An Ephesian interlude (8): a reflection for Day 16 of Lent
“Paul entered
the synagogue and for three months spoke out boldly and argued
persuasively about the kingdom of God. When some stubbornly refused to
believe and spoke evil of the Way before the congregation, he left them, taking
the disciples with him, and argued daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.”
(Acts 19.8-9,
NRSVUE)
As we have
seen, Luke presents Paul as a philosopher, “arguing” (dialegomai) with
Jews, Stoics, Epicureans…indeed, with all comers (cf. Ac. 17.17-18; 18.4;
19.8-9; 24.25). The verb dialegomai
is a commonplace in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature, where it is
mostly used for “converse” or “discussion”.
In Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, there is developed the art of
persuasion and demonstration either in the form of question and answer
(Socrates), the establishment of the idea by pure thought (Plato), or the
investigation of the ultimate foundations of demonstration and knowledge (Aristotle). Because dialegesthai is the only way
in which Greek philosophy can reach the logos, or “idea”, it is of
central importance. In Epictetus (2nd
century AD), dialegomai is customarily used for philosophical dialogue,
debate or disputation and the results thereby achieved.[1] In his commentary on the Greek text of Acts,
F.F. Bruce refers to Paul’s “Christian dialectic”, and imagines Paul’s hearers in
the hall of Tyrannus as being “infected with his keenness and energy”.[2]
I find the
idea of Paul holding daily public “lectures” (undoubtedly complete with Q&A
sessions) for a two-year period in the capital of the province of Asia to be absolutely
fascinating! Indeed, Luke informs us in
one of his typical summary comments that these 2 years of “campus activity”
were very fruitful (cf. Ac. 19.10). Apparently,
this activity in the “school” of Tyrannus was not limited to the transmission
of ideas and debates about their veracity, but also served as a “training
program” for newly-converted evangelists who went out into the hinterland of
Asia to share what they had become convinced of through Paul’s teaching.
Another
element that may shed light on the nature of Paul’s activity in the hall of
Tyrannus is the fact that he wrote his first letter “to the Corinthians” during
the years he spent in Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 15.32; 16.8). The theme of “wisdom” is prominent at the
beginning of this letter (cf. 1 Cor. 1.18-31; 2.1 – 3.23). Paul, though he may have taken the stance of
a philosopher, makes no bones about the fact that God’s wisdom is not merely
a “more nuanced” version of the “wisdom of this world” (cf. 1 Cor. 1.25; 3.19-20). Indeed, Paul goes so far as to say that in God’s
wisdom, the world could not know him through wisdom! (1 Cor. 1.21). And yet, there is a “wisdom” that Paul
teaches “among the mature” (1 Cor. 2.6-8).
It seems that Paul retained the “form” of a “lover of wisdom” (i.e.
philosopher), all the while radically altering the “content” of what passed for
“wisdom” among his Greco-Roman audience.
Indeed,
the irreducible content of Paul’s message demanded that his audience undergo
what Richard B. Hays called “a conversion of the imagination”.[3] As Paul himself points out, the message of a
crucified Lord is an oxymoron, “foolishness” (Gr: moria, moros, moron)
to Greeks and a scandal to Jews (1 Cor. 1.18ff). In God’s strange providence, Paul’s gospel
did indeed accomplish its mission of converting imaginations and lives (cf. 1
Cor. 1.21; 2.1-5). Paul’s gospel was not
only logically absurd, it was also politically subversive. Jesus’ crucifixion had not been a lynching,
after all; rather, it had been sanctioned by the Roman imperial justice system.[4] As the vanquished members of Spartacus’ slave
revolt (71 B.C.) discovered, crucifixion was the Roman way of keeping
(as-yet-cooperative) slaves in their place.[5] The message was clear: victims of crucifixion
had simply gotten what they deserved for having had the hubris to rebel against
the divinely sanctioned order[6] that
gave Roman masters the power of life and death over those whose lives were
their property, to be exploited at will.
For Paul to grant the title of “Lord” (a title claimed by the emperors)
to a crucified criminal was, to put it mildly, an outrage. It was to discredit the very system of
“justice” that sustained the empire. Yes,
Paul’s gospel was “absurd”, subversive and…liberating. If Jesus, who had been crucified by the
empire, had been raised from death and now offered the life of the Age to Come
to those who followed him, then one could inhabit an alternative kingdom, one
could live a life whose terms would be dictated, not by the imperial machine,
but rather by the reign of the crucified-and-risen One. This was a way for imperial victims to achieve
victory; a means for them, to borrow the language of Revelation, to “overcome”
(cf. Rev. 2.7, etc.). Through Paul’s
activity in Ephesus, the foolish “wisdom” of God had spread throughout all of “Asia”.
[1] Cf. G. Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Volume 2, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [1935], pp. 93-95. Though TDNT insists that in the book
of Acts, dialegomai never connotes “disputation” but rather the “delivering
of religious sermons”, the context of e.g. Ac. 19.8-9 seems to describe a
prolonged period of “argumentation” and “controversy” in the Ephesian
synagogues (in this case, 3 months to be precise). Most modern English translations of Acts render
dialegomai as “arguing” or “disputing” or “reasoning” in Ac. 19.8 and as
“having discussions” in Ac. 19.9 (in the lecture hall of Tyrannus). Cf.
NIV, NASB, J.B. Philipps Bible, NRSV, Amplified Bible, etc. The burden of proof seems to
lie on those who would insist that Paul’s strategy of public discourse was strictly
that of endless monologues (in all fairness, cf. Ac. 20.7-12)! After all, Luke tells us that Paul “held discussions”
in the lecture hall of Tyrannus for 2 years! (Ac. 19.10). The venue where these dialegomai took
place would seem to suggest, at the very least, that the audience was afforded
the opportunity to “dialogue” with Paul…
[2] F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1951, p. 356.
[4] Cf. John Dominic Crossan, “Roman Imperial Theology” in
Horsley, Richard A., ed. In the Shadow of Empire, Louisville: WJK, 2008,
p. 73.
[5] Following their defeat by Crassus, thousands of
slaves were crucified along the Appian Way leading to Rome. Imperial propaganda at its finest!
[6] I.e. by the gods of Rome.
Comments
Post a Comment