Excursus: The History of St. Paul’s Days at Thessalonike
Macedonia and On to Athens (Acts 17)
Acts 17:1-15: Textual Issues
Vs. 1 The Byzantine Majority text has ἡ συναγωγή, the article omitted by Lachmann, A, B, D, et al.
Vs. 3 The best supported reading seems to be ὁ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς with Tischendorf.
Vs. 4 Lachmann with but slight authority has καὶ Ἑλλήνων.
Vs. 5 Read with Lachmann Ζηλώσαντες δὲ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ προσλαβόμενοι, and also προαγαγεῖν (Lachmann).
Vs. 13 Lachmann adds ταράσσοντες τοὺς ὄχλους with A, B, D, 25.
Vs. 15 See a gloss of D here.
Vs. 1 Διοδεύσαντες They passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia because having founded one Christian community in Macedonia Prima, they were anxious to found another in Macedonia Secunda. Thessalonike is the capital of the 2nd district of Macedonia. From Thessalonike the Apostle goes to Berea which is in the 3rd district of Macedonia. That is indeed separate from Philippi. The evidence of synagogues in Amphipolis etc. is lacking. Even in Philippi there is only a place of prayer. This may have had some influence in dictating the Apostle’s steps to Thessalonike.
Vs. 2 We are not of course to assume that the Apostle’s preaching was confined to the three Sabbath days and that during the week he did nothing as Mr. Jowett has hastily done. The Sabbath days would be the only days that he could get the Jews together, and speak to them as a body, see Acts 17:17.
κατὰ δὲ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰσῆλθεν As he himself declares (Rom 1:16—‘the Jew first’).
Vs. 3 διανοίγων a word peculiar to St. Luke in the New Testament, except Mark 7:34 (and v.l. at vs. 35). Cf. Luke 24:32 that shows that the general meaning is ‘to expound.’
παρατιθέμενος ‘Laying before them.’
καὶ ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν A change from the oblique to the direct narrative, after the manner of St. Luke cf. 14:22.
Alford’s translation is wrong here. It should be ‘that this is the Christ—namely Jesus, whom I preach to you.’
Vs. 4 προσεκληρώθησαν, not as E.V. but cf. Acts 2:47. cf. the right reading in Eph 1:11. As God’s κλήρος see 1 Pet 5:3.
Vs. 5 Ἰάσονος Possibly a Grecized form of the Jewish name, Jesus or Joshua. In 1 Macc 8:27, 2 Macc 2:24 it is a Jewish name. One Jason is mentioned in Rom 16:21, where he is called a ‘kinsmen’ of St. Paul, i.e. probably a Jew. They went there after one of their own countrymen who had deserted [to join] the Apostle. So again at Corinth (Acts 18:17).
πονηρούς means lewd.
Vs. 6 ἔσυρον. . . . ἐπὶ See Lucian, Lex. 50.
τοὺς πολιτάρχας the municipal authorities at Thessalonike. Sophocles, Lex. quotes Sophronius. For this see Migne Patrol. Graecae lxxxvii, 3401D. The magistrates of Thessalonike have an unusual title not mentioned in ancient literature, but it appears from a monument of a different kind that the title is perfectly correct. Thessalonike was a free city, hence the δῆμος. See the paper by W. S.W. Vaux, ‘On a Great Inscription of Saloniki,’ Transaction of the Royal Society Vol. 8 2nd series (1866), pp. 525-30, inscription on politarchs with an honorific list of names (male and female), and see C+H i. p. 359; Boeckh ii. p. 52, remarks: 1) Evidential value: A crucial test of the accuracy of Luke; 2) Secondary illustration of the Apostolic narrative a) the prominence given to women (e.g. Cleopatra in the inscription); b) the coincidence of names, Secundus of Thessalonike (Acts 20:4); Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29); Sosipater (Sopater) of Berea (Acts 20:4); and Demetrius (Demas). See below. The inscription begins ‘ΠΟΛΕΙΤΑΡΧΟΝΤΩΝ . . .’
CONCLUSIONS OF VAUX ABOUT THE INSCRIPTION: ‘As nothing follows these names upon the stone, we may suppose they were inscribed on the slab to be [displayed], and the erection of the arch itself [took place] during the politarchate. We are not able to state exactly where on the arch the inscription was placed . . . it may be that [the inscription] was on the right side of the road-way, and not, as might have been expected, over the centre of the arch. . . . ’
It may be seen that the name Flavius disappears, and with it one criteria of a date. Nicopolia is a woman’s name on which see 1957g, 1994d.
Vs. 7 ἀπέναντι τῶν δογμάτων Here the issue is the decrees of Caesar, the crime called ‘majestatis’ (false claims to kingship). In Philippi it was the issue of religio licita.
βασιλέα ἕτερον see 2 Thess 2:4, 1 Thess 4:6. comp. John 19:12, 15. Neander (Pfl I, p. 157) suggests that perhaps Paul’s preaching about the parousia and resurrection and the messianic Kingdom had led to the suggestion of a violation of the decrees. See Meyer. Cf. 2 Thess 2:4 to 1 Thess 4:6.
Vs. 8 πολιτάρχας The word occurs in Oneas, Poliorcet. c.26, where it does not denote a special magistracy, but is equivalent to ὁ στρατηγός ‘the general in charge of the city.’ But should it be πολιτάρχας here? This is only one manuscript of Oneas. See Sophronius, Migne Patrol. Graec. lxxxvii. P. 3401D where we have πολιτάρχας but not in reference to Thessalonike.
Vs. 9 καὶ λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν It is a translation of the Latin phrase ‘satis accipere.’ See the notes on Plautus. On ἱκανόν, see Diog. Laertius iv.50, comp. Cicero, Pro Qui xiii.49; Plautus, Must. 1.3.67. Here it could be giving security for their good will, being handed over to keep the peace.
Vs. 10 Παῦλον καὶ τὸν Σιλᾶν. No mention of Timothy. The same at Philippi. Yet it is highly probably that Timothy was with them at Philippi and almost certain (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) that he was with them at Thessalonike. Still, he was much younger and held an inferior position, and therefore was exempt from persecution.
Βέροιαν not a hiding place. In Macedonia Fortia. See in the Chronicles of Macedonia p. 9.
Excursus: The History of St. Paul’s Days at Thessalonike
Supplemented by notices from the Epistles: A) his preaching; B) his means of support; C) his converts in Thessalonike (Intro. to Chapter p. 10, C. p. 14).
The chief additional facts we derive from St. Paul himself regarding this stay at Thessalonike are:
1) Τhat though St. Luke only mentions the preaching on the three Sabbath days and dwells chiefly on his converts from among the Jews, we conclude from his language about the Thessalonians that he was there for a longer period and that he made a large number of Gentile converts (possibly the majority were Gentiles). This fact is not mentioned by St. Luke, but it is not excluded (cf. e.g. 1 Thess 1:9 and Paley Horae Paulinae). The principle Thessalonian converts of whom we read are Aristarchus (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2) who was a Jew, who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and hence to Rome and shared his imprisonment with him there (Col 4:10; Philem 24). He was with St. Luke at Rome (see passages last cited), and from him St. Luke may have derived information (as well as from the Apostle himself) of what happened at Thessalonike.
2) That St. Paul laboured with his own hands while there, 1 Thess 2:9-10 and that contributions were sent to him from Philippi (Phil 4:15-16—possibly it refers to this visit, the expression ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου coming close after ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας. The phrase refers to the beginnings of the Gospel relative to Macedonia).
Vs. 11 εὐγενέστεροι of qualities of mind. The basic meaning is ingenuous, frank, liberal, as opposed to the normal type of the slave described as cunning, subtle.
Vs. 12 τῶν Ἑλληνίδων γυναίκων Ἑλληνίδων refers grammatically only to γυναίκων but in sense it is carried on to ἀνδρῶν. See Lightfoot, Philippians.
εὐσχημόνων comp. Acts 13:50; Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea is εὐσχήμων βουλευτής. These are the only three passages in the New Testament where the term is used of persons.
Vs. 13 σαλεύοντες ‘the swaying to and fro like a large wave.’
ταράσσοντες a general disturbance as in a sea buffeted by the winds.
κἀκεῖ goes with ἦλθον probably (not with σαλεύοντες as Meyer says). εκεῖ is sometimes used with verbs of motion in the New Testament e.g. Mt 2:22; John 18:3; Rom 15:24.
Vs. 14 ἕως ἐπὶ unquestionably the right reading. The ἕως is not redundant but expresses the purpose or intent or aim of those who escorted St. Paul, without however implying that the purpose was unfulfilled—‘for the purpose of conducting him to the sea.’
This text has been strangely neglected. It will not mean a ‘feint’ [in a particular direction]. Thus there is no question as to whether this journey toward the sea was a feint or not, and there is no reason to suppose that St. Paul went by land. Better rendered ‘as far as the sea.’ There he would be ready to take ship to any port he preferred as opportunity allowed. The contrast in vs. 14 is not that they took a different way than that which they set out on, but that they went a further distance. This would insure his escape and further his missionary projects. As for the idea of going to Athens, he does not yet seem to be definitely concerned about that.
ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν Probably at D as the words seem to suggest.
Vs. 15 καθιστάνοντες See passages in Winer. They were conducted, brought to this destination. Lit. ‘set him down.’ Comp. 1 Sam 5:3; 2 Chron 28:15 LXX on this verb. On the movement of Silas and Timothy southward see Acts 18:5. On St. Paul’s choice of ‘stations’ in Macedonia, see Introduction to the Chronicles of Macedonia, p. 7.
Acts 17:16-31: Textual Issues
Vs. 16 θεωροῦντος with the lectionaries, θεωροῦντι Textus Receptus, with D, G, H.
Vs. 18 αὐτῷ by some omitted.
Vs. 23 ὃ . . . τοῦτο Textus Receptus ὅν . . . τοῦτον with E, G, H, Chrysos. Comm. etc.
Vs. 25 ἀνθρωπίνων Textus Receptus ἀνθρώπων. There are various other minor variations of the T.R. in these verses from the probable right readings e.g. in vs. 30 πάντας is changed to πᾶσι in T.R., G, and H.
Vs. 16 παρωξύνετο was provoked, distressed, a keen edge was given to it. Comp. Heb 10:24—παροξυσμόν.
κατείδωλον etc. ‘Over run with idols.’ All the writers through several centuries bear witness to this character of Athens (for full ref. see C+H I p. 427; Renan, St. Paul, p. 173), but comp. Soph. Od. 260; in the 4th century B.C. Xen. De Rep. Ab. ii.9, iii.8; in the 4th century A.D. Julian, Misopagon. p. 74, calls them ‘lovers of gods, all of them’ and of the Athenians as excelling even all other Greeks in this. The point is, throughout the whole period, and more writers could be cited to the same effect, they point to this character of Athens. Not far from the date of St Luke we have Josephus, c. Apion. ii.11. So the Athenians were called θεοφιλεῖς, φιλόθεοι, and like terms. This is not the impression we would get from the profanity of Aristophanes, but that was only a passing phase. The profusion of images, statues, festivals, sacrifices, is dealt with by writer after writer. See especially the fine chorus in Arist. Nub. 701sq. Lucian calls the Athenians ‘pius populus.’
There are blunders in Gloag. είδωλον—an image i.e. 1) a phantom etc.; 2) a likeness. Hence its appropriate references in Jewish and Christian language—the gods of the heathens.
Vs. 17 μὲν οὖν ‘to continue.’
ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ i.e. on the Sabbaths which is naturally understood as the antithesis to κατὰ πᾶσαν ἡμέραν.
Vs. 18 Why Epicureans and Stoics only? 1) these were the most influential sects at the time. The world had tired of metaphysical speculation, and philosophy had taken an ethical turn. The Stoics and Epicureans were less secluded; 2) the schools of the Stoa. The garden of Epicurus was apparently in the city (see C+H, I p. 402). On the other hand, the Lupercalia and Aea dinners were outside the city.
συνέβαλλον ‘encountered’ as the A.V. has it. Comp. Acts 20:14. Suggesting a collusion or a deliberate purpose which is also suggested by παρατυγχάνοντας [vs. 17]. Others take this to mean ‘conferred’ comp. Acts 4:15.
σπερμολόγος an Athenian term of abuse. For its primary sense see Aristoph. Au. 233. See also Alexis Athenaeus viii, p. 344 for a play on the word, and Demosthenes, de Corona no. 127 (p. 269).
Ξένων δαιμονίων the accusation made against Socrates. See Plato, Tim. 378D; Xen. Mem. i.1.; Cicero de Leg. ii.8.
καταγγελεὺς a rare word, meaning a formal announcement.
τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν The Greek commentators seem to be right in supposing that ‘Resurrection’ was mistaken for a goddess. There is no other way of accounting for the addition of τὴν ἀνάστασιν by St. Luke as Baumgart. has justly observed. Otherwise, δαιμονία plural must mark the category (as Meyer, and not as Alford). Chrysostom’s interpretation seems to be correct. Bentley indeed (Interp. iii p. 132) reports the ‘concert’ of Chrysostom, but the wider context points to it. An erection of an altar to ‘anastasis’ would be quite in accord with the Athenian precedent. Pausanias i.17 mentions an altar to Pity, Persuasion, etc. In any case, ‘resurrection’ would sound strange to Athenian ears cf. Aeschylus, Eum. 618.
Vs. 19 ἐπὶ τὸν Ἄρειον Πάγον Its position—nearness to the forum and doubtless convenience for a hearing decided the choice of place. There is nothing of a judicial character in this. No judge, no accusation, no verdict. It is quite a stretch to suppose that Paul was tried by the Court of the Areopagus. There was a prudential propriety in the locale as it was the court that did try religious offenses. More particularly, it authorized the erection of statues (see Renan, p. 193). This is a perfectly voluntary act on St. Paul’s part. The request is even courteously made by those who would hear him. βουλόμεθα οὖν γνῶναι, e.g. the motive is given in vs. 20. And yet the spot was well chosen where, both on religious and political grounds, religion had so strong a hold on the Athenian mind.
Vs. 20 τίνα θέλει ταῦτα εἶναι What these things purport to be.
ξενίζοντα more than just ξένα, novel and astonishing, we find the middle in the sense of ‘to feel strange,’ 1 Pet 4:4, 12, not ‘strange’ but ‘innovating.’
Vs. 21 οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες The ξένοι were always a numerous class of people at Athens. See Theophrastus, Charact. 3, and especially Thucydides vi.30.
On καινότερον (the newer folk) see Theophrastus, Charact. 8. ‘Other cities had their newsmakers; in Athens an official demand produced the news made.’ (Zebo [?] p. 239).
Seneca, Epist. 94 ‘Alexander. . . . Athenas facere.’
Vs. 22 ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους Over careful in religious matters. Thus as if Paul had said ‘I am not accusing you of being irreligious, if anything your religion is in excess, only it is misdirected.’ There is a passage in Arrian (?) Var. Hist. v.17 on the δεισιδαιμονία of the Athenians. δεισιδαιμονία occurs in Acts 25:19 where it seems to be said somewhat in scorn. It is said by Agrippa, perhaps it is used in an old philosophic spirit. See Josephus Ant. v.30. Theophrastus takes δεισιδαιμονία in a bad sense and defines it as Δειλία to the δαιμόνιον. See also the passages in Plutarch de Superstit. 165B, 168C, and others in Wettstein. And see M. Antonius 1.16. Philo too opposes δεισιδαιμονία to εὐσέβεια. The word appears not to be used by Plato. It seems in itself to be a neutral word and would imply more or less rebuke according to the religious sentiments of the speakers and hearers. It is, I think, impossible to divest it of all blame, especially before an Athenian audience. The shade of censure is of course deepened by the comparatives, yet the E.V. is much too strong. Therefore, in itself the word could be used in a good sense (see Josephus, Ant. x.3.2).
θεωρῶ Even from where St. Paul stood, this statement might be a plain fact. W.G.C. informs me however that the Parthenon is hidden from view by a large obstacle (the Propylaea).
Vs. 23 ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα See Diodorus Sic. xii.15. What he would see as he passed through the city we may gather from Pausanias. σεβάσματα refers to objects of devotion. It is perhaps more than an accident that the only other passage in which this word occurs is 2 Thess 2:4, written within a few months of the time when St. Paul spoke on Mars Hill.
ἀναθεωρῶν reviewing, examining, inspecting.
Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ Not to ‘the’ unknown god, but to an unknown god. Note reference to the custom of the Athenians. See Pausanias i.1.4 who mentions unknown gods and also Philostr. vi.3; Diog. Laert. i.110; Aulus Gelius ii.28; Jerome, ad. Tit. i.12, Isidor. Pelus., Ep. iv.69; Lucian, Phlg. 9 and 29. Doutbless there were several such altars. See Renan, p. 174 (and investigate recent discoveries in Athens). Compare the Roman custom sei deo, sei dea. Aul. Gellius ii.28. Such an inscription as what he mentions can actually be found at Rome (see Burris, Rome p. 158, references in Renan, p. 173). Renan, p. 175 makes a full comment suggesting that in effect Paul’s Greek meant he was ‘s’agissant d’un dieu appele par excellence,’ “la Dieu inconnu” and in the note he adds, ‘Si tel avait ete le sous l’un script eut offert θεῷ Ἀγνώστῳ et non Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ.’ I can’t at all follow him in his view of the Greek and should have said quite the opposite. But surely Paul’s argument here cannot have the meaning of the Greek attributed to him by M. Renan. St. Paul however does not intend anything of the kind. He appeals to this anonymous altar as evidence of an element of uncertainty in their religious confusion, in what they confessed, and he offered to reveal this to them.
τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν an answer to the question about ‘strange deities.’ It means ‘This it is that I declare to you.’
ὃ οὖν . . . τοῦτο Comp. John 4:22. The various readings here are important. St. Paul does not identify here the true God of the Christians with the unknown god of the Athenians as the received text makes him do, but he represents the God of revelation as a real counter to the ways of ignorance.
Vs. 24 ὁ θεὸς (see Chrysostom ad loc, IX, p. 288). The Epicureans made the world independent of God. The Stoics made it identical with God. Paul will insist that His sovereignty is prior to and independent of ‘your worship.’
οὐκ ἐν χειροποιήτοις A reminiscence of St. Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:48) and this is not singular cf. Gal 3:19 to Acts 7:53. This addressed to the populace. Both Stoics and Epicureans would allow this, and in fact Stoics frequently use such language. See Lightfoot, Phil. p. 288. He would be responded to first by the Stoics, then by the Epicureans.
προσδεόμενος τινος Again thoroughly Athenian in feeling and expression. Here again he is on the side of the philosophers. Stoics—Plutarch Moral. De Stoic p. 1052E and also Seneca Epist. 95. Epicureans—Lucretius ii. 648 and vi. 54. On all this see Lightfoot, Phil. p. 292 and more examples in Wettstein.
καὶ τὰ πάντα The correct reading. The corruption κατὰ πάντα (T.R.) may have been aided by the occurrence of the same phrase in vs. 22.
Vs. 26 ἐξ ἑνὸς This is addressed ‘ad populus.’ To the Greeks generally who cherished the distinction between Greeks and barbarians, slave and free. To the Athenians especially who boasted of a special ‘dignitas.’ The Stoics with their cosmopolitan ideas would have some sympathy with this declaration. On ἐξ ἑνὸς comp. Heb 2:11; 11:12 and Rom 5:16. The question is—is ἑνός a masculine or a neuter?
κατοικεῖν E.V. seems to be right here, rather than Alford.
παντὸς προσώπου Comp. Eph 2:21. See Winer, no. 18, p. 138 (Moulton).
ὁρίσας A philosophy of history is only possible with the idea of unity and continuity of design, hence the Book of Daniel and the Book of Romans. No parallel in heathen literature. Comp. Deut 32:8-9 LXX.
προστεταγμένους The right reading.
τὰς ὁροθεσίας A late and rare word. May this be its earliest occurrence? τὰ ὁροθεσία likewise late, and a little less rare. The articles show that τῆς . . . καὶ goes with ὁροθεσίας alone.
Vs. 27 ζητεῖν This was the purpose of His creating the human race, and assigning them their seasons and boundaries.
τὸν θεόν is the right reading and this is the word St. Paul so naturally uses, addressing a heathen audience.
Ψηλαφήσειαν
καὶ γε Luke 14:32 v.l., Acts 2:18.
ὑπάρχοντα When all the while he is not far from us.
ἡμῶν Identifying himself with the race.
Vs. 28 St. Paul here recognizes the element of truth on which the pantheistic error is built. This element was deep seated in the consciousness of men and was expressed by some of the Greek Poets. It was that which the Apostle Paul had in common with the Greeks, and which he therefore made his starting point. If he had been speaking to the Jews he would have turned to the other pole of natural theology—the oneness and distinct personality of God. That was an idea that had no distinct place in the Hellenistic mind, and therefore he could not make it the basis of any argument. See Seneca Epistl. 41 no. 1. ‘Prope est a te deus. . . . ’
τινες τῶν καθ’ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν On ‘we are God’s offspring,’ see two Stoic writers Aratus, Phenom. 5; Cleanthes, Hymn. 5, hence the plural καθ’ ὑμᾶς perhaps turning to the Stoic part of the audience.
τινες St. Paul may have studied the Greek poets during the period while he was at Tarsus after his conversion (Acts 9:30, see Baumgar. here) or even under Gamaliel (see C+H, I p. 70).
ζῶμεν the principle of life, ἐνέργεια the energy (cf. Trench, p. 99 and the note on Acts 5:20). Paul is condescending to the Greek conception of ζῶ? Meyer’s and Alford’s climax seems to be fanciful. Rather compare vs. 25.
Vs. 29 ‘man’s art and device’ not as the E.V.
ὑπάρχοντες and comp. the same word in vs. 24 and vs. 29. Even here the Apostle speaks with great courtesy and forbearance (see Baumgar.).
χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ See Seneca, Epist. 31. On statues made of these materials see Boeckh, Pall. p. 626sq. On gold inconsiderable p. 627. Paul might have seen the chrys. statue?
λίθῳ The matter of Hym. and Pel. Comp. Xenephon, Vetig. ?? i.4.
Seneca xxxi.26. Xenephon ibid., iv speaks of the abundant yield of silver, but Strabo, ix. p. 613A that the yield is failing.
A.V. ‘graven by art and man’s device’ but ἀνθρώπου belongs to both.
τὸ θεῖον in Greek philosophy may be considered as a compromise between the polytheistic mythology, and some higher divine principle. It was sufficiently vague and sufficiently far from implied personality not to come into collision with the established belief in the many gods of Olympus. τὸ θεῖον again is a condescension to the Athenian mode of thought and expression. Cf. Phil 4:8 where perhaps the mention of ἀρετή, the old heathen name for the highest excellence, is a similar condescension. It is a hapax in St. Paul though it occurs in a different sense in St. Peter. τὸ θεῖον is a hapax in the New Testament and the word θεῖος only occurs in 2 Pet 1:3-4, and θεῖοτής Rom 1:20. ‘Godhead’ of the E.V. is too concrete for the vague τὸ θεῖον of Greek philosophy. θεοτής occurs only in Col 2:9. St. Paul appeals to the dignity of human nature, an appeal that was not unlikely to fall dead on Athenian ears.
Vs. 30 ὑπεριδὼν Compare St. Paul’s language in Rom 3:25. The signs are overlooked, nothing is said of their remission. The sentiment is strikingly similar.
πάντας The right reading and more expressive than πάσιν. He had a multifarious audience before him.
Vs. 31 καθότι The right reading, confined to St. Luke in the New Testament.
ἐν ἀνδρὶ in a man. Middleton’s rule does not seem to be founded on any intelligible principle.
ἔστησεν ἡμέραν comp. 1 Macc 4:29; 1 Cor 4:3.
πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν Giving a pledge, an assurance. Comp. e.g. Arrian, Hist. 30 p. 548. A common phrase in classical Greek (see Wettstein). Elsewhere, ἀπαρχή 1 Cor 15:20, 23. Paul does not calculate on the Athenian hearers’ understanding of πίστις in any higher sense. Is πίστις ever used by St. Paul in the low sense when addressing believers?
Vs. 32 ἀνάστασιν This could be equally repugnant to both the philosophers and the vulgar. The Epicureans rejected immortality; the Stoics never got beyond the concept of an impersonal unconscious being. All alike were to be repelled by the notion of a bodily resurrection. 1 Cor 15.
ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν a general resurrection of the dead. This is not distinctly mentioned but the reported speech can only be regarded as an abstract. Doutbless Paul elaborated on this topic as he did at Corinth comp. 1 Cor 15:1-2, 12-20. Comp. Arch. Eum. 618. See Alford’s note. Yet the term here seems to refer to a general resurrection of the dead such as is at least implied in the close of St. Paul’s speech if not distinctly stated (the reference to judging the world). And as we must regard this as not a full report but rather an abridgement of St. Paul’s speech, we may well suppose it was explicitly mentioned.
καὶ πάλιν The importance of the speech not to be confused with its effects. See Baumg. ii.
Vs. 34 Διονύσιος [ὁ] Ἀρεοπαγίτης The [ὁ] is suspicious here as it may have been introduced afterwards when the name became famous, and he was called ‘the Areopagite’ distinguishing him from others. E.g Dionysius in Eusebius H.E. iv. 23 in his letter to the Athenians, compared with the St. Diony. οf France. And bear in mind the writings attributed to him.
Ἀρεοπαγίτης It was a title and position still coveted by Roman citizens. See Cicero, pro Bal. 12. In the inscriptions of the early Imperial times the order of positions is 1) the boule, 2 ) ‘from the Ares Pagus.’ See C.I. no. 320 (of the reign of Claudius), no. 361 (a statue erected to Berenice), and sometimes the council of 600 is referenced (e.g. 315, 316). See other references in Renan, pp. 193, 209, 505. See also an inscription of the 4th century no. 372, with Ἀρεοπαγίτην. From Aeschylus to Constantine the dignity of this court appears.
Δάμαρις Not Dionysius’ wife. The Greek will not allow this. Comp. Acts 18:2 as Chrysostom Sacerd. iv.7 and others make clear. The name Δάμαρις appears not to occur (elsewhere), though we have Damalis. Δάμαρης occurs in a Spartan inscription, see Steph. Ins. s.v. Δάμαριον at Paros, Inscrp. 2393, but does Damaris have anything to do with either? Renan, p. 209 suggests that it is a Semitic name, and mentions that several Phoenician inscriptions have been found at Athens. For the possibility of it being a form of Damalis, see Smith’s Dictionary s.v on Damaris, and for Damalis comp. Dorcas.
The comparative failure of Paul’s preaching at Athens. Reasons for this. St. Luke’s reporting. Later church in Athens: First century—Dionysius as its first bishop, Eusebius H.E. iii.4, iv.23, on the authority of Dionysius of Corinth. 2nd century—the Apologists, Aristides and Quadratus, Eusebius H.E. iv.3, Jerome, de Ver. Illustr. 28, 29 on the occasion of Hadrian’s visit to Athens. c. A.D. 125. The passages of Quadratus speaks of our Lord’s miracle. Martyrdom of Paulin. In Eusebius l.c. but date of the martyrdom uncertain. Succeeded by Quadratus, the same as the Apologist? State of the church at this time. The Edict of Antonius Pius (138–151). Melito in Eusebius H.E. iv. 26. Letter of Dionysius to the Athenians, Eusebius H.E. iv. 23. Athenagoras, literary character of the Athenian church. For its later history see the references in Renan, pp. 209, 210.