Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T20:20:37.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zacchaeus Baccheus. The Jericho Episode in Luke 19.1–10 and Euripides’ Bacchae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2026

Filip Doroszewski  and
Jan M. Kozlowski Open the ORCID record for Jan M. Kozlowski [Opens in a new window]
Filip Doroszewski
Affiliation:
Department of Classical Philology, Institute of Literary Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland
Jan M. Kozlowski*
Affiliation:
Institute of Classical Philology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
*
Corresponding author: Jan M. Kozlowski. Email: jan.kozlowski@uw.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The similarities between the Jericho Episode (Luke 19.1–10) and the second Messenger Speech in Euripides’ Bacchae (1043–152) are so extensive that the most probable explanation is the existence of a direct genetic dependence of the first story on the second. By making this reference, the author of the Gospel portrays the figure of Zacchaeus as a ‘converted Pentheus’, while by comparing Jesus to the cruel Dionysus, who punishes Pentheus for his sin, he reveals the mercy of the God of Israel in a new light.

Keywords

LukeJesusDionysusBacchaeEuripidesZacchaeusPentheusBartimaeusTiresiasintertextuality

Information

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , July 2025 , pp. 395 - 401
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.

1. Introduction

In his 2015 Luke and Vergil: Imitations of Classical Greek Literature, Dennis R. MacDonald posited a connection between the so-called ‘Jericho Episode’ in Luke 18.35–19.10 and Euripides’ Bacchae, highlighting significant parallels between the two narratives.Footnote 1 Unfortunately, MacDonald presented this connection in a rather disorganised and ineffectual manner, without providing any interpretation of the parallels. It is therefore not surprising that MacDonald’s effort to link Luke 18.35–19.10 with the Bacchae has been largely ignored by scholars. Meanwhile, MacDonald’s claim that a direct relationship exists between the texts appears to be valid (here we will narrow the definition of the ‘Jericho Episode’ to Luke 19.1–10). In this article, MacDonald’s observations, enriched with numerous new insights, will be organised into a concise and coherent whole. The second part of the article will be devoted to interpreting Luke’s allusion to the Bacchae.Footnote 2

2. The Plot of the Bacchae

Written in 405 bce by Euripides, the Bacchae enjoyed great popularity throughout antiquity, shaping conceptions of the divine and the human, as well as the relationship between the two. The tragedy had a profound influence on subsequent Greek literature, including Jewish and Christian writing.Footnote 3 The play begins with the arrival of the god Dionysus, the son of the mortal Theban princess Semele and the Olympian ruler Zeus, to the Boeotian city of Thebes. Dionysus is immediately recognised as a god by the blind seer Tiresias. He is also accepted as such by his grandfather Cadmus for political reasons. The Theban women, however, mock the conception of Dionysus by Semele and Zeus. As punishment, they are struck by the god with madness and spend their time in the mountains. Most notably, however, King Pentheus of Thebes, son of Agave and cousin of Dionysus, radically rejects the worship of the newly arrived god. He imprisons Dionysus, along with the Theban women who are in a Bacchic frenzy. In a miraculous manner, they escape from their bonds, while Pentheus’ palace is destroyed. Although Pentheus is warned not to go to the nearby mountain of Cithaeron to witness the god-possessed Maenads, his hubris-driven curiosity prevails. From the Messenger Speech, we learn how Pentheus, in female disguise, went up to Cithaeron. When he heard that the Maenads were nearby, he climbed a tall fir tree to observe them from above. However, he was spotted by them and violently brought down to the ground. There, Pentheus is torn apart by the god-filled women led by his mother Agave, who, unaware that she has killed her son, carries his head back to Thebes. Only in the city, when instructed by Cadmus, does she recognise her crime. The tragedy concludes with the appearance of Dionysus, who expels Agave, Cadmus, and his wife Harmonia from Thebes, transforming the latter into snakes.

3. Parallels Between the Bacchae and the Jericho Episode

The Messenger account (Ba 1043–152) of Pentheus’ expedition to Cithaeron, culminating in his Dionysiac sparagmos, undoubtedly serves as the narrative climax of the tragedy. The Messenger account and the Lukan insert narrating Jesus’ stay in Jericho (Luke 19.1–9) are so similar that one could construct a story in which each word refers to both narratives simultaneously (CND):Footnote 4

The protagonist, who enjoys the status of a negative leader in the city, Footnote 5 driven by curiosity, Footnote 6 desperately wants to see the ‘divine’.Footnote 7 Since he cannot do so from the ground, he takes an observational position in a tree. Footnote 8 There, he is spotted by the ‘divine’ Footnote 9 and quickly brought down to the ground. Footnote 10 The protagonist acknowledges his sin, Footnote 11 and then he experiences the true nature of the deity. Footnote 12

Aside from the CND, analogous motifs appear in both the Bacchae and the Jericho Episode. In both narratives, the one desiring to see the ‘divine’ does not merely sees it but, paradoxically, is himself noticed by the ‘divine’ from the ground.Footnote 13 Also, in both narratives, the protagonist, in order to achieve his goal, exposes himself to ridicule.Footnote 14 Moreover, in the Jericho Episode, there are at least two motifs that find their direct opposites in the Bacchae. The leitmotif of the Bacchae is the downfall of the Theban royal ‘house’,Footnote 15 which results from Pentheus’ rejection of Dionysus.Footnote 16 In contrast, Zacchaeus welcomes Jesus into his house,Footnote 17 and salvation becomes the fate of his whole household.Footnote 18 Zacchaeus receives Jesus with joy (χαίρων),Footnote 19 while the name of Pentheus (Πενθεύς) is a nomen omen, foretelling the misfortune (πένθος) that will befall the king of Thebes.Footnote 20 Joy (χαρά) and sorrow (πένθος), both in Greek literary tradition and in Jewish thought, are often contrasted states of mind.Footnote 21 Aristotle even seems to suggest that the name Chaeremon (Χαιρήμων) is the opposite of the name Pentheus.Footnote 22

4. Genetic Kinship Between the Two Narratives

How can the existence of CND and the aforementioned parallels be explained? There is no indication that we are dealing with a narratological schema in the Proppian sense. We must assume the existence of genetic dependency between the texts. The following explanations are conceivable: (1) Luke and the Bacchae derive from the same source, which provides both CND and parallel motifs; (2) Luke is indirectly dependent on the Bacchae. In this case, an intermediary text would share CND and parallel motifs with both texts; (3) Luke is directly dependent on the Bacchae. It is difficult to formulate any arguments supporting the validity of explanations 1 and 2. Therefore, let us examine whether explanation 3 is plausible.

5. Direct Dependence of the Jericho Episode on the Bacchae

The author of Luke-Acts frequently references pagan literature.Footnote 23 The story of the Ephesian riot (Acts 19.21–20.1) is edited according to Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris.Footnote 24 However, what is particularly significant is not only that the Bacchae serves as a fundamental intertext for the second part of the Luke-Acts diptych, the Acts of the Apostles,Footnote 25 but above all, that Pentheus, as depicted in Euripides’ Bacchae, served Luke as a type for Paul.Footnote 26

In view of the above, the most likely explanation for the existence of the above CND is to assume that the Jericho Episode is primarily dependent on the Messenger Speech (Ba 1043–152), but also on the entire tragedy of Euripides. Luke, familiar with Mark’s narrative of Jesus’ arrival in Jericho and presumably, having access to some earlier narrative about Jesus’ stay in Jericho,Footnote 27 associated this episode with the arrival of Dionysus in Thebes in the Bacchae.Footnote 28 Luke used the tragedy as a template for editing his own narrative, particularly focusing on the Messenger Speech, likely hoping that careful and sufficiently educated readers would identify the Euripidean hypotext, and take it into account in their interpretation (see below the subsection Cruel Dionysus vs Merciful Jesus). This is all the more likely, as such an identification of references to the Bacchae was expected of readers in Acts, which has been convincingly demonstrated.Footnote 29

6. The Blind Man of Jericho and Tiresias

Luke’s reference to the Bacchae sheds light on the character of the blind man whom Jesus heals before entering the city. In Mark, we read: ‘They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho (ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχώ), Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside’ (Mark 10.46). Luke places this episode just before Jesus’ arrival in Jericho: ‘As he approached Jericho (ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχώ), a blind man (τυφλός τις) was sitting by the roadside begging’ (Luke 18.35). Luke removes the name Bartimaeus from the blind man and shifts the episode from the end to the beginning of the narrative. According to most scholars, Luke did this in order to integrate the character of the blind man, who heralds Jesus’ arrival in Jericho with his call, with the character of Zacchaeus.Footnote 30 This manoeuvre also brings Luke’s blind man closer to the figure of Tiresias, who, although Pentheus is aware of Dionysus’ arrival in Thebes, announces the coming of the god as good news. By using the term ‘a blind man’ (τυφλός τις), it is much easier to typologically substitute any other character than with the precise designation of Bartimaeus son of Timaeus (Mark 10.46).Footnote 31 Most importantly, however, Tiresias, who announces Dionysus’ arrival in Thebes to Pentheus, appears only at the beginning of the tragedy (Epeisodion I). This parallels Luke’s decision to shift the appearance of the blind from the end to the beginning of the Jericho Episode. In light of Luke’s reference to the Bacchae in the Jericho Episode, we believe that Luke intentionally sought to align the character of Bartimaeus with that of Tiresias. This analogy sheds light on how to interpret the substitution of ραββουνι in Mark 10.51 (‘My teacher [ραββουνι], let me see again’) with κύριε in Luke 18.41 (‘Lord [κύριε], let me see again’). In light of the reference to the figure of Tiresias, who in the arriving grandson of Cadmus recognises a god,Footnote 32 it is difficult to interpret κύριε as ‘Sir’, as some commentatorsFootnote 33 and translatorsFootnote 34 suggest, rather than ‘Lord’.Footnote 35

7. Cruel Dionysus vs Merciful Jesus

An understanding of the similarities between the characters in both texts is a prerequisite for an appreciation of Luke’s references to the Bacchae. Both Zacchaeus and Pentheus are unambiguously negative characters, unjustly abusing their social position. The motivation behind their decision to encounter the ‘divine’ is not driven by piety, but rather by an insatiable curiosity. Their objective is not to establish a connection with the ‘divine’; rather, it is to observe the source of the sensation. In light of these parallels, the stark contrast between the actions of Jesus and Dionysus towards an unjustly acting man becomes evident. In the Bacchae, it is stated that Dionysus acted justly toward the unyielding tyrant Pentheus, even if with excessive cruelty. For example, Cadmus says: ‘For the god, lord (ἄναξ) Bromios, destroyed us justly, but excessively (ἄγαν)’ (Ba 1249–50). While Dionysus adheres to the uncompromising principle of pathei mathos, Jesus represents a markedly divergent viewpoint. Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector, was despised by pious Jews and considered worthy of scorn by the people and of rejection by God. However, when Jesus saw him in the tree – a sinner driven by curiosity – he did not choose to punish him exemplarily, as Dionysus punished Pentheus. Quite the reverse. He began to reveal to him God’s forgiveness and love, which surpasses God’s justice. Unlike the royal house of Pentheus, which collapses entirely, the house of Zacchaeus is not destroyed but experiences salvation. While Pentheus meets his demise at the hands of his own mother, Zacchaeus is assured of his status as a ‘son’. Jesus shows mercy to Zacchaeus, the kind of mercy Dionysus did not extend to Pentheus, even though Pentheus, like Zacchaeus, confessed his sin.Footnote 36 Too late. For the God of Israel in Luke, it is never too late. This is evidenced by the parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and most importantly, the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.1–32). Only against the backdrop of the Bacchae can one see in the joy that became Zacchaeus’ share the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophetic words: ‘And I will turn their sorrow (πένθος) into joy (χαρμονή)’ (Jer 38.13 LXX; cf. Luke 19.6, see above).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

1 D. R. MacDonald, Luke and Vergil: Imitations of Classical Greek Literature (The New Testament and Greek Literature; vol 2; Lanham/Boulder/New York/London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015) 51–2, 59–60. It should be noted that many of these observations already appeared in Katherine Veach Dyer’s 2008 master’s thesis, ‘Healing Steps’: Jesus’ Dionysiac Tour in Luke (Vanderbilt University), written under the supervision of Amy-Jill Levine. MacDonald is listed as ‘a reader for this thesis’, and also as one of the individuals (along with the advisor) who ‘approved’ the work (https://ir.vanderbilt.edu/handle/1803/12679/ access 09/09/2024).

2 For the Gospel of Luke, we use the NA28 edition and the NRSV translation. For the Bacchae, we refer to the edition and translation by R. Seaford (1996).

3 See esp. S. Perris and F. Mac Góráin, ‘The Ancient Reception of Euripides’ Bacchae from Athens to Byzantium’, Dionysus and Rome. Religion and Literature (ed. F. Mac Góráin; Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 93; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2020) 39‒84 and C. J. P. Friesen, Reading Dionysus: Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).

4 ‘Common Narrative Denominator’ (J. M. Kozlowski and S. Poloczek, ‘The Aqedah (Gen 22:1–19) and Euripides’s Iphigenia in Aulis: On the Question of Literary Dependence’, VT 74 (2024)) 630–44, at 632; see also J. M. Kozlowski, ‘“Do Not Weep, for Me, but Weep for Yourselves.” Luke 23, 27–31 and Plato’s Phaedo 117c’, ZNW 115 (2024) 265–70, at 269.

5 Zacchaeus is the chief tax collector (ἀρχιτελώνης) in Jericho (Luke 19.2). The negative connotations of the term τελώνης in the New Testament and later Christian literature are evident; see A. El Mansy, ‘Levi, Zachäus & Co: Der τελώνης als Stereotyp’, Evangelische Theologie 84 (2024) 85–94, at 92‒4. There is also no doubt that Luke’s intention was to present Zacchaeus in precisely this stereotypical manner (El Mansy, ‘Levi, Zachäus & Co’, 91: ‘Lukas stellt Zachäus als Betrüger dar, der von Anderen abgelehnt wird’). In Euripides’ play, Pentheus is an unambiguously negative character. As Richard Seaford notes, ‘The chorus in speaking to Pentheus is “afraid to speak free words to the turannos” (Ba. 775‒776). Kadmos’ funerary praise for his grandson Pentheus is ‒ significantly ‒ not for any civic role but for defending the ruling household and thereby being a “terror to the polis” (1310). (…) Pentheus is a “bad citizen” (271), with “excessive kingliness” (671). The only way in which he is said to benefit the polis is by being killed (963). He has the characteristics of the typical tragedy turannos: suspiciousness, lack of self-control, hubris, lawlessness and brutal violence’ (R. Seaford, ‘The Politics of Euripides’ Bacchae and the Preconception of Irresolvable Contradiction’, Dionysus and Politics Constructing. Authority in the Graeco-Roman World (eds. F. Doroszewski and D. Karłowicz; Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies; London/New York: Routledge, 2021) 18‒31, at 19). In conclusion, both Zacchaeus and Pentheus can be identified as malevolent and unjust figures occupying a position of authority.

6 βούληι σφ᾽ ἐν ὄρεσι συγκαθημένας ἰδεῖν; | μάλιστα, μυρίον γε δοὺς χρυσοῦ σταθμόν. | τί δ᾽ εἰς ἔρωτα τοῦδε πέπτωκας μέγαν; | λυπρῶς νιν εἰσίδοιμ᾽ ἂν ἐξῳνωμένας. | ὅμως δ᾽ ἴδοις ἂν ἡδέως ἅ σοι πικρά; | σάφ᾽ ἴσθι, σιγῇ γ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἐλάταις καθήμενος (Ba 811–6); καὶ ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστιν (Luke 19.3).

7 βούληι σφ’ ἐν ὄρεσι συγκαθημένας ἰδεῖν; | μάλιστα, μυρίον γε δοὺς χρυσοῦ σταθμόν (Ba 811–2); ὄχθων δ’ ἔπ’ ἀμβὰς ἐς ἐλάτην ὑψαύχενα | ἴδοιμ’ ἂν ὀρθῶς μαινάδων αἰσχρουργίαν (Ba 1061–2); καὶ ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστιν (Luke 19.3). As for the designation of the Maenads as ‘divine’, we read about them: πᾶσαί τε βάκχαι, διὰ δὲ χειμάρρου νάπης | ἀγμῶν τ’ ἐπήδων θεοῦ πνοαῖσιν ἐμμανεῖς (Ba 1093–4). Regarding Agave, we read: ἐκ Βακχίου κατείχετο (Ba 1124).

8 Πενθεὺς δ’ ὁ τλήμων θῆλυν οὐχ ὁρῶν ὄχλον | ἔλεξε τοιάδ’· Ὦ ξέν’, οὗ μὲν ἕσταμεν | οὐκ ἐξικνοῦμαι μανιάδων ὄσσοις νόσων· | ὄχθων δ’ ἔπ’ ἀμβὰς ἐς ἐλάτην ὑψαύχενα|ἴδοιμ’ ἂν ὀρθῶς μαινάδων αἰσχρουργίαν (Ba 1058–62); Πενθέα δ’ ἱδρύσας ἐλατίνων ὄζων (Ba 1070); καὶ ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἠδύνατο ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ὅτι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς ἦν. καὶ προδραμὼν εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν ἀνέβη ἐπὶ συκομορέαν ἵνα ἴδῃ αὐτόν ὅτι ἐκείνης ἤμελλεν διέρχεσθαι (Luke 19.3–4). Let us note the lexical and syntactical similarity between the two narrative motifs: οὐκ ἐξικνοῦμαι / οὐκ ἠδύνατο; ἀμβὰς ἐς ἐλάτην / ἀνέβη ἐπὶ συκομορέαν; ἴδοιμ’ ἂν / ἵνα ἴδῃ.

9 ἀναβλέψας ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Luke 19.5); ὤφθη δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ κατεῖδε μαινάδας (Ba 1075).

10 Ζακχαῖε σπεύσας κατάβηθι…καὶ σπεύσας κατέβη (Luke 19.5–6); ὑψοῦ δὲ θάσσων ὑψόθεν χαμαιριφὴς | πίπτει πρὸς οὖδας μυρίοις οἰμώγμασιν | Πενθεύς (Ba 1111–3).

11 εἴ τινός τι ἐσυκοφάντησα ἀποδίδωμι τετραπλοῦν (Luke 19.8); οἴκτιρε δ’ ὦ μῆτέρ με μηδὲ ταῖς ἐμαῖς | ἁμαρτίαισι παῖδα σὸν κατακτάνηις (Ba 1120–1).

12 ‘The verb ἀποσπαράσσω suggest Dionysiac sparagmos’ (R. Seaford, Euripides: Bacchae: with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Classical Texts; Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1996) 238). Divine forgiveness is a leitmotif in the Gospel of Luke.

13 ὡς ὁρῶιμεν οὐχ ὁρώμενοι (Ba 1050) and ὤφθη δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ κατεῖδε μαινάδας (1075); ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον ἀναβλέψας ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν (Luke 19.5).

14 χρῄζω δέ νιν γέλωτα Θηβαίοις ὀφλεῖν | γυναικόμορφον ἀγόμενον δι᾽ ἄστεως (Ba 854–5); see B. Seidensticker, ‘Comic Elements in Euripides’ Bacchae’, AJP 99 (1978) 303–20, at 317; ‘The spectacle of a short man climbing a sycamore tree to catch a glimpse of a man otherwise hidden by the crowd is comic theatre of the absurd’ (J. T. Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012)) 372; see also A. R. Solevåg, ‘Zacchaeus in the Gospel of Luke: Comic Figure, Sinner, and Included “Other”’, Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 14 (2020) 225–40 and D. H. Sick, ‘Zaccheus as the Rich Host of Classical Satire’, BibInt 24 (2016) 229–44.

15 τάχα τὰ Πενθέως μέλαθρα διατι- | νάξεται πεσήμασιν (Ba 587–8); εἴδετε λάϊνα κίοσιν ἔμβολα | τάδε διάδρομα; (591–2); σύμφλεγε σύμφλεγε δώματα Πενθέος (Ba 595); δώματ᾽ ἔρρηξεν χαμᾶζε (Ba 633); δεινῶς γὰρ τάνδ’ αἰκίαν Διόνυσος ἄναξ | τοὺς σοὺς εἰς οἴκους ἔφερε (Ba 1374–5).

16 τὸν θεὸν δ᾽ ἐς γῆν δέχου (Ba 312); τὸν δαίμον᾽ οὖν τόνδ᾽, ὅστις ἔστ᾽, ὦ δέσποτα, | δέχου πόλει τῆιδ᾽ (Ba 769–70).

17 σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι (Luke 19.5); ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν (Luke 19.6).

18 σήμερον σωτηρία τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ ἐγένετο (Luke 19.9). The meaning of the household of the wealthy Zacchaeus is explained by Acts 11.14, where an angel says to Cornelius about Peter: ‘He will give you a message by which you and your entire household (πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου) will be saved.’ The ruin of Pentheus and the salvation of Zacchaeus become shared by a broader community over which both protagonists have authority.

19 ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν χαίρων (Luke 19.6).

20 Tiresias warns Cadmus: Πενθεὺς δ᾽ ὅπως μὴ πένθος εἰσοίσει δόμοις | τοῖς σοῖσι, Κάδμε (Ba 367–8). Pentheus presents himself to Dionysus: Πενθεύς, Ἀγαυῆς παῖς, πατρὸς δ’ Ἐχίονος (Ba 507), to which the god responds: ἐνδυστυχῆσαι τοὔνομ’ ἐπιτήδειος εἶ (Ba 508).

21 E.g. ἢ γὰρ χαίροντί τινι συνήδοντο ἢ πενθοῦντι (Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae 48.37.8); ἀπὸ πένθους εἰς χαράν (Est 9.23); τελευταία δὲ χαρὰ εἰς πένθος ἔρχεται (Prov 14.13); χάρητε χαρᾷ, πάντες ὅσοι πενθεῖτε ἐπ’ αὐτῆς (Isa 66.10). It is possible that the wordplay between χαρά and πένθος is present already in the Bacchae, where Tiresias addresses Cadmus: ὁρᾶις; σὺ χαίρεις, ὅταν ἐφεστῶσιν πύλαις | πολλοί, τὸ Πενθέως δ’ ὄνομα μεγαλύνηι πόλις (Ba 319–20).

22 καὶ ὡς Χαιρήμων Πενθεὺς ἐσομένης συμφορᾶς ἐπώνυμος (Aristoteles, Rhet. 1400b). Regarding the nomen est omen principle in Luke-Acts, this subject has been thoroughly examined by Steve Reece, ‘Jesus as Healer: Etymologizing of Proper Names in Luke-Acts’, ZNW 110 (2019) 186–201. A notable parallel to Zacchaeus’ designation with the epithet χαίρων, serving as a response to the name Pentheus, can be found in the wordplay between the name Ἰησοῦς and the verb ἰάομαι (Reece, ‘Jesus as Healer’, 192–200). Additionally, there exists a wordplay involving the name Barnabas (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως) and Luke’s description of Barnabas as the one who ‘exhorted’ (παρεκάλει) the believers in Antioch (Acts 11.23) (Reece, ‘Jesus as Healer’, 188). However, a particularly compelling parallel, grounded in axiological opposition, appears in Acts 13.6–12, where Luke narrates the events on the island of Cyprus. Here, Paul and Barnabas encounter a magician and false prophet named Barjesus, whose name translates to ‘son of Jesus/Joshua’ or ‘son of ‘Yahweh is salvation’. Paul employs an etymological wordplay to subvert the meaning of Barjesus’ name, accusing him of being the ‘son of the devil’ (ὑιὲ διαβόλου) (Acts 13.10) (Reece, ‘Jesus as Healer’, 188).

23 See first of all S. Reece, The Formal Education of the Author of Luke-Acts (LNTS 669; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2022). See also Kozlowski, ‘Do not weep’; M. Chodyko and J. M. Kozlowski, ‘Socrates’ Triple Accusation in Plato’s Apol. 24b–c as a Source of Jesus’ Triple Accusation in Luke 23.2’, NTS 69 (2023) 472–5; J. M. Kozlowski, ‘Resurrection in the Intertext: Pagan Sources in Paul’s Areopagus Speech (Acts 17.22–31)’, Hellenism, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity Transmission and Transformation of Ideas (eds. R. Fialovà, J. Hoblik and P. Kitzler; Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 155; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2022) 51–67.

24 M. G. Bilby and A. Lefteratou, ‘A Dramatic Heist of Epic Proportion: Iphigenia among the Taurians in the Acts’, HTR 115 (2022) 496–518.

25 See Reece, The Formal Education, 171–208; MacDonald, Luke and Vergil, 11–65; J. Moles, ‘Jesus and Dionysus in The Acts Of The Apostles and Early Christianity’, Hermathena 180 (2006) 65–104.

26 ‘Saul plays Pentheus’ (Moles, ‘Jesus and Dionysus’, 78); ‘Paul is being implicitly associated with Pentheus in the Bacchae’ (Reece, The Formal Education, 208).

27 ‘The abundance of parataxis is undoubtedly pre-Lucan’ (J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible 28a; New York: Doubleday, 1985) 1219).

28 Mark’s narrative shows no signs of familiarity with the Bacchae. However, there seem to be objective similarities between Mark’s narrative and the Bacchae: Jesus and Dionysus both arrive in the city. Both travel with a procession. Both are recognised by a local blind man, who is then silenced by others. Perhaps the source available to Luke, which discusses Jesus’ stay in Jericho (cf. n. 27), contained additional elements that evoked the arrival of Dionysus in Thebes.

29 Intertextual references to the Bacchae already appear in Paul’s Carmen Christi (Phil 2.6–11), see M. B. Cover, ‘The Death of Tragedy: The Form of God in Euripides’s Bacchae and Paul’s Carmen Christi’, HTR 111 (2018) 66–89. The scale of references to the Bacchae in Acts is so vast, and they play such a crucial role in understanding the text, that recognising them constitutes, to use Michael Riffaterre’s apt phrase, ‘intertextualité obligatoire (celle que je dois repérer sous peine de fauter dans la lecture)’ (M. Riffaterre ‘La Trace de l’intertexte’, La Pensée 215 (1980) 4–18; cf. D. Marguerat and A. Curtis Intertextualités. La Bible en échos (Le monde de la Bible 40; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000) 6). For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Moles, ‘Jesus and Dionysus’ and Friesen, Reading Dionysus, 207–35.

30 E.g. ‘Diese Änderung hat Lukas vermutlich vorgenommen, weil er danach noch Jesu Begegnung mit Zachäus in Jericho erzählen wollte’ (M. Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium 2008 (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 607); ‘In order to accommodate the story of Zacchaeus that Luke uses as a climax, he puts this episode at the approach to Jericho rather than at its exit as the other evangelists suggest’ (E. Franklin, ‘Luke’, The Gospels (eds. J. Muddiman and J. Barton; Oxford Bible Commentary; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 134–85, at 174). ‘Luke wants this pericope before 19: 1-10, but Zacchaeus is more naturally located in the city so, starting from the Markan words at the beginning of 10:46, Luke relocates the encounter with the blind man from the time of exiting from Jericho to that of entry into Jericho’ (J. Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35c; Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 899).

31 Let us note that a similarly described mysterious figure (possibly Dionysus himself in disguise) appears in the Bacchae: καί τις πλάνης κατ’ ἄστυ… (Ba 717).

32 ὁ θεός (Ba 206); οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ δαίμων ὁ νέος (Ba 272); τὸν θεὸν δ᾽ ἐς γῆν δέχου (Ba 312).

33 E.g. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1216. Cf. J. A. Staples, ‘Lord, Lord: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke’, NTS 64 (2018) 1–19.

34 E.g. Good News Translation: ‘“What do you want me to do for you?” “Sir,” he answered, “I want to see again.”’ Weymouth New Testament: ‘“What shall I do for you?” “Sir,” he replied, “let me recover my sight.”’ Young’s Literal Translation: ‘“What wilt thou I shall do to thee?” and he said, “Sir, that I may receive sight.”’

35 ‘During the course of the ministry of Jesus many persons address Jesus with the vocative kyrie (5:8, 12; 6:46 bis; 7:6; 9:54, 59, 61; 10:17, 40; 11:1; 12:41; 13:23, 25; 17:37; 18:41; 22:33, 38, 49). In these instances it is not easy to decide how one should translate the title, ‘sir’ (in a secular sense) or ‘Lord’ (in a religious sense)’ (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 203). It should be noted that in Luke 9.33, the author of the Gospel replaced the term ῥαββί (Mark 9.5), not with κύριε, but with ἐπιστάτα.

36 οἴκτιρε δ’ ὦ μῆτέρ με μηδὲ ταῖς ἐμαῖς | ἁμαρτίαισι παῖδα σὸν κατακτάνηις (Ba 1120–1). This is the conclusion that Steve Reece reaches by comparing the intertextual relationship between the characters of Paul and Pentheus in Acts: ‘Unlike Pentheus, however, who suffers a savage death because of the madness inflicted upon him by Dionysus, Paul is allowed by the Christian God to “see the light,” (…) Once again, it appears, the Christian God has proven himself superior to Dionysus’ (Reece, The Formal Education, 208).