http://jnt.sagepub.com/the New Testament

Journal for the Study of

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/11/36/51.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8901103604

1989 11: 51Journal for the Study of the New TestamentPaul R. Trebilco

16.16-18) 'Servants of the Most High God' (Acts−−Paul and Silas

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:TestamentJournal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for

   

  http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1989Version of Record >>

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

51

PAUL AND SILAS—’SERVANTS OF THE MOST HIGH GOD’

(ACTS 16.16-18)

Paul R. Trebilco

Knox College, Faculty of Theology,University of Otago,

Dunedin, New Zealand

Luke begins his story of the arrest and imprisonment of Paul andSilas in Philippi by telling of their encounter with the slave girl andher owners. The pronouncement Luke records as coming from thegirl’s lips is given in Acts 16.17b:

Ouroi of äVSpú>1TOl 8ova.o~ tov OE06 tov vyriarou eiotv, oimvESxazayyE7Jv,ovmv upiv 656v crú)’tTlpiaç

The title used for God in the account-6 Oc6~ 6 OWtcrcoq is a verysignificant one. The word Oytcrcoq is used of Yahweh in the

Septuagint, the NT, in Jewish Pseudepigrapha and by other Jewishauthors. However, it is also used in classical literature and inscriptionsof pagan deities, most frequently of Zeus. I will examine this variedbackground and then ask what light is shed on Luke’s narrative whenthe range of usage of the title Ü’Vl<J&dquo;tOÇ is appreciated.

1. The Pagan Use of ÜBjIlCTIOÇ

uyaazoS was used quite widely in the ancient world. It is well knownthat in the time of the Roman Empire there was a distinct trendtowards monotheism and thus towards the worship of one god as thesupreme deity. This trend was prepared for by Greek philosophy andpromoted by the influence of oriental religions, and was widespreadeven where there was no Jewish influenced In addition, under theRoman Empire, in parallel with the reality of Emperors with almostuniversal powers, some local gods were thought of as the supreme

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

52

rulers of the universe.2 Local gods seemed insufficient; to be worthhonouring they needed to have world-wide authority. It was natural,therefore, that the epithet ’the Highest’ should be used by pagans toindicate that the god to whom they were referring was, in their eyes,the most important god. Thus the name Hypsistos, or Theos

Hypsistos, was used of pagan deities throughout the Roman

Empire.3 3Zeus, the most exalted god of the Olympion, was often described

as Z~uS ü’Vlmoç.4 The cult of’Zeus Hypsistos’ was fully recognizedin some places. For example, we know of a temple of Zeus Hypsistosat Thebes, a precinct at lasos, a priest at Mylasa and a cult

association at Edessa.1 In dedications, Zeus Hypsistos is sometimescalled ’Theos Hypsistos’ or simply ’Hypsistos’. Nock mentions votiveinscriptions from a cult at Athens in which we find An u~/tcrc~) threetines, 8£0 u~ior~) twice and ù’VimQ.) eight times.b Clearly the threetitles are treated as equivalents in this case. Thus ’Hypsistos’ by itselfor ’Theos Hypsistos’ could be used for Zeus.’ It seems that with thetrend towards monotheism, the god Zeus Hypsistos could graduallycome to be given the general, elevated but less colourful title 8£àçu~ytazo5.g Nock concludes that where Zeus Hypsistos and ’TheosHypsistos’ occur side by side, the Zeus form was the earlier and’Theos Hypsistos’ may be an uno8icial synonym for him.9 9

However, dedications or inscriptions to ’Theos Hypsistos’ are onoccasions clearly to deities other than Zeus, or are made to anunnamed deity who was worshipped under this general name. Nockpoints out that:

A dedication was addressed to the gods and not to the public, andtherefore there was not in antiquity that need, which a modemman might feel, for the avoidance of ambiguity; circumlocutionswere used which were intelligible only to the dedicant... or the godwas not named at all.10

It was thus not important to the dedicant that others understoodexactly to which god he or she was referring. Hence the same titlecan be used for a number of different gods. For example in Syria’Theos Hypsistos’ [and also ’Zeus Hypsistos’ll] was used to refer tothe local Baal of a region, who was often a mountain god. 12 In Lydia,’Thea Hypsiste’ was used for some form of the Mother goddess. 13 InEgypt, Hypsistos was used as an epithet of Isis.l4 Further examplescould be given. Clearly, ’Theos Hypsistos’ or ’Hypsistos’ can

designate a whole range of exalted deities. 15

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

53

2. The Jewish Use of uyuazoS . _ -.

In the Lxx, u~icrco<; occurs over 110 times, particularly in thePsalms. Apart from a few topographical references, it is always usedto denote Yahweh, and is generally the translation of lP7~’ or ~’~L~.16Whilst there was no one standardized form of usage of Ü’VlO&dquo;tOÇ in theLxx, it occurs most frequently in the phrase 6 Ü’VlO&dquo;tOÇ- ’the MostHigh’-and quite often in the phrases 6 6EOs 6 6ytaroq [on occasionswithout the articles] and Kuptos 6 6yt(TToq.1’ Hypsistos is found

particularly frequently in some of the later writings of the l..xx. AfterKuptos it is the most common divine name used in Sirach.

Hypsistos occurs regularly in various books of the Pseudepigrapha,often simply as Ü’VlO&dquo;tOç.18 It is found particularly frequently in theTestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. For example, in T.Ash. 5.4 weread:

za,S tvtokd~ rou Oyi(TTou E~E~r~oa Kara rraaav icrxúv llou.19The usage of ’Hypsistos’ in Joseph and Aseneth is very interesting.Theos Hypsistos occurs as a title for God when pagans are addressedby Jews, or by the ’heavenly man’. Thus the heavenly manpronounces a blessing on the seven virgins:

c6,koy~aF-t Úllåç 6 6EOS 6 ÜBjIl<TIOÇ ciq rov ctic,)vcx )Cp6vov. 20The title also occurs when pagans are speaking to Jews of Yahweh.Thus in 8.2 Aseneth greets Joseph:

XaipOtq KOPLE EÙÀOYTlIlEVE ’C(~ 6EC~ r(~ v~riarc~.21Clearly Hypsistos was considered appropriate, in such a context, as aname for God which could be put in the mouth of pagans in Jewishliterature.22 Thus the Jewish Pseudepigrapha show that ’Hypsistos’was used as a way of designating Yahweh in the intertestamentalperiod.

Philo uses 6wtcyroq, although quite rarely. Often he is simplyquoting the LXX;23 he does not use the term much when writingfreely. The following passages are noteworthy:

(1) In L.A. 3.82, Philo seems <uixious to guard against a

polytheistic or syncretistic interpretation of the phrase ’the MostHigh’ in Gen. 14.18, and also betrays an awareness that other godsare called ’the Most High’:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

54

For he [Melchizedek] is priest of the Most High [zou ydp uBjficrtoutativ i£pEÚç4] not that there is any other not Most High-for Godbeing One ’is in heaven above and on earth beneath and there isnone besides Him’ [Deut. 4.39].

(2) In Leg. 278 Agrippa writes to Gaius:

I was born, as you know, a Jew. Jerusalem is my home wherestands the holy Temple of the Most High God.

Philo uses similar wording in Flac. 46, likewise addressed to non-Jews. Thus, as we saw with Joseph and Aseneth, ’the Most High God’was a name for Yahweh which was considered as appropriate whenaddressing non-Jews.

(3) Philo, in reporting the orders of both Julius Caesar andAugustus with respect to Jewish sacrifices refers to the Jewish God as’the Most High God’.25 Schilrer thought that the term 6 Ü’Vl<TIOÇ6EOS served the Roman authorities as a way to describe the JewishGod.26 However, Philo does not profess to quote the Emperorsverbatim and it is probable that he is using language which hethought was acceptable. It is not, therefore, evidence that the Romanauthorities used the term as an offcial designation for Yahweh, andthere is no other evidence from the period to suggest this. In addition,in view of the term’s use for other deities, there is no sense in which itcan be thought of as an oi~cial designation for Yahweh in his people’sdealings with foreign rulers. 27We see, therefore, that Philo is generally cautious about the use of

the term and is anxious to avoid misunderstanding. The title wasperhaps too ’loaded’ with meaning for pagan readers for Philo to useit freely. Indeed in view of the pagan usage outlined above, the termwould not even imply monotheism for a pagan reader. It wouldrather simply suggest the creation of a hierarchy in their pantheon.This must have limited its usefulness for a writer like Philo. He doesuse it, however, albeit in a very limited way, when speaking to non-Jews of the Jewish God, or when he wants to have non-Jews, whosewords he purports to give, refer to Yahweh in a comprehensibleway.

Josephus uses the term only when quoting Augustus’ decree infavour of the Jews. Augustus writes:

the Jews may follow their own customs... just as they followedthem in the time of Hyrcanus, high priest of the Most High God[dpXteptWq OE06 uBjficrtou ]2S

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

55

Although the evidence is very limited, we can suggest that Josephusalso regarded the term as one which was prone to encouragemisunderstanding and syncretism, and thus had too many overtonesin his society for him to use it freely.We conclude that the term Hypsistos is found to a significant

degree in some Jewish writings. We have noted that, for some

authors, it was regarded as a term which would be readilyunderstood by pagans and could be used in the mouth of pagans torefer to Yahweh. For Philo [and perhaps for Josephus] it was also a

title which had to be used with care because of the danger ofmisunderstanding.Given the prominence of the usage of 6ytcruo~ for Yahweh in

Jewish literature it is not surprising that this is a title used by Jews ininscriptions. Thus, a proseuche built at Alexandria in the secondcentury BCE was dedicated [OE]wl U141t~w1.29 This wording wasrepeated in an inscription of the second or first century BCE fromAthribis in Egypt,3° and probably in another [fragmentary] inscriptionfrom Leontopolis.31 Two Jewish inscriptions from the end of thesecond century or the beginning of the first century BCE which use‘Theos Hypsistos’ come from the island of Rheneia, the burial placeof the inhabitants of Delos. These almost identical inscriptions areprayers which call upon the Highest God to revenge the untimelymurder of two Jewish girls, Heraclea and Marthina. The inscriptionsare shown to be Jewish by their repeated allusions to the LXX.32Clearly, in these two inscriptions 6 9EO5 6 6yt(Tro~ is derived directlyfrom the Lxx. Four other inscriptions from Delos use the term’Theos Hypsistos’. They come from a building, first excavated in1912-1913 and constructed in the first half of the first century BCE.33One of the inscriptions reads:

Aaw6iKq Oeau Tyriarm awOE:iaa zaiS 64i autou Sapam;alçEOX~V. 34Laodice to the Highest God, who cured her of her infirmities, infulfilment of a vow.

Since the work of Bruneau in 1970, there has been general agreementthat the building from which the inscriptions come was a synagogueand that these four inscriptions are Jewish. 35The following undated inscription from Acmonia, Phrygia, is also

interesting here:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

56

[t6Lv & mS ErEpov (7(~pa £icr£vÉyKlJ, E6]rai atmi> npo5 rov OE6vTov ÜBjIlcrTOV Kai r6 apaS 8ptnavov EiS Tov 6KOV auicu [£icrÉÀ8Ol’t:O -

Kat pTjoevav tVKa’t:aÀ£lBjlat’t:o].36 -

[And whoever introduces another body], he will have to reckon &dquo;

with the Highest God and may the sickle of the curse come into hishouse [and leave no-one behind].

The phrase apaS 8ptnavov is an allusion to the LXX of Zech. 5.1-5,and it is generally agreed that the inscription is therefore Jewish. 37The inscription also contains the phrase r6v Oc6v zov Ü’+’lcrtOV, andthus shows that some Jews in Phrygia used this expression to refer toYahweh.

There are other inscriptions which use the title under considerationand are arguably Jewish, but which cannot be presented in detailhere.&dquo; However, results which emerge from studying these inscriptionsare helpful. Just as significant as the use of the title for Yahweh ininscriptions by Jews is the fact that its use seems to have declined asthe Greco-Roman period continued. Although these inscriptions areoften difficult to date, it seems that the majority of occurrences of thetitle are found in the period from the second century BCE to the firstcentury CE, while in fact the bulk of Jewish inscriptions come fromafter this period.39 After the first century CE, the term seems only tohave been used in areas which had a large Jewish population, or ingroups where its use had become traditional.40Can we explain this probable decline in the use of a title which was

firmly embedded in Jewish tradition? In view of the pagan usage ofthe term outlined above, it seems likely that ’Hypsistos’ was open tosyncretistic misinterpretation, that this was recognized and the titlewas avoided.41 It would certainly have misled pagans who wouldsimply have thought that the god who was the most exalted in theireyes was being referred to-probably Zeus. This may explain why itceased to be used on inscriptions which were essentially publicdocuments. Its continued use would have involved too great a dangerthat pagan neighbours would lose sight of the distinctive identity ofthe Jewish community. It is perhaps also possible that members ofthe Jewish community could themselves be confused or misled by theterm.

This is in keeping with what we found in our investigation of Philoand Josephus’ use of Hypsistos. The dangers of misunderstandingwere probably too great for free use of the term by authors writing

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

57

with pagans in view; the same situation seems to have applied forJewish communities in the Diaspora. Thus, despite the fact that theterm was strongly rooted in the tradition of biblical and inter-testamental literature, the use of the term seems to have declinedmarkedly in Jewish communities in the Diaspora because of its use intheir environment.

3. Jewish- Inf luence on the Pagan Usage of iiy~t~o5?Before proceeding further it is necessary to discuss a very influentialview concerning the term u~Lcrcoc. Franz Cumont argued that thetitle 9EOS u~crccx;, whilst being used of Yahweh, was used of Zeusunder Jewish influence.42 Other scholars have likewise claimed thatwhilst in the majority of cases ’Hypsistos’ was used of a pagan deity,this particular title was used because of ‘Jewish influence’. Andersonwrote:

The title of ‘the Most High God’ was borrowed by the Phrygianand other native religions from Judaism, which exercised a

profound influence on them. They still remained pagan, but theabsorption of Biblical ideas paved the way for the rapid progress ofChristianity in Asia Minor.43

This view claims in effect that the Jewish usage of the term was theprimary one; pagans used the term because of prior Jewish usage.However, this is highly unlikely. We have noted the trend towardsmonotheism, which meant that a number of different gods werethought of as the Supreme deity or the ’Highest god’, quiteindependently of Jewish influence. The frequency of the title ’TheosHypsistos’ in non-Jewish contexts reflects this tendency to concentratepowers in the hands of one exalted deity. Thus there is sufficientreason for pagans to use ’Hypsistos’ of any god, and sufficient usagein clearly non-Jewish circles, for there to be no need to suggest thatJewish influence was involved.

Further, there is also no reason to think that the use of the title bya pagan would suggest to another passer-by that the dedicator was a’Judaizer’. Hypsistos was a vague title and thus it would not be clearwhich god was being referred to.’~ Thus ’Jewish influence’ would nothave been an explanation for the use of the epithet in the period of itsuse; neither is it required now to explain its popularity

This view of ’Jewish influence’ has greatly affected the treatment

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

58

of the title by NT scholars. For when NT scholars investigated theusage of the term Hypsistos in the Greco-Roman world, they foundclassical scholars claiming that the Jewish usage of the term was theprimary one. This judgment is flawed, as further study has shown.The term was used in a pagan setting quite independent of Judaismand its popularity can be explained in terms of trends in paganreligions alone. The failure to appreciate this led to an inadequateunderstanding of how the term would have been heard by Gentilehearers and readers of the New Testament. I will now seek to showthat this has been the case in Luke’s account of Paul and Silas at

Philippi. , ,

4. Acts 16.16-18

Haenchen notes that Luke derives the material about Philippi inActs 16, directly or indirectly, from an eyewitness of the Paulinemission.’ Verses 16-18 form a unit within the narrative and serve asan introduction to the fate of Paul and Silas in Philippi. The slavegirl, who is central to the unit, drops out of sight after 16.18. Thusw. 16-18 can be treated as a unit47 and can be investigated as

such.It is clear that the term 6yto-roq is a decidedly Lucan title for God.

He uses it seven times, Mark uses it only once, and Hebrews once(but in a quotation from Gen. 14.18).4s Thus it could be argued thatLuke is responsible for the term’s use here in Acts 16.17.49 However,in the one place in which we can examine the matter, Luke simplytakes over 6yto-roq from Mark (Lk. 8.28 // Mk 5.7; cf. Mt. 8.29).50Thus it is equally possible that the term occurred in Luke’s sourcefor Philippi and that he simply adopted it here. Hence we cannotmake a decision on the matter either way. If Luke is responsible forthe use of the term, we must explain how he wished his originalreaders to understand the narrative at this point. Or, if Luke is hererecording the pronouncement on the basis of an eyewitness account,we need to explain how the slave girl’s proclamation would havebeen understood by Paul and by the people of Philippi. This line ofargument merges with the first when we seek to explain why Lukewas willing to use the source as he found it. As will become clear, myinterpretation seems valid at both of these levels.

It is helpful at this point to consider Luke’s usage of Ü’VlcrtOÇ

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

59

elsewhere. The angel tells Mary that her child will be called ui6qúB¡Iim:ou (Lk. 1.32) and that 8uva~iS Oviarou will come upon her(Lk. 1.35). Zechariah announces that his son will be called 1Tpoq>i¡n]çOyioTou (Lk. 1.76) and Jesus states that those who love their enemieswill be uioi úBjIim:ou (Lk. 6.35). Stephen declares that 6 6ytcyro~ doesnot live in houses made with hands (Acts 7.48). Finally, apart fromour passage in Acts 16, in Lk. 8.28 the Gerasene demoniac calls Jesusuit Tou 6EOV rou u~iorou. The following points emerge from thisdata:

1. The title vyrtazoS is only used in passages which have astrongly Jewish background, and hence use 6ytcnoq becauseof its frequency in the Lxx and intertestamental literature orin a Gentile context, in the mouth of demon-possessedpagans.

2. When the title is used in a Jewish context it occurs simply asvyazo5 or 6 vyozo5; when it occurs in a Gentile contextwe find 6 AEOS 6 ÜBjIlm:Oç.51 Luke’s usage seems to reflect thefact that for Jews 6 uB~oro<;&horbar;the Most High-was a namefor the only true God. However, the term is not found in thisform in a Gentile setting.52 We can thus suggest that Lukewas aware that for Gentiles 6 Oytmoq was a far less specific

_

and meaningful title than it was for Jews. However, 6 Oc6q 6u~crco~&horbar;the Most High God-is a superlative of moresignificance for Gentiles, and it is this form which is foundon Gentile lips.53

. I

It seems likely, therefore, that in his use of Hypsistos Lukedistinguishes between Jewish and Gentile settings. We can postulatethat he was aware of the term’s Jewish and pagan backgrounds. Thispoint will be significant later.How have commentators dealt with the pronouncement made by

the demon-possessed girl? Generally they have been aware that’Theos Hypsistos’ has both a Jewish and a non-Jewish background,and is therefore a suitable name for Yahweh in a non-Jewish setting.However, commentators do not take the non-Jewish background ofthe term sufliciently seriously. It is generally understood that the girlannounced to passers-by the true meaning of the Christian mission.Thus Schneider writes:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

60

Wie in den Evangelien Damonen sachlich richtig urteilen k6nnen,trifft auch die Wahrsagerin (dank des iTvEopa mi6wv) die Wahrheithinsichtlich der Missionare und ihrer Botschaft.54

However, if we grant that the passage has a historical basis, we needto ask how passers-by would have understood the girl’s proclamation.In Philippi the term ’the Highest God’ must have been misleading. 55In view of the pagan usage of Hypsistos, the term would not havesuggested that the referent was the Jewish God, unless that personwas a Jew or a Judaizer.56 There were many ’Highest gods’ and apagan hearer would understand the referent of the term to be the

deity he or she considered to be supreme. Hearers would not think ofYahweh. 57 Thus, the primary effect of the term on pagans must havebeen to mislead them. They would recognize, not the Jewish God,but the deity they thought to be the highest god-Zeus, or someother deity. If pagans had a good knowledge of Judaism, they wouldindeed understand that the reference was to Yahweh, but that manypagans had such a knowledge is unlikely in a city which seems tohave had a very small Jewish community. The ’occasional hearer’would not make this inference. For a pagan, the term would not even

imply monotheism. It would simply suggest the creation of a

hierarchy in their pantheon.5S The term was thus not easilyunderstood by pagans with the meaning intended by Jews or byChristians.59 Pagans would have thought Paul and Silas were

servants of the deity they themselves considered to be ’the highestgod’, and hence perhaps of Zeus.We do not take this background seriously if we say that the girl

exposed the hidden truth about Paul and Silas. It might have beenthe truth, but it was also very misleading for those non-Jews wholistened in Philippi. F.F. Bruce’s comment is therefore rather

unhelpful:The title ’Most High God’ was one which provided Jews andGentiles with a convenient common denominator for the SupremeBeing. 60

The two groups did indeed share the term; but the deity designatedby the term was quite different. It was only a common denominatorif the Gentiles understood the Jewish usage of the term; otherwise itsimply confused. It is similarly unhelpful when Haenchen commentson this verse:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

61

The screaming of the possessed girl recalls the shouting demons inthe gospels; except that the demon of our passage, where he is notthreatened, does not accuse but rather announces the true

character of the foreign preacher in a way understandable forGentiles... The demon,... aware of the supernatural reality, nowexpressly attests the true meaning of the Christian mission... Ourpassage has nothing to do with the syncretistic divinity 9EOSuyazo5.61

Haenchen does not explain how he can so completely rule out thepagan background of the term. It seems clear that one cannot. Theproclamation would be intelligible to Gentiles, but they wouldunderstand that an entirely different god from Yahweh was meant.A second weakness in the current interpretation of this passage is

the explanation of Paul’s exorcism. Despite the fact that the girl wasannouncing the true meaning of the Christian mission and thus wasproviding helpful propaganda for Paul, 62 he eventually tires of thenoise or, as Haenchen puts it, he is ’annoyed by the ceaseless

shouts’,63 and exorcizes the demon.This hardly seems reasonable. If she was providing free publicity,

why silence her? Simply because she was a nuisance? Paul’s ownaccounts of the suffering he endured (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.22-33) make’ceaseless shouts’ seem like a very mild irritant compared with thehardship he was prepared to endure for the sake of the gospel. If shewas really furthering his preaching then it seems reasonable to

suggest that Paul would have appreciated her proclamation and lether continue. 64

This objection still holds if we look at the level of the Lucannarrative. Is Luke likely to portray Paul (who even in this account setin Philippi suffers a severe flogging and unjust imprisonmentbecause it furthers the gospel), as being su~ciently irritated by aconstant but true proclamation of the gospel as to create all thetrouble with the girl’s owners? Could not Luke’s Paul endure theshouting, no matter how irritating it was, because it furthered hiswork? An explanation from another direction is required.These factors combine to suggest that the reason Paul exorcized

the demon was because of the content of her proclamation. Lukesimply records that Paul became greatly troubled (starrovrl6EiS 6tnau~o<;) and so exorcized the spirit; it is the commentators who haveconcluded that his reason was the ’nuisance value’ of the girl. I wouldlike to suggest that what troubled Paul was the content of her

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

62

pronouncement. As we have pointed out above, this content musthave been misleading to pagans. Only to a Jew or Judaizer would thetitle Theos Hypsistos have suggested that Yahweh was meant. Toothers, the referent would be one of a number of other gods. Thus,the girl’s proclamation as she followed Paul around was in fact verymisleading. She was proclaiming that the way of salvation was foundin which ever god the hearer considered to be ’the highest god’.Paul’s annoyance and consequent action were caused by the fact thatthe girl was confusing those to whom he was preaching. His angerwas aroused by the fact that she was exposing his own proclamationto a syncretistic misunderstanding. He acted to remove the danger. 65The point at the Lucan level also seems to be clear. We can suggest

that Luke uses or retains the title in order to propose to his readersthat Theos Hypsistos is risky and dangerous as a designation forGod. Although its use is acceptable in a Jewish context, once

Christianity has ventured into a Gentile environment it is problematic.Hence Paul’s anger and action to exorcize the demon. 66We can suggest that this is comparable to what we saw happening

with Jewish usage of the term. Although Philo used Hypsistos, he didso reservedly, and in L.A. 3.82 sought to avoid any syncretisticmisinterpretation of Gen. 14.18. He was prepared to use the

language of the LXX, but anxious to affum its monotheist interpretationand to prevent any other reading. We also suggested that Josephusgenerally avoided the term as being too loaded with meaning for it tobe a good tool in communication. As far as Jewish inscriptions wereconcerned we noted that in the course of the first or second centuryCE the title Theos Hypsistos seems to have declined in use because ofthe dangers of a syncretistic misunderstanding. It is precisely thisproblem with confronted Paul, and which we can suggest alsoconcerned Luke. 67Two lines of argument seem to have misled interpreters of this

passage.a. Commentators have not considered the possibility that the

content of girl’s proclamation was what vexed Paul because theyhave seen this exorcism in the light of the exorcisms in the Gospels.There, the demons make true and revelatory confessions. ThusSchneider 68 compares our passage with Lk. 4.34, 41 (// Mk 1.24, 34)where a demon-possessed man cries ’I know who you are, the HolyOne of God’ and where Luke records:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

63

Demons came out of many people, shouting ’You are the Son ofGod!’ But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speakbecause they knew that he was the Christ.

However, there is no necessary reason why demons in Acts needhave true knowledge on a subject, as they often do in the Gospels,nor and more importantly, that they proclaim what they know in anunambiguous and helpful way.

b. We have shown above that to explain the general pagan use ofthe term as a result of ’Jewish influence’ is unnecessary and

inadequate. This issue has only been clarified in recent years,however. Lake and Cadbury in the influential The Beginnings ojChristianity could write as follows of the many attestations of

Hypsistos in inscriptions:In many cases it is either purely Jewish or due to Jewish influence.Whether it is used by purely pagan groups not subject to

syncretism with Judaism is perhaps not yet clear 69

Similarly, Arndt and Gingrich wrote of the term that:

’God Most High’ belongs above all to the religious speech of theJews. 70

The prominent and independent pagan background of the term hasthus been much underestimated by standard works in NT scholarship.The way the term would have been heard by Gentiles has

consequently been missed. For if a commentator accepts that ’Jewishinfluence’ was responsible for the majority of pagan occurrences ofthe term, then he is much more likely to overlook the independentpagan use of the term and therefore to interpret the title here alongpurely Jewish lines. However, the ‘Jewish influence’ theory is nolonger tenable as an explanation for the majority of pagan occurrencesof the term.A possible objection to our proposed interpretation must be

examined. If the girl’s proclamation was misleading, why did Paulleave her to confuse people ’for many days’ -&dquo;tOÙ&dquo;tO 8t tnoict eni.

1ToÀÀàç v~uepac (Acts 16.18a)?It seems reasonable to suggest that on meeting the girl, Paul would

quickly grasp the fact that she was a slave girl who provided a sourceof revenue for her owners through her fortune telling. It would alsobe apparent that if he cast out the demon and silenced her, the

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

64

owners would be far from pleased. In fact the way the scenario ofaccusation and imprisonment unfolds seems to be predictable fromthe start.71

Paul was thus faced with a dilemma. The girl’s proclamation wasmisleading and confusing to those very people to whom Paul wastrying to preach. Yet if he silenced her he would get himself intograve trouble, which would almost certainly result in the end of hismission in the area. One can understand that there came a point atwhich the girl was so misleading those who were beginning to grasphis message that he had to silence her, no matter what the

consequences. We can certainly understand the text when it saysot.anovr)6eK; 8t nau~o<;&horbar;’PauI became so troubled... ’ (16.18).72One final possibility emerges from this study. Commentators and

translators have generally rendered the end of the girl’s pronounce-ment-oitme5 KaiayyE7v.a.ouam upiv 686v <JúJ&dquo;tl1píaç-as ’who

proclaim to you the way of salvation’ (Acts 16.17b). However, weshould note that the Greek could also be translated as ’a way of

salvation’, as has been noted by Lake and Cadbury 73 and Bruce. 74Grammatically, when the article is absent from both the noun and itsdependent genitive, the context must decide whether the phrase isdefinite or not .75 In conjunction with this we should note:

a. <JúJ&dquo;tl1pía has a wide breadth of usage in the religious sphere ofthe Greco-Roman world, and includes such concepts as well-being,bodily health, deliverance and preservation. 76 It would not suggest toa pagan that the content of the Christian message was being referredto. In addition, <JúJ&dquo;tl1pía was on occasions the object of vows andinscriptions to AEOS ijytotoq, 77 Thus, we can suggest that theconnection between 986<; Oytcyuoq and awzqpia would be a naturalone for pagan hearers to make from within their own religious world-view. For the slave girl to speak of’a way of salvation’ would also beentirely natural

b. When using 666q in a metaphorical sense in Acts, Luke almostalways uses the article. Thus for example in 18.26 we read thatPriscilla and Aquila f;çÉOeV1:0 r~v 686v rou OcoO to Apollos. Theonly exception apart from 16.17 is 2.28, where Luke is quoting fromthe LXX .79 This suggests that the omission of the articles by Luke in16.17 is significant.Thus both the context and Luke’s usage elsewhere strongly

suggest that we should render the phrase as ‘a way of salvation’. We

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

65

cannot be certain that the articles were omitted by the girl, althoughthis is the most likely Greek form for her to use. But that Luke givesthe pronouncement as he does suggests that he presents this as afurther source of Gentile misunderstanding resulting from the girl’sactivity. For Luke suggests that the girl was proclaiming that Paul’sgospel was a way of salvation-one among many others. He presentsthis therefore as a complementary reason for Paul’s action.

In addition, if this form of the girl’s pronouncement goes back toLuke’s source, then it adds to the possibility that Gentile hearers ofthe girl would misunderstand Paul’s preaching, for they would thinkthat one way of ‘salvation’ was being offered, one way among manyothers known to them. The likelihood of pagan hearers being misledis thus even greater, increasing Paul’s dilemma. We have suggestedthat in exorcizing the spirit he acted to remove this danger.

NOTES

1. See A.B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1925), II.ii, p. 889; L. Robert, ’Reliefs votifs etcultes d’Anatolie’, Anatolia 3 (1958), pp. 103-36, esp. pp. 118-19; M.P. Nilsson,’The High God and the Mediator’, HTR 56 (1963), pp. 106-15. This trendshould more correctly be called a trend towards henotheism&mdash;worship of onegod amongst others as the supreme god.

2. See E.J. Bickerman, ’The Altars of Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish &laquo;iussacrum&raquo;’, Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquit&eacute; 5 (1958), pp. 154-58and the examples given there.

3. See especially Cook, Zeus, II.ii, pp. 868-90; A.D. Nock, C. Roberts,T.C. Skeats, ’The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos’, HTR 29 (1936), pp. 56-59. Robert(’Reliefs’, pp. 112-21) notes a tendency towards anonymity of the divinitywhich increased the usage of epithets like Hypsistos [in place of a name likeZeus] and Megas.

4. Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 55; Nilsson, ’High God’, p. 116; P. Aupert and O.Masson, ’Inscriptions d’Amathonte 1’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hell&eacute;nique103 (1979), p. 380.

5. Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 59. For a list of inscriptions mentioning ZeusHypsistos or Theos Hypsistos see Cook, Zeus, II.ii, pp. 876-90, summarizedin Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 56-59. See additions in Cook, Zeus, III.ii, pp. 1162-64 ; see also A.T. Kraabel, ’&Upsi;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav; and the Synagogue at Sardis’, Greek,Roman and Byzantine Studies 10 (1969), pp. 88-91; J.M.R Cormack, ’ZeusHypsistos at Pydna’ in M&eacute;langes hell&eacute;niques offerts &agrave; Georges Daux (Paris:

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

66

De Boccard, 1974), pp. 51-55; M. Tatscheva-Hitova, ’Dem Hypsistosgeweihte Denkm&auml;ler in Thrakien. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte derantiken Religionen, III’, Thracia 4 (1977), pp.274-90; Eastern Cults in

Moesia Inferior and Thracia (EPRO, 95; Leiden: Brill, 1983), pp. 190-215.For literary references to Zeus Hypsistos see E. Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden imbosphoranischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der &sigma;&epsiv;&beta;&oacgr;&mu;&epsiv;&nu;&ogr;&igr; &thetas;&epsiv;&oacgr;&nu;

&uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&nu; ebendaselbst’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der WissenschaftenBerlin (1897), p. 209; G. Bertram, TDNT, VIII, pp. 614-15.

6. Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 55-56; see also Cook, Zeus, II.ii, pp. 876-77.7. Theos Hypsistos in dedications is sometimes identified as Zeus by the

depiction of an eagle, one of the common symbols for Zeus; see Cook, Zeus,II.ii, p. 882. Examples of this include dedications from Athens, Lesbos andThyatira; see Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, pp. 212-14.

8. Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, p. 214.9. Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 59. The native Greek cult of Zeus Hypsistos is

first known in Macedonia in the first half of the second century BCE; seeNock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 60-61. We should also note here that Hypsistos doesnot occur in the ancient list of epithets of Zeus given by Aristides, or in othersuch ancient lists. The epithet also ceased to be used in literary works at anearly stage; see Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 64; M. Simon, Le Christianisme antiqueet son contexte religieux. Scripta Varia (WUNT, 23; T&uuml;bingen: J.C.B. Mohr[Paul Siebeck], 1981), p. 495. That it was not an ancient epithet of Zeus,along with other considerations, led some scholars to look for the origin of itsuse for Zeus among Semitic cults. On this see section 3 below.

10. Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 61.11. Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 59 recalls that from the Hellenistic period ’Zeus

was at times almost a descriptive term meaning "chief god" rather than thepersonal name of a traditional Greek divine character’.12. We have a series of inscriptions from Palmyra in Syria in which Zeus

Hypsistos, here the local Baal, is treated in a way that comes close to

monotheism; see Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, p. 214; Cook, Zeus, II.ii, pp. 885-86;H. Seyrig, ’Antiquit&eacute;s Syriennes’, Syria 14 (1933), pp. 248-52.13. Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 62-63; Robert, ’Reliefs’, p. 119 n. 60.14. See New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of the

Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1976 (Macquarie University:Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1981), p. 28 and the

references given there.15. Other deities include Sabazios, Men, Attis, Poseidon, Eshmun,

Eshmun-Melkart and perhaps Helios. See F. Cumont, Hypsistos. Suppl&eacute;ment &agrave;la Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique (1897), pp. 1 n. 2, 3 n. 1; Cook,Zeus, II.ii, p. 889; C. Colpe, ’Hypsistos’, Der Kleine Pauly Lexikon der Antike(1967), II, cols. 1291-92; Tacheva-Hitova, Eastern Cults, pp. 212-15. Often ininscriptions it is impossible to tell which pagan deity is meant; see e.g. the

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

67

dedication in Robert, ’Reliefs’, pp. 112-19. At times the deity is seen to berather remote, and thus does not have any other name.16. See Bertram, TDNT, VIII, p. 617; Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, pp. 214-15.17. On its use in the LXX in general see Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, pp. 214-15;

Simon, Le Christianisme, pp. 496-502.18. See Sib. Or. 2.177, 245; 3.519, 574, 580, 719; L.A.E. 15.3; 28.1; T. Abr.

9.2, 3, 8; 14.9; Ph. E. Poet. in Eusebius PE 9, 24, 1 ; Ezek. Trag. in Eusebius PE9, 29.14. ’Hypsistos’ also occurs in the Greek portions of 1 Enoch in 9.3; 10.1;98.7; 99.3, 10; 100.4; 101.1, 6.19. Text from M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A

Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Leiden: Brill, 1978), p. 140. See also e.g.T.Sim. 2.5, 6.7; T.Levi 3.10, 4.1, 2; 5.1, 7; 16.3; 18.7; T.Jud. 24.4; T.Iss.

2.5.20. Jos.Asen. 17.5. Text from M. Philonenko, Joseph et As&eacute;neth. Introduction,

texte critique, traduction et notes (SPB, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968). See also8.10; 14.7; 15.7; 23.10; cf. 9.1.21. See also 21.3, 4.22. For further references to Hypsistos or its equivalents see H.L. Strack

and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und

Midrasch (M&uuml;nchen: Beck, 1924), II, pp. 99-100.23. See L.A. 3.24; Post. 89; Plant. 59; Ebr. 105; Conq. 58; Mut. 202.24. See Gen. 14.18. Note that Philo drops Theos from the LXX [&iacgr;&epsiv;&rho;&epsiv;&uacgr;&sigmav; &tau;&ogr;&uacgr;

&thetas;&epsiv;&ogr;&uacgr; &tau;&ogr;&uacgr; &uacgr;&psi;&iacgr;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&upsi;], perhaps because the text as it stands would suggest thatone God amongst others was being referred to. He leaves Hypsistos as thename for God, which is not open to a syncretistic interpretation to the samedegree. On this passage in Philo see Simon, Le Christianisme, pp. 499-500.25. Leg. 157, 317.26. Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, p. 216.27. See Nock et al., ’Gild’, p. 67 n. 74; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism,

Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period(London: SCM, 1974), II, p. 201 n. 265. Celsus and Julian both used TheosHypsistos to refer to the Jewish God; references in F. Cumont, ’&uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav;’, inReal-Encyclop&auml;die, IX (1916), col. 446. Both of these authors were familiarwith biblical usage and thus do not provide evidence that Theos Hypsistoswas an official Roman designation for Yahweh; see Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 66-67.

28. Ant. 16.163.29. V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stem, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum(CPJ) (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964), III, no.1433.30. CPJ, III, no. 1443; see also Sch&uuml;rer, ’Die Juden’, p. 216.31. See E. Bernard, ’Au Dieu Tr&egrave;s Haut’, in Hommages &agrave; Jean Cousin.

Annales litt&eacute;raires de l’Universit&eacute; de Besan&ccedil;on 273 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

68

1983), pp.107-11; now also in Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum,XXXIII, no. 1326.32. Texts in A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (ET from 4thGerman edn; 1927, repr. Grand Rapids: Baker), pp. 414-15; see also A.Plassart, ’La Synagogue juive de D&eacute;los’ RB 11 (1914), pp.532-33; E.

Sch&uuml;rer, G. Vermes and F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in theAge of Jesus Christ (rev. edn; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), III.1, p. 70.33. See Plassart, ’La Synagogue’, p. 532; for a discussion of the dating of

the building see P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de D&eacute;los &agrave; l’&eacute;poquehell&eacute;nistique et &agrave; l’&eacute;poque imp&eacute;riale (BEFAR, 217; Paris: de Boccard, 1970),pp. 491-93; ’"Les Isra&eacute;lites de D&eacute;los" et la juiverie d&eacute;lienne’, Bulletin deCorrespondance Hell&eacute;nique 106 (1982), pp. 495-99.34. J.B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum (CIJ) (Roma: Pontifical

Institute, 1939, 1951), no. 728; see also CIJ, nos. 727, 729, 730.35. See Bruneau, Recherches, pp. 484f A full discussion of the evidencemay be found in my ’Studies on Jewish Communities in Asia Minor’

(Dissertation, University of Durham, 1987, Chapter 6, forthcoming in theSNTS Monograph Series, Cambridge University Press).36. Text in W.M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishopncs of Phrygia (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1897), I, Part 2, p. 652, no. 563; see also CIJ, no. 769.37. See Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antique VI, p. 111; A.T. Kraabel,

’Judaism in Western Asia Minor under the Roman Empire with a

Preliminary Study of the Jewish Community at Sardis, Lydia’ (Dissertation,Harvard Divinity School, 1968), p. 62.38. For a detailed study see my ’Jewish Communities’, Chapter 6.39. Hengel (Judaism, II, p. 201 n. 265) is one of the few scholars who have

recognized the implications of the dating of these inscriptions. He notesbriefly that in the Roman period ’the phrase fell into the background becauseof the danger of a syncretistic misunderstanding, so the term does not appearat all in the inscriptions in Rome’. See also A.T. Kraabel, ’The DiasporaSynagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphical Evidence since Sukenik’,ANRW II. 19.1, p. 492.40. A large Jewish population is known in Acmonia, although the two

inscriptions from this site are undated and thus could be earlier. The use ofHypsistos seems to have become traditional in Gorgippia, where there arethree inscriptions which use Hypsistos.41. See Kraabel, ’Diaspora Synagogue’, p. 492; Tatscheva-Hitova, ’Dem

Hypsistos’, p. 300.42. See F. Cumont, ’Les Myst&egrave;res de Sabazius et le Juda&iuml;sme’, Comptes

Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1906), p. 73. Otherevidence led Cumont to postulate far-reaching theories about Jewishsyncretism which cannot be dealt with here. His views were developed byM.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion (M&uuml;nchen: Beck, 1950),p. 637.

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

69

43. J.G.C. Anderson, ’Paganism and Christianity in the Upper TembrisValley, in Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of theRoman Empire, ed. W.M. Ramsay (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press,1906), p. 211. On Jewish influence as the main cause for the popularity ofTheos Hypsistos as a title see also e.g. J. Keil, ’Die Kulte Lydiens’, AnatolianStudies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, ed. W.H. Buckler, W.M.Calder (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1923), p. 263; Cook, Zeus,II.ii, p. 889; S. Sanie, ’Devs Aeternvs et Theos Hypsistos en Dacie Romaine’,Hommages &agrave; Maarten J. Vermaseren, ed. M.B. de Boer, T.A. Edridge (EPRO,68; Leiden: Brill, 1978), III, pp. 1108, 1111-12; for a modified version of thisview see A.R.R. Sheppard, ’Pagan Cults of Angels in Roman Asia Minor’,Talania 12-13 (1980-81), p. 94.44. See Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 66-67.45. We should also note that there are further reasons from within

paganism which explain the localized popularity of the epithet Hypsistos inPhrygia and Lydia. See further in my ’Jewish Communities’, Chapter 6. I

also note there that in a very limited number of cases we can detect Jewishinfluence behind the pagan use of the title; in these situations groups like the’God-worshippers’ of Acts seem to be involved. A number of scholars havethought that the epithet Hypsistos did not necessarily imply Jewishinfluence. See in particular Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 64-69; Kraabel, Judaism inWestern Asia Minor, pp. 87-93; ’&uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav; and the Synagogue at Sardis’,pp. 81-93; Tatscheva-Hitova, ’Dem Hypsistos’, pp. 292, 295-300.46. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1971), p. 503. See also G. Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte(HTK, 5; Freiburg. Herder, 1982), II. Teil, pp. 211-13.47. See Haenchen, Acts, pp. 502-504; I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the

Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; London: IVP, 1980), p.269.

48. Lk. 1.32, 35, 76; 6.35; 8.28; Acts 7.48; 16.17; Mk 5.7; Heb. 7.1.49. See G. Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (THKNT, 5; Berlin:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983), p. 345. I.H. Marshall (The Gospel ofLuke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster,1978], p. 68) notes this is a possibility in Lk. 1.32; A. von Harnack (Luke thePhysician [New York: Williams & Norgate, 1909], p. 51) comments that thephrase is noticeably Lucan.50. Note that in Mt. 8.29, Matthew replaces ’Son of the Most High God’

(found in Mk 5.7 = Lk. 8.28) with &upsi;&iacgr;&eacgr; &tau;&ogr;&uacgr; &thetas;&epsiv;&ogr;&uacgr; as the pronouncement of theGadarene demoniacs. This is perhaps for two reasons. Firstly, ’Son of God’was an important title for Matthew, and secondly, ’the Most High God’ wasperhaps considered by Matthew as a title which could lead to misunderstand-ing, and thus was to be avoided. This possibility will be seen to be in keepingwith our suggested interpretation of Acts 16.16-18.

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

70

51. K. Lake and H.J. Cadbury (The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1. Vol.

IV [London: Macmillan, 1933], p. 193) note that ’This may be another caseof Luke’s variation of synonym to suit different speakers or settings’.52. The title &uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav; by itself (without &thetas;&epsiv;&oacgr;&sfgr;, &Zgr;&epsilon;&uacgr;&sigmav; etc.) is rare in pagan

inscriptions; it occurs in inscriptions at times (e.g. in Athens) along withother inscriptions from the same centre which make it clear which ’MostHigh God’ is meant; see Cook, Zeus, II.ii, pp. 876-77.53. See Simon, Le Christianisme, pp. 496-502.54. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II. Teil, p.215. Note also J. Roloff’s

remark (Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; G&ouml;ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1981], p. 245) that ’der D&auml;mon verborgene Wahrheit zu enth&uuml;llen vermag’.J. Munck (The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AB;rev. W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967],p. 161) comments that the girl ’spoke the truth about those she met’. See alsoA. Schlatter, Die Apostelgeschichte (ENT, 4; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1962), p. 204;R Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte 2. Teilband, Apg. 13-28 (EKK; Z&uuml;rich:

Benziger Verlag, 1986), p. 113; Schille, Apostelgeschichte, p. 345.55. This point is valid even though Philippi was founded as a Roman

colony, since Greek remained the colloquial language there; see H.

Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (HNT 7; 2nd edn, T&uuml;bingen: J.C.B.Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1972), p. 99. For inscriptions referring to Zeus

Hypsistos and Theos Hypsistos in Macedonia see Cook, Zeus, II.ii, p. 878;III.ii, p. 1162. The title &uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav; was also known in Rome; see Cook, Zeus,II.ii, p. 879.56. Nock et al., ’Gild’, pp. 66-67. See also Cook, Zeus, II.ii, p. 890, who

writes: ’Hypsistos was a title that any honest man could use with a clearconscience.’57. Some scholars have clearly misunderstood this. Burchard (The Old

Testament Pseudepigrapha, II [ed. J.H. Charlesworth; London: Darton,Longman and Todd, 1985], p. 211 nn. 8f.) in commenting on the use of theterm in Joseph and Aseneth writes: ’In a polytheistic environment it soundedboth inviting and exclusive (e.g. against Zeus Hypsistos)’. This is to overlookthe significance of the title in paganism; see also Bertram TDNT, VIII,p. 618.58. See Simon, Le Christianisme, p. 498.59. See C.H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder &

Stoughton, 1935), p. 13; R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London:Mowbray, 1958), p. 11. This situation is of course different from a Jewishauthor using the term in the mouth of a pagan, in literature intended forJews. In this genre the term was indeed appropriate. But for a pagan readerthe term was ambiguous and misleading.60. F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1965), p. 333.

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

71

61. Haenchen, Acts, p. 495 and note 8; emphasis added.62. Bruce (Acts, p. 333) writes of her ’unsolicited testimonials’; Marshall(Acts, p. 269) of her ’unexpected publicity’. See also Schlatter, Apostelgeschichte,p. 204.63. Haenchen, Acts, p. 495, 499, 502. Roloff (Apostelgeschichte, pp. 245-46)

thinks that Paul loses his composure because of the girl’s repeated cries. Seealso H.W. Beyer, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD, 5; G&ouml;ttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1932), p. 100; A. Loisy, Les Actes des Ap&ocirc;tres (Paris: EmileNourry, 1920), p. 636; Bruce, Acts, p. 333; R. Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte,p. 113.64. Commentators have sometimes sought to explain Paul’s annoyanceand action to exorcize the demon by pointing to who it was who was makingthis helpful proclamation; that is, a heathen fortune teller. Paul tried to

prevent the message being propagated through the wrong channel, becausethis blurred the clear difference between the Gospel and heathenism. SeeR.B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles: An Exposition (7th edn; London:Methuen, 1912), p. 287; G. St&auml;hlin, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD; G&ouml;ttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), p. 219; Schlatter, Apostelgeschichte, p. 204.However, this view cannot explain why Paul permitted the girl to continuecrying out for ’many days’, as Haenchen (Acts, p. 496 n. 10) points out.Conzelmann (Apostelgeschichte, p. 100) states that the exorcism happenedon the first occasion that Paul and the girl met, but he does not explain whyPaul was angry with her. Schille (Apostelgeschichte, p. 345) thinks Luke hasintroduced the explanation for Paul’s anger into the account; Paul’s

displeasure required no reason other than anger at the power of evil. This isto miss the significance of the girl’s pronouncement as Luke gives it.65. Simon (Le Christianisme, p. 503) made the suggestion that it was the

content of the girl’s proclamation which angered Paul. He wrote ’Pr&eacute;senterles missionaires comme des serviteurs du Dieu Tr&egrave;s Haut, formule qui&eacute;voque dans un esprit pa&iuml;en des r&eacute;sonances famili&egrave;res, c’est peut-&ecirc;tresugg&eacute;rer de leur message une interpr&eacute;tation syncr&eacute;tisante &agrave; laquelle Pauldoit couper court’. The article in which this appears was first published in1972, but Simon’s suggestion seems to have gone unnoticed. Lake andCadbury (Beginnings: Part 1. Vol IV, p. 193) also seem to be aware of theambiguity of Theos Hypsistos here. They asked of the term ’Has it the samemeaning in Luke’s mind as it had in that of the slave girl?’ They do notpursue this line of thought in their commentary, however. W.C. van Unnikalso recognized the ambiguity of the girl’s pronouncement. (See ’Die

Anklage gegen die Apostel in Philippi, Apostelgeschichte xvi 20f.’, SparsaCollecta. The Collected Essays of W. C. Van Unnik Part One (NovumTestamentum Supplements 29; Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 374-86. He sought toexplain the girl’s words by referring to the passage in Valerius Maximuswhich he understood to speak of the expulsion of Jews from Rome in 139 BCE

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

72

because of syncretistic Jewish preaching of the cult of Jupiter Sabazios.However, this interpretation of the text of Valerius Maximus is no longertenable; see E.N. Lane, ’Sabazios and the Jews in Valerius Maximus: A Re-examination’, JRS 69 (1979), pp.35-38. Nor is the theory of Jewishsyncretism with Sabazios; see my ’Jewish Communities’, Chapter 6.66. It is to be noted that Luke uses ’Theos Hypsistos’ in a Gentile context

in Lk. 8.28, in giving the cry of the Gerasene demoniac. He takes over thetitle from Mark, and does not alter it. There is however, no a priori reasonwhy Luke should make the same point about the use of the title for God inboth passages. In addition, the change in context from the ministry of Jesusto the mission of Paul involved a shift in language usage to ensure that themessage the early Christians wanted to communicate was actually themessage that was heard in the new context.

67. There are also strong parallels here with the incident Luke records atLystra in which Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for Hermes and Zeus(Acts 14.8-20). I suggest that Luke shows the danger of pagan misunderstand-ing through both incidents.68. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, II. Teil, p. 215. See also Munck, Acts,

p. 161; Haenchen, Acts, p. 495 and n. 7, p. 502; Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte,p. 100; R. Gorski, W. Schrage, ’Apostelgeschichte 16,14-40’, G&ouml;ttingerPredigt-Meditationen 36 (1982), p. 218.69. Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings: Part 1. Vol. IV, p. 193; see also H.J.

Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (London: A. & C. Black, 1955),p. 91.70. W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and other Early Christian Literature (2nd edn, Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1979), p. 850.71. Commentators have not taken account of this. If the proclamation was

helpful, although irritating, why did Paul exchange one annoyance for alarger (and predictable) one&mdash;the pressing of charges and imprisonment?72. A second possible objection to our interpretation is that in 16.20 the

girl’s owners state that Paul and Silas are Jews. If Theos Hypsistos did notindicate that Yahweh was the referent, how did they know that Paul andSilas were Jews? However, we can suggest the narrative presupposes that theowners had interrogated Paul and Silas in an attempt to find a charge againstthem, other than the injury to their own self interest. In the course of theinvestigation they discovered they were Jews and charged them accordingly.Alternatively, the owners may have heard sufficient of Paul’s preaching bythis time to know his ethnic origins. (For a new interpretation of this passagesee D.R Schwartz, ’The Accusation and the Accusers at Philippi (Acts16.20-21)’, Biblica 65 [1984], pp. 357-63).73. Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings: Part 1, Vol. IV, p. 193.74. F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

73

and Commentary (2nd edn, London: Tyndale, 1952), p. 316.75. See A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research (London: Hodder & Stoughton,1914), p. 780. AsLake and Cadbury point out (Beginnings: Part 1. Vol. IV, p. 193) the sameproblem of translating the words of a polytheist when quoted by a

monotheist is found in Acts 17.23 and Mt. 27.54.76. See TDNT, VII, pp. 965-69.77. See for example Tatscheva-Hitova, ’Dem Hypsistos’, nos. 17, 20.78. See Lake and Cadbury, Beginnings: Part 1. Vol.IV, p. 19379. See Acts 9.2; 18.25; 19.9, 23; 22.4; 24.14, 22. Thus, in Acts 16.17 Luke

diverges from his normal usage in the way he gives both &thetas;&epsiv;&oacgr;&sfgr; &uacgr;&psi;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&ogr;&sigmav; and&oacgr;&delta;&oacgr;&sigmav;.

at University of Otago Library on October 16, 2014jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from