Babbling about Resurrection | Disruptive Presence 90

David Harvey: 0:05

Hi and welcome to the Two Texts podcast. I'm here with my co-host, john Andrews, and my name is David Harvey. This is a podcast of two friends from two different countries meeting every two weeks to talk about the Bible. Each week we pick one text to talk about, which invariably leads us to talking about two texts and often many more.

David Harvey: 0:28

This season we're taking a long, slow journey through the book of Acts to explore how the first Christians encountered the disruptive presence of the Holy Spirit. Well, john, we ended our last episode thinking about how Luke frames the Acts 17 conversation around Athens by trying to encourage us not to fall into idolatry in the same way that the Athenians had, by not being enamored by the sort of Greek philosophical culture but, like Paul, advises us holding firm to the resurrection as a move of faith, not rationalism. And that sort of sets us up to jump straight into this episode. Because Paul's here, he's in Athens, he's distressed by idols, he's arguing and reasoning with the sort of Jewish God-fearing community and he's now got into debate with some of the Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers and they offer this statement.

David Harvey: 1:33

Let's jump straight into this. They offer this statement. They say what does this babbler want to say, and others said he seems to be proclaiming foreign divinities. This is because he was telling the good news about Jesus and resurrection. What does this babbler want to say? Perhaps something people have said about our podcast from time to time?

John Andrews: 2:01

Well, again, if our babblings are put on the same, even in the same breath as Paul's bab babblings, well, I do. You know what in the last episode you you talked about you have an image of the two in the road to mess and the tradition at one could have been dr luke and you think of me around there and I'm going. Well, I'll take that. But for if our babblings are going to be anywhere close to Paul's, I would be, yes, I'll take that too.

John Andrews: 2:27

Yeah, that's a significant rise in my status. I'll take that. That's brilliant, absolutely. But of course I mean it sounds a bit humorous, but it's a pretty stinging insult, isn't it? It is, isn't it? I mean it is when, when you sort of look at the word behind the babbling translation, which it's like so, so it's this, this sort of sperma logos, this idea of the sort of seed and the gathering or the, or the collecting of the seed, and it's, it's a, it's almost like Paul is. It's almost like Paul is scattered ideas, he's not coherent, it's like he's picking seed up and throwing them around, sort of idea in terms of the nuance of that word. So it's for someone like Paul to be I mean, paul is like incredibly intelligent man, an intellectual heavyweight, incredibly intelligent man, an intellectual heavyweight. And for them to be so disparaging of him, it either means that they've heard what he says and they don't like it, or they've misheard what he said and they're really quite scathing of him. But it's a strong insult, isn't it, david? Have I read that right?

David Harvey: 3:40

it's a pretty strong insult. It really really is. It's quite interesting. Not that this podcast is supposed to be about just random facts. I stumbled over the etymology of the word garbled the other day there.

John Andrews: 3:55

That's what I love about you, David. That's the sort of stuff you stumble over.

David Harvey: 4:01

So the word garbled like if I said it was garbled, you would just say, oh, it's chaotic nonsense, right? Like if it was garbled, it wouldn't be able to make sense of it. The word garbled originates from. This is going somewhere. By the way, John A garbler was somebody who picked impurities or out of spices. So when you were sorting through spices you would pull out the impurities. So when you were sorting through spices you would pull out the impurities. And then what started to happen in certain traditions was people who worked with words would pick bits out of a philosophical idea or out of a message, even right, and only pass on a bit of the message they wanted to pass on by picking out bits and pieces. And that message was said to have been garbled, right. So it still made sense to the hearer. It just no longer made the sense that it originally was supposed to make, which I found really fascinating for multiple reasons. But actually this word spermalogos I almost wonder if what does this garbler want to say might not be a bad translation. Because let me just read from a dictionary, from a second right, Spermalogos is a term based on the practice of birds picking up seeds.

David Harvey: 5:13

Right, it's someone who acquires bits and pieces of relatively extraneous information and then proceeds to pass them on with pretense and show so. One translation would be ignorant, show-off or charlatan. But these guys, this they. They offer this as a, as a thing. It may be best in some languages to render it as one who learns lots of trivial things and wants to tell everyone about his knowledge. It definitely has an implication of pseudo-intellectual to it. So forgive the etymology for a second listeners, but I think it speaks to your point, John, of it being. It's an insult. You're just gathering stuff together and trying to pass off as a philosopher here.

John Andrews: 5:58

Yeah, yeah, and do you think that? Because it is such a scathing insult and certainly what we've seen of Paul Saul? Paul, up to this point, you wouldn't be levelling that at this man, even if you're an opponent. He's a heavyweight intellectual, smart, speaks numbers of languages and an expert in Tanakh, so this is a serious person. Do you think it's because they're either not liking what he's saying or they themselves are hearing his message in some sort of confused or garbled way? Because it is a very, very particular and scathing insult? So if the nuance behind the word is the bird picking seed and it's Paul almost cherry picking ideas and randomly throwing them at him, is there something they're hearing that's creating that impression? Or is it just they're dismissing the idea of the resurrection and the Jesus conversation?

David Harvey: 7:06

I was wondering about how you've got a Jewish man speaking Greek, talking about what at some level sounds like a Jewish belief, but he's trying to present it amongst the Gentiles, Like if you, if we were to be fair to Paul's opponents.

David Harvey: 7:34

For a second, Paul is not being overly well received in certain Jewish communities because of the Gentile inclusion of his message. So is it possible? If you were to really pay attention to Paul, you might say I don't actually get entirely what it is that you're presenting here, Because bits of it sound Jewish, bits of it sound very un-Jewish in terms of the Gentiles. Come in as Gentiles, Like if Paul is bringing the gospel, as we've seen it agreed at the Jerusalem Council just a few chapters ago. We've seen it agreed at the Jerusalem Council just a few chapters ago. If you were well informed in religions you might be sharp enough to go. This sounds a bit Jewish, but it also doesn't sound a bit Jewish and you're here in Athens telling us about it. There's definitely a bit of that. And then I've pondered around this phrase. He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities in the plural. And then we're offered this comment because he was telling them the gospel about Jesus and resurrection and I've often wondered about that and I don't know if this is the answer to that question, but in John Chrysostom, one of the early church saints and writers, he points out that to the athenian ears for paul to come and talk about jesus and resurrection, so jesus and anastasis in greek chrysostom reckons that the athenians will have heard paul refer to two gods there, the god jesus and the god resurrection. And because anastasis would be, would sound like a female name, and so they think oh, this guy's turning up with two gods. So if you hold that in mind, it sounds a bit Jewish, but it's including Gentiles. Your God seems to be this Jesus and this female God, Anastasis.

David Harvey: 9:19

I can suppose, if I was to try and be fair, they're not sure entirely what they're hearing here Now. Is Chrysostom right? Well, he's a lot closer to Acts than we are. He's also working in his first language, which is Greek. So he's closer to that than we are and the text does hold it. If you look at the Greek text you can see yeah, they are presented. It's a gospel of Jesus and resurrection and Luke clearly thinks that his explanation explains why people are confused about what Paul's saying. I don't know what you think of that.

John Andrews: 9:57

That's brilliant. I mean, I've never heard that before. It's certainly my blink reaction is oh, that makes looking at the text that makes real sense. Because what's often sort of confused me is it's such a scathing, specific type of insult and even the way you sort of talked about it you could almost bring it into that garbler sort of world and that doesn't sound like Paul at all.

John Andrews: 10:26

Paul's clear. Paul's very concise, he's very ordered, very structured, he develops his arguments well, and yet they're almost accusing him of a sort of a scattered, quite erratic type of pick and choose type approach which doesn't sound like Paul atope, whereas if they're hearing two gods then that does sort of play a little bit. And of course, when you think about the Epicureans, who were probably not desperately motivated by spirituality as we would understand it, but a more materialistic, a more maybe even humanistic approach to their world, sort of adding into that this sort of idea of resurrection in the context of a God or in the context of his God, that might explain why they are so scathing of what seems to be to us a pretty simple message Jesus and the resurrection which hasn't caused that sort of reaction before. In that way it's split the room before in terms of opinion but not engendered such dismissive and insulting level of criticism to Paul himself.

David Harvey: 11:47

It's a great explanation, never heard before, certainly worth digging into and I think it's interesting that it's epicureans and the stoics who would both I mean stereotypically, one group, epicureans definitely more bodily focused, one group definitely more mind focused, and of course resurrection wants to draw the holistic human as spirit and body back together again. So so there's there's tensions that they've got going on, going on there. But I mean I think they're definitely insulting him, but at the same time and I mean we know there's a Jewish community in Athens. So they've heard the Jewish story, they know the Jewish story. It makes sense to them.

John Andrews: 12:36

But what's interesting, of course, is as they invite him to speak more about this. I think their comments are interesting. They say, as you move towards verse 19,. May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting so clearly, if they are aware of a Jewish worldview, what they're definitely not aware is this new idea Now, is the resurrection a new idea that they've heard, or this resurrection centered around this person? And it's interesting that it says you are bringing some strange ideas to our ears and we would like to know what they mean.

John Andrews: 13:22

So, whatever the confusion is being created, at least what's encouraging is they're not completely dismissive of Paul. They don't just go oh this guy's crazy, let's just get him out of here. But there's clearly something they're hearing that they're going. Okay, then explain this to us. And also, if it's a context where they like nothing but talking and listening about the latest ideas, then Paul's ideas, which may seem like babbling ideas, are still worth entertaining.

John Andrews: 13:52

So in a weird way, the openness of the culture to new ideas creates an opportunity for Paul, even though originally, or at least initially, his new ideas are received with some measure of skepticism and pushback. But the culture itself, in entertaining new ideas, gives Paul the opportunity and I love it's almost a sort of a postmodern world before the postmodern world. It's that sense of oh well, every view, every sort of is is open for consideration and and paul gets to take advantage of that because of the context he's in yeah, and I mean I may be over egging this, john, but I, once you go down a path, sometimes you can't help but stay on the path, right I?

David Harvey: 14:45

I think luke's language is fascinating in all of this. So you talked about this question. We need to know about these ideas, we're interested in these ideas, but if we just back up ever so slightly, holding that in mind, notice this so what is this babbler, this seed thrower, trying to say? So what is this babbler, this seed thrower, trying to say? Others remarked he seems it appears as though he is advocating foreign gods. Right, he's the proclaimer of foreign gods.

David Harvey: 15:20

The Greek that Luke uses there is fascinating Xenon, where we get terms like xenophobia. So we know that term means foreign, but then it's daimonion. Now this is really curious. It's the only time the word daimonion is used in all of Acts, but Luke uses it extensively in his gospel and it's always in reference to demons. So, like even, I would say, even our casual listener who's not dived into the greek text of the new testament, you hear the word daimonion, that's probably you're able to guess where that word comes from.

David Harvey: 15:57

So, and I actually I don't entirely know what to make of this. I have a lot of pondering thoughts about it, because this is what they are saying, right. So he seems to be advocating for in some translations translate it divinities, yeah, but it interests me that in the gospels it's always translated as demons. Um, is luke telling us that they are so disconnected from the god revealed to us in jesus that they can't even properly identify?

David Harvey: 16:28

What's going on here with Paul? Is their world of idolatry so muddled up that they even is Luke telling us, they're even proclaiming demons as gods? I don't know, but I mean it sounds very authentic to me. It sounds like the sort of thing that someone in Athens would say right, but is this part of Luke's critique that man, look how lost this philosophical way of thinking is that they can't even recognize gods as gods you know what I mean? Or God as the God might be a sort of piece there. So, holding that thought in mind, then notice that what they ask for from Paul is what is this new teaching that you bring?

John Andrews: 17:11

Yes.

David Harvey: 17:12

Which, again, they go after the philosophy. But what Paul has said is he was proclaiming Jesus and resurrection. So Paul has not come presenting a teaching, he's come presenting a person who is raised from the dead. So I think I mean it's no surprise after 88 episodes of this season that we think Luke's very clever. But I think there's some really clever subtleties in here that they're referring to God by really uncomfortable names. Right, he seems to be proclaiming foreign demons, jesus is, and then they're also trying to minimize the gospel into an idea, just another form of teaching. I mean, am I pushing too far, john? Or I mean it's interesting, isn't it?

John Andrews: 18:02

It's very interesting. I mean, I'd never seen that before. So in terms of that sort of connectedness there in terms of deities and demons, I'd never seen that before. So in terms of that sort of connectedness there in terms of deities and demons, I'd never seen that before. So that's a really I will go on sort of hunt that down and have a wee look at that as well.

David Harvey: 18:17

It's a little uncomfortable, isn't?

John Andrews: 18:18

it.

John Andrews: 18:28

It shows the complete lostness of this world.

John Andrews: 18:30

This is a world that sort of thinks it understands certain things and yet doesn't or tries to understand but is putting certain things in really the wrong categories. But again you have this incredible clash of worldview in understanding and I love the way you put it there in terms of the simplicity and the succinctness of Paul's message. He's there, ultimately, firstly and foremostly, presenting a person, presenting the idea that this person Jesus and we assume when it says he proclaimed Jesus we're assuming the whole package that we've looked at before in the context of the book of Acts. So it's not just he's proclaiming the name of Jesus but the whole story that goes with Jesus. So he's presenting a person and also what this person has accomplished, and in this context the emphasis is on resurrection.

John Andrews: 19:27

So so I really really interest that I'd never quite seen it like that before and certainly again is this look showing us the utter confusion, emptiness. When you scratch onto the surface of what seems like apparent sophistication and human genius in the culture of a place like athens, a cultural epicenter for the known world, at that time luke is sort of saying actually, this is not, this is not as amazing and brilliant as it's cranked up to be, because look at the confusion that is that is resident and look at the the, ultimately, the emptiness of their own philosophy in contending with things that are fundamentally and deeply spiritual. So yeah, it could be absolutely genius from Luke in unpicking again at the apparent philosophical genius of Athens.

David Harvey: 20:25

This word strange, it's always the same word in the Greek, it's the Xenos. It appears a couple of Athens. This word strange, it's always the same word in the Greek, it's xenos. It appears a couple of times. These ideas, foreign, unfamiliar, stranger, that's what this word could all translate, as your words are foreign, right, but even that's interesting because notice in verse 21, luke says now all the Athenians and the foreigners, the strangers. So there's a gathering of Athenians and strangers, but they're still saying to Paul you're talking about strange demons, you've got strange ideas.

David Harvey: 21:01

I think Luke is. I mean our last episode. We talked about idolatry and how idolatry is putting other things in the place of God. But of course, implicit to that is that idolatry is also not putting God in his right place. So you've got this notion of you're here talking about Jesus, but this sounds strange to us, like this is one of the idolatries that's probably disturbing Paul when presented with Jesus, we don't recognise him, and this is quite and of course, we mustn't forget I mean, in many ways, the most simple understanding of this is that this is the first time, potentially, this great city hears the name Jesus and is introduced to the person of Jesus.

John Andrews: 21:54

So I think because we've been journeying through the book of Acts, we've got so used to sort of the message, how it's proclaimed, the way it's proclaimed, the context in which it's proclaimed Apart from this little reference to Paul and the Jewish community, this feels really raw. This feels absolutely Now. I mean, paul has been in raw context before and virgin territory before. This, however, feels and again forgive me for repeating myself with Paul being alone as well. I think it adds to the sense of this is virgin territory.

John Andrews: 22:34

This feels like he's out there on his own and of course, they're hearing the name of Jesus in the way that Paul is proclaiming Jesus for the very first time and a message that actually, ultimately, there is one God and that God has come to us in Christ Jesus and he's come to save the world. And not only did he die which again is an amazing idea but he rose from the dead, but actually he's not represented in any of these images or idols. So when you put it into the rawness of the context. You can understand them sort of looking at Paul and scratching their heads and trying to make sense of it in the context of the world and language and ideas that they are currently grappling with as as broken as they may be yeah, it's, my goodness, yeah it's.

David Harvey: 23:34

It's quite fascinating, isn't it? And that, that sense of that response, that it sounds strange. We want to know more. Luke's point, I think, is hinting towards. They're just looking for something else to add to their frame of thinking.

David Harvey: 23:54

And this is where I think Luke is a masterful storyteller, because we know Paul well enough to know Paul is not going to. He's going to accept the invitation. We know Paul will accept the invitation, but he's not going to react well to the notion that Jesus just become another new idea. So even if you've never read Acts 17, if you've been tracking the first 17 chapters of Acts, you'll kind of go oh, this will be an interesting speech, because how is Paul going to make the point for the singularity of Jesus, like that's really Paul's challenge here, isn't it that I am not just advocating another strange God?

David Harvey: 24:38

And this is where Paul, the Jewish man, becomes so dominant and significant in this story. What is it? I think philo says that the jewish people confess the shema, that there is only one god. And let I think, if I think it's philosis, and let the idea that there are other gods never even reach our ears. It's uh like so, and one of the things we do see from paul is he is a staunch believer in that monotheistic shema that God is one right. So you can feel the clash of this narrative coming, can't you? You?

John Andrews: 25:15

can absolutely, and again thinking about how Paul I mean, we're given no insight by Dr Luke here on how Paul must have felt, but again, we know Paul's a fairly secure individual.

John Andrews: 25:33

He's a man that has already been in a number of scraps and fights in his life on the line, but he's about to stand up in the midst of Mars Hill, he's about to stand up in front of at least on the surface of it the intelligentsia of Athens and make his case.

John Andrews: 26:13

So again, that sense of courage that Paul has and boldness that he has. However, we end up reflecting on what he's actually saying in the context of this moment. The fact that he's got to this moment means he's communicating and the way he's managing and handling himself that actually enables him, allows him to stand in this bare pit of a debating hall and make his case to these incredibly powerful people. And if you just imagine today if you or I or any of our listeners were invited to the great debating halls of our world, oxford University, to make a case amongst that gathered crowd there, I mean that would be pretty intimidating for anybody. And we do tend to forget that Paul is managing all of this as he's about to open his mouth and say what he needs to say.

David Harvey: 27:16

It's wonderful, isn't it? What a stunning. And you were talking earlier about the Areopagus as well, about the significance. You drew some connections and let's not lose that about the nature of what this place is even named after. Did you want to sort of?

John Andrews: 27:32

yeah, well, it's it. I, I think my understanding is that it relates to the sort of the god of war, so aries. So, so again, the fact that they're, they're in a place that, yes, at one level, is a place of, but it's also clearly there may be a combative nuance, even in the context of the place itself, if that's where they end up talking. So you get this. Paul is about to stand up and speak to this incredibly influential group of people, theoretically and potentially, and he's doing it in a place dedicated to the God of war, theoretically and potentially, and he's doing it in a place dedicated to the god of war, to Ares. So you sort of do get the sense of now a combative feel to this conversation.

John Andrews: 28:21

And it's interesting, isn't it, david, that we now see Paul in three places. We've seen him in the synagogue, in the marketplace and now here on Mars Hill. They are Aragopagus. So you've got these three very distinct places and, my goodness, doesn't it show us again how dynamic that's the wrong word but how Paul's able to improvise and adjust to the context he's in. And he's in the Jewish synagogue, and we would. From our track record, we're assuming it's a Tanakh-based argument that he's making of Jesus. Then he's in the marketplace and we're assuming that he's speaking to a largely Gentile or Greek context, which ends up getting him pulled in to this moment now. So we've now, in a short period of time, relatively speaking, we've seen Paul debate about Jesus in three very different contexts and again, his versatility and his ability to adapt and adjust and his willingness to become, in some ways, all things to all men in that context, it's just got to be admired in terms of the fact the gospel's even being heard in this context.

David Harvey: 29:40

And I think that'll be a. We must talk about that in future episodes that all things to all men because this is one of the great debates around this text is Paul's strategy and approach here, but I think it'd be worth us talking about actually reading the sermon that Paul preaches first before we get to that. But that is definitely what's in my mind as well, John is how is Paul coming here? I want to throw one other thing in quickly before we end this episode. I think you're going to love this and I have no idea how long this will take to end right, but I've been trying recently as a discipline when I study text, to listen more to what the early church fathers had, and I've mentioned Chrysostom to us already in this episode. But Basil the Great, which is you know, what a great title.

David Harvey: 30:33

And Basil the Great when writing about this. So he's Basil the Great's writing in this sort of late fourth century, probably mid to late fourth century. He draws a parallel that I would never have spotted and I absolutely love it. Where.

David Harvey: 30:49

So you've got this final line, verse 21 now, all the athenians and all the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but leisure is the way the kind of greek word works. It says they would spend their time in leisure, telling and hearing whatever was the latest right, and he begins his comment on this verse by just simply saying this be still and know that I am God. He draws a parallel to Psalm 46, right, and Psalm 46, verse 10, be still and know that I am God. Because now it's interesting that in the Septuagint of Psalm 46, the word that's used for stillness is also a word used for leisure. Right, it's relaxed, and so I love the fact that what Basil is doing is saying these people, their pattern is to be at leisure and hear new ideas, but what he's implying is what they're about to encounter is what Psalm 46 has always told us to do is be at leisure and now come to know who is really God, which I just thought was a beautiful, beautiful connection to draw to that passage.

John Andrews: 31:59

Oh, it's brilliant and I literally just flipped up there Psalm 46. And actually there's a gorgeous little extra bit there as well. Actually, there's a gorgeous little extra bit there as well. So actually the Hebrew word in the context of be still is the idea of rafa. So again, slack, relax, to cease, to desist. So a very similar nuance. So the Hebrew and the Greek track there really beautiful. But look at the rest of the verse be still Before you say the rest of the verse.

David Harvey: 32:29

I need the listeners to know I was just goading you into this because I knew that you would draw this connection here, because I knew you would love it.

John Andrews: 32:37

Okay, but I love the little. So if you read on, it says be still and know that I'm God. And then it says I will be exalted among the heathen. I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. The Lord of hosts is with us. The God of Jacob is our refuge. So I just love. I mean I'm prepared to go with Basil on this. Basil, basil, we tip our hat to you and we're going to go with this.

John Andrews: 33:11

But I do love the fact that if there is this gorgeous connection in the stillness, the leisuredness that Basil has made, there certainly absolutely rocks a connection to Paul is about to stand up and exalt Jesus among the heathen in one of the epicenters of the. To use the same word, the heathen or foreign world so I mean the word heathen there in the Hebrew is goyim, which is simply other nations. So you've got Paul standing in the heart. He hasn't quite made it to Rome, the heart of the empire, but he's certainly standing at the heart of the empire, but he's certainly standing at the heart of the philosophical center of the known world. He's sitting in the center of the goyim and he's about to stand up and exalt the Lord among the goyim and exalt him in the earth. That's so cool, I have to say. Good old Basil, nice, leg man Nice leg.

David Harvey: 34:11

And of course, in the Septuagint the goyim is translated as Gentiles. So it's I will be exalted among the Gentiles. So no, I realized. I thought I know you well enough that you will have to look up Psalm 46. So I thought I'm just going to hold it and not say the next line, because I I saw it. I thought it's stunning, isn't it? This notion that that basil is on this point. Wait a minute. I've seen this notion of leisure before and and this, this notion, but here in this septuagint and in the old testament, we're called that in leisure, we know who god is. But that connection then to the idea that and that will be proclaimed amongst the gentiles, I mean, I don't. How would you ever know whether that's what luke was alluding to? But my goodness, it's a lot of fun, isn't it?

John Andrews: 34:58

well, it certainly is. I think it doesn't show us, like whether basil the great is right or not, that the fact that again, these amazing men and women of God, so saturated in the text, heard an echo of something from something Luke wrote and they went hold on. I've heard that before somewhere or I've spotted that before somewhere, and actually, when you look at the link, it is not ridiculous and it's not like tenuous to the point of describing Basil as a babbler. I mean, this does sound like, oh, we're onto something here and at the very least, at the very least, we've got an amazing. And I'm now going back to X17, where Paul I mean I know we'll probably do it next podcast where Paul is about to stand up. And now I'm hearing what Paul is about to say in a completely different way, because of Psalm 46. Yes, that he is literally exalting the Lord among the goyim, among the Gentile nations. Wow, In the heart of Athens. What a great thought.

David Harvey: 36:10

The foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new. And Paul's like well, you're about to hear something new. Yeah, absolutely so. That's it for this episode. We know that there's always more to explore and we encourage you to dive into the text and do that. Thank you, support the show? Visit twotextscom. But that is all for now. So until next time from John and I goodbye.