What cultural factors influenced the reaction in Acts 2:13? Festival Backdrop: Shavuot in First-Century Jerusalem Shavuot (“Pentecost”) drew every able-bodied male Jew to Jerusalem fifty days after Passover (Exodus 23:16; Deuteronomy 16:10). City population swelled from c. 60,000 to well over 200,000 (Josephus, War 2.42). Pilgrims came before 9 a.m. for the morning sacrifice—precisely the hour Peter identifies: “It is only the third hour of the day” (Acts 2:15). Festival atmosphere meant crowded streets, heightened expectation, and close temple policing, making any public disturbance immediately subject to interpretation. A Linguistic Mosaic of the Jewish Diaspora Luke lists at least fifteen language groups (Acts 2:9-11). Inscribed synagogue plaques from Delos, Rome, and Jerusalem confirm such dispersion. Hearing Galileans speak Parthian, Phrygian, or Latin astonished some yet confused others, prompting the dismissive “They are drunk on new wine” (Acts 2:13). Multilingual cacophony in tight quarters easily suggested incoherence to listeners who caught only partial phrases outside their own tongue. Honor-Shame Dynamics in a Patron-Controlled Temple Precinct Public honor hinged on self-control (sōphrosynē). Ecstatic speech risked shame for speaker and listeners unless clearly prophetic. Scoffing protected observers’ honor by distancing themselves from potential dishonor; labeling the speakers drunk restored social equilibrium. Jewish Memory of Prophetic Ecstasy The Hebrew Scriptures record occasions where Spirit-filled figures appeared erratic: Saul “prophesied… and lay naked all that day” (1 Samuel 19:24). Rabbinic tradition (m. Sanhedrin 11:5) later warns against excess in ecstatic utterance. Some Pentecost witnesses likely recalled such texts and interpreted the apostles through that lens. Greco-Roman Suspicion of Enthusiasm Hellenistic culture prized logos over ecstatic mania. Plato (Phaedr. 244a) concedes divine madness but warns of its dangers. Stoic writers ridiculed Dionysian bacchanalia. Gentile proselytes in the crowd (Acts 2:11) could therefore default to a wine-based explanation. Symbolism of “New Wine” (Gleukos) Gleukos refers to sweet wine from the spring harvest—fermented only a few weeks, potent yet inexpensive. Talmudic sources (b. Berakhot 35b) describe its strong effect even in small amounts. Shavuot offered first-fruits of grain and new wine (Numbers 28:26-31), so pilgrims had ready access, making drunkenness a plausible—though false—charge. Political Tension Under Roman Surveillance Feasts often sparked uprisings (cf. Josephus, War 2.224-227). Rome stationed extra cohorts at Fortress Antonia overlooking the temple. Deriding the apostles as tipsy could pre-empt Roman suspicion of sedition; a drunken commotion sounded less threatening than a Spirit-empowered proclamation of a crucified-yet-risen King. Messianic Expectation and Prophetic Fulfilment Inter-testamental writings (1 Enoch 48; 4 Ezra 12) fueled hopes of Spirit outpouring in the last days. Some bystanders perceived fulfilment and asked, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:12). Others, perhaps weary of failed messiahs (cf. Acts 5:36-37), ridiculed to avoid disappointment. Archaeological Corroboration of Setting Recent excavations along the Southern Steps reveal miqva’ot (ritual baths) capable of baptizing thousands, corroborating Luke’s note of “about three thousand souls” added that day (Acts 2:41). Stones bear Herodian mason’s marks consistent with the era, situating the narrative in verifiable geography. Theological Ramifications for Believers Today Mockery of Spirit-empowered testimony persists. Yet the same cultural mix—diverse languages, secular skepticism, political tension—provides opportunity for proclamation. Peter answered ridicule with Scripture (Joel 2:28-32), eyewitness affirmation of the resurrection, and a call to repent. The pattern endures: Spirit, Scripture, and the risen Christ overcome cultural scorn. |
    |