Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

brill.com/nt

The Double Entendre of Paul’s Trade

as σκηνοποιός (Acts 18:3)
Working for Israel’s Restoration in the Greco-Roman World

W. Gil Shin | ORCID: 0000-0003-1445-7565

School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,
California, USA
[email protected]

Abstract

The word σκηνοποιός (Acts 18:3), a hapax legomenon, has been the subject of
intense scrutiny because it may disclose the socio-economic nature of Paul’s trade.
However, attempts to reconstruct historically his trade have not confidently iden-
tified its accurate historical reference. Since this difficulty derives from Luke’s
choice of vocabulary—he uses a word that is very rare in the canon of Greco-Roman
literature—this study attends to the word’s rhetorical setting that may explain Luke’s
lexical choice. This choice would enhance the word’s symbolic value although weak-
ening its referential value. Σκηνοποιός is plausibly an instance of Lukan etymological
wordplay that draws on the continued symbolism of σκηνή in Luke-Acts—a term that
captures Luke’s restoration eschatology.

Keywords

double entendre – etymological wordplay – Israel’s restoration – Paul’s trade –

σκηνοποιός – tent-making

The word σκηνοποιός (Acts 18:3), a hapax legomenon, has been the subject of
intense scrutiny because it may locate Paul’s trade and his social condition.1

1 A. Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (New York: Harper, 1957) 48–51;
R.F. Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class,” jbl 97 (1978) 555–564;
P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (London:
Continuum, 2003) 189–195; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/15685365-bja10005

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 37

Diverse, often mutually contesting, interpretations have been suggested con-

cerning this single word.2 However, despite efforts to reconstruct the exact
nature of Paul’s trade based on this word, identifying precisely its historical ref-
erence has remained beyond reach. This interpretive conundrum derives from
the fact that the word occurs very rarely in the non-Christian Greco-Roman
literature of the time.
When scholars have pursued this “historical quest” of Paul’s trade, they gen-
erally do not consider another possibility—namely that Luke’s own lexical
choice may not have intended to make an accurate socio-economic reference,
but to draw on a term that was approximately recognizable as referring to a
trade but could give room for a rhetorical and symbolic resonance. This study
will first briefly give an overview of the history of interpretation of this word to
assess the current state of historical efforts to identify Paul’s trade. It will then
analyze Luke’s choice of this word in its immediate rhetorical setting, consider-
ing a possibility that he uses it as an etymological double entendre, especially in
relation to Paul’s preceding speech at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22–34). Finally, it
will examine the motif of σκηνή in the broader narrative of Luke-Acts to see if
this motif provides a thematic environment in which the word σκηνοποιός may
generate a corresponding symbolic resonance.

1 The Quest for Historical σκηνοποιός

The word σκηνοποιός is only rarely attested in the extant ancient Greek and
Latin literature. In Pollux, Onom. 7.189.5 the word refers to a specific trade.
In book 7 of this thesaurus, which is about different trades, the word σκηνο-
ποιός is arranged with other words related to μηχανοποιός. It occurs in a sam-
ple citation: τοὺς δὲ μηχανοποιοὺς καὶ σκηνοποιοὺς ἡ παλαιὰ κωμῳδία ὠνόμαζεν.
This example attests that the cited old comedy uses these two words synon-
ymously, with σκηνοποιός designating a specific job related to moving “stage
properties” or “a manufacturer of stage properties.”3 In Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.49.69
the word is used with πλάστρια (a molder) of vessels for souls: πλάστρια γὰρ
οὖσα καὶ σκηνοποιός, ἀγγεῖον … εἰσβάλλονται αἱ ψυχαί. The “molder” here refers
to nature (ἡ φύσις), which shapes bodies as the vessels for souls (αἱ ψυχαί),
and this symbolic passage is obviously not referencing a specific trade. If we

University Press, 1997) 85–89; H. Förster, “Der Aufenthalt von Priska und Aquila in Ephesus
und die juristischen Rahmenbedingungen ihrer Rückkehr nach Rom,” znw 105 (2014)
213–215.
2 For a recent and comprehensive list of history of interpretation, see H. Szesnat, “What Did
the ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ Paul Produce?,” Neot 27 (1993) 391–402.
3 bdag, s.v. σκηνοποιός 1.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
38 Shin

expand the search to the noun’s cognate verbal form, σκηνοποιέω (or its middle
form σκηνοποιέομαι), the verb mostly refers to pitching or erecting a tent or hut
(e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. 3.27.4; Polybius, Hist. 14.1.7). This, however, may
not match what -ποιος represents as a worker’s more permanent activity.4
This paucity of relevant uses has invited various attempts of historical
reconstruction that utilize different factors, such as the usage of other asso-
ciated words and the correlation with socio-economic activities of the time.
These searches have been conducted roughly in four categories (cf. Figure 1).
First, its meaning is suggested as having to do with manufacturing theater-
related props. As shown above, Pollux (Onom. 7.189.5) in the second century ce
presents σκηνοποιός as equivalent to μηχανοποιός, “stagehand.” This idea is
opposed by Emil Schürer and later by Peter Lampe,5 because Paul, who may
well have had a negative Jewish attitude towards theatrical productions,
would not likely have taken this kind of job. However, despite this critique,
Walter Bauer (bdag) asserts that “Luke’s publics in urban areas, where the-
atrical productions were in abundance, would think of σκηνοποιός in refer-
ence to matters theatrical.”6 This idea is picked up again by William O. Walker,
who, in addition to Bauer’s argument, adduces Paul’s own mention of θέατρον
(1 Cor 4:9), which is supposedly associated with his profession.7

theater-related

“tent” pitching

“tent”-related

σκηνοποιός “tent” manufacturing cilicium

more broadly, “fabric worker”

linen

more broadly, “leather worker” leather

Figure 1 The semantic field of σκηνοποιός

4 Cf. W. Michaelis, “σκηνοποιός,” tdnt 7 (1971) 393.

5 E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (3 vols.; Edinburgh:
Clark, 1973) 2:54–55; P. Lampe, “Paulus—Zeltmacher,” bz 31 (1987) 257.
6 bdag, s.v. σκηνοποιός 2.
7 W.O. Walker, “The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources,” nts 54
(2008) 488–489.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 39

Second, and more close etymologically, a tent-related job is considered.

Since “tent-pitching” as a trade is not a likely option,8 according to Holger
Szesnat, “[f]rom a philological and etymological point of view, Paul the σκηνο-
ποιός would most likely have been involved in the manufacturing of σκηναί.”9
Within this suggestion of “tent-manufacturing,” three kinds of material have
been proposed.
(1) Cilicium: Since Paul came from the province of Cilicia, research of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries suggested that Paul wove tents
out of goat hair (cilicium).10 This proposal was critiqued by Theodor Zahn
and Joachim Jeremias because cilicium was very rarely used for tents, and
a Pharisee like Paul would unlikely have chosen contemptible weaving as a
craft.11 However, according to Szesnat, Zahn’s dispute is inconclusive because
there are cases in which cilicium was used for tents, and Paul need not have
been a weaver but instead could have worked with the woven cloth.12
(2) Leather: Zahn argues, based on patristic evidence, that Paul made
leather tents and many other leather products.13 This idea is reinforced by
Hock, who further argues that the leather job was highly portable because
of its simple tools—which would have suited Paul’s itinerant lifestyle well.14
However, Lampe opposes Hock by showing that leather tents were mostly
used in the military and they were likely supplied by the in-house freedmen
or slaves.15 Lampe also critiques Hock’s alternative (that Paul might have sold
leather tents to private individuals) by showing that Hock’s documented texts
do not refer to leather but to woven fabric.16
(3) Linen: Lampe instead suggests that Paul and Priscilla/Aquila made tents
of linen for private customers,17 referring to documents that show the demand

8 bdag, s.v. σκηνοποιός 2; Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 394–395 n. 4.

9 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 394.
10 For the list of these studies, see R.F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tent­
making and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 72–73.
11 T. Zahn, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas (2 vols.; knt 5; Leipzig: Deichert, 1919–21) 2:632–
634; J. Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” znw 30 (1931) 299.
12 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 395–397. E.g., according to Pliny the Elder, Nat. 6.143, the
nomadic Scenitae made their tents (tabernacula) out of cilicium. Early Rabbinic texts
show that cilicium was used for similar purposes (Str-B 2:665, 746–747).
13 Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 2:632–634.
14 Hock, Social Context, 21–25.
15 Lampe, “Paulus,” 257. He adduces examples of the military use from, e.g., Vegitius, Mil.
2.10 and Josephus, B.J. 3.79–83, and examples of manufacturing tents by freedmen and
slaves of the imperial house from, e.g., cil 6.9053, 5183.
16 Lampe, “Paulus,” 258.
17 Lampe, “Paulus,” 258; Lampe, From Paul, 187–188.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
40 Shin

for linen tents for diverse purposes (e.g., for shading in the summer heat in
the Mediterranean region; tabernaculum in Cicero, Verr. 2.5.80–82; 2.5.29–31;
velum in Pliny, Nat. 19.24; casa as shopkeepers’ market stands at festivals in
Schol. Juv. 6.153) and their wide use in Rome (e.g., tents [tabernacula] erected
over streets for the crowds [Suetonius, Jul. 39.4], and awnings [vela] that even
covered the entire forum [Pliny, Nat. 19.23]). However, as Szesnat points out,
the evidence that Lampe offers is still meager in that he does not quote a Greek
text that links σκηνή with linen, and identifies just one Latin author (Cicero)
who connects tabernaculum with linen.18 In other words, despite his potent
opposition to the leather theory, Lampe’s suggestion appears equally incon-
clusive. For this reason, Szesnat ultimately says, “[f]rom the evidence cited, it
is clear that, in general, leather, linen, maybe even cilicium, and possibly other
types of materials as well … were used for the production of σκηναί.”19
Third, Paul’s trade is also considered more broadly as a fabric worker.
This is an extrapolation from the well-known fabric production in Tarsus.
A cilicium was woven in Tarsus and imported to Italy in the time of Augustus
(Varro, Rust. 2.11.12). The presence of a large group of linen workers (λινουργοί)
in this city was documented (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.21). Because wool and
linen were common textiles, they were in demand for many purposes includ-
ing for sails and awnings, which might have provided Paul a chance to work
in a wide range of areas. However, this wide use is one thing and whether
Paul was involved in textile production is another. If Paul learned a trade in
Jerusalem,20 weaving was supposedly an unlikely option because it was con-
sidered shameful in the city for men to weave textile (Josephus, A.J. 18.314).21
Further, weaving tools are too heavy to be portable.22 Accordingly, some schol-
ars argue that Paul was not involved in weaving23 but in the process of making
tents of those fabrics.24 In this case, the supposed Paul’s trade is equivalent to
one of the above-mentioned options.

18 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 398–399. Szesnat (esp. p. 398 n. 11) also raises a question about
Lampe’s assumption that velum is used as a synonym for tabernaculum.
19 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 400; cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 85–89.
20 M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: scm, 1991) 15–16. However, this idea is dis-
puted by Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking,” 557, and Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 85–86, because
Rabbinic evidence does not clearly show such conditions before 70 ce.
21 For the related Rabbinic literature, see Jeremias, “Zöllner,” 295–300.
22 C.S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2012–15) 3:2734; cf. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, 86–87.
23 E.g., Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 2:634; Jeremias, “Zöllner,” 299; Hock, Social Context, 21.
Further, a term for the trade of weaving that is more specific and widely used is ὑφάντης
(lsj, s.v.).
24 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 396.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 41

Fourth, Paul’s trade might have been as a general leather worker whose
products included shoes, awnings, tents, and even leather beds.25 As Christoph
Burchard mentions, to translate σκηνοποιός as “leather worker” initially sounds
“embarrassing.”26 However, this reading has long been accepted since the church
fathers (e.g., John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Tim. 4.2), who attest to diverse types of
leatherworking.27 This is possible because artisans may have had special-
ized titles even though they actually made a variety of different products.28
Of the many scholars who have opted for this view,29 Zahn and Hock are
the most well known. Nonetheless, this view is not undisputed. C.K. Barrett
points out that the early church fathers’ witnesses require a caution because
their readings were likely based on a misreading of the text or on manuscript
corruption.30 While Luke’s contemporary Greco-Roman literature does not
attest to the usage of σκηνοποιός as a general leather worker, if the evidence of
the patristic readings is in fact based on a lexicographical corruption, this rela-
tively popular view does not have the commensurate evidentiary basis.
As this brief survey shows, although many years of discussion have pro-
duced more details about Paul’s conceivable socio-economic conditions, these
details do not confidently come down to pinpointing what exactly Paul’s trade
was. A recent conclusion deserves quotations. According to Murphy-O’Connor,
“Paul was … at home in sewing together strips of leather or … canvas … He
could reinforce a sail and remake the tents. … He could put a stitch or two in
any of the multifarious articles of leather.”31 This array of product items and
their suggested materials that Paul might have used include almost all four
categories listed above except for a weaving job. What Szesnat mentions about

25 Keener, Acts, 3:2734–2735; for a leather bed see b. Ned. 56b.

26 C. Burchard, Der dreizehnte Zeuge: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersu­
chungen zu Lukas’ Darstellung der Frühzeit des Paulus (frlant 103; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 39 n. 57.
27 E.g., Origen, Comm. Rom. 16.3 (pg 14.1279) takes artifices tabernaculorum as sutores
(“shoemakers”).
28 Hock, Social Context, 21; cf. R.I. Pervo, Acts (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009) 452
n. 64.
29 E.g., Jeremias, “Zöllner,” 299; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: West­
minster, 1971) 534; M.N. Keller, Priscilla and Aquila: Paul’s Coworkers in Christ Jesus (Col­
legeville: Liturgical Press, 2010) 15, even says that “[t]oday most scholars think … with
leather.”
30 C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; icc;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994–98) 2:863; e.g., the Old Latin manuscript (h)’s reading of lec­
tarius arose as the corruption of σκηνοποιός into κλινοποιός. Similarly, the reading of the
Peshitta may be based on the translator’s misreading according to E. Nestle, “St Paul’s
Handicraft: Acts xviii. 3,” jbl 11 (1892) 205–206.
31 Murphy-O’Conor, Paul, 88.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
42 Shin

Paul’s work materials—“the point is that we do not have enough evidence to

conclude”—applies even to what items he might have manufactured.32
This difficulty in identifying Paul’s supposed trade, a difficulty that is not
readily solved, is inherently related to the Lukan composition of the text, i.e.,
Luke’s own choice of the very rare word. This inherent constraint makes the
endeavors of historical reconstruction more complex and indecisive. Given
this, it may be helpful for later scholars to expand their focus from the so-
far-exclusively-raised question, “What does σκηνοποιός refer to in the socio-
historical context of the first century ce Roman world?,” to “What rhetorical
and theological/ideological desideratum is at play in Luke’s choice of the very
rare term for a trade in the Greco-Roman world?” I believe that these two
questions are not incompatible. While not denying the general importance
of such historical reconstruction,33 it is also worth searching for the possible
rhetorical/ideological effect of using such a rare but intriguing word. The cur-
rent scholarship is, to my mind, focused exclusively on the first question even
though there is inherent uncertainty associated with the author’s own lexi-
cal choice.34 Once the second question is granted, a study may pay attention
more legitimately to the pronounced etymological feature of the compound
word (σκηνή + ποιέω).

2 Σκηνοποιός as Etymological Double Entendre

2.1 Luke and Etymological Wordplay

Craig Keener mentions that relying on the word’s etymology in this passage
may lead to “a double entendre for workers on a spiritual temple,” which
draws on Peter’s suggestion of building (ποιέω) booths (σκηνή) in the transfig-
uration account (Luke 9:33) and the making (ποιέω) of the tabernacle (σκηνή)
in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:43–44). However, he quickly abandons this sugges-
tion as debatable because then Luke would be given to “allegory.”35 Although
it is not clear in what sense Keener uses the term “allegory,” if he used the term

32 Szesnat, “σκηνοποιοσ,” 400.

33 As the Lukan narrative uses a term that evokes an economic guild (ὁμότεχνος 18:3; cf. lsj,
s.v.), Luke does locate Paul’s activity within the Roman economic environment. The logic
of the research must not be either/or but both/and.
34 As C.J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (wunt 49; Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 233 n. 36, opines, the usage of the term as a trade identification is
“far from established.”
35 Keener, Acts, 3:2732 n. 4369.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 43

as an arbitrary symbolism, such characterization does not do justice to the

Lukan use of the motif of σκηνή, which appears repeatedly at important nar-
rative junctures and coherently in association with the theme of Israel’s escha-
tological restoration (see 3.1 below). Further, Luke’s use of double entendre as
the narrative device for a theological/ideological purpose has been observed
in other passages.36
More specifically, Luke does use an etymological wordplay with a name.37
One explicit example is a play on the name Barnabas. For this transliterated
Aramaic name Luke provides its translation, υἱὸς παρακλήσεως (Acts 4:36), and
Barnabas’s role is later described as παρεκάλει πάντας (11:23).38 Luke also offers
an example of etymological play on words that relates one’s title to what that
person does. Luke describes Eluma in Paphos with multiple nomenclatures.
His title is μαγός, and this is a certain kind of translation of his name Ἐλύμας,
which is extradiegetically explained (οὕτως γὰρ μεθερμηνεύεται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,
18:3). His Aramaic name is Βαριησοῦ (13:6), and Luke introduces an etymo-
logical wordplay related to this name by calling him υἱὸς διαβόλου (13:10).
This explains why Luke also calls him ψευδοπροφήτης Ἰουδαῖος (13:6), because
although his name is Βαριησοῦ, his real identity is υἱὸς διαβόλου.39 Luke here
plays with names and titles, and his etymological wordplay highlights the per-
son’s identity and what that person does.40
Given such acquaintance with this literary device, Luke’s use of the word
σκηνοποιός as an etymological wordplay is theoretically possible. However, in
order to determine whether this is indeed an appropriate reading, we need to
examine whether such wordplay is suggested by the literary context, and if so,
what rhetorical effects this wordplay generates.

36 D. Hamm, “Acts 3,1–10: The Healing of the Temple Beggar as Lucan Theology,” Bib 67
(1986) 305–319; M.D. Given, “Not Either/Or but Both/And in Paul’s Areopagus Speech,”
BibInt 3 (1995) 363–369; M.C. Parsons, “‘Short in Stature’: Luke’s Physical Description of
Zacchaeus,” nts 47 (2001) 50–57.
37 Etymological wordplays occur often in Greek and Latin literature: cf. J.J. O’Hara, True
Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor: Uni­
versity of Michigan Press, 2017) 66–67; and in the Hebrew Bible: cf. L.A. Schökel, A
Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988) 30–31.
38 S. Reece, “Jesus as Healer: Etymologizing of Proper Names in Luke-Acts,” znw 110 (2019)
188.
39 Reece, “Jesus,” 187.
40 In this sense, Luke seems to have operated to some extent according to the ancient liter-
ary device that the name is a “key to the essence of a character” (O’Hara, True Names, 9).

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
44 Shin

2.2 The Literary Context: Paul’s Speech at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22–34)
and Paul as σκηνοποιός (Acts 18:3)
Paul’s speech at the Areopagus immediately precedes the instance in which
Luke describes Paul’s title as σκηνοποιός. There is a notable repetition of the
same (but rare) word (τέχνη) in both pericopes (17:29; 18:3). Τέχνη is rarely used
in the nt, occurring only in Acts and once in Revelation. This word occurs in
Paul’s Areopagus speech to describe the nature of the divine being in contrast
to an image formed by the art (χαράγματι τέχνης, 17:29), and this word occurs
almost immediately afterwards to describe the trade title of Paul and his com-
pany (σκηνοποιοὶ τῇ τέχνῃ, 18:3).
This close repetition of the word τέχνη (17:29; 18:3) is associated with the
motifs of σκηνή and ποιέω in both places. First, in Paul’s Areopagus speech, the
word τέχνη (17:29) is used to address the issue of whether human hands can
build a proper dwelling place for the divine being. The overall logic is centered
on the contrast between God and what he makes (ποιέω), on the one hand,
and human hands and what they make (χειροποίητος), on the other hand. It is
God who makes the universe (ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον, v. 24) for all human beings
to indwell (πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν, v. 26). In ironic contrast, those who
exist in that created universe attempt to use their hands to make a place for
God to dwell, although this is impossible to do (οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοι-
κεῖ, v. 24).

ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κόσμον (v. 24) ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς (v. 24)
↓ ↓
πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν (v. 26) ὁ θεὸς … κατοικεῖ (v. 24)

The word τέχνη is presented in this contrast: “we ought not think that the deity
is like gold, silver, or stone, an image formed by the art (χαράγματι τέχνης)”
(17:29). In this context, τέχνη is the art of human hands (cf. χειροποίητος) which
may intend, although it is impossible, to carry the divine being’s presence in
the world.
As many commentators have observed, this very theme appears promi-
nently in Stephen’s speech,41 in which the theme is demonstrated with the
three motifs of ποιέω, χείρ, and σκηνή. There is the same contrast between
what human hands make and God’s dwelling place: “the Most High does not
dwell in houses made with human hands (ἐν χειροποιήτοις)” (7:48). The mak-
ing of the idolatrous calf is also configured as “rejoic[ing] in the works of their
hands (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν)” (7:41). This form of works is then con-
nected to the idolatrous form of σκηνή (τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μόλοχ, 7:43) in contrast

41 E.g., Pervo, Acts, 434; Haenchen, Acts, 522 n. 4; Barrett, Acts, 2:840.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 45

to the σκηνή in the wilderness (σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, 7:44). This anti-idolatry
rhetoric composed with the motifs of ποιέω, χείρ, and σκηνή is analogous to
the rhetoric of Paul’s Areopagus speech. Both speeches address the issue of
whether human hands can make a dwelling place for the divine being:

7:48 οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ

17:24 οὗτος … κύριος οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις ναοῖς κατοικεῖ

In Stephen’s speech this issue is related to the (mis)use of the form of σκηνή as
worship space in Israel’s history (7:43–44). In Paul’s speech it is related to the
form of ναός that the Athenians have built for worship (17:24). In this equiva-
lent thematic development, the occurrence of the repeated motifs of ποιέω
and χείρ in Paul’s Areopagus speech strongly evokes the motif of σκηνή previ-
ously developed in Stephen’s speech to refer to a certain worship space. The
first mention of τέχνη (17:29) is presented in this rhetorical/ideological context
in connection with the motifs of σκηνή and ποιέω.
Second, the word τέχνη then occurs almost immediately after this first
use, describing the trade of Paul and his company in Corinth as σκηνοποιοί
(18:3). Luke uses this compound word that incorporates the motifs of σκηνή
and ποιέω despite its rare use in the contemporary Greco-Roman literature in
order to describe the trade (τέχνη) of Paul, who has just enunciated the limi-
tation of the art (τέχνη, 17:29) of human hands in carrying the divine being’s
presence in the world (cf. χειροποίητος, 17:24). Notably, the sentence ἦσαν γὰρ
σκηνοποιοὶ τῇ τέχνῃ is an additional explanatory commentary. This relatively
long description of Paul’s coworkers is itself rare. Perhaps Luke includes it
because of the importance of Priscilla and Aquila in the early church setting.42
However, given the lack of the information of Paul’s other prestigious cowork-
ers’ trades in Acts, this extra description of their trade, presented in a way that
lexically captures the previous speech’s motifs (i.e., ποιέω, τέχνη, and evoca-
tively and thematically σκηνή), may well function as more than a marker of
their socio-economic position.
Furthermore, the description of Paul working according to this trade (ἠργά­
ζετο … τῇ τέχνῃ, 18:3) is immediately followed by a formulaic expression for
his ministry of preaching/teaching: “he would reason (διελέγετο) in the syna-
gogues … and would persuade (ἔπειθεν) Jews and Greeks” (18:4). In Athens, Paul
reasoned (διελέγετο) in the synagogue with the Jews (17:17). In Thessalonica,
he reasoned (διελέξατο) with the Jews in the synagogue (17:2) and some
were persuaded (ἐπείσθησαν, 17:4). In Ephesus, Paul spoke in the synagogue,
reasoning and persuading (διαλεγόμενος καὶ πείθων) about the kingdom of

42 Cf. Keller, Priscilla, 26–27.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
46 Shin

God (19:8). The use of διαλέγομαι and πείθω in Acts is a conventional way to
describe Paul’s evangelistic ministry. This formulaic expression for the min-
istry (18:4) is juxtaposed with the description of Paul’s “working” (ἐργάζομαι)
as a σκηνοποιός (18:3).43
This rhetorical context of Paul’s ministry, particularly in continuity with his
Areopagus speech, provides a literary environment in which Luke’s descrip-
tion of Paul and his company’s “work” can be heard in two ways. On the one
hand, they are workers (ἐργάζομαι) engaged in socio-economic activities to do
with certain types of manufacturing (-ποιος) according to their trade (τέχνη).
On the other hand, they are workers (ἐργάζομαι) of the evangelistic ministry
that contradicts the mortal’s art (τέχνη) that restricts the divine presence to
its own manufacture (χειροποίητος). In this ambivalent semantic environment
that Luke’s own literary rhetoric creates, his choice of σκηνο- for the compound
noun blunts the noun’s referential value for identifying Paul’s occupation, but
it enhances its associative value for generating a rhetorical and ideological sig-
nificance of Paul’s work. This is even more important because his choice of
σκηνο- echoes the repeated motif of σκηνή in Luke-Acts.

3 The Motif of σκηνή and Luke’s Restoration Eschatology

If Luke etymologically plays on the word σκηνοποιός in this context of Paul’s

ministry in the Greco-Roman world, the use of σκηνο- is a compelling way to
describe the “work” of the Lukan Paul because the motif of σκηνή in the rest
of his two-volume work is strongly associated with his restoration eschatology
that relates Gentile converts to Israel’s restoration hope.

3.1 The Lukan Motif of σκηνή

The word σκηνή occurs at key points of Luke’s narrative, such as Jesus’ trans-
figuration (Luke 9:33), Stephen’s retelling of Israel’s history (Acts 7:43, 44,
46), and James’s quotation of Amos 9 in the so-called Jerusalem Council
(Acts 15:16). These places have been considered pivotal in the plot and theol-
ogy of Luke-Acts,44 in each of which the motif of σκηνή coincides with other
motifs that contribute to characterizing Luke’s restoration eschatology.

43 Walker (“Portrayal,” 486) points out that the verb ἐργάζομαι (18:3) may signify more
“religious activity” than “manual work.”
44 Cf. J.P. Heil, The Transfiguration of Jesus: Narrative Meaning and Function of Mark 9:2–8,
Matt 17:1–8 and Luke 9:28–36 (AnBib 144; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000)
51–74; P. Paulo, Le problème ecclésial des Actes à la lumière de deux prophéties d’Amos
(Montréal: Bellarmin, 1985) 48–49.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 47

In the transfiguration account (9:28–36), what will happen to Jesus in

Jerusalem is revealed from the conversation between Jesus and the two heav-
enly figures (Moses and Elijah) as his “exodus,” an exodus that he will accom-
plish in Jerusalem (τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ, 9:31).
Although certain commentators are skeptical about whether the word ἔξοδος
alludes to Israel’s exodus story beyond referring to Jesus’ death/departure,45
considering (1) the ambivalent syntax of the sentence (i.e., whereas αὐτοῦ
is the subject genitive, ἔξοδον is itself the object of the verb πληροῦν, show-
ing that “exodus” is not only what happens to Jesus himself but what he
accomplishes),46 (2) the allusions to the exodus scene(s) in the transfiguration
account itself (e.g., Moses, the theophanic cloud, mountain),47 and (3) the pos-
sible connection of this phrase to a new exodus pattern developed in the larger
scope of Luke-Acts narrative,48 this intriguing discourse is likely designed
to evoke a hope of new exodus that Jesus will accomplish climactically in
Jerusalem. In response to this revelation, Peter suggests that they build (or
pitch?) three tents (or booths? ποιήσωμεν σκηνὰς τρεῖς) for the three figures,
a suggestion that is countered by the cloud’s appearance that overshadows
the disciples (ἐπεσκίαζεν αὐτούς, 9:34).49 The use of this rare verb (ἐπισκι-
άζω), which is associated with the cloud overshadowing the tabernacle of
witness (τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου) at the time of its construction in the wil-
derness (Exod 40:35 lxx),50 also evokes the only other place that this word
occurs in the Lukan narrative: the announcement of the birth of the Davidic
Messiah (Luke 1:32–33).51 Such a birth is enabled by the power of the Most
High overshadowing the bearer (ἐπισκιάσει σοι, 1:35). This carefully devised
web of allusions suggests a portrait of the Davidic Messiah’s role as the one
who accomplishes the new exodus hope,52 in a way that echoes the image of
Israel’s worship space through the evocative motif of σκηνή.53

45 E.g., J. Nolland, Luke (3 vols.; wbc 35A–35C; Dallas: Word, 1989–93) 2:499–500.
46 W.G. Shin, “The ‘Exodus’ in Jerusalem [Luke 9:31]: A Lukan Form of Israel’s Restoration
Hope” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2016) 106–108.
47 J.B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (nicnt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 378.
48 For the Deuteronomic model, see D.P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1989) 261–263. For the Isaianic model, see M.L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in
Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 261–336.
49 For the reading that the overshadowed figures are not Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, but Peter
and the other two disciples, see Green, Luke, 383–384.
50 I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (nigtc 3; Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1978) 387; D.L. Bock,
Luke (2 vols.; becnt 3A–3B; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994–96) 1:872.
51 Green, Luke, 90; L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke [sp 3; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991)
153–154, hears from the word ἐπισκιάζω in Luke 9:34 both Exod 40:35 and Luke 1:35.
52 Cf. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 261–336.
53 Shin, “Exodus,” 228–240.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
48 Shin

This motif of σκηνή is also found in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7), as we already
saw. Stephen’s retelling of Israel’s history contrasts the tent of an idol (σκηνὴ
τοῦ Μόλοχ, 7:43) with the tabernacle of witness (σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου) built
according to the pattern revealed to Moses (7:44). This contrast bears on the
subject matter of the Stephen episode itself, i.e., how to view the current
Jerusalem temple (6:13–14; 7:1), Israel’s worship space par excellence, made as
a consequence of David’s favor before God “to find a dwelling place” (εὑρεῖν
σκήνωμα) for the house of Jacob (7:46).54 This iteration of Israel’s worship
space, now existing as the house (οἶκος, 7:47), could be associated negatively
with the idea of placing God’s dwelling in something that is made by hands
(ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ, v. 48), just as the idolatrous tent of Moloch (7:43) is
associated with rejoicing in the works of hands (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν, 7:41).
What caused this idolatrous metastasis of worship space in the first place
was “our” forefathers’ rejecting Moses, “the man God sent as both ruler and a
judge” (7:35, 39–40), which envisages another rejection of “a prophet like me”
(7:37). Analogously, “your” (i.e., the opposing Jews) betrayal of “the Righteous
One” (7:52) coincides with an inordinately kataphatic perception of the tem-
ple (7:49–50).55 In other words, how one perceives the anticipated messianic
figure who is patterned after Moses, the original tabernacle builder (τῷ Μωϋσῇ
ποιῆσαι αὐτήν, 7:44), is determinative to her perception of the nature of Israel’s
worship space. According to the Lukan Stephen, this makes his opponents’
view of the temple idolatrous. The motif of σκηνή in Stephen’s speech is asso-
ciated with the anticipated messianic figure’s role for Israel’s worship space.
The motif of σκηνή in conjunction with Israel’s restoration hope occurs
consummately in James’s quotation of Amos 9:11–12: God’s restorative action
to return to Israel and to rebuild the fallen Davidic tent (ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν
σκηνὴν Δαυίδ, Acts 15:16). In this instance, the motif of σκηνή conspicuously
relates Gentile converts to Israel’s restoration hope. How Luke understands
the meaning of this Davidic σκηνή has long been debated. Suggestions include
that it is intended as a metaphor of Jesus’ resurrection,56 a conversion of
“Israel” made up of the Jews57 or both Jews and Gentiles,58 Christ’s rule over

54 This reading (τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰακώβ) follows 𝔓⁷⁴, ‫*א‬, B, D, H.

55 According to B.C. Lane, Landscapes of the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2002) 241, a sacred place related to Judeo-Christian traditions is either kataphatic
(i.e., a deity is not disclosed anywhere but at specific shrines) or apophatic (i.e., the deity
refuses to be bound to any single geographical locale).
56 Haenchen, Acts, 448; G. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; htknt 5; Freiburg: Herder,
1982) 2:183.
57 J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 51–54.
58 G. Lohfink, Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie (sant
39; Munich: Kösel, 1975) 59; A. Weiser, Die Apostelgeschichte (otknt 5; Gütersloh: Mohn,
1981) 382.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 49

the messianic people,59 and the restored temple as being equivalent to the
church.60 Although an extended discussion on this problem is not appropriate
here, it is worth pointing out how the Lukan James’s modification of Amos 9
sheds light on his take on this phrase. His modification, in which ἀνοικδομέω
(Amos 9:11 lxx) is emphatically used (Acts 15:16) along with the newly added
verb ἀνορθόω (15:16),61 evokes 2 Sam 7 as a background for his conceptualiza-
tion of the restored Davidic σκηνή (cf. Table 1).62

Table 1 Rebuilding motifs

Acts 15:16 2 Sam 7 Amos 9:11

μετὰ ταῦτα ἀναστρέψω (5) οὐ σὺ οἰκοδομήσεις ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη

καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν μοι οἶκον τοῦ ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν
σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ τὴν κατοικῆσαί με Δαυιδ τὴν πεπτωκυῖαν
πεπτωκυῖαν (7) τί ὅτι οὐκ καὶ ἀνοικοδομήσω τὰ
ᾠκοδομήκατέ μοι οἶκον πεπτωκότα αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ
κέδρινον κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς
(11) ἀπαγγελεῖ σοι ἀναστήσω καὶ
κύριος ὅτι οἶκον ἀνοικοδομήσω αὐτὴν
καὶ τὰ κατεσκαμμένα οἰκοδομήσεις αὐτῷ καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ
αὐτῆς ἀνοικοδομήσω (13) αὐτὸς οἰκοδομήσει αἰῶνος
μοι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματί
καὶ ἀνορθώσω αὐτήν μου καὶ ἀνορθώσω τὸν
θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἕως τὸν
αἰῶνα

59 M. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 313–314, 420; Keener, Acts, 3:2255 n. 495.
60 R. Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of
Acts (ed. B. Witherington iii; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 156–170.
61 The verb in the phrase ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυιδ (Amos 9:11 lxx) is switched to ἀνοι-
κοδομήσω (Acts 15:16). The verbs in the phrase τὰ κατεσκαμμένα αὐτῆς ἀναστήσω καὶ
ἀνοικοδοήσω αὐτήν are switched to ἀνοικοδομήσω and ἀνορθώσω, adding a verb found in
2 Sam 7:13.
62 W.E. Glenny, “The Septuagint and Apostolic Hermeneutics: Amos 9 in Acts 15,” bbr 21
(2012) 19; Yuzuru Miura, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism
(wunt 2/232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 189–194.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
50 Shin

In Amos 9:11 the verb ἀνοικοδομέω (rebuild) occurs twice, which, as a deriv-
ative of οἰκοδομέω (build), recalls the “building of a house” (οἰκοδομέω οἶκον)
announced to David (2 Sam 7:5, 7, 11, 13). This connection is even more high-
lighted in Acts 15:16 as the Lukan James rephrases ἀναστήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυιδ
in Amos 9:11 to ἀνοικοδομήσω τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυίδ. This reveals Luke’s concep-
tion that the restored Davidic “tent” (τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυίδ), which is promised in
Amos 9:11, is primarily the rebuilt (ἀνοικοδομήσω) reality of what was originally
promised as “building of a house” (οἰκοδομέω οἶκον) in 2 Sam 7.
In particular, the symbolism of “building a house” in 2 Sam 7 is twofold,
referring to the building of the temple (7:5, 7, 13a), on the one hand, and to the
establishment of the Davidic throne (7:11, 13b), on the other. The latter point
is expressed by the phrase ἀνορθώσω τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ (7:13b), which sheds
light on the Lukan James’s addition of the verb ἀνορθόω (Acts 15:16) in his
rephrasing of Amos 9:11. Just as the symbolism of “building a house” in 2 Sam 7
interweaves the establishment (ἀνορθόω, v. 13b) of the Davidic rule with the
construction of the temple, the rebuilt Davidic σκηνή in James’s quotation may
have twofold significance. It alludes to the establishment (ἀνορθόω, Acts 15:16)
of (new) Davidic rule (cf. 2 Sam 7:11, 13b) in connection with the construction
of a temple-like worship space (cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 7, 13a).63 It is conceivable that
while James’s quotation addresses the state of the new community composed
of both repentant Jews and Gentiles, the motif of the Davidic σκηνή associates
this state with the eschatological restoration of the Davidic rule and Israel’s
worship space. The symbolism of the rebuilt σκηνή is strongly linked to Israel’s
restoration hope, the realization of which inclusively applies to the broader
world of Gentiles.
In short, the motif of σκηνή within the narrative of Luke-Acts bears on
the elements of Jewish restoration eschatology, including (1) the nature of
Israel’s worship space that can be idolatrously misconceived, (2) the Davidic
Messiah’s establishment of eschatological worship space associated with a
new community that participates in Israel’s restoration, and (3) this estab-
lishment’s implications to the larger Greco-Roman world beyond the land
of Israel, as it incorporates Gentile converts. Given this ideological subtext
underlying the symbolism of σκηνή, the double entendre of σκηνοποιός may
well be the more appropriate one. These elements of restoration eschatology
match the nuanced narrative description of Paul and his company as “work-
ers” (Acts 18:1–3) in the rhetorical context of the contention at the Areopagus
(17:22–31). His speech there is presented as a challenge to the prominent

63 Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles,” 156–170. For the double signification of the Davidic
rule and the temple motif, see Shin, “Exodus,” 213–224.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 51

Greco-Roman world, addressing the misconception of the nature of the divine

being and its “residence” in a hand-made artifact as the object of worship
(Acts 17:23). Further, this challenge ends with a universal call for repentance to
Israel’s God (17:30), who claims the cosmic sovereignty (17:24), even though the
Athenian audience considered this god as one of “foreign divinities” (17:18).
This ebullient description is precisely what one may expect when the above-
mentioned elements of restoration eschatology clash with the Greco-Roman
religiosity. Luke describes Paul and his company as σκηνοποιοί (Acts 18:3) at
this narrative juncture, in which the Jewish ideology of eschatologically
restored worship of Israel’s God squarely collides via Paul’s preceding speech
with the Greco-Roman perception of deity and its earthly presence.
According to this construal, the “work” of Paul and his company as σκηνο-
ποιοί in the larger Greco-Roman world involves a juxtaposition between the
Jewish form of restoration eschatology (i.e., restoration of Israel’s worship
space as symbolized with the scriptural motif of σκηνή) and the ironic expan-
sion of such hope beyond the realm of Israel (as shown in Paul’s contentious
speech to the Athenians). For Luke, the restored Davidic σκηνή (Acts 15:16)
seems to warrant this challenging task of universally including both Jewish
and Gentile converts within Israel’s eschatological worship space. Paul
described as a σκηνοποιός well suits this ideological aspect of his task.

3.2 The Validity Contention for True “Jewishness” in the

Greco-Roman World
Finally, as this reading characterizes Luke’s description of Paul’s work in terms
of a Jewish form of restoration hope in the Greco-Roman world, it clarifies
the Lukan portrait of Paul’s ministry in that world in relation to the oppos-
ing Jews. One of the repeated aspects of Paul’s ministry in Acts is his ten-
sion with unbelieving diaspora Jews (13:45, 50; 14:2, 4, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:12; 20:3).
Particularly in the setting of Macedonia and Achaia, this tension is brought up
in terms of whether Paul’s message constitutes a form of social unrest in the
Roman Empire.
In Thessalonica the opposing Jews accuse Paul’s group of having “turned the
world upside down” (τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀναστατώσαντες, 17:6) and “acting against
the decrees of Caesar” in support of another king (17:7). But Luke’s portrayal
is ironic in that its actual description raises a question about who is actually
the seditious party. Those Jews in Thessalonica, described as “jealous Jews,”
with some ruffians in the marketplaces “set the city in uproar” (ὀχλοποιήσαν­
τες ἐθορύβουν τὴν πόλιν, 17:5). In describing this city’s turmoil, Luke, by mak-
ing the subject of the verb ταράσσω the accusing Jews (ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
52 Shin

καὶ πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα, 17:8),64 ambiguously presents who it is that

actually throws the city into turmoil. These Jews moved to Berea against Paul’s
group, and their action is described as “stirring up and inciting the crowds”
(σαλεύοντες καὶ ταράσσοντες τοὺς ὄχλους, 17:13). Despite their accusation of Paul,
it is actually these Jews in Luke’s subtle portrait, who are spreading instabil-
ity, moving city by city around the empire. So it is that Luke puts words in the
mouth of Gallio, the proconsul in Corinth, vindicating Paul’s group and insist-
ing that they are neither involved in violating the Roman justice law (ἀδίκημα)
nor in any civil evil (ῥᾳδιούργημα πονηρόν, 18:14).
The suggestion of the double entendre in calling Paul and his company
σκηνοποιοί (i.e., workers for Israel’s eschatological worship space) elucidates
how Luke portrays the intramural Jewish tension in his narrative. According to
Luke, the reason why Paul and his company’s work creates a tension with the
other diaspora Jews is because their work is the true form of Israel’s restora-
tion hope. Their work must be thus evinced in the Roman world in contrast to
the opposing Jews’ supposedly invalid conception of the legacy of Israel’s faith
(Acts 13:45–46; 17:2–5; 24:14–15). In the picture of the two contending Jewish
groups, Luke presumably reflects the issue of what “true Jewishness” is or
which group reflects the true form of Israel’s hope (cf. “I am wearing this chain
because of the hope of Israel,” 28:20).65 Who is enhancing true Jewishness in
the Roman world,66 and in what way does this true form appear? The form
of religion presented by the Lukan Paul at the Areopagus (17:22–31) is indeed
challenging to the Greco-Roman culture (cf. 16:21). However, it is still different
from the opposing Jews’ consequential incitement of a socio-political unrest.
The Roman world needs to heed this challenging but beyond-politically-
subversive form of Jewish religiosity.67 Just as the later Christian tradition
calls the term σκηνοποιός in relation to “the teacher of the inhabited world”
(ὁ σκηνοποιὸς ἐκεῖνος, ὁ τῆς οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλος, John Chrysostom, Anom. 8.3
[PG 48.772]), this understanding of the edificatory role of σκηνοποιός in rela-
tion to the Roman world may well have been begun by Luke himself, although

64 The word ταράσσω has a semantic domain associated with a civil turmoil (e.g., P.Oxy.
2.298.27).
65 See P.F. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (sntsms 57; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987) 46–70, 131–163, for Luke’s legitimization of his community in its
sectarian relationship with Judaism.
66 According to F.S. Spencer, Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 187, Luke’s highlight-
ing of Aquila and Priscilla as Jews is to show Paul’s Jewishness.
67 Cf. C.K. Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009) 4, 88.

Novum Testamentum 64 (2022) 36–53

Downloaded from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti
The Double Entendre of Paul ’ s Trade as ΣΚΗΝΟΠΟΙΟΣ ( acts 18:3 ) 53

he must have understood it more in terms of the realization of Israel’s resto-

ration hope and thus her eschatological worship space in the Roman world
beyond the land of Israel.

4 Conclusion

This study investigated the important but intriguing hapax legomenon, σκηνο-
ποιός (Acts 18:3). The attempts at historical reconstruction of what Paul’s trade
was have not secured an accurate identification because of Luke’s own lexical
choice that has very rare usage in wider Greco-Roman literature. For an expan-
sion beyond the single research avenue of historical reconstruction, I argued
that its pronounced etymological constitution (σκηνή + ποιέω), although so far
considered skeptically, may warrant new attention regarding what rhetorical
and ideological desideratum might have been operative in Luke’s choice of
the rare term.
This study thus attended to the compound noun’s immediate rhetorical set-
ting, i.e., Paul’s speech at the Areopagus (17:22–34). The Lukan presentation of
the speech uses the words τέχνη (17:29) and χειροποίητος (17:24) in a way that
literarily relates to the following description of Paul’s trade (18:3) and, more
generally, the motif of σκηνή in Acts 7, demonstrating the nature of Paul’s min-
istry in terms of a tension with Greco-Roman ideas of deity and its earthly
presence. Against this rhetorical background, the description of the “trade” of
Paul and his coworkers (18:3) is immediately followed by a formulaic expres-
sion for his ministry of preaching (18:4), as if this is their “working” (ἐργάζομαι).
Further, this rhetorical undertaking is rendered within the larger ideological
context that the motif of σκηνή develops in Luke-Acts, which bears on Jewish
restoration eschatology, especially in connection with the Davidic Messiah’s
establishment of eschatological worship space (ἡ σκηνὴ Δαυίδ, 15:16) and its
implications to the Greco-Roman world.
Based on this rhetorical/ideological analysis, I suggested that σκηνοποιός is
plausibly Luke’s etymological wordplay, drawing on the continued symbolism
of σκηνή in Luke-Acts, that recaptures his restoration eschatology in the con-
text of the contentious demonstration (against the opposing Jews) of the true
“Jewish” hope in the larger Greco-Roman world beyond the land of Israel.

Novum Testamentum 64Downloaded

(2022) 36–53
from Brill.com 03/26/2024 06:59:25PM by [email protected]
via Jonathan Poletti