sult, do the particulars form?" Krüger, Gr. § 61. 8. 2. V. 21. Their only motive for making the request was, the gratification of their curiosity. Avałoi dè návres, now all Athenians. The omission of the article unites the characteristic more closely with the name, as its invariable attendant. Comp. Win. § 17. 10 b. οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες, i. e. the foreigners permanently resident there; unde iidem mores, as Bengel remarks. eis ovdèv — evxaíqovv, spent their leisure for nothing else. εἰς οὐδὲν The imperfect does not exclude the continued existence of the peculiarity, but blends the reference to it with the history. See similar examples in 27: 8. John 11: 18. 18: 1. 19: 14. Comp. Kühn. § 256. 4 a. Cr. 567. 7. The verb affirms, first, that they had leisure, and, impliedly, at least, an ample share of it; and, secondly, that they made the use of it which is designated xaivórɛqov newer, sc. than before. Win. § 36. 3. St. § 118. 4. The comparative form of the adjective or the positive could be used in this phrase; but the former characterizes the state of mind in question much more forcibly than the latter. Bengel has illustrated well the point of the idiom: Nova statim sordebant; noviora quaere-bantur. Bloomfield speaks of the comparative here as loosely used for the positive. It is worth remarking, that this singular scene of setting up the apostle to speak for the entertainment of the people, occurs, not at Ephesus, or Philippi, or Corinth, but at Athens; not only the only place, in all his journeyings, where Paul met with such a reception, but just the place where the incident comes up as the spontaneous product of the state of things existing there. We know, from the testimony of ancient writers, that this fondness for hearing and telling some new thing, which Luke mentions, was a notorious characteristic of the, Athenians. It would be superfluous to adduce citations in proof of this. See them, in almost any number, in Wetstein, Kuinoel, Bloomfield, and others. The entirely incidental manner in which the exemplification of this trait comes forth in the narrative here, speaks for its truth. Outline of the Course of Thought. The speech which Paul delivered at this time is remarkable for its adaptation, not only to the outward circumstances under which he spoke, but to the peculiar mental state of his auditors. De Wette, whose aesthetic judgment no one will question, calls it "a model of the apologetic style of discourse." "The address of Paul before this assembly," says Neander, "is a living proof of his apostolic wisdom and eloquence; we perceive here how the apostle, according to his own expression, could become also a heathen to the heathen, that he 1849.] Analysis of the Argument. 345 might win the heathen to a reception of the gospel." "The skill," says Hemsen, "with which he was able to bring the truth near to the Athenians, deserves admiration. We find in this discourse of Paul nothing of an ill-timed zeal, nothing like declamatory pomp; it evinces throughout clearness, brevity, coherence, and simplicity of representaDr. Robinson, speaking under the impression produced on his mind by a personal survey of the scene, says that, "masterly" as the address is, as it lies on record before us, "the full force and energy and boldness of the apostle's language, can be duly felt only when one has stood upon the spot." Yet Bauer adheres to his habit of objection and dissent even here. He thinks the speech has been over-praised by critics, because Paul did not succeed in bringing it to a formal close. The astonishment which one feels as he reads the address, is not that the speaker was interrupted at length, when he came to announce to the Athenians the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, but that he could command their attention so long, while he bore down with such effect on their favorite opinions and prejudices, exposed their errors, and arraigned them as guilty of the grossest inconsistency and absurdity of conduct. We have first the introduction, which, in the technical language of rhetoric, is eminently conciliatory. The apostle begins by acknowledging and commending the respect of the Athenians for religion; vv. 22, 23. He states next, at the close of v. 23, his design, which is to guide their religious instincts and aspirations to their proper object, i. e. to teach them what God is, his nature and attributes, in opposition to their false views and practices as idolaters. He goes on, then, in pursuance of this purpose, to announce to them, first, that God is the Creator of the outward, material universe, v. 24; secondly, that He is entirely independent of his creatures, having all sufficiency in Himself, v. 25; thirdly, that He is the Creator of all mankind, notwithstanding their separation into so many nations and their wide dispersion on the earth, v. 26; and, fourthly, that He has placed men, as individuals and nations, in such relations of dependence on Himself as render it easy for them to see that He is, verily, the Creator and sovereign Disposer, and they the creatures; and that it is their duty to seek and serve Him, vv. 27, 28. The ground has thus been won for the application which follows. At this point of the discourse, stretching forth his hand, as we may well suppose, towards the gorgeous images within sight, he exclaims: "We ought not, therefore, to suppose that the Deity is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, sculptured by the art and device of men," v. 29. And that which men ought not to do, they may not safely do any longer. It was owing to the forbearance of God that they had been left hitherto to pursue their idolatry without any signal manifestation of his displeasure; now they were required to repent of it and forsake it, v. 30; because a day of righteous judgment awaited them, which had been rendered certain by the resurrection of Christ, v. 31. Here their clamors interrupted him. It is not difficult, perhaps, to conjecture what he would have added. It only remained, in order to complete his well known circle of thought on such occasions-that he should have set forth the claims of Christ as the object of religious hope and confidence, that he should have exhorted them to call on his name and be saved. It will be seen, therefore, by casting the eye back, that we have here all the parts of a perfect discourse, viz. the exordium, the proposition or theme, the proof or exposition, the inferences and application. It is a beautiful specimen of the manner in which a powerful and well trained mind, practised in public speaking, conforms spontaneously to the rules of the severest logic. One can readily believe, looking at this feature of the discourse, that it was pronounced by the man who wrote the epistles to the Romans and Galatians; where we see the same mental characteristics so strongly reflected. As we must suppose at all events, that the general scheme of thought, the nexus of the argument, has been preserved, it does not affect our critical judgment of the discourse whether we maintain that it has been reported in full, or that a synopsis only has been given. On this point opinions differ. Examination of the Discourse. Vv. 22-31. The speech of Paul on Mars Hill. V. 22 ¿v μέoq may be said obviously of a place or an assembly. It is one of the ambiguous expressions, therefore, already adverted to, which leave it uncertain whether Agɛíov nárov is to be understood of the hill merely or the court assembled there. Ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι. The remark just made is to be repeated here. It is the style of address which Paul would necessarily use in speaking to a concourse of Athenians; and at the same time, he might use it in speaking before judges. In the latter case, however, the Greeks oftener said a avdoes dixaoraí. See Stallb. Plat. Apol. 17, A. xarà návra, in every respect, as it were, in every possible mode of exhibition. ὡς - θεωρώ, I see you as (those who correspond to the description, viz.) more religious sc. than ordinary or than other men. For this suppression of the other term of the comparison, see on v. 21. That δεισιδαιμονεστέρους which is a vox media is to be taken here in a good sense, is rendered certain by the illustration which the apostle subjoins. 1849.] The Altar to an unknown God. 847 The corresponding noun has this signification in 25: 19. See the remarks of Neander on the word in his Pflanzung, etc., p. 318. V. 23. xai úradewoor— ßwμór, and (not transiently but) closely observing the objects of your religious veneration, I found also an altar. Geßáoμara denotes not acts of worship, devotions, but temples, images, altars and the like. It is a generic term, as xai = among them, shows, and comprehends under it ẞouov. The pluperfect inɛɣéɣganzo includes the present, and is to be explained like the imperfect in v. 21. Ayvoorop deg, to an unknown god. "That there was, at least, one altar at Athens with this inscription," says Meyer, "would appear as historically certain from this passage itself, even though other testimonies were wanting, since Paul appeals to a fact of his own observation, and in the presence too of the Athenian people themselves." But the existence of such altars at Athens is well attested by competent witnesses, e. g. Philostratus and Pausanias. The former in his Life of Apollonius, 6. 2, says: awgporioτegov nepi πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν καὶ ταῦτα Αθήνησιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων θεῶν Bouoi i8ouvrai. Pausanias in his Description of Attica, 1. 1, says: ἐπὶ Φαληρῷ (a port of Athens) — βωμοὶ θεῶν τε ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστ των καὶ ἡρώων, etc. It has been made a question here, how we are to understand the use of the plural in these passages; whether as referring to the number of the altars on which the inscription occurred, or to the number of the gods to whom the altars were dedicated. Some have assumed the latter as the correct view; and have said that Paul has arbitrarily changed the plural into the singular, in order to accommodate the fact to his purpose; or even that the writer by this inaccuracy, has betrayed himself as a person who had no direct knowledge of the circumstances which he professes to relate. But even if the inscription on these altars was in the plural, it does not follow, as has been suggested already, that Paul may not have found one having the language which he recites. Such appears to be Bengel's view. Again, it would not follow that he has necessarily misrepresented the sense, admitting that he may have substituted the singular for the plural. The heathen writers often employed ɛol to convey the general idea of divine power, providence, deity and the like. With that meaning the plural could be relinquished for the singular or the singular for the plural, just as an individual pleased. Here the apostle might have preferred ɛ, merely for the sake of its stricter formal accordance with the doctrine which he was about to advance. Kuinoel appears at a loss to decide whether the plural in the case under remark See examples of this interchange in the passages collected by Pfunner in his Systema Theologiae Gentilis Purioris, p. 102 and elsewhere. has reference to the number of the altars, or to that of the gods. Bauer knows certainly that the latter was the fact, and proceeds to draw thence his inferences adverse to the truth of the narration.] Another class of critics, as Calvin, Olshausen apparently, and some others, seem to take it for granted that Paul deviated from the strict form of the inscription, but deny that he violated its proper import or availed himself of any unworthy artifice. But even the appearance of a difficulty here vanishes entirely, when we give to the language of Philostratus and Pausanias the interpretation, which is beyond any reasonable doubt the correct one. Winer states his view of the case as a philologist thus: "It by no means follows from the passages (of the writers above named), that each single one of the altars mentioned by them, had the inscription ayvoorous dεois in the plural, but more naturally that each one separately was dedicated dyrάor dε; but this singular the narrators were obliged to change into the plural, because they spoke of all those altars in a collective way. It appears, therefore, that there were several altars in different places at Athens with the inscription dyvoor dε." See his Realw. Art., Athen. So also among others, Eichhorn, Hess, Hemsen, Meyer, De Wette; a union of authorities, which shows that the decision on this point is not one of party-interest. It should be added that several of the older commentators render arvoor de, to the unknown God, supposing the God of the Jews, i. e. Jehovah, to be meant. Such a view mistranslates the Greek, and violates all historical probability. The precise historical origin of these altars at Athens so dedicated, is unknown. The conjectures are various. One is that they were very ancient, and that it was at length forgotten to whom they had been originally built; and that the inscription in question was put on them at a later period, to apprise the people of this fact. If that was their character, it is not easy to see what proper point of connection the apostle could have found for his remark with such a relic of sheer idolatry. Another is, that in some time or times of public ca 1 His remark here is the following. "Eine solche Verwechslung der allein historisch nachweisbaren йyvwσroι dɛoì mit dem unhistorischen und dem Polytheismus überhaupt fremden yvwσros dɛòç konnte nur ein Schriftsteller sich erlauben, welcher der erzählten Begebenheit ferner stund, und keine Widerlegung an Ort und Stelle zu fürchten hatte, wie diess beim Apostel Paulus hätte der Fall sein müssen." See his Paulus, der Apostel, etc., p. 177. De Wette having pronounced the refutation of such criticism superfluous, adds: "Jene masslose Kritik hebt sich durch sich selbst auf; und darin besteht eben ihr Nutzen, dass sie durch Ueberschreitung aller Schranken das Gefühl der Nothwendigkeit sich beschränken zu müssen weckt." See Vorwort zur dritten Auflage of his Commentary on Acts, 1848. |