Paul’s “Unknown God”

And this isn’t an arbitrary conclusion reached by a minority of non-believers, but a position supported by a significant percentage of specialists that have dealt with this subject.

"To the unknown god" or "to the unknown gods"?

Towards the end of Antiquity (1st to 3rd century CE) philosophical theories (especially the stoic ones) and the intense religiosity spawned the belief that no deity should be neglected and remain unworshipped. Even gods whose names or sphere of influence were unknown should not be ignored. These "unknown" gods were included in the extended Pantheon, forming a complete divine circle, often referred to as "all gods". For this reason a worship appelation was created for them and carved on altars during these latter years, apparently used only in the plural [2]. There are numerous examples:

α. Pausanias, Description of Greece, book 1 ("Attica"),1.4 (description of the area of the Phaleron area):

b. As above, book 5 ("Helia I"), 14.8 [i] (about the area of Olympia):

c. In Pergamum in 1909 an offering inscription was discover, restored by archaeologists as follows:

d. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 6,3:

It is worth mentioning that even St. Jerome (the one that compiled the Vulgata latin translation of the Bible and honoured by the Orthodox Church on June 15th) was of the opinion that Paul in the case of this altar changed the plural to singular (unknown gods to god). And if that isn’t enough, he also eschewed the rest of the phrase, which read: "[…] to the gods of Asia, Europe and Africa, gods and unknown and foreign"[3]!

Jerome’s position was later repeated by Ecumenius, Bishop of Trikke, as well as Erasmus in his "In praise of foolishness":

Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that some believe that the passage from the Acts has been tampered with or was a later addition. This position, first supported by Norden, "was accepted some some, (e.g.J. Wellhausen, H. Lietzmann, R. Reitzenstein) while opposed by others (A.v. Harnack, Th. Birt, Ed. Meyer)"[5]. Another theory suggests that Paul’s singular number "was due to the text being corrupted or an error of memory"[6], while the magazine "Aexone" («Αἰξωνή»)(1951, σ. 132) suggested the theory that "the inscription was written in the plural, but in capital pre-euclidian letters, […] when the letter sigma (Σ) was still being written with 3 lines and the omicron (O) was also used instead of omega (Ω) and the /u/ diphthong (OY), so the discrepancy could have been due to Paul reading it wrong, because of a change in the letters of the attic alphabet, which had been happening for more than 500 years"[7].

Yes, but what does Lucian have to say?

This question raised by the christian apologists seems at first glance intriguing.

You see, in his work "Patriot" («Φιλόπατρις»), Lucian mentions the following oath:

However, there is an important detail missing here: this work by Lucian is considered to be a PSEUDEPIGRAPH and is believed to have been written in the Middle Ages[8]! Naturally, if this is the case, quoting this passage automatically becomes void of any meaning.

However…

There is however a testimony that doesn’t exclude Paul’s version! It’s impressive that this testimony is used both by Christians and the critics, both interpreting it in an unorthodox manner, since the former corrupt its real meaning and the latter interpret it unilateraly.

It is the testimony of Diogenes Laertius in "The life and opinions of those that prospered in philosophy" A (Epimenides), 110, wherein appears an explanation of the worship of the anonymous gods:

Many apologists isolate the phrase "to the appropriate god" and… turn it into an inscription(!) presenting as almost identical in meaning to "to the unknown god" ignoring the fact that the text speaks of many appropriate gods; by definition DIFFERENT! Others reject by default any chance the pauline inscription being real, putting all the weight on the phrase "anonymous altars" and they interpret it unilateraly, without bothering with the fact that (according to the text) wherever the sheep stopped, an altar was erected to the appropriate deity of the area. This description could easily mean that the sheep also stopped at areas whose patron deities were unknown! It’s entirely possible that there WERE altars dedicated to an "unknown god"; not the unknown god the Christians imagine, but the unknown "appropriate" deity of the surrounding area!

Of course this is just one of the alternatives. It is equally possible that they bore no inscription and where (as Laertius says) anomynous! This alternative makes the case that the phrase was never encountered in the singular even stronger and things get even clearer. [9].

Regardless, one thing is certain. Even if, despite the doubts of the experts, the altar that Paul described existed, under no circumstance was it a prophecy about the One and True God of the Christians. Quite the opposite! And one need only ponder on what difference in symbolism there is between an altar to the Unknown God and a modern monument to the fallen Unknown… Soldier.

[table id=104 /]