Lucien Legrand’s in-depth study of Paul’s Areopagus speech in Acts 17 provides a rich theological and missiological exploration of this pivotal moment in early apostolic mission. Legrand presents the speech as a well-crafted missionary proclamation that balances a theological affirmation of the one true God with a Christological call to repentance and faith. This bipartite structure echoes early Christian preaching formulas, such as those found in Pauline letters, demonstrating that the proclamation to Gentiles often began with monotheistic affirmation before moving to the person of Christ and the promise of salvation¹.
Legrand rejects simplistic classifications of the speech as either a “fulfillment theology” that smoothly integrates Greek religious thought or a confrontational Pauline polemic. Instead, he suggests a “theology of dialogue,” highlighting the frequent use of the Greek verb dialêgesthai (“to dialogue”) in Acts². However, this dialogue should be understood in its first-century context — as respectful cultural engagement and proclamation — not as a symmetrical, mutual exchange like post-Vatican II theological dialogue. Paul’s speech involves one-sided proclamation aimed at conversion rather than a true dialogue involving mutual listening without agenda³.
Luke, the author of Acts, uses the Areopagus speech not as a mere historical record but as theological narrative shaped to communicate the growth of the gospel in a diverse cultural setting. The speech reflects early Christian mission’s awareness of both success and opposition, showing an engagement with Greek sophia (wisdom) and Stoic ideas while firmly rooted in Christian kerygma focused on Christ’s resurrection and final judgment⁴. The “unknown God” altar serves as a cultural bridge, but Paul’s message does not endorse Greek religion outright; it challenges Greek idolatry and superstitions while pointing to the living God of the gospel⁵.
This reflection emphasizes that this engagement is better described as contextualized proclamation than true dialogue. Dialogue in modern Christian usage implies openness and mutuality, missing in Paul’s preaching, which has a clear Christian agenda of conversion. This aligns well with Legrand’s careful contextual reading, cautioning against imposing contemporary theological categories anachronistically onto the New Testament text.
However, it is critical to recognize the conflicted nature of this “dialogue” context. While Legrand advances a theology of dialogue, this article argues that the “context of dialogue” is contested and often conflicts with the original Pauline message. The mission context in Acts 17 does not represent harmonious exchange but a contested space where Christian proclamation both listens to and conflicts with Greek cultural and religious frameworks⁶.
Moreover, the speech anticipates the early Christian mystical theme of humanity’s kinship with God, emerging from this encounter with Greek thought but reinterpreted within Christian confession. It thus serves as a model for mission that listens attentively to cultural questions while remaining faithful to the gospel message⁷.
In conclusion, Legrand’s work offers a compelling vision of missionary engagement that centers on attentive listening and respectful dialogue with cultural wisdom. Yet it is essential to approach “dialogue” with nuance. The frequent use of dialêgesthai in Acts evidences a form of engagement, but Luke’s narrative reveals a predominantly one-sided proclamation within a conflicted context, not a symmetrical, mutual theological exchange. Readers must appreciate the richness of Acts 17 while avoiding anachronistic readings that impose modern concepts of dialogue onto an ancient, contested mission setting⁸.
Ashram, October 16, 2025
Footnotes
- Lucien Legrand, “The Areopagus Speech: Its Theological Kerygma and Its Missionary Significance,” in God’s Word Among Men: Theological Essays in Honour of Joseph Putz, ed. G. Gispert-Sauch (Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973), 59–71.
- Ibid., 64-65.
- Ibid., 63-64.
- G.V.H. Lampe, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (London, 1963), p. 914.
- H.P. Owen, “The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom I and Acts XVII,” New Testament Studies 5 (1959), p. 139.
- Dayanand Bharati, critical reflection embedded within the article.
- G.V.H. Lampe, ibid., 66-67.
- Lucien Legrand, ibid., with critical reading from Dayanand Bharati.
Bibliography
Bultmann, R. Theologie des Neuen Testament. Tubingen, 1954.
Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. Grand Rapids, 1965.
Festugière, R.P. La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. Paris, 1954.
Haenchen, E. The Acts of the Apostles. Oxford, 1971.
Harnack, A. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. New York, 1962.
Lampe, G.V.H. Peake’s Commentary on the Bible. London, 1963.
Legrand, L. “The Missionary Significance of the Areopagus Speech,” in God’s Word Among Men, ed. G. Gispert-Sauch (Delhi, 1973).
Norden, E. Agnostos Theos. Leipzig, 1913.
Schweizer, E. “Concerning the Speeches in Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. L.E. Keck & J.L. Martyn (Nashville, 1966).
Here is the full article by Legrand
L. Legrand, THE MISSIONARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREOPAGUS SPEECH, pp. 59-71
Harnack considered St Paul’s discourse to the Athenians in Acts 17 as “the most wonderful passage in the book of Acts”.¹ For him, it ranked next only to Jesus’ declaration on the supreme command in Mk 12,28-34.² Deissmann shared in the same enthusiasm: he saw in the Areopagus speech “the greatest missionary document in the New Testament”.³ The enthusiasm of those liberal theologians can be easily understood: they felt quite at home with a language adapted to the Hellenistic theism. Better aware of the ecclesiological and eschatological dimensions of the Christian message, present-day biblical theology may see more missiological significance in the missionary commands that conclude each Gospel. Yet it is obvious that Acts 17 presents a great missionary interest. Even as technical a commentary of Acts as that of Haenchen concludes its study of ch. 17 with a short foray in the field of missiology: *”The problem confronted the Church again and again. It confronts us too, for example, when the modern mission asks itself how far the young churches must take over the past of the lands which have brought the gospel to them (ought the Indians, say, to take over the chorale melodies familiar to us, although they are quite alien to their own musical sense?), or when the French ‘worker-priests’ felt it a failure when the Church remains outside the social problems of the working class which has largely slipped away from her.”*⁴ This bravura of the learned exegete may bring a smile to the man in the field; he may feel that there are many issues that preoccupy us much more than that of foreign music in Indian churches. Haenchen’s awareness of the missiological problems may not be equal to his biblical scholarship. Yet his idea is correct. The Areopagus speech is one of those texts of the New Testament towards which the missionary (p. 59) feels especially attracted. It does raise basic missiological issues. I shall just here consider a few of them.
Success or Failure?
A first question that may be raised is whether the Areopagus speech is presented by Luke as successful or not. This has more than an anecdotic interest. It is a basic question for the proper understanding of the text. Does Luke intend us to take the text as a valid example of preaching to the Gentiles or not? In the mind of the author is Acts 17 supposed to play the role of model or of foil?
The Lives of St Paul usually treat Paul’s preaching in Athens as a failure:
On his arrival in Athens, in the autumn of 50, Paul was to experience the most resounding defeat of his whole career… Tactfully he tried to link his religious instruction to references which were current in Athenian circles; he suggested that the ‘unknown God’ to whom the pagans dedicated their altars was really the Messiah, the God made man. But as soon as he proclaimed the news of the Resurrection his audience burst in ribald laughter. On this subject the Greeks shared the view of Aeschylus: “Once the dust has drunk a man’s blood, there can be no more hope of resurrection for him.” Someone shouted mockingly: “We must hear more from thee about this.”
It was a hard lesson, but it bore fruitful results. Paul took his leave of the city of learning, pondering upon this rejection, and he understood its moral. Up to now, surely, had he not set too much store on reasoning, upon demonstration through logical proof? God brought him to realise that it was necessary to bring a different kind of message to this world of sin that he had to conquer. And this message he set out in unforgettable form in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: here Paul makes it clear that Christianity is neither a philosophy nor the kind of worldly wisdom argued over treatises, that it appears positively absurd when viewed in the light of human reason…
If such was the “hard lesson” that Paul drew from the incident, it must be learnt also by the missionary. Acts 17 would mean that the Christian messengers have nothing to gain by having recourse to human culture. To take a stand on the positive elements of this culture would amount to disregard God’s grace.
Daniel-Rops and Ricciotti—who gives the same kind of reconstruction in his commentary on Acts6—would have been surprised to find themselves classified as Barthian. Yet from their views to Barth and Kraemer there is but one step. (p. 60)
But does this kind of reconstruction do justice to Luke’s mind? As Ricciotti himself remarks in his life of St Paul,7 it is not so obvious that the Athenian speech was a failure. The account does not end with Paul’s departure (v. 33) but with the report that “a few joined him and believed, among whom Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them” (v. 34). Any missionary would be happy with such a result after just one sermon. This may not equal the 3000 of the Pentecost (2,41). But it is better success than that which followed Stephen’s speech or even the Philippian preaching (16,15-24). The sermon on the Areopagus ends like any preaching in the Acts: it is a sign of contradiction that stirs both faith and hostility (cf. 13,44f; 14,1f; 16,15-19; 17,4f, etc.).⁸
Another questionable aspect of the reconstruction attempted by the Lives of St Paul is the way they harmonise Acts 17 and 1 Cor 2,1-5. It is true that Corinth was only two or three days’ walk from Athens. But the First Epistle to the Corinthians is about 7 years away from the experience of Athens. The words expressed in 1 Cor reflect Paul’s mentality in Ephesus towards 57 rather than in Corinth in 50. Paul’s mind in 50 is better illustrated by the epistles to the Thessalonians which do not reflect any anti-philosophical polemic. Moreover, what does Paul mean when he speaks of wisdom in 1 Cor? Does he really mean philosophy and recourse to natural revelation? Has he really in mind the approach illustrated by Acts 17? The “pretentious speech” and the “persuasive words of wisdom” evoke the use of rhetoric rather than the genuine bios theoretikos pursued by Plato and Aristotle.
Finally and mostly the question goes deeper and turns into a basic problem of methodology. The flaw of Daniel-Rops’ interpretation and of the others of the same type consists in reading Acts 17 as an anecdote, a mere report of the apostolic adventures of Paul. The Areopagus speech is considered only as an interesting episode of those adventures that can be pieced together with the data of 1 Cor to realise a montage of St Paul’s life. But was Luke’s intention biographical or purely anecdotic? His book is the continuation of his Gospel and it shares in the same purpose. It is (p.61) a description of the growth of the Word, a report on the success and the opposition which the Word meets in its course across the world. Luke is not concerned with mere incidents for their own sake. Each apostolic speech is a proclamation of the Word: it meets with mixed success and failure. The proportion of success and failure varies according to the circumstances but the overall result is similar. There is no reason to suppose that of all the sermons recorded in Acts, the Areopagus speech alone is an exception. If at all Luke wants to make a point of the scant success of the speech, this is not to be attributed to its contents but to the mentality of the Athenians, their pride and superficiality (18,21). Like all the other speeches of Acts, this one does not illustrate a class of pastoral theology or of sacred eloquence but the parable of the Seed: “The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved“ (Lk 8,12).
The question can even be raised whether it was Luke’s intention at all to give a historical record of a speech actually delivered by Paul. Luke was not there in Athens to take notes and it is rather unlikely that Paul or anybody else kept a script of the discourse to give it to Luke. Even if such notes had been available Luke would not have thought it necessary to follow them. The laws of Greek or later-Hellenistic historiography (of the books of Maccabees) left a great freedom as regards speeches. And, after all, he did not deal here with the logia of the Lord. The historicity of the discourse, taken for granted in the Lives of St Paul, was defended also by Harnack.¹⁰ But since Norden¹¹ and particularly Dibelius,¹² “it has been more and more widely recognized that the speeches are basically compositions of the author of Acts who to be sure utilized different kinds of materials for a particular purpose.”¹³
What was the nature and the extent of this “material” Luke used to compose Acts 17? For Dibelius, Luke merely reproduced the outlines of Stoic thinking. Gärtner has shown that he rather followed the lines of Judeo-Christian apologetic. The present trend (Nauck,¹⁴ Haenchen¹⁵ (p.62) Lampe,¹⁶ is to see in Acts 17 a Lukan rendering of a widespread type of Christian preaching to the Gentiles that went along the lines of monotheistic Jewish propaganda. This view could enhance the interest of Acts 17. The interest is no longer anecdotal but typical: the speech reports no longer an important incident in the life of Paul but what was considered to be typical preaching to the Gentiles in the days when Acts was composed—and even possibly in the days of Paul. In this connection, a remark of G. Lohfink can be quoted: *”It is rather surprising that only three speeches of Paul are recorded. Moreover, each one is addressed to a particular audience: Jews (13,16-41), pagans (17,22-31) and a Christian community (20,17-35).” This cannot be due to chance. “It shows that the speeches exemplify the way of preaching in the apostolic times.”*¹⁷
It follows that Acts 17 is not an exception to the apostolic kerygma, a sample of wrong preaching. It shows rather the standard approach of the Early Church to the non-Jews. “In this speech Luke describes… first a particular event: Paul’s disputation with the paganism not yet influenced by the synagogue. Luke would not have presented the picture of this particular event to his reader if it had not possessed a very special meaning for him: it was, so to speak, a kind of programme for the mission,“ says Haenchen, who concludes with the words of Dibelius: *”So one preaches—so one should preach!”*¹⁸
Philosophy versus Kerygma
Those who accept and those who reject the Pauline authorship of the Areopagus speech often find themselves unwittingly in agreement when opposing it to the apostolic kerygma. Conservative exegesis that takes Acts 17 as the story of a failure diagnoses in it a temptation to substitute philosophy for the kerygma of the Cross. Fortunately, the experiment failed and Paul repented of it afterwards. Those who reject Pauline authorship argue that the Athenian sermon does not correspond to Pauline theology, which was a theology of confrontation. E. Schweizer says that *”before the Gentiles the testimony for Christ is replaced by the proclamation of God.”*¹⁹ He postulates the existence in the Early Church of a double type of Christian preaching, the one Christological, the other Theological. To prove this point, E. Schweizer draws a parallel between the schema of the speeches of Peter and Paul to the Jews and to Cornelius and the two speeches to the Gentiles. He finds in the first set of speeches the following general schema:
(a) a direct address, adapted to each particular situation
(b) an appeal for attention
(c) pointing out a misunderstanding among the audience (p.63)
(d) a Scripture quotation as starting point
(e) the Christological kerygma
(f) a proof from Scripture
(g) reply to the problem raised by misunderstanding
(h) proclamation of salvation and call to repentance
(i) focusing of the message on a specific audience²⁰
Applying this structure to Acts 17, Schweizer finds a strict identity:
- direct address related to the situation: v. 22a
(c) a “misunderstanding”: vv. 22b–23ab
(b) reference to the proclamation of the apostles: v. 23c
(d) passages from Scripture (God the Creator): v. 24a
(e) the Theological kerygma: vv. 24–27
(f) proof from “Scripture” taken from Greek poets: v. 28
(g) the “misunderstanding” is cleared up: v. 29
(h) call to repentance: v. 30
(i) focusing upon the specific audience: vv. 30–31²¹
The only—and major—difference between this speech and those of Acts 1–13 would be the substitution of the teaching on God for the kerygma concerning Christ. Structurally, the proclamation of Christ would be only an appendix to the speech.²²
This parallelism is impressive and the conclusions would be startling. The reader interested in the problem of the “inspiration of the non-Christian Scriptures” will jump on Schweizer’s idea that Acts 17 would have taken a Greek philosophical poem as equivalent to a Scripture text, having equal probative value. A more central issue concerns the substitution of the Theological for the Christological kerygma {preaching}. The Early Church would have considered that in a non-Jewish situation—the usual missionary situation nowadays—the Christian preaching was to be primarily a preaching of God.
But is Schweizer’s construction as sound as it appears? It is obvious that the Areopagus speech develops a preaching on God that is not to be found in the previous speeches. But is it true that this Theology takes the place of the kerygma?
To establish this parallelism, Schweizer has to stretch the evidence: he must consider a mention of God the Creator as a quotation from Scripture; he must take a quotation of a Greek poet as “Scripture,” an idea which may be attractive nowadays but which never struck the mind of the Biblical authors; also and mostly he must reduce the last climactic verse on Christ and the resurrection to an “appendix.” Only then can vv. 24–27 appear as the heart of the speech, the basic “Theological kerygma.” (p.64)
In point of fact, the Areopagus speech has a double focus. While the first part is indeed Theological and develops the theme of the vanity of idols (vv. 24–29), the second part is Christological (vv. 30–31), sketching the outlines of salvation history as seen from the standpoint of the Gentiles, it ends with the final judgment exercised through Christ, the Risen One.
This corresponds to a set pattern that is already to be found in 1 Thess 1:9–10:
You turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
Commentators remark that 1 Thess 1:9–10 probably reflects a standard formulation of the early preaching to the Gentiles, already traditional before Paul. It shows the same double focus as Acts 17: finding the one true God, expecting the Son who was raised from the dead. The same twofold structure appears in such confessions of faith as 1 Cor 8:6:
For us there is one God
from whom all things and for whom all things exist,
and one Lord Jesus Christ
through whom all things and through whom we exist.
(and also 1 Cor 12:2; 1 Tim 2:5; 6:13; 2 Tim 4:1; Heb 6:1–2; Eph 4:5–6).
In the discourse of Lystra (Acts 14:15–17), the Theological motive alone is found, since Paul’s aim was only to discourage the crowds from worshipping him (cf. Gal 4:8–9). But for this part at least the similarity with 1 Thess 1:9–10 is striking, and suggests that Luke wove this speech on the frame provided by the traditional formula of faith:
- 1 Thess 1:9 Acts 14:15
You turned to God You should turn
from idols from vain things
to serve a living and true God. to a living God.
The second part of the formula in 1 Thess 1:10 is missing in Acts 14. But the parallelism reappears in Acts 17, which again suggests that Luke worked out his Athenian speech on the basis of the standard structure of the Gentile preaching:
- 1 Thess 1:10 Acts 17:31
… and to wait for his Son (a) (c′) a day on which he will judge
the world
whom he raised from the dead (b) (a′) by a man whom he has appointed
Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come (c). (b′) by raising him from the dead. (p. 65)
Anyway the Christological part of Acts 17 cannot be considered as structurally marginal. It is an integral part of the bipartite structure of between this structure of the proclamation to the Gentiles and of their confession of faith. The difference between this structure and the speeches of Acts 10.13 is simply that the latter were meant for Jews who need not be told about the true God. When addressing the Gentiles, the one true Goodhead first to be proclaimed. “This monotheistic preaching was not specifically Pauline. It just continued the propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism. Even if we lack written sources on the early Christian mission, we can reconstruct it on the basis of those Judeo-Hellenistic writings.“24. As in Acts 17. the Christian Gentile mission may have expatiated on the monotheistic argument more elaborately for reasons of facility: Jewish missionary literature had already worked theme out in great detail and it was easy for the early Christians to echo the ready made developments. But the Christian preaching did not stop with monotheism. From the one true God it went on to His Son Jesus Chrit, risen from the dead whose coming is expected for judgment and salvation. Therefore it was not a case of philosophy substituting the kerygma, of natural Theology replacing Christology. The monotheistic teaching had to be provided as background. But the Christological message remained the ultimate issue.
Yet it would be wrong to consider the teaching about God as mere preparation, pre-kerygma or pre-catechesis, as a preliminary of faith rather than the object of faith. This is what J.A. Grassi does when he studies the texts of the preaching to the Gentiles in a chapter which he entitles: Pre-evangelization. 25 This introduces a distinction which seems to be foreign to the outlook of Acts and of the Early Church. In the two speeches to the Gentiles in Acts, the preaching on God is introduced by a verb belonging to the kerygmatic vocabulary: in 14,15 the verb euangelizomai is used for the invitation to give up idolatry and in 17,23 Katangelô (to announce) has God as its object exactly as in v. 3 of the same chapter it had Christ and in v. 30, in a slightly different from (parangelô), the message of conversion as its object. The kerygma cannot be reduced merely to the Christological fact. It is not a bare fact that the Christian apostles announce: it is a fact that has theological implications and conversion as a consequence. The three elements, God, Christ and conversion are inseparable parts of the kerygma. While we cannot reduce the Christian kerygma to a Theology, it would be equally wrong to exclude teaching on God from the kerygma. For the early Church as in the Old Testament, knowledge of God is salvation. John was faithful to this outlook and summarized it beautifully in the words of the Last Prayer: (p. 66)
This is eternal life,
that they know thee the one true God
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent (Jn 17, 3).
A Theology of Challenge or a Theology of Fulfilment?
Now that the Areopagus speech has been shown to be a valid and complete form of the Christian proclamation, we may raise the basic question: what is its orientation? Which stand does it take towards Hellenistic religion? The missiological implications of the question are obvious.
Acts 17 is often quoted as an example of “integration” of the Christian message and human wisdom. Greek religious thought is taken into account. Greek poets are quoted and, according to E. Schweizer, they are even taken as a kind of Gentile Scripture. A certain amount of popular Stoicism is assumed in the argument. There is no challenge, no aggressivity. The outlook is not that of Rom 1. All this would make Acts 17 a kind of prototype of the “fulfilment theology” that does not only see positive elements in the non-Christian religions but views their whole system as a praeparatio evangelica, equivalent to what the Old Testament was for the Jews. For Bornkamm, this constitutes a radical contrast with Paul’s genuine theology, which is a theology of confrontation.26 In other terms, Rom 1 and Acts 17 would give us already the opposition between Barthian missiology and a missiology inspired by Teilhard de Chardin. Paul would be H. Kraemer and Luke R. Panikkar.
It is true that Acts 17 and Rom 1 represent different approaches. But before making hard and fast classifications, a few remarks are called for:
- There is an interesting variant reading in v. 23 which, instead of the neuter “what you worship as unknown….”, reads in the masculine “him whom you worship unknown….” This variant is attested particularly in the Koine family. This reading would correspond exactly to the theology of the “Unknown Christ” of the non-Christian religions. But this is only a variant reading. The text does not say that the God of Paul is simply the God of the nations. “The indeterminate neutral pronoun expresses well what remained vague and obscure in the presentiment which Paul supposes in the audience”.28
- The speech does not take its stand from any god of the Greek (p. 67)
4.The meaning of the phrase “unknown God” (agnostos theos) should be carefully ascertained. As Festugière remarks, a god can be agnostos in several ways.30 A fulfilment theology assumes that the “unknown god” of the Athenians was the God whom they worshipped unknowingly, the unknown one underlying the whole frame of their religion. Was it really what Paul meant? We may at least submit that another understanding of the text is possible. In his commentary of the text, Theodore of Mopsuestia, quoted by Ishobad, tells a story which, even if apocryphal, shows how ancient commentators understood the “unknown god”:
The Athenians were once upon a time at war with their enemies and the Athenians retreated from them in defeat. Then a certain demon appeared and said unto them: I have never been honoured by you as I ought; and because I am angry with you, therefore you have had a defeat from your enemies. Then the Athenians were afraid and raised to him the well-known altar; and because they dreaded lest this very thing should happen to them, having secretly neglected one who was unknown to them, they erected for themselves one altar more and wrote upon it: Of the Unknown and Hidden God. And by this they wished to say this, that though there is a God in whom we do not believe, we raise this altar to his honour that he may be reconciled to us although he is not honoured as known. therefore Paul did well to take a reason from this, and said before them: This hidden God to whom you have raised an altar without knowing him, I have come to declare unto you.31
St Jerome, as usual, is closer to sensible reality but he follows a similar line of interpretation:
The real inscription was not “To the unknown God” but to all the gods of Asia, Europe and Africa, to all the unknown and foreign gods. And because Paul did not need many gods but one unknown god only, he used the singular.32 (p.68)
5. Finally, it must not be forgotten that a good part of the ideas of the Athenian speech are simply borrowed from standard polemic against the cult of idols. This polemic is toned down by a genuine sympathy for man’s groping efforts towards God. Yet in view of the arguments utilised here, it can hardly be presumed that Luke saw the faith announced by Paul as the continuation and the blossoming of Greek religiosity.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the Athenian speech does take a positive stand towards the religion of the Greeks. Their poets are quoted; men are shown groping to reach God. There is no aggressivity and no challenge. The outlook is definitely not that of Rom 1.
And so we find that Acts 17 does not fit the dilemma: theology of fulfilment or theology of challenge. If modern terms have to be used, by all means, we could possibly speak of a theology of dialogue. In point of fact, the verb dialegesthai is particularly frequent in Acts (10 times versus 3 times only in the rest of the New Testament). What Luke shows in the Athenian speech is an example of this dialegesthai of the Apostle with the Athenians.
This “dialogue” may be the reason why it is difficult to make out whether the speech reflects Stoic philosophy or the Old Testament. According to Dibelius, the whole composition is inspired from Stoicism: Acts 17 is a Hellenistic speech on the knowledge of God, to which the conclusion appended in v. 31 gives a vague Christian touch.34 Greek Stoic poets are quoted as authority and most of the themes treated in vv. 24-28 find their correspondent in Stoicism.34 For B. Gärtner, on the contrary, the context of the speech is not the theologia naturalis of Stoicism but the monotheistic propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism: all the themes are also to be found in the Old Testament and particularly in the Judeo-Hellenistic literature (Sap 13-14; 2 Mac 14,35; 7,22f).36 Typical of this ambiguity is v. 26: ex henos. (p.69) may be “from one principle (divine)” (JB), and we think of Stoicism, or it may be “from one man” or “one blood” (as D and most of the koine family read it),37 and we think of Gen 1. Then God is said to fix prostetagménous kairous kai tas horothesías, a statement which can be given a philosophical interpretation (Dibelius), in which the kairoi are the seasons of the year (as in 14,17) and the horothesiai the five cosmic zones, out of which two only could be inhabited by man. But it can also be understood in a “historical” or biblical manner: the kairoi are the periods of history and the horothesiai are the definite borders allotted to the various peoples (Gen 10; Dt 32,8) (Pohlenz, Gärtner, Dupont in JB). An interesting variant to this interpretation is the suggestion of W. Eltester, who understands the whole text as an echo of Gen 1, in terms of the myth of the cosmic fight underlying the Creation story in Genesis: the kairoi would be days, nights, and seasons set apart in Gen 1,14; the horothesiai represent the gathering of the waters in their respective places away from the dry lands in Gen 1,9. 38
Acts 17 is not the only instance of this approach in the New Testament. We find it also in Jn 1, a meditation on the logos, which is both deeply biblical and perfectly attuned to Stoic language. There is also the case of the theme of pleroma in the Captivity Epistles, another term that can be explained with reference to the Bible (and particularly to Wisdom literature)40 or to Stoicism.41 Again, there is in 1 Cor 2–3 the theme of Christ the Wisdom of God, an answer in biblical terms to the Greek quest for wisdom.42 [These could be called ‘contextualization’ than dialogue—db]
This dialogue with Greek thought led early Christian reflection to a better awareness of the cosmological and theological implications of the (p. 70) kerygma. In this process of reflection, Acts 17, like Rom 1, did not yet go as far as Jn 1, the Captivity Epistles, or even 1 Cor 2–3. Whereas the latter texts show a deeper understanding of the role and position of Christ now viewed in relation to God and the cosmos, Acts 17 and Rom 1 remain at the level of the Judeo-Hellenistic Christology which is that of the early kerygma: Christ is the judge to come; the resurrection is the guarantee of his return; meanwhile man has to repent (cf. Acts 10,42f; 1 Thes 1,9–10). This is still far removed from the Christological insights of Col 1 or Jn 1. There is no cosmic Christ in Acts 17. Ideologically it is much closer to 1 Thes than to the Epistle to the Colossians.
Yet Acts 17 does show the fruits of a contact with the Greek quest for wisdom (sophia), if not in its Christology, at least in its theo-logy. The heis theos confession of faith begins here to develop into a gnosis of God. It is a very humble gnosis, which acknowledges itself to be nothing more than groping. Yet it goes beyond the themes of the Judaic polemic against idols and the starkly negative statements of 1 Thes 1,9f. A new theme emerges, that of man’s connaturality with God. This theme will be resumed in 2 Pet 1,4 (“partakers of the divine nature”), and commentators have investigated its Christian antecedents and correspondents (cf. 2 Cor 13,14; Phil 2,1; 1 Jn 1,3; cf. Jn 6,53–58; Heb 3,14; 6,4).43 Acts 17 traces its origin boldly to Hellenism, Aratus and Cleanthes.44 It is true that in 2 Pet and even in Acts 17 the value of the theme differs widely from that which it has in Stoicism: the pantheistic implications have been cleared; the connaturality is one of communion and not as material origin.45 Yet it remains that, in Acts 17 and in its attempt to come to grips with the gropings of man, we have the begining of a process that will eventually find its expression in Christian mysticism. [Mysticism is both Western and Christian and this term though widely used cannot be found in Indian tradition. Still used by Hindus themselves. This is one such another example how the Christian technical terms now become a common word borrowed by others to give expression their unique still different experiences and expression to communicate to the West and Christians, as we often use another word ‘Cross’, ‘gospel truth’ etc.—db]
The lesson of Acts 17 for the Church may well be this attitude of dialogue, a readiness to listen to the questions of man, and to be concerned with the efforts of man’s Sophia searching a God who is not far from us. It is by listening to man’s questions, the apostle and the Church slowly discover the latent wealth of the kerygma they have been entrusted with.
¹ A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, New York, 1962, p. 383.
² Op. cit., p. 16.
³ A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, Grand Rapids, 1965, p. 384.
⁴ E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, Oxford, 1971, p. 530.
⁵ H. Daniel-Rops, The Church of Apostles and Martyrs, New York, 1962, pp. 96-7.
⁶ G. Ricciotti, The Acts of the Apostles, Milwaukee, 1958, p. 279. A similar reconstruction can be found in J. Renié, Actes des Apôtres (Pirot-Clamer XI/1), Paris, 1949; O. Holzner, Paul of Tarsus, St. Louis, 1944, pp. 229-30; J. Dupont, Les Actes des Apôtres (BJ), Paris, 1953, p. 157 (from where it passed into The Jerusalem Bible, London, 1966, p. 231); Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, Paris, 1967, p. 417; J. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, London, 1968, p. 53.
⁷ In Paul the Apostle, Milwaukee, 1946, pp. 323-4, after saying: “The discourse on the Areopagus was a failure”, Ricciotti goes on to say: “Certain it is that he did not consider it a failure but listed it among his ‘victories’ after the stoning at Lystra, the scourging at Philippi and the various times he had been forced to flee during his previous missions… The sojourn in Athens did bear some little fruits.”—p. 61
⁸ Cf. G.V.H. Lampe, in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, London, 1963, p. 914: “For the most part the audience had rejected Paul’s teaching. This does not imply that Paul went out disheartened, determined never again to adopt the technique of cultured sermon, but to stick to the ‘simple gospel’. If this speech does at all represent Paul’s own methods, there is no evidence that he ever thought them ineffective or abandoned them… On the contrary, Paul was distinctively successful at Athens.”—p. 61
⁹ Cf. in this connection the interesting note of A.J. Festugière, L’idéal Religieux des Grecs et l’Évangile, Paris, 1932, pp. 99-100.
¹⁰ A. Harnack, Ist die Rede des Paulus in Athen ein ursprünglichen Bestandteil der Apostelgeschichte? (Texte und Untersuchungen 39/1), Leipzig, 1913.
¹¹ E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, Leipzig, 1913.
¹² M. Dibelius, Studies in Acts of the Apostles, New York, 1956.
¹³ E. Schweizer, “Concerning the Speeches in Acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts, edited by L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn, Nashville, 1966 (henceforth quoted as Keck-Martyn), p. 204. In this collection of essays, the same pessimism as regards the historicity of the Athenian speech is expressed by Ph. Vielhauer (pp. 34-7) and H. Conzelmann (pp. 217-8). See also H. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts”, in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. by F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, Vol. V. Additional Notes, London, 1932, pp. 403-7.—p. 62
¹⁴ W. Nauck, “Die Tradition und Komposition der Areopagrede. Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung”, in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53 (1956), pp. 11-56.
¹⁵ Op. cit., pp. 528-9.
¹⁶ Peake’s Commentary, p. 914.
¹⁷ G. Lohfink, La Conversion de Saint Paul, Paris, 1967, pp. 71-2.
¹⁸ Op. cit., p. 530.
¹⁹ Keck-Martyn, p. 213.
²⁰ Ibid., pp. 210–12.
²¹ Ibid., p. 213.
²² Ibid., p. 214.
²³ Cf. B. Rigaux, Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens, Paris, 1956, p. 180, who makes the connection between 1 Thess 1:9–10 and Acts 14 and 17. Further bibliography in J. Munck, “The Missionary Preaching of Paul,” in New Testament Studies (1963), p. 101.
24. R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testament, Tubingen 1954, p. 69,
25. J.A. Grassi, A World to Win, The Missionary Methods of Paul the Apostle, Maryknoll, 1965, p 107-14.
- Keck-Martyn, p. 202.
- Kirsopp Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, V, p. 251.
- E. Jacquier, Les Actes des Apôtres, Paris, 1926, p. 530.
- 29. H.P. Owen, “The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom I and Acts XVII”, in New Testament Studies 5 (1959), p. 139.
- “A god can be agnostos in many ways. He can be unknown in the particular sense that he is foreign to the country where he is called agnostos. He may be unknown in a general sense that the human mind is unable to know anything about the divine realities. He may be unknown in the sense that he reveals himself only to a small number of the elect. He may be unknown and unknowable in himself although he allowed himself to be approached by indirect ways (negative analogy) or by an act of mystical union. In order to choose among these connotations, our only criterion must be the general bearing of the text, the spirit behind it.” (R.P. Festugière, La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, IV, Le Dieu Inconnu et la Gnose, Paris, 1954, p. 4.)—p. 68
- Quoted in The Beginnings of Christianity, V, p. 244.
- Comm. in Tit., 1, 12 (Patrologia Latina 26, 572-3).
- Cf. The Beginnings of Christianity, IV, p. 214.
- M. Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, New York, 1956, p. 57.
- Cf. the reservations made by J. Dupont in his review of Gärtner’s book quoted below: Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 51 (1955), pp. 189-92 (reprinted in Études sur les Actes des Apôtres, Paris, 1967, pp. 157-60).
- B. Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Uppsala, 1955.
- According to Kirsopp Lake–H. Cadbury, this might have been the original reading (The Beginnings of Christianity, IV, p. 216).
- W. Eltester, “Schöpfungsoffenbarung und natürliche Theologie im frühen Christentum,” New Testament Studies 3 (1956–7), p. 101.
- W. Eltester, “Zur Areopagerede,” in Neut. Studien für R. Bultmann (Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 45 [1954]), p. 227.
- Cf. A. Feuillet, “L’Église Plérome du Christ d’après Ep. 1,23,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 78 (1956), pp. 449–72; Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu d’après les Épîtres Pauliniennes, Paris, 1966, pp. 218–28; 277–87.
- Cf. P. Benoit, “Corps, Tête et Plérome dans les Épîtres de la Captivité,” in Exégèse et Théologie 2, Paris, 1961, pp. 138–53 (= Revue Biblique 63 [1956], pp. 5–44).
- Cf. A. Feuillet, Le Christ Sagesse…, pp. 397–9.
- 43 Cf. for instance J. Chaine, Les Epitres Catholiques, Paris 1939, pp. 42-3, who studies both the Greek and the Biblical resonances of the text.
- 44 On Aratus and Cleanthes, see especially R. P. Festugiere, La Revelaion d’ Hermes Trimegiste II, Paris, 1949, pp. 310-40.
- C. Festugiere, L’Ideal Religieus….pp. 71-2.
Leave a Reply