Acts 17:18

An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 17:18: Voice, Derision, and the Proclamation of Christ

This exegetical study of Acts 17:18: Voice, Derision, and the Proclamation of Christ is based on a b-greek discussion from May 25, 1999.

The initial inquiry concerned the historical background and supposed use of the acronym ιχθύς (ichthys), or “fish,” as an early symbol for Christianity. This acronym is widely understood to represent Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτήρ (Iēsous Christos Theou Hyios Sōtēr), meaning “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Early Christian communities reportedly utilized the fish symbol for clandestine identification, signaling safe houses during periods of persecution from Jewish and Roman authorities.

However, the primary exegetical focus of the subsequent discussion shifted to Acts 17:18, presenting two main interpretive challenges. First, discerning the speaker of the ὅτι clause (“he was proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection”)—whether it represents Luke’s narratorial comment or the direct speech of the Athenian critics—and its implications for understanding the audience’s reception and potential misunderstanding of Paul’s message, particularly concerning ἀνάστασις. Second, analyzing the derogatory intent embedded in the Athenians’ dismissive question, “What would this babbler want to say?” This analysis necessitates a close examination of the lexical force of σπερμολόγος, the grammatical function and rhetorical impact of the potential optative τί ἂν θέλοι, and the role of the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος in conveying contempt.

Acts 17:18 (Nestle 1904)

Τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ, καὶ τινὲς ἔλεγον· Τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δὲ· Ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For Acts 17:18, there are no significant textual variants between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) that impact the interpretive issues discussed in this exegesis. Both editions present the same Greek text for the relevant clauses.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

From a textual critical perspective (informed by NA28), the passages under scrutiny in Acts 17:18 exhibit no significant variants that would alter the grammatical or lexical interpretation. The discussion therefore centers on hermeneutical and grammatical analysis rather than manuscript discrepancies.

Lexical Notes:

• σπερμολόγος (spermologos):
  BDAG defines this term as primarily “one who collects seeds or refuse,” especially referring to birds, and metaphorically as a “chatterer, babbler, idle talker” or one who “picks up scraps of information and spouts them.” KITTEL elaborates on its derogatory sense, indicating one who gathers bits of knowledge without deep understanding, thus a “gossip” or “empty talker.” Its use here by the Athenians clearly conveys contempt for Paul as an unoriginal, shallow purveyor of ideas.
• ἀνάστασις (anastasis):
  Meaning “resurrection” or “a standing up” (BDAG), this term is central to the potential misunderstanding by the Athenian audience. The debate posits whether the Athenians might have perceived ἀνάστασις as the name of a female deity, a consort to “Jesus,” due to their polytheistic worldview and unfamiliarity with Christian eschatology.
• εὐηγγελίζετο (euēggelizeto):
  This verb, “he was proclaiming the good news” or “he was evangelizing,” is in the imperfect active indicative. Its imperfect tense, denoting continuous or repeated action in the past, is a crucial grammatical indicator in determining whether the ὅτι clause is a narratorial comment or part of the Athenians’ direct speech. The contrast with the present tense verb δοκεῖ (“he seems”) in the preceding clause is particularly significant.
• τί ἂν θέλοι (ti an theloi):
  This construction employs the potential optative with ἄν. Grammatically, it expresses possibility or uncertainty, but in an interrogative context like this, it frequently carries a nuance of doubt, incredulity, or even irony. It suggests a hypothetical possibility that the speakers consider unlikely to be worthwhile.
• οὗτος (houtos):
  The demonstrative pronoun “this/that” can, depending on context and word order, convey a disparaging or contemptuous tone. While its primary function is demonstrative, its use in conjunction with a derogatory term like σπερμολόγος often reinforces the dismissive attitude of the speaker towards the person being referenced. The discussion debated whether its derogatory force is inherent (especially when preposed or with proper nouns) or largely derived from the surrounding lexical items and context.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The interpretation of Acts 17:18 hinges significantly on two clauses: the Athenians’ dismissive question and the subsequent ὅτι clause.

The Derogatory Question: Τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν;

The Athenians’ question, “What would this babbler want to say?”, is unequivocally derogatory. The term σπερμολόγος (spermologos) is the primary vehicle for contempt. It paints Paul as a mere “seed-picker,” a scavenger of ideas who lacks profound understanding and merely spouts disparate bits of information. This imagery is deeply insulting in a philosophical context where reasoned discourse and original thought were highly valued.

The potential optative τί ἂν θέλοι (ti an theloi), while not inherently ironic, strongly signals doubt and an expectation that Paul’s message will be worthless. Coupled with σπερμολόγος, it transforms into an ironic or dismissive rhetorical question. The speakers are feigning interest while simultaneously making it clear they anticipate nothing of value. The demonstrative pronoun οὗτος (houtos), placed after σπερμολόγος, further reinforces this disdain by singling out Paul with an implicit tone of “this fellow here” or “this one.” While its derogatory force may be secondary to σπερμολόγος, it contributes to the overall dismissive tone, as suggested by comparisons with other Lukan passages (e.g., Luke 1:62, 15:32) where οὗτος may or may not carry a contemptuous connotation depending on the context and preceding noun.

The ὅτι Clause: ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο

The central debate concerns whether this clause, “because he was proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection,” represents Luke’s narratorial comment explaining *why* the Athenians made their remarks, or if it is part of the Athenians’ own confused assessment of Paul’s preaching.

1. Argument for Narratorial Comment:

   This reading is strongly supported by the tense discrepancy between the preceding verb δοκεῖ (“he seems,” present indicative) and εὐηγγελίζετο (“he was proclaiming,” imperfect indicative). As noted by various scholars (e.g., Fitzmyer, Haenchen, and contributors to the original discussion), the imperfect tense here denotes an ongoing or continuous action in the past, best understood as the background or cause for the Athenians’ present-tense conclusion. If the ὅτι clause were part of the Athenians’ direct speech, the shift in tense would be grammatically awkward. Under this interpretation, Luke clarifies for his readers what Paul was *actually* proclaiming (Jesus and the resurrection), thereby setting up the dramatic irony of the Athenians’ misunderstanding. Here, Ἰησοῦν and ἀνάστασιν retain their standard Christian theological meanings.

2. Argument for Athenian Speech (Misunderstanding):

   A less probable interpretation, given the tense, is that the ὅτι clause reflects the Athenians’ own attempt to summarize Paul’s message, albeit inaccurately. In this scenario, they might have misheard or misinterpreted Paul’s proclamation of ἀνάστασις (resurrection) as the name of a female deity, perhaps a consort to “Jesus,” a foreign god. This view, famously suggested by John Chrysostom, highlights the profound cultural and linguistic chasm between Paul and his pagan audience, where genuine communication failed despite the apostle’s efforts. While plausible rhetorically as a demonstration of misunderstanding, the grammatical evidence of the verb tenses largely weighs against this being direct speech.

The consensus favors the ὅτι clause as Luke’s explanatory narratorial interjection. This allows Luke to inform his Christian readership precisely what Paul was teaching while simultaneously portraying the Athenians’ subsequent mischaracterization of Paul’s message.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical and rhetorical analysis, the Athenian interlocutors in Acts 17:18 express profound disdain for Paul and his message. The term σπερμολόγος establishes Paul as an insignificant babbler, while the potential optative τί ἂν θέλοι signals their expectation that his words will be entirely without value. The ὅτι clause is best understood as the narrator’s own clarification of Paul’s actual preaching, elucidating the true content of his message (Jesus and the resurrection) for the reader, contrasting sharply with the Athenians’ misinterpretation.

1. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also debated with him, and some were asking, “What might this babbler want to say?” Others remarked, “He appears to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities,” for he was continually proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection.

   This translation emphasizes the narrator’s explanatory role for the ὅτι clause, using “for” to indicate the causal connection. The imperfect “was continually proclaiming” highlights the ongoing nature of Paul’s message as the reason for the Athenians’ assessment.

2. Some even said, “What in the world is this scavenger trying to tell us?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating for strange deities,” because he preached about Jesus and Resurrection.

   This option foregrounds the strong incredulity in the potential optative (“What in the world is…”), uses “scavenger” to capture the nuance of σπερμολόγος, and clearly marks the ὅτι clause as Luke’s clarification for the reader. It also allows for the Athenian misunderstanding of ἀνάστασις without attributing the entire clause to their direct speech.

3. Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers engaged with him, with some asking, “What does this petty gossip intend to say?” Others said, “He seems to be announcing foreign gods,” for he was heralding Jesus and the Resurrection.

   This translation adopts “petty gossip” for σπερμολόγος to convey both the meaning of collecting trivial information and the dismissive tone. It uses “heralding” for εὐηγγελίζετο to evoke Paul’s mission, while maintaining the narrator’s voice for the ὅτι clause through “for,” thereby explaining the context of the Athenians’ erroneous conclusion.