“Those in high places”: The Indifference and Atheism of the Elite
9 The lack of references to Atheism in the text
Although this chapter has focussed on the reaction of Festus and Agrippa as being typical of atheists, it needs to be noted that the word “atheist” does not appear in the Lukan text. This is striking for it contrasts with the discussion on superstition which was supported by the appearance in the text of δεηζηδαηκovίας (Ac.25:19) and δεηζηδαηκovεζηέρoσς (Ac.17:22). In attempting to understand this apparent anomaly, a number of factors which mitigate for the absence of ζεoς in the text, need to be considered.
In the discussion on the growth of atheism in the empire170 it was stressed that atheism was unofficial and needed to be maintained as a strictly private opinion. Atheism itself was not
165 A.N.Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome, (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), 10.
166 Tacitus Annales 14.44.
167 L.Herrman, Chrestos: Témoignages Païens et Juifs sur le Christianisme du Premier Siècle, Latomus Revue D'Études Latines 109 (1970): 56.
168 Arnobius Adversus Gentes 6.27.
169 Eusebius Ecclesiatical History 5.1.9.
punishable, but those who had a disposition towards it found themselves in a precarious position as it could easily be linked to a failure of giving due honour to the official gods. Young explains the problem: “Religion, embedded in ethnic cultures, was a matter not of belief but of loyalty.”171 Thus the dividing line between atheism and disloyalty to the state was often blurred. The problems that this perception could cause can be seen by the way Dio Chrysostom had to defend himself. Dio himself explains: “But my bill of indictment was longer and, one might say, nobler, a sort of occult bill apparently: `Dio is guilty, first, of not honouring the gods either with
sacrifices or with hymns, by abolishing the festivals of our fathers;”(italics mine, Αδηθε Γίφv, ηoς κv ζεoς κ ηηκv κήη v ζσζίαης κήη v κvoης, θαηαι ύφv ης παηρίoσς oρηάς).172 In discussing this issue, MacMullen indicates that behind the charge of not honouring the gods and of failing to sacrifice, was the belief that Dio was an atheist.173 Concerning atheism, MacMullen notes further: “It was probably a matter of public scandal but not actually a crime.”174
171 F.Young, “Greek Apologists of the Second Century”, M.Edwards, M.Goodman, S.Price, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999),
101.
172 Dio Chrysostom Discourse 43.11. MacMullen refers to a similar situation recorded by Dio, however the
reference is rather obscure. Discourse 75.5: “But so great is the power it possesses, that it is the law which assists even the gods. For example, the sacriligious and those who violate the reverence due to the gods it punishes. Moreover, the law itself no one has the power to injure. For everyone who transgresses the law harms, not the law, but himself.”
173 MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 176 note 2.
Luke‟s awareness of this problem is confirmed by his highlighting of it in his presentation of the Areopagus speech where he specifically refers to comments by the Athenian philosophers that Paul was advocating foreign gods (Ac.17:18: ξέvφv δαηκovίφv). Commentators generally view this as an allusion to the accusations of atheism against Socrates. Jackson and Lake comment as follows: “The similarity with the accusation against Socrates almost exactly 450 years before ...can scarcely have been overlooked by the author.”175 In a similar vein, Haenchen writes: “The ξέvα δαηκόvηα remind the educated reader of the accusation against Socrates.”176 Ferguson elaborates further on the significance of the charge: “Socrates seemed to be one of those ripping apart the fabric of public life, and among his pupils and friends were critics of the democracy. He was accused of not worshipping the gods but introducing a new daimn and of corrupting the youth (italics mine).”177 The probability that Luke was making a direct reference to the issue of atheism, by highlighting the case of Socrates, finds support in a similar comparison made by Justin, little more than half a century later. Young writes: “The charge of atheism which is the main issue that Justin addresses recalls the charge against Socrates, whom Justin is anxious to claim as a proto-Christian;”178
By this allusion to Socrates, Luke indicates his awareness of the serious repercussions that the charge of atheism could have. It is in this light that Luke‟s caution in making direct references to high officials like Festus, Agrippa, Felix and Gallio being atheists, needs to be appreciated. The atheism of high officials was probably more of an open secret which was referred to in the form of allusions rather than through direct indictments. The need for prudence in laying charges of atheism is discussed by Clarke in his observations concerning Minucius Felix‟s reference to the atheists Theodorus of Cyrene and Diagoras of Melos (Octavius 8.2). Clarke comments as follows: “It is worth noting that Caecilius does not lay any formal general charge against the Christians partly because, characteristically of the pragmatic Romans, there was no specific Roman statute against believing the gods to be nonexistent; hence Tert. Apol. 46.4ff., Orig. C.Cels. 8.38 can plead for treatment equal to that of the other philosophical `atheists.‟ There were only legal regulations against specific rites, acts of impiety, or sacrilege.”179 Not only are no formal charges of atheism laid, but there is also no direct refutation of it. Clarke elaborates further on this apparent deliberate avoidance of making direct allusions to atheism. “In his reply Octavius does not face directly this charge of `atheism,‟ partly because it had (deliberately? ) not been posed openly, but partly, too, because if it meant `not
175 Jackson, Lake, Beginnings, 4.212.
176 Haenchen, 518. O‟Neill indicates how relevant the issue of Socrates was to Luke and subsequent
apologists: “In fact, the argument that Paul could reveal to them the Unknown God contained an implicit claim that a greater than Socrates was here. As I pointed out in Chapter One, Luke was able to assume (like Justin Martyr, Appendix to the Apology 10.6) that Socrates had taught the Athenians to seek full knowledge of the God who was unknown to them. The Epicureans and Stoics, both of whom, especially the Stoics, revered Socrates, are confronted by a man who knows the secret that Socrates could not, or would not, divulge. It is ironic that these Epicureans and Stoic call Paul a ζπερκoι όγoς, in the same manner as Aristophanes in the Clouds had ridiculed Socratic philosophy, and that they wonder whether he has not been trying to introduce strange divinities, the charge upon which Socrates was condemned to death (Xenophon, Memorabilia, i.1; Plato,
Apology, 24B).” J.C. O'Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting, (London: S.P.C.K., 1970), 164
177 Ferguson, 259.
178 Young, 83. The reference to Socrates is found in: Justin Martyr Second Apology 10.
179 W.G.Clarke, The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix. in the series: Quasten, J., W.J.Burghardt,
T.C.Lawler. Ancient Christian Writers, The Works of the Fathers in Translation, (New York, Newman Press, 1974), 204 note 101.
worshipping the national gods‟ it was formally irrefutable.”180 It is in this domain of preferably making allusions to atheists rather than direct allegations, that useful insights are obtained.
Further clarity on the importance of using allusions is found in Neyrey‟s explanation that in Luke‟s world people described themselves and others in terms of stereotypes.181 He goes further and points out concerning Paul‟s speech in Athens:“Like other ancient writers, Luke portrays groups and parties in terms of stereotypes. Luke knows of and presents a stereotypical description of theodicy, a topos on it (Acts 17; 23; 24). Luke is not ignorant of the stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics and he has told the story in Acts 17:16-34 in such a way that these two parties react in contrasting fashion to Paul, both at the beginning of the speech and at its end. The stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics is based on contrasting assessments of theodicy.”182 The important aspect of these comments is not simply that Luke makes use of stereotypes, but specifically his reference to the Epicureans who were the stereotypes of atheism. In his commentary on Acts 17:18, Haenchen has already identified that in referring to the Epicureans Luke is thinking of their atheism. “θαί ηηvες: Luke will be thinking of the Epicureans with their materialism and practical atheism;”183 Young focusses specifically on the significance of the Epicureans as atheists and the consequent general dislike which accompanied it. Young writes: “Examples of other texts that provide evidence of this dislike include Cicero‟s Against Piso, where Piso‟s Epicurean associations provide a stick for mockery; Plutarch‟s two works against Epicureans preserved among the Moralia, The Impossibility of a
Pleasant Life on Epicurean Principles and Against Colotes; Lucian‟s satire Alexander the False Prophet, in which atheist, Epicureans and Christians are linked more than once, and `Epicurean‟
is taken to be a term of abuse (25, 38, 46-7); and Plotinus‟ Enneads, 2.9.15.”184
181 J.Neyrey, A Study in Stereotypes, 129. Neyrey gives the following examples of stereotypes: “`Cretans
are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons‟ (Titus 1:12), and `Jews have no dealings with Samaritans‟ (John 4:9). Towns also were stereotyped: `Can anything good come out of Nazareth?‟ (John 1:46).” Neyrey also deals with the Saducees and the Pharisees as stereotypes. Neyrey bases his statements on Malina‟s work: B.Malina, The
New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, (Atlanta: SCM Press, 1983), 53-59.
182 Neyrey, 133.
183 Haenchen, 517.
184 F.Young, “Greek Apologists of the Second Century”, M.Edwards, M.Goodman, S.Price, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999),
It is within this general climate of the Epicureans not only being recognized as atheists but even disliked because of it that Luke‟s reference to them needs to be considered. Neyrey identifies in the Epicureans of Acts 17, the group behind the mocking of Paul and the reference to him as a “babbler”( ζπερκoι όγoς). “Luke has conditioned the reader to expect the same pattern of `division‟ among the crowds on the Areopagus during the subsequent climactic episode at Athens. Some show favor to Paul (Stoics), whereas others mock him (Epicureans).”185 Neyrey further indicates that new hypotheses need to be applied to the Areopagus speech in order to refine and sharpen its understanding. An important hypothesis which he advocates is: “Epicureans were popularly known in terms of stereotypes, in particular their atheism, their denial of providence, and their rejection of theodicy. Luke understands the Epicureans in Acts 17 precisely in terms of a stereotype, namely their denial of theodicy.”186 Neyrey indicates further that Luke‟s portrayal of the reaction of the Epicureans was both predictable and desired by Luke.187 In support of his argument that Luke used the Epicureans as stereotypes for atheism, Neyrey refers to the similar technique used by Plutarch to show that true religion lies between superstition and atheism. “Plutarch also criticizes the atheism of the Epicureans as doing away not only with the harmful superstitions about divine wrath and punishment in the afterlife but also the confidence of divine approval in prosperity and recourse in adversity (`Dialog on Love‟ 1092A-C, 1101A-F).”188
The view that the Epicureans represented atheism does not rest solely on Neyrey‟s work. Although it is not clear whether Epicureanism actually grew or declined during the second century189 the fact that they were perceived as atheists appears uncontested. Sedley concludes his article on Epicureanism in the following way: “Its stances were dismissed by many as Philistine, especially its official rejection of all cultural and intellectual activities not geared to the Epicurean good life. It was also increasingly viewed as atheistic, and its ascetic hedonism misrepresented as crude sensualism (hence the modern use of `epicure‟).”190 Although Malherbe, in his article Self-Definition among Epicureans and Cynics does not analyse the reference to Epicureans in Acts 17, his comments not only confirm that they were perceived as atheists, but that despite some similarities between Christians and Epicureans, the attitude of Christians towards them was polemical. “Lucian of Samosata mentions Christians and Epicureans together as opponents of Alexander the false prophet (Alex. 25.38). It is not difficult to see why their critics could make the association. Both groups were charged with atheism, misanthropy, social irresponsibility, and sexual immorality.”191 Malherbe‟s comments are an
185 Ibid., 128.
186 Ibid., 121.
187 Ibid.
188 Ibid., 141f.
189 Chilton quotes the work of De Witt who has indicated that Epicurean communities grew during the first
century and continued with increased vigour during the second century. C.W.Chilton, trans. Diogenes of
Oenoanda, (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), xxiv. However this evidence appears to be contested by
Drachman who finds that “an essentially anti-religious school like that of the Epicureans actually dies out at this time.” R.MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 176 note 1. 190 D.Sedley, s.v., Epicureanism, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 349.
191 A.J.Malherbe, “Self-Definition among Epicureans and Cynics”, F.Meyer, E.Sanders, eds. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 47. On the polemical attitude of Christians
towards Epicureans, Malherbe supplies the following additional references: W.Schmid, `Epikur‟, RAC V, 1962, cols. 780-803; H.Steckel, `Epikuros‟, PW, Suppl. XI, 1968, cols. 647f.; R.Jungkuntz, Epicureanism and the
indication that Luke‟s reference to the Epicureans could well contain a polemical slant and that Luke refers to them in a negative light so as to prevent any confusion between Christians and Epicureans.
Therefore in addition to the allusion to Socrates, Luke‟s direct reference to the Epicureans, who were publicly know as atheists, is strong indication that the characteristic of atheism is intentionally introduced in the text. Other indications that this was a pertinent issue for Luke comes from MacMullen who indicates that Christians could even be mistaken as an atheistic Epicurean sect: “It is convenient to look first at the group just mentioned, Epicureans, who represented the furthest extreme of disbelief. But aside from their name‟s being attached in obloquy to anyone who doubted a local oracle - `Atheist or Christian or Epicurean‟ - they hardly appear in the sources of our period. It is rather their company that calls for comment: they are close to Christians, and that, in mid-second century Pontus, was not good. They are close to atheists, and that was a great deal worse.”192 There is therefore good reason for Luke to introduce the topic of atheism and to show that Christians are not to be associated with them. However, rather than making direct and negative references to people in high places, Luke makes allusions which could be well understood by the reader of the first century.
Church Fathers, PhD Diss, University of Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1961 and “Fathers, Heretics and
Epicureans”, JEH 17, 1966, 3-10. 192 MacMullen, 62.
On the use of allusions by Luke, Neyrey assesses that the stereotypical perception of characters in Acts is so important that he pursues his application of stereotypes further. He argues that Stoics / Epicureans are not the only stereotypes, but sees a similar process in Luke‟s presentation of the Pharisees / Sadducees in Acts 23.193 The intriguing aspect in the application of these stereotypes to Luke‟s work, is the identification of a similar process in Hellenistic Judaism. Concerning Josephus‟ work, Neyrey adds: “Josephus provides a remarkable description of the Sadducees and the Pharisees that likens them to Epicureans and Stoics, respectively, and this precisely in terms of their stereotypical stand on theodicy.”194 Neyrey therefore sees a parallel presentation between Acts 17 (Epicureans/Stoics) and Acts 23 (Sadducees/Pharisees). Neyrey concludes: “Josephus is Luke‟s contemporary. He is proof positive of the stereotypical presentation of Pharisees = Stoics and Sadducees = Epicureans, and he groups both precisely in terms of the stereotype of theodicy. This is the type of understanding that Luke can assume, even if the reader did not follow the parallels between Acts 17 and 23.”195
This examination therefore exposes a reference to atheists which is implicit in the Lukan text; represented by the Epicurean philosophers who mock Paul (Ac.17), and in the opposition of the Sadducees, who reject the resurrection (Ac.23). As Luke makes implicit references to atheists in the “trial” setting of both the Areopagus speech as well as in his appearance before the Sanhedrin, the identification of atheistic allusions in the final great “trial”, therefore extends to Acts 26 a concept which is already present in Acts 17 and 23. Just as an explicit reference to superstition in the trial before Festus (Ac.25:19), is preceded by an explicit reference to superstition before the Areopagus speech (Ac.17:22); so the implicit allusion to atheism in Acts 26 is preceded by a comparable allusion in Acts 17. These two accounts therefore share the literary tension and interest created by the presentation of Christianity in a context where the extremes of superstition and the deficiencies of atheism need to be reckoned with.
193 Neyrey, Study in Stereotypes, 130.
194 Ibid. The passage is from Josephus Vita 12.
Luke‟s reference to the Epicurens in a polemical way is echoed in the writings of a later Christian apologist. In order to denigrate Celsus, Origen compares him to an Epicurean on a number of occasions. Origen writes: “The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: `Moses having learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity‟.”196 In another passage Origen again associates Celsus with Epicureanism in a negative way: “And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it can be shown that he is an Epicurean.”197 Origen also reproaches Celsus of not being open about his Epicurean tendencies: “For from other treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, ...”198 Of particular interest is De Labriolle‟s explanation that it was Celsus‟ sarcasm, mockery and verbal outbursts towards Christians, together with his harbouring of devious motives and accusing Christians of addressing women on street corners, which led Origen to write of him as a closet Epicurean. De Labriolle explains Origen‟s reaction thus: “Mais ce qui l‟irrite surtout, c‟est le ton sarcastique de Celse, ses persiflages, ses violences de langage. Il le traite de vil bouffon199, il le déclare indigne du nom de philosophe200 pour ses mensonges calculés201, pour ses injures de femmes du peuple s‟invectivant dans les carrefours.202 Il voudrait bien faire croire que Celse est un épicurien camouflé, un épicurien qui n‟avoue pas, qui déguise ses principes, mais se trahit par échappées.”203 De Labriolle also notes that the Epicureans were well known for their indifference towards public matters.204 Origen‟s technique of stereotyping Celsus in a negative way by referring to him as an Epicurean who is sarcastic, indifferent and devious is recognisable in Luke‟s depiction of Festus‟ verbal outburst containing sardonic mockery(Ac.26:24); of doing things in a corner(Ac.26:26); of harbouring devious plans(Ac.25:9) and of a general indifference.
The representative value that Luke attaches to people and to groups has already been referred to in the introductory remarks of this chapter where Luke represents Festus as introducing Paul to Agrippa and all the people present with them (Ac.25:24; πάvηες o ζσκπαρόvηες) and explaining that Paul stands accused by all the multitude of the Jews (περ o παv η πιζoς ηv Ioσδαίφv vέηστόv κoη).205
196 Origen Contra Celsum 1.21.
197 Ibid., 3.49.
198 Origen Contra Celsum 1.8. Other references to Epicureanism made by Origen can be found in 1.21;
1.43; 2.13; 3.75; 4.14. 199 Ibid., 3.22; 4.30; 6.10, 74. 200 Ibid., 4.41. 201 Ibid., 7.11. 202 Ibid., 3.52. 203 De Labriolle, 135.
204 Ibid., 136: “Au surplus, le souci que manifestait Celse au sujet des lois de l‟État, des destinées de
l‟Empire, ses exhortations patriotiques à l‟adresse des chrétiens, tout cela formait contraste avec l‟indifférence