Exordium with captatio benevolentiae (17:22–23)
Philip Satterthwaite proposes a nearly identical outline (but as “a textbook example of a deliberative speech”) yet finds in 17:23a the brief narratio, summarizing how the present case has arisen.[3187]
Luke merely summarizes the motifs Paul employed, but the philosophically literate would know how a philosophically literate speaker would have expanded each of these topics.[3188] The discussion below will expand on the ancient discussions that surrounded some of these topics to better reconstruct some elements that were available to Luke’s ideally informed audience but that might otherwise elude us.
Whereas judicial rhetoric advised turning the tables on one’s accusers (but not one’s hearers; see comment on Acts 7:51–53), this speech can be construed as convicting Athenian Gentiles as a whole.[3189] Accused of preaching strange deities, Paul follows Hellenistic Jewish apologetic in critiquing pagan temples (17:24), cults (17:25), and idols (17:29).[3190] Luke’s portrayal of Paul as maintaining his Judaism (18:18; 21:26) includes Paul’s preaching of monotheism even in uncomfortable situations (14:15; 17:24–25, 29–30; 19:26) and even without the support of his fellow Jews, who (as long-term residents rather than itinerant evangelists) had usually made peace with surrounding Gentiles who followed their own cultures (14:2, 19; 19:33–34). That Paul historically preached monotheism to Gentiles is unquestionable (1 Thess 1:9; Rom 1:19–23; 1 Cor 8:5–6; Gal 4:8; cf. 1 Thess 4:5), but Luke’s emphasis on it also undercuts the accusations of opponents in the story world that Paul undermines historic Jewish faith (Acts 24:14–15).
(4) Authenticity
Certainly, Paul did minister in Athens (1 Thess 3:1–2), and Luke’s local color is excellent.[3191] Given the proximity of Athens to Corinth, a center of Pauline mission, the extension of that mission to the region surrounding Corinth (2 Cor 1:1), and the strategic character of Athens, we should not underestimate the interest Paul may have had in Athens historically. But did Luke develop simply a slight nugget of tradition (i.e., the one part that we happen to be able to attest from a Pauline letter), or might he have had more information available? Since letters were delivered by messengers and messengers apparently did travel between Paul and Macedonia at times (e.g., Phil 4:15–16; 1 Thess 3:6) and since any other Christian travelers would carry news (e.g., 1 Cor 1:11), Luke could have received summary reports of significant events, including at least a summary account of the occurrence of any speech before a prominent court (though such news is not characteristic of Paul’s letters and would be more likely to be brought by word of mouth; cf. Col 4:7–9). Whether Luke was planning to write or even recount stories about Paul when he later traveled with him, it is likely that he would have heard at least abbreviated accounts of Paul’s adventures during their long travels.[3192] That Luke had more information, then, is not proven but is also not implausible. But one question of consistency with extant sources does arise: Is the speech compatible with what we know of Pauline theology? I survey below both arguments that scholars cite in support of Pauline tradition and observations they offer concerning contrasts with Paul’s letters. Whichever observations scholars weigh more heavily, we must remember that this is Luke’s report of a Pauline speech, not a letter dictated by Paul.[3193]
ARGUMENTS FAVORING PAULINE TRADITION
Many scholars argue for the substantial Pauline character of the speech. Arguments offered in favor of its Pauline character cite local Athenian elements such as Luke’s topographic accuracy,[3194] though a frequent visitor to Athens could have achieved this familiarity without knowing Paul. Second, Paul may quote Epimenides, the Cretan who traditionally counseled the Athenians during the plague to establish altars to the appropriate deity (Diog. Laert. 1.110); since Luke draws no capital from this connection and most of his audience could not be expected to catch the allusion, it may well stem from a more complete source.[3195] Further, the quotes usually assigned to Epimenides and Aratus are appropriate; Paul would likely have known lines from a famous fellow Cilician (Aratus), and another portion of the Epimenides quote appears elsewhere in Pauline literature (Titus 1:12).[3196]
Also, despite arguments to the contrary (see comment below), many scholars contend that Paul’s natural theology in Rom 1:18–32 is compatible with that in Acts 14:15–17 and here.[3197] When the discussion of natural theology in each passage amounts to less than a paragraph, the fact that both the Lukan Paul and the epistolary Paul employ natural theology is far more striking than arguments from silence about which motifs present in one are absent in the other. These different motifs are no more contradictory in material attributed to Paul than they are when they occur in any other ancient author, especially one whose interest rested with Hellenistic Jewish apologetic rather than a particular Greek philosophic school’s cosmology.[3198] Indeed, given the range of diverse arguments concerning natural theology in antiquity, it is the parallels that appear most significant (though these may simply represent the basic structure of Diaspora Christian natural apologetic). At the very least, it should be recognized that we encounter a common strain of argument (present in diverse forms) in early Pauline Christianity, one that it is at least plausible to trace to Paul, given his intellectual stature and his role in the movement. Other early Christians could have generated the same interests independently, but Paul is the source that we know had this interest, and it is therefore probably more than coincidental that it is to Paul that Luke also attributes this argument.
Apart from the Epicureans, few ancient thinkers rejected the argument for deity from design in nature.[3199] (Those who suppose that these arguments today are new or that they began with early modern scientists such as Isaac Newton or theologians such as William Paley should rehearse the history of ideas.) Stoics pointed out that one did not need statues to learn of Zeus; his works in creation revealed his character[3200] and, still more, his work in humanity.[3201] A student of Pythagoras suggested that the most foundational law should be a consensus, based on nature, that the gods exist.[3202]
The Stoic Epictetus argues for the necessity of a cause,[3203] then points out that we regularly prove from an object’s structure that it was humanly designed rather than random;[3204] human intellect reveals a superhuman designer.[3205] Anyone who sees the facts of nature, such as production of wool or milk, yet denies a creator, he insists, is stupid.[3206] Many argued for or assumed a universal, rational natural law.[3207] For example, the Stoic founder Zeno reportedly urged people to live according to nature, following “the common law”—that is, the law common to all—which he identified as the pervasive Logos and Zeus.[3208] (Arguments based on “nature” were common in ancient philosophy, among Stoics[3209] and others.)[3210]
Paul’s arguments in Rom 1:18–23 build on the natural theology articulated in the widely read Wisdom of Solomon, as is often noted.[3211] Stoics also argued for God’s existence from nature, and Hellenistic Jewish apologetics seems to have borrowed and adapted this argument long before Paul.[3212] The Letter of Aristeas contends that God’s power is manifest in everything (Let. Aris. 131–32), especially the human body (Let. Aris. 156–57). Philo likewise offers arguments for God’s existence,[3213] many of them drawn from Stoic sources.[3214] Gentiles’ perversion of God’s revelation in nature made them morally responsible.[3215] By the time Paul wished to adapt natural theology, a variety of early Jewish models, which he could exploit at different times in different ways, had long been available.[3216]
In Rom 1:19–20, Paul seems to allow that there is enough knowledge about God from nature[3217] to make pagans morally responsible for idolatry. Paul’s point in the passage is not to prove God’s existence but to argue that Gentiles do have access to knowledge about God[3218] and hence are accountable for their idolatry. Some scholars deny natural theology there;[3219] most, however, contend that although God’s revelation is available and natural theology is ethically possible, it is never appropriated or realized because of human depravity.[3220] But in both Rom 1 and Acts 17:22–31, the natural theology must be qualified. In Romans, the revelation in nature makes humanity morally responsible for idolatry (Rom 1:18–23), but this natural revelation contrasts with the revelation in the gospel, which provides salvation (1:16–17).[3221]
As F. F. Bruce, a classicist who became a NT scholar, observed in his presidential address to the Society of New Testament Studies some years ago, the substance of Paul’s Areopagus speech is hardly incredible: if one brought the author of Rom 1–3 to Athens, Paul, recalling his years of success as a missionary to the Gentiles, might well seek common ideological ground (such versatility is also suggested by 1 Cor 9:22). Bruce contended that Paul would likely have said something quite like Acts 17:22–31.[3222]
Many of the same scholars also appeal to passages where Paul condemns idols in language no less striking than here (esp. 1 Thess 1:9; cf. also Rom 1:23; 1 Cor 8:5–6).[3223] Paul’s preaching of Jesus to Gentile idol worshipers seems to have included the turning from idolatry and Jesus’s return at the time of divine wrath (1 Thess 1:9–10), elements fully compatible with the portrayal in Acts 17:30–31, as is Christ’s role as judge (2 Cor 5:10). Paul himself recalls “the mockery of Greek sophisticates at the gospel,” as well as suggesting a few converts from that circle (1 Cor 1:23, 26).[3224] We know that challenging ideologies was central to Paul’s missionary strategy (2 Cor 10:4–5)[3225] and that however weak his personal delivery, the content of his thought fared better with many of his hearers (cf. 1 Cor 2:1–4; 2 Cor 10:10).
CONTRASTS WITH PAUL’S LETTERS
Other scholars are more skeptical of connections with Pauline thought here, focusing on contrasts rather than common ground between Acts 17:22–31 and arguments in Paul’s letters. Martin Dibelius, for example, doubts that Paul would have ever written a work that capitulated so thoroughly to Hellenism; he regards the speech as a precursor to the later apologists who (in his view) forfeited the biblical worldview to obtain acceptability in Hellenistic culture.[3226] Yet if anything, Rom 1:19–20 offers a more explicit argument for God (or, more precisely, humanity’s accountability to recognize God) from nature than does the brief summary here.
Which side in the debate about authenticity makes a better case depends on how we frame the argument for the burden of proof; that a work is compatible with Paul denies the impossibility that he authored it, yet by itself cannot prove that he authored it.[3227] Although both Acts 17 and Rom 1 use natural theology, some argue that they simply share a common background in early Christian apologetic.[3228] Barrett credits Luke with providing Paul the best possible sermon here (following “what had come to be the accepted Christian approach to Gentiles”) but doubts that Paul would have used even this approach. He emphasizes the differences between this sermon (which he considers more lenient) and Rom 1 (which he views as stricter and more christocentric).[3229]
The contrasts are easy to overplay, however, by ignoring the different rhetorical situations. Luke presents Paul as a model philosopher, and no one would expect a report of all that Paul said on that occasion; Paul does adopt this role at times in his writings (see discussion above) but in Rom 1:18–32 sets the tone for his condemnation of Jew as well as Gentile (2:9, 17–29; 3:9–23), so that all are under sin. Some argue that Acts 17 is optimistic about people finding God whereas Rom 1 is pessimistic; this difference, however, hardly demands different authors. First, the point of Acts 17:27 might not be optimistic;[3230] God’s immanence may be used to drive home the accountability to God in 17:30–31 (analogously to the argument of Rom 1). Second, even if Rom 1 is less optimistic, this fits the rhetorical situation of that letter, which establishes the alienation of all humanity (both Jew and Gentile) from God so that Paul can argue his primary point, its consequent need for Christ.[3231]
In the final analysis, much of the debate about Paul’s speech here comes down to whether we weigh the contrasts or the shared elements with the epistolary Paul more heavily. Clearly Luke has written the speech, but in doing so he may have also given us his best possible rendition of Pauline preaching to a philosophically literate setting. Given Luke’s clear activity in shaping all his historical material and the sparse nature of the evidence, it appears to me that the shared elements are far more than we would expect if Luke simply composed Hellenistic apologetic with no awareness of Pauline tradition or theology. Dibelius finds only contrasts with the epistolary Paul yet welcomes parallels between Acts 17, on one hand, and Cicero and Seneca, on the other, though the epistolary Paul is much closer to this speech than those Gentile writers are.[3232] (Indeed, I believe it is easier to parallel Cicero and Seneca with Rom 1 than it is to parallel them with Acts 17.)[3233]
LUKE’S FREEDOM AND FIDELITY
Since Luke was not (by anyone’s reckoning) with Paul in Athens, it is entirely plausible that he would fill in some details, as ancient historians regularly did, on the basis of his knowledge of Pauline preaching. We cannot, then, assume the speech to be anything like a verbatim account, and we should compare themes, rather than phrases, with Paul’s letters. An argument that I believe cannot be soundly admitted against authenticity, however, is skepticism about Paul’s acquaintance with or use of some philosophic language, a skepticism easily refuted by philosophically informed readings of Paul.[3234] Paul almost certainly lacked technical expertise in any given philosophic school, but his apologetics had required him to sharpen whatever familiarity he shared with other well-educated persons in the eastern Mediterranean. I believe that it is thus best to recognize the plausibility of both Lukan and genuine Pauline elements in the speech.[3235]
Paul’s missionary speeches (Acts 13:16–47; 14:15–17; 17:22–31) reveal some features peculiar to them among the speeches in Acts, suggesting either that Luke is constructing a Pauline persona or that he has access to information about Paul’s preaching.[3236] Since even composing speeches in character depended on what was known of a person’s perspectives and style where possible, and since we have reason to believe that Luke had knowledge of Paul’s preaching on some occasions (see the introduction),[3237] it seems likely that he intends what he offers here to be faithful to Pauline apologetic.
An ancient historian would have the freedom to “assist” the speaker.[3238] Paul’s letters suggest that he needed little assistance at this point, but Luke could have fleshed out what reports he had; Luke would have had some basic knowledge of at least the sort of Hellenistic Jewish apologetic that informed Paul’s own apologetic. Virtually no one argues for a version of “authenticity” that demands a verbatim account of Paul’s speech. That the speech reflects elements of Paul’s theology useful for Luke’s purposes is, however, quite likely; that it accurately reflects some themes offered by Paul on the occasion described is not capable of proof at the remove of two millennia, but it is consistent with the frequent view that Luke was a sometime traveling companion of the apostle who may have had access to such information.[3239]
(5) Function of the Speech in Acts
Luke often uses speeches to advance his apologetic agenda, whether toward the synagogue (7:2–53; 13:16–47), toward Roman authorities (24:10–21; 25:8–11; 26:2–29), or toward farmers (14:15–17) and philosophers (17:22–31). If Paul is like a new Socrates (see comment on Acts 17:19), then he, rather than the novelty-seeking Athenians (17:21), stands in continuity with the true philosophic tradition.[3240] As Socrates reportedly used his trial to instruct Athenians about true religion,[3241] so Paul can do here. Luke presents Paul’s teaching in a manner that makes it as similar as possible (probably with cues from genuine Pauline apologetic) to the ethical monotheistic thought often respected by educated pagans.[3242] In this he employs the same approach as Josephus, a Jewish intellectual sensitive to concerns relevant for Hellenistic apologetic.[3243] This approach could commend the Jewish and the Christian movements to intellectual pagans; Luke, however, presses for repentance, not just toleration (17:30).
Given the charge that Paul is a “preacher” (καταγγελεύς) of “foreign” divinities (17:18), Paul must establish that what he preaches (καταγγέλλω) to them (17:23) is nothing other than the true Creator who, far from being “foreign,” is not far from any of them (17:27). God is surely the speech’s primary subject.[3244] Yet while Paul builds “common ground” where it is possible, he also ultimately proclaims his message even where it violates their system. Paul’s speech is intellectually respectable (for what is obviously a précis), but the objective is not mere intellectual sophistry (a description more characteristic of the Athenians in the narrative, 17:21) but moral conversion. The latter was also recognized as a goal of true philosophers (see comment on Acts 17:30).
II. SETTING, EXORDIUM, AND NARRATIO (17:22–23)
Luke’s précis follows good rhetorical form in opening with a complimentary exordium and a narratio surveying events leading up to the speech. As rhetoricians expected for an appropriate speech, both the exordium and the narratio prepare for the dominant theme of the speech: Athenians may be religious, but the “unknown God” is the true God to whom they must look, and he is revealed not in idols but in Christ.
(1) Religious Athenians (17:22)
Standing in the “midst” is familiar Lukan idiom (Acts 1:15; 27:21; Luke 2:46; 24:36) but also appropriately depicts the scene of Paul before the court (cf. Acts 4:7); the scene will conclude when Paul departs from their “midst” (17:33). “Men, Athenians,” was the proper rhetorical convention for speeches in Athens;[3245] its audience may include hearers observing the court (17:34).
Paul appropriately begins his speech with an exordium;[3246] an exordium should introduce the main points of a speech and so prepare the hearers.[3247] In his complimentary exordium, Paul provides a positive statement about his audience, intended to secure its favor and consequent interest in the rest of the speech.[3248] This was the standard function of the prologue or proem in a variety of kinds of speeches.[3249] Quintilian emphasizes, “The sole purpose of the exordium is to prepare our audience in such a way that they will be disposed to lend a ready ear to the rest of our speech” (Inst. 4.1.5).[3250] Historically, lengthy exordia were “designed to work upon the feelings of the audience,” though by the time of the empire they were sometimes briefer, and some observers believed that they were received more critically.[3251] Because the exordium set the tone for the speech’s reception, the orator was expected to give special attention to these opening comments (Cic. Brut. 43.158).[3252]
Thus one might open by expressing confidence in one’s hearers’ sense of justice[3253] or by warning that the opponents were exploiting the audience, which consisted of “the best men.”[3254] Paul might count his hearers’ religious sensitivity in his favor (against, in any case, the prejudice of the Epicureans against most religion—though even they could have appreciated Paul’s emphasis on a transcendent deity not dependent on ritual or temples; see comment on Acts 17:18). Even letters might open by flattering the addressee before seeking a favor (Cic. Fam. 13.66.1; Phlm 4–8) or offering reproof (1 Cor 1:5–7).[3255] Great orators could sometimes get away with reproving a city, but even they usually started with praise. Dio could address a city, claiming that it was renowned and inferior to none (Dio Chrys. Or. 39.1); he praises Tarsus as the greatest of Cilicia’s cities before criticizing it (34.7–8).[3256] Admittedly, philosophers were less inclined to the use of exordia than were rhetoricians;[3257] because Paul’s audience included philosophers (Acts 17:18) as well as judges (17:19), he might not elaborate extensively.
Some scholars object that the Areopagus forbade the use of such complimentary exordia to secure its favor.[3258] It is, however, highly unlikely that many speakers addressing the Areopagus would have, in fact, refrained from complimentary exordia; it would violate one of the most basic traditions of rhetoric, including in Athens, as already noted. Servile flattery might be repudiated, but Paul’s comment is certainly not that. Indeed, flattering the Athenian court was common and welcome in the classical period so long as it was done discreetly (Lysias Or. 26.17, §177); the council’s susceptibility to flattery is a cause of later moralists’ complaints (Max. Tyre 3.7, denying that Socrates would stoop to this behavior).[3259] This practice must have continued to be the case in Roman times; to fail to win an audience’s goodwill in a proem could invite rebuke from an Athenian rhetorician (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.579). When the orator Adrian praised his own wisdom rather than that of the Athenians in his proem, he revealed unusual παρρησία (boldness; 2.9.586). Likewise, Polemo was deemed arrogant for failing to make an encomium about Athens when he arrived; challenging instead Athenian pride, he simply noted the report that they were good judges of oratory and that now he would see if it was true (1.25.535).
Some scholars doubt whether Paul’s attribution of the title δεισιδαιμονεστέρους to his audience is, in fact, positive,[3260] and their doubt is understandable. The term δεισιδαίμων in other settings could mean “superstitious” (negatively)[3261] as easily as “religious” (positively).[3262] Although it does not mean “superstition” as unambiguously as the Latin superstitio,[3263] Stoics rejected as hurtful the sort of fear that, for them, the term designated.[3264]
It may be helpful to survey ancient views that some thinkers considered superstitious. Some had also complained about the Athenians’ negative superstition; they had burned alive a hermaphrodite through ignorance (ἀγνοίᾳ, Diod. Sic. 32.12).[3265] Theophrastus mocks the “superstitious” type of person (Char. 16) as refusing to continue on his path if a cat has crossed it, unless he first throws three stones (16.2); if mice chew a hole in his bag, he uses rites to ward off evil instead of patching the bag (16.6). Plutarch regards superstition as worse than atheism.[3266] Pliny the Younger means it negatively when he calls Christianity a superstitio (Ep. 10.96.8–9).[3267] A less ambiguous term for Greek piety would have been εὐσέβεια, a value that was important in Greek religion[3268] and an appropriate term for Diaspora Jews to employ when desiring to honor pagan devotion.[3269] Despite its generally negative usage, however, the term employed here (δεισιδαίμων) also could bear a favorable sense, determined by context.[3270]
Given the usual function of exordia, a positive interpretation would have appeared more likely for hearers within the narrative world.[3271] Even if they feel that Paul chose an inapt word, they would assume that he meant it positively, at least initially. Apart from the Epicureans, who might resent his exordium but probably already dislike him anyway (see comment on Acts 17:18), Paul shares with his audience at least a common commitment to honor deity.[3272] Athens was known for its diligence in serving the gods.[3273] The most praiseworthy aspect of Athenian behavior, claimed one orator, was their unwillingness to act without seeking divine guidance in every situation (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 40). A good orator should praise what was esteemed among a given people, hence Athenian things among Athenians and so forth (Arist. Rhet. 1.9.30, 1367b); Paul certainly observes this principle, selecting the element of Athenian culture most appropriate to his own theme.
Yet the term is ambiguous enough[3274] to serve negatively for Luke’s audience (especially in light of the preceding scene introduction in Acts 17:16 and Paul’s denunciation of idolatry that follows, 17:25, 29–30) while serving positively for Paul’s audience in the narrative world, like other relevant exordia in Acts (24:2–3, 10; 26:2–3).[3275] For Luke’s audience, as opposed to Paul’s, δεισιδαιμονία retains its more negative connotations, including excessive preoccupation with religion[3276] (fitting 17:16). Ambiguity was sometimes a deliberate rhetorical strategy.[3277]
If the Areopagus meets in the Stoa Basileios, signs of Greek religion and mythology surround Paul (just as they would if he stood anywhere else in Athens’s public space). At least by Pausanias’s day, the portico’s tiling portrayed Theseus and Phaëthon (Paus. 1.3.1); a statue of Zeus stood nearby, along with pictures of the twelve Olympian deities and (again) Theseus (1.3.2–3). Not far away stood the temple of the paternal Apollo and the sanctuary of the Mother of gods (1.3.4). Paul could easily have gestured toward any or all of such structures when mentioning Athenians’ (misplaced) piety. But Paul will appeal to a sign of Athens’s religious commitments more relevant for his own message (Acts 17:23).