually protect themselves. This choice of translation is understandable, however, since the word can be translated in both ways. On the one hand, Bruce’s notion that complimentary exordia were not supposed to be used, combined with Paul being distressed or vexed by virtue of their idolatry, makes it possible that he might have spoken out of irritation.

On the other hand, Luke might mean δεισιδαιμονεστέρους in a positive sense, despite Witherington (1998a: 520). Other scholarly sources indicate that, rhetorically speaking, exordia were frequently used to secure the interest and goodwill of the audience (Kennedy 1963: 11). In ancient times, the introduction (Exordium) of a speech was rarely ever used in a negative or derogatory way, but rather to win the sympathy of the audience (Lausberg 1998: 114-115, 121). Since Paul is being sketched as a type of Socrates and since Luke follows a strong Greek form of rhetoric throughout Acts, it seems just as likely that Paul’s intention was to start his speech on a positive note by playing on the positive elements of the Greek worship, although he did not condone it (Rowe 2010: 39). He was trying to “provide a way into his address that would engage the attention of the audience” (Marshall 2008: 302). Another point to consider is that Athens was frequently praised in ancient speeches for being the most spiritual city in Greece (Conzelmann 1987:140; Lüdemann 1989: 190). See Sophocles (Oedipus at Colonos): τάς γ᾽ Ἀθήνας φασὶ θεοσεβεστάτας εἶναι (Athens is held of States the most devout).

Does it not sound realistic to assume that Paul was trying to start off in a positive way? There is one last point that confirms the opinions of Lausberg, Kennedy, and Lüdemann, namely the distinction by Liddel and Scott (1889: 177) between δεισιδαιμονεστέρους (root δεισιδαιμων) and δεισιδαιμονία. The latter means “fear of the gods” (god fearing), although in a negative and slightly derogative sense, whereas Paul’s δεισιδαιμων relates to “fear of the gods” first in a positive sense of the word. The relation is still very close, however, and the two words could be used interchangeably.

In light of the insights of Liddel and Scott, Lausberg, Lüdemann, and Kennedy, I would disagree with Witherington and Bruce who mention that, in his speech, Paul has in mind purely a confrontational or derogative hint from the outset. One can also not ignore the opposite, namely that δεισιδαιμονεστέρους could (maybe even should) be translated with ‘superstitious’. What could be the solution? Cambridge scholar Rowe (2010: 40) provides a well-considered solution that listens seriously to both sides of the argument. In light of all that has been mentioned, in particular 17:16 (παρωξύνετο τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ θεωροῦντος κατείδωλον οὖσαν τὴν πόλιν), he suggests that Paul had both meanings in mind. By using δεισιδαιμονεστέρους, Luke wants to communicate both possible meanings simultaneously: “exceptionally religious” and “quite superstitious”:

“That is to say, in the story world, the Areopagus hears the former … while the reader, who is positioned hermeneutically by vv 16-21, also hears the latter. To be sure, translation into English obscures the simultaneity of meaning in the one Greek word … Luke’s point is rather clear. Through a deft use of dramatic irony, Luke verifies historical verisimilitude – and rhetorical skill – with theological judgment and, precisely in so doing, alerts the readers of Paul’s speech to its multi-level discourse.” (Rowe 2010: 40).

Daniel Marguerat, prominent French scholar of Luke-Acts, presents another reason for considering Rowe’s view. Marguerat (1999: 70-89) suggests that we will always misinterpret the Areopagus speech if we do not understand that the speech should be read with a hermeneutic of “the one or the other”, that is, as a Greek philosophical and religious work and as a Jewish rendering based on the LXX. This implies that Luke presents typical Jewish theology in Greek language, so that the Athenians will also understand. In this regard, δεισιδαιμονεστέρους should be regarded as striking a slightly ambiguous note. This is Luke’s intention, for he wants to enable the text to potentially be read from a Greek philosophical as well as from a Jewish Hellenistic point of view. The reader must decide which point of view. The person who reads from an OT perspective will tend to read δεισιδαιμονεστέρους to mean superstitious, whereas the Greek reader will take it to mean religious. This is of no consequence to Luke, since at the end of his speech he confronts the superstitious idolatry without having offended the Greek audience at the beginning of his speech (Marguerat 1999: 70-89).

For the purpose of this study, it would be important to mention a few aspects about Luke’s leniency toward the Greek religion. It is likely that Luke is sketching Paul as an orator who is fairly accommodating toward the Greek religious culture (Germiquet 1992: 67). Dibelius (1956: 55) strongly indicates that the condemnatory tone in Paul’s speech is significantly played down in comparison with how idolatry is mocked in Deutero-Isaiah. He also states that Luke wants Paul to be understood not as someone who condemns the Greeks for their sin, but rather as someone who intends to enlighten them in their ignorance (Dibelius 1956: 55). Paul’s words do not signify a judgement upon the lost state of the gentiles, but rather a fulfillment of their unconscious longings (Dibelius 1956: 76). The gentle way, in which Luke handles the

gentile religion, is an important indicator of how the speech in Athens is to be understood: Luke does not want to create the impression that he is in open revolt against the established religions (Germiquet 1992: 67). Religious tolerance and syncretism were important features in Graeco-Roman culture (Germiquet 1992: 68). It was so characteristic of the ancient world that a tolerant attitude even rubbed off on such an exclusive religion as Judaism (Germiquet 1992: 68). Jewish writers such as Josephus (Against Appion 2.237) seemed to have had a fairly tolerant attitude towards other religions when it was in their interests. Consequently, it appears that Luke is taking this into account as he relates to the pagans in Athens.

To conclude, Luke (Paul) starts the audible side of his speech positively, by being lenient toward the pagan crowd and simultaneously allowing the reader to realize that their idolatry is simply blatant superstition (Rowe 2010: 40). By doing so, he introduces a pattern that continues throughout the rest of the discourse, namely a delicate balance between connecting with the audience on their grounds and subtly, but explicitly, exposing their idolatry (Wright 2008: 90-93). The word he uses strongly indicates that he intended to address the topic of people in the grip of superstition (Germiquet 2001: 80).

23 διερχόμενος γὰρ καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν εὗρον καὶ βωμὸν ἐν ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν / For while I was strolling through, seeing your objects of worship, I found an altar on which it was written: ‘To an unknown god’. What you worship then, without knowing it, I proclaim to you.

The indicative, εὗρον, centralizes the focus on what Paul found, namely the altar to the unknown god. This is important, because, in the rest of the speech, Paul is attempting to deconstruct the notion of the unknown god. He does so by trying to link the inscription phrase (as it should be) Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ, to a theology of creation. Combined with the following phrase ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, Paul attempts to put his hearers at ease, assuring them that he does not bring them anything new, but that the one of whom he testified has preceded him in Athens (Rowe 2010: 40). By using Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ, Luke is identifying with the well-known inscriptions in Athens (Conzelmann 1987: 140). See Philostratus, καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνησιν,οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων δαιμόνων βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται (especially at Athens, where altars are set up in honor even of unknown gods …) (Philostratus Vita Apollonii 6.3). The existence of such an inscription, whether it was in the plural or singular, as stated in this instance, would have implicated a strong polytheism. It did not refer to the unknown god of Gnosticism, but rather to the common Jewish and Christian conviction that the Gentiles did not know the true God (Conzelmann 1987: 141).

By mentioning the altar to the unknown god, Paul is immediately starting to refute the notion of his introducing “new gods” (Winter 2004: 6). Unlike other heralds of new

divinities, Luke does not want his readers to think that Paul introduces something new, as the Athenians already erected an altar to the god mentioned by Paul (Winter 2004: 6). It should, therefore, not be considered as anything new. He was going to tell them what this god, whom they venerate as unknown, is like (Winter 2004: 6). This emphasizes the unknown and lack of knowledge. Because it is not known, Paul can fill in the missing information.

Διερχόμενος is not used, in this instance, in the same way as it is sometimes used in Acts (see 8:4), but it means that Paul was simply making his way through the city (Barrett 2004: 836-837). In addition, εὗρον does not refer to Paul finding something that he was looking for, but that he merely “came across” (Barrett 2004: 837) the βωμὸς, which almost certainly refers to an altar (Barrett 2004: 837). Although archaeologists did not discover an altar with such inscriptions (Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ) in Athens, this does not mean that no such altar existed (Barrett 2004: 837; Witherington 1998a: 523). This is not important in the narrative (Waaijman 2010: 9). What is important is the reason why Luke uses this imagery. This inscription becomes a basic theme throughout the speech (Soards 1994: 97). The first is in verse 23 when Paul declares the content of his argument, stating ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. The second is in verse 28, by referring to τοὺς … χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας. Rhetorically, he starts his speech in an ad hoc manner to introduce his theme (Barrett 2004: 838) and to identify with the audience (Bruce 1981: 355). He seems to say that they are religious, but that their religion needs instruction. He wants to tell them what they need to know for their religion to be real (Barrett 2004: 839).

On the other hand, he does convey strong Judeo-Christian beliefs in a thoroughly Hellenistic form (Vince s.a.: ad loc.). In this instance, Paul suggests that the Athenians tend towards the real God, as their acts of worship indicate. They do, however, not know or properly recognize Him and are still in dire need of being shown the way (Witherington 1998a: 523). Witherington (1998a: 523) also suggests that this bears resemblance to Romans 1:20-23, namely that the Greeks reject what could be known of God through creation and that there is some kind of natural revelation, although this does not suffice to establish an adequate theology in response to that revelation. Therefore, they require a more complete proclamation, in order to fully understand these issues. Paul views this as his calling.

The last sentence, ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, serves as a transitional part. Thereafter, Luke starts his argumentation. It is likely that Luke used the stronger form in the first person (ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω) to draw attention to what he was about to say. It prepares the audience and the readers for the importance and weight of what was coming. Consequently, the “not-know” and the proclaiming by Paul are linked: he can reveal what they do not know.

24 ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, οὗτος οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὑπάρχων κύριος οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ / The God that made the world

and everything on it, He who is Lord over heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by hands.

“The introductory phraseology is dependent on the Bible, but at the same time shows Greek influence” (Conzelmann 1987: 141). In this instance, Luke already starts his argument of theodicy, namely God as good, providing Creator who upholds the universe (Neyrey s.a.: 4). This argument will be gradually developed in this study. By using the indicative κατοικεῖ, Luke systematically starts to deconstruct the folly of the Greeks’ idol worship, by bringing the reader back to the logical argument that, if God had created everything, He cannot be worshipped in man-made temples. Paul challenges the Greeks to accept the basis of logic that they cannot deny: God and his relation to the world and men (Barrett 2004: 839).

The use of ποιήσας indicates that God is the Creator of everything that exists (Conzelmann 1987: 141). This is, of course, frequently asserted in the OT (Barrett 2004: 839) (see Gen. 1:1; Ex. 20:11; Isa. 42:5). God is the great Provider and we are the receivers of His care. Witherington (1998a: 525) praises the fact that Paul uses the Greek term κόσμοs, instead of “heaven and earth” that the Hebrews would have used. This shows that Paul adapts his language for his specific audience. This argument is not thoroughly convincing though, in light of the fact that κόσμοs appears 26 times in the LXX (e.g., Gen. 2:1; Ex. 33: 5-6; Deut. 4:19; 2 Sam. 1:24; Prov. 17:6; Isa. 3:18- 19, 49:14; Jer. 2:32; Ezek. 7:20; Nah. 2:10). Barrett (2004: 840) suggests that, although κόσμοs is a Greek concept, Jewish writers also used this term. God is then described in terms that both Jews and Greeks would understand, and He is naturally κύριος of what He had made (Barrett 2004: 840). Paul consequently mentions that it does not make sense to worship Him in temples as if He needs our nurture and provision. The God who made everything does not require care from us by living in temples, in which human beings provide for Him. The phrase οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ is Lucan and echoes Stephen’s speech in 7:48: ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ.

Paul starts using language strongly reminiscent of OT scriptures. This does not, however, distance him from his hearers (Bruce 1981: 356). It is important to note that this notion of handmade things not being able to confine God occurs in both biblical and pagan sources, strengthening the idea of Paul seeking ‘common ground’ in the language he uses (Witherington 1998a: 525). The common ground is the logic of his argument. Although the language of a Creator God is not as prominent in Greek literature as it is in the OT, the idea of a (singular) Creator God was definitely widely accepted in Greek thought, irrespective of the amount of ambiguity (Barrett 2004: 840). Consider the following examples from Plato’s Timaeus: τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν (Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible) [28C], εἰ μέν δή καλός ἐστιν ὅδε ὁ κόσμος ὅ τε δημιοργὸς ἀγαθός (Now if so be that this

Cosmos is beautiful and its Constructor good …) [29A]. This tendency did not diminish in literature by the time Acts was written. See also the first century historian, Epictetus (Discourses 4.7.6): ὁ θεὸς πάντα πεποίηκεν τὰ ἐν τᾧ κόσμῳ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κόσμον. The Fatherhood of God as Creator is especially clear in Epictetus Discourses 1.3.1:

“εἴ τις τῷ δόγματι τούτῳ συμπαθῆσαι κατ᾽ ἀξίαν δύναιτο, ὅτι γεγόναμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντες προηγουμένως καὶ ὁ θεὸς πατήρ ἐστι τῶν τ᾽ ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν θεῶν, οἶμαι ὅτι οὐδὲν ἀγεννὲς οὐδὲ ταπεινὸν ἐνθυμηθήσεται περὶ ἑαυτοῦ.” (Translation: If we could completely subscribe, as we should, to the view that we are all primary creatures of God, and that God is Father of both gods and men, I don’t believe that we would ever think mean or lowly thoughts about ourselves).

He states that God created everything and the entire existing world is his home. By showing the Athenians that this God is totally self-sufficient, Paul is diplomatically, although directly, showing his audience the folly of their idol worship. This is Paul’s point of departure and the basis he is trying to defend.

The phrase ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς is very appropriate in the face of the visibility of the temples and statues on the Acropolis, Agora and the surrounding area, mentioned in verse 19. When Paul follows the logic that the Creator God could not possibly live in handmade temples, the implications of his reference to the worship of the Greek gods is very clear. He challenges the Athenians to think twice about worshipping God in their handmade temples. God is the Creator; He is Lord and for that reason He is above all that He has created. Luke indicates that, by worshipping God in temples, they drag Him down to something that He is not. He is not the pantheistic impersonal force in everything, but He is above everything. See the next diagram.

It is likely that Paul was reasonably certain that the Stoic philosophers would concur with his statement that “οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ” (v. 24), as the language he used was very similar to that used by the Stoics (Faber 1993: ad loc.). That is not to say, though, that the Stoics remain unchallenged by Paul’s words. On the one hand,