Juhana Torkki The Dramatic Account of Paul's Encounter with Philosophy An Analysis of Acts 17:16-34 with Regard to Contemporary Philosophical Debates Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Helsinki in the auditorium of Arppeanum (Helsinki University Museum), Snellmaninkatu 3, on the 17th of December, 2004, at 14.15 The Scripture quotations contained herein, unless otherwise noted, are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2004 Juhana Torkki Cover: Stiven Naatus ISBN 952-91-7747-X Printed in Finland by Helsinki University Printing House Helsinki 2004 The Dramatic Account of Paul's Encounter with Philosophy Kirja on niin kuin rakennus, tai niin kuin puu. Kun sitä luetaan, se elää: siihen kasvaa lehtiä ja kukkia. Tai niin kuin rakennus, kun siinä asutaan – kun sitä luetaan, tulee aamu ja aurinko paistaa, ulkona tuulee, sisällä kasvavat kukat. – Antti Hyry To my Mother and my Father Preface Work for this thesis was carried out at the Department of Biblical studies, Helsinki. I would like to express my gratitude to the Department for providing me with a workroom, facilities and a friendly atmosphere. I warmly thank the personnel at the Library of Theological Faculty, whose service was always excellent. During the study I enjoyed collegial support from fellow scholars working at the Department. I received all the help I needed from my supervisor, Professor Lars Aejmelaeus. Lars respected my independence at every turn of my work, and he knew how to be supportive and demanding at the same time. Many thanks are due to him. I owe my sincere gratitude to Professor Heikki Räisänen, the leader of the Centre of Excellence, who always showed a lively interest in my work. Even short moments of consultation with him were filled with personal warmth and encouragement. I am especially indebted to Dr. Petri Merenlahti, who critically read through some parts of my text and helped me to see the pitfalls in bringing Bible texts into the field of literary studies. Petri's contribution was really decisive at certain stages; he helped me to see the right priorities. I warmly thank Professor Emeritus Teivas Oksala, who also familiarized himself with my work, commenting on the use of classical authors' texts in it. His mature and spirited comments were of great value. My special thanks go to Docent Matti Myllykoski and Docent Erkki Koskenniemi, the official reviewers of this thesis, for their guidance, constructive criticism and valuable comments. They made it possible for me to carry out the necessary amendments before the final examination of my thesis. I am grateful to Dr. Heikki Leppä, whose office is located along the same corridor as mine. Perhaps I troubled him too much with all kinds of practical problems. However, he never denied his help but generously gave his time to a younger colleague. I was fortunate to share my office with Antti Mustakallio, a post-graduate student of the Bible. I am envious of Antti's diligence, as well as his astuteness as an exegete. We had nice moments together, and I feel that a true friendship emerged between us. Thank you Antti! During my studies, I also spent some periods of time in Rome, Italy. There I had the opportunity to live in the Finnish Institute of Villa lante on Gianicolo hill. This breathtakingly beautiful villa provided me with excellent facilities, and I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Simo Örmä, the Intendant of the Institute, and to Ms. Hilkka Hämäläinen, for their friendly attitude toward my work and me. I also lived in the Benedictine colleague of San Anselmo for some parts of my stay in Rome. My special thanks go to Professor Stefano Visintin, whose behavior towards me was an example of true Italian hospitality. Stefano helped me in both practical and academic matters in Rome. I also thank Fabrizio Bigotti, a student of philosophy, who brightened my days in Rome with his cheerful company. His knowledge of classical philosophical authors is impressive despite his young age. Fabrizio also introduced me to a number of interesting people in Rome. Among other things, these contacts led to a visit at the home of the 91-year-old historian Giovanni Pugliese-Carratelli, member of the Lincei Academy. During the unforgettable moment I spent in the Academician's home, I had the opportunity to present my research to Signore Carratelli, who patiently listened to my poor Italian and gave me many encouraging and fruitful suggestions. Finally, I am deeply grateful to my relatives and friends for supporting me during the process of writing this thesis. In particular I want to express my gratitude to my brother Sakari, with whom I have a habit of carrying out endless philosophical and theological discussions. These discussions have opened many new insights to me, and without them the dissertation would certainly be worse than it is. This dissertation was made with economical support from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, from the Research unit on the Formation of Early Jewish and Christian Ideology and from the Finnish Graduate School of Theology. The English language of this thesis was edited by Keith Hakso, BA, to whom I am extremely thankful. Helsinki, November 2004, Juhana Torkki Contents 1. The problem.................................................................................................................13 1.1. The episodic style of Acts......................................................................................13 1.2. The Athens episode (Acts 17:16-34) in research history .....................................18 1.2.1. Tradition-historical phase..............................................................................18 1.2.2. Redaction-critical discussion..........................................................................20 1.3. Thesis outline........................................................................................................27 2. The composition and contents of Acts 17:16-34 in the context of contemporary philosophical debates.......................................................................................................29 2.1. The narrative context of Paul's speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-22a).......29 2.2. The contents of Paul's argumentation on the Areopagus (Acts 17:24-31)..........35 2.3. Paul's speech in relation to contemporary philosophical debates on gods..........51 2.3.1. The stereotypical presentation of the philosophical schools.........................51 2.3.2. The theme of the nature of God.....................................................................56 2.3.2.1. The background of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy...............................56 a) Marcus Tullius Cicero: De Natura Deorum ..................................................56 b) Plutarch: Moralia ...........................................................................................69 c) Josephus' works..............................................................................................78 d) Conclusion.......................................................................................................82 2.3.2.2. The proclamation of God in Paul's speech...............................................84 2.3.3. The theme of the worship of God...................................................................94 2.3.3.1. The philosophical background..................................................................94 a) Cicero: De Natura Deorum.............................................................................94 b) Plutarch: Moralia .........................................................................................101 2.3.3.2. Paul's dealing with the theme of worship in the speech.......................107 2.3.3.3. Political background for the argument..................................................113 2.4. The rhetorical disposition of Paul's speech........................................................119 2.5. The characterization of Paul and the philosophers in the Athens episode ......127 2.5.1. The characterization of Paul........................................................................127 2.5.1.1. The framing narrative............................................................................127 2.5.1.2. The speech...............................................................................................130 2.5.1.3. Socrates, the Stoics and the Epicureans................................................134 2.5.2. The characterization of the Athenian philosophers....................................137 2.6. Conclusions..........................................................................................................140