The Meaning of Acts 17:18 Explained

Acts 17:18

KJV: Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

YLT: And certain of the Epicurean and of the Stoic philosophers, were meeting together to see him, and some were saying, 'What would this seed picker wish to say?' and others, 'Of strange demons he doth seem to be an announcer;' because Jesus and the rising again he did proclaim to them as good news,

Darby: But some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers attacked him. And some said, What would this chatterer say? and some, He seems to be an announcer of foreign demons, because he announced the glad tidings of Jesus and the resurrection to them.

ASV: And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.

KJV Reverse Interlinear

Then  certain  philosophers  of the Epicureans,  and  of the Stoicks,  encountered  him.  And  some  said,  What  will  this  babbler  say?  other some, He seemeth  to be  a setter forth  of strange  gods:  because  he preached  unto them  Jesus,  and  the resurrection. 

What does Acts 17:18 Mean?

Study Notes

Epicureans Disciples of Epicurus, B.C. 342-271, who abandoned as hopeless the search by reason for pure truth, cf. John 18:38 seeking instead true pleasure through experience.
Stoicks Disciples of Zeno, B.C. 280, and Chrysippus, B.C. 240. This philosophy was founded on human self-sufficiency, inculcated stern self-repression, the solidarily of the race, and the unity of Deity. Epicureans and Stocis divided the apostolic world.

Verse Meaning

Epicureans were disciples of Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) who believed that pleasure was the greatest good and the most worthy pursuit of man. They meant pleasure in the sense of tranquility and freedom from pain, disquieting passions, and fears, especially the fear of death. Epicurus taught that the gods took no interest in human affairs. Thus organized religion was bad, and the gods would not punish evildoers in the afterlife. Epicurus" followers also believed that everything happened by chance and that death was the end of all. They were similar to "agnostic secularists." [1] This philosophy is still popular today. One of its fairly modern poets was A. C. Swinburne.
"A motto, written by Diogenes, an Epicurean, in about A.D200 , sums up this belief system: "Nothing to fear in God; Nothing to feel in death; Good [2] can be attained; Evil [3] can be endured."" [4]
". . . Epicureanism is most fairly described as the ancient representative of modern utilitarianism." [1]
Stoics followed the teachings of Zeno the Cypriot (340-265 B.C.). The name "stoic" comes from "stoa," a particular portico (Gr. stoa) where he taught when he lived in Athens. His followers placed great importance on living in harmony with nature. They stressed individual self-sufficiency and rationalism, and they had a reputation for being quite arrogant. Stoics were pantheists who believed that God is in everything, and everything is God. They were also fatalistic. Their teaching is also common today. A modern poet who set forth this philosophy of life, W. E. Henley, wrote, "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul," in his poem Invictus. Stoics were also idealists. [6]
The Greek word spermologos, translated "babbler," refers to someone who picked up the words of others as a bird picks up seeds. Paul"s hearers implied that he had put together a philosophy of life simply by picking up this and that scrap of an idea from various sources. Others accused him of proclaiming new gods, though his critics may have misunderstood his references to the resurrection (Gr. anastasis) as being references to a person, perhaps a female counterpart of Jesus. This is less likely than that they simply did not believe in resurrection. [7]

Context Summary

Acts 17:13-21 - Stirred By Idolatry
From the first, the gospel was baptized in the fire of persecution. How unutterable the loneliness and sorrow of the Apostle as he reached Athens! Did doubt ever enter his mind as to whether he was on the appointed track? If it did, he at once dismissed it. His motto was to forget the things behind. When, in dependence upon God, you have once taken a path, dare to believe it is right, whatever appearances there are to the contrary.
One purpose consumed the Apostle. One thing I do, was the thread on which the many beads of his experiences were strung. Persecuted and rejected today, he is at his favorite work tomorrow. How different this intense earnestness from the trifling of the so-called philosophers of Athens! The Epicurean made the pursuit of pleasure the main object of life. The Stoic, on the other hand, believed in the stern repression of nature. All Greece was absorbed in the cultivation of art, architecture, eloquence, and intellectual brilliance. But here, as everywhere, Paul had but one message-Jesus and the Resurrection. Oh, to be pressed in spirit, as he was, till our earnestness should compel our opponents to give us a serious hearing! [source]

Chapter Summary: Acts 17

1  Paul preaches at Thessalonica, where some believe,
5  and others persecute him
10  He is sent to Berea, and preaches there
13  Being persecuted by Jews from Thessalonica,
16  he comes to Athens, and disputes and preaches the living God, to them unknown;
32  whereby, though some mock, many are converted unto Christ

Greek Commentary for Acts 17:18

And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him [τινες δε και των Επικουριων και Στωικων πιλοσοπων συνεβαλλον αυτωι]
Imperfect active of συνβαλλω — sunballō old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one‘s mind (Luke 2:19), to meet together (Acts 20:14), to bring together aid (Acts 18:27), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already Acts 4:15 which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men‘s thought inward Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 b.c.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 b.c.) taught in the Στοα — Stoa (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. “Eat and drink for tomorrow we die,” they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. “In Epicureanism, it was man‘s sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect” (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. [source]
What would this babbler say? [Τι αν τελοι ο σπερμολογος ουτος λεγειν]
The word for “babbler” means “seed-picker” or picker up of seeds Note the use of αν — an and the present active optative τελοι — theloi conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. Other some (οι δε — hoi de). But others, in contrast with the “some” just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods This view is put cautiously by δοκει — dokei (seems). Καταγγελευς — Kataggeleus does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 99) gives an example of the word “on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus,” where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. Δαιμονιον — Daimonion is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and καταγγελευς — kataggeleus are used from the Athenian standpoint. Χενος — Xenos is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin hospes) and then host (Romans 16:23), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew 25:31; Acts 17:21), new and so strange as here and Hebrews 13:9; 1 Peter 4:12, and then aliens (Ephesians 2:12). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (religio illicita). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians 1:12-20), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (ευαγγελιζω — hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin euēggelizato). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of αναστασις — euaggelizō to “gospelize.” Apparently these critics considered anastasis (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (Acts 17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely. [source]
Other some [οι δε]
But others, in contrast with the “some” just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. [source]
He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods [ζενων δαιμονιων δοκει καταγγελευς ειναι]
This view is put cautiously by δοκει — dokei (seems). Καταγγελευς — Kataggeleus does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 99) gives an example of the word “on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus,” where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. Δαιμονιον — Daimonion is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and καταγγελευς — kataggeleus are used from the Athenian standpoint. Χενος — Xenos is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin hospes) and then host (Romans 16:23), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew 25:31; Acts 17:21), new and so strange as here and Hebrews 13:9; 1 Peter 4:12, and then aliens (Ephesians 2:12). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (religio illicita). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians 1:12-20), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (ευαγγελιζω — hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin euēggelizato). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of αναστασις — euaggelizō to “gospelize.” Apparently these critics considered anastasis (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (Acts 17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely. [source]
Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection [ευαγγελιζω]
Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of αναστασις — euaggelizō to “gospelize.” Apparently these critics considered anastasis (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (Acts 17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely. [source]
Epicureans []
Disciples of Epicurus, and atheists. They acknowledged God in words, but denied his providence and superintendence over the world. According to them, the soul was material and annihilated at death. Pleasure was their chief good; and whatever higher sense their founder might have attached to this doctrine, his followers, in the apostle's day, were given to gross sensualism. [source]
Setter-forth [καταγγελεὺς]
See on declare, Acts 17:23. Compare 1 Peter 4:4, 1 Peter 4:12. [source]
Babbler [σπερμολόγος]
Lit., seed-picker: a bird which picks up seeds in the streets and markets; hence one who picks up and retails scraps of news. Trench (“Authorized Version of the New Testament”) cites a parallel from Shakespeare:“This fellow picks up wit as pigeons peas,And utters it again when Jove doth please. He is wit's pedler, and retails his wares-DIVIDER-
At wakes, and wassails, meetings, markets, fairs.”Love's Labor's Lost, v., 2. [source]

Strange []
Foreign. [source]
Stoics []
Pantheists. God was the soul of the world, or the world was God. Everything was governed by fate, to which God himself was subject. They denied the universal and perpetual immortality of the soul; some supposing that it was swallowed up in deity; others, that it survived only till the final conflagration; others, that immortality was restricted to the wise and good. Virtue was its own reward, and vice its own punishment. Pleasure was no good, and pain no evil. The name Stoic was derived from stoaa porch. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, held his school in the Stoa Poecile, or painted portico, so called because adorned with pictures by the best masters. [source]

Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Acts 17:18

Matthew 4:1 The Devil [τοῦ διαβόλου]
The word means calumniator, slanderer. It is sometimes applied to men, as to Judas (John 6:70); in 1 Timothy 3:11 (slanderers )and in 2 Timothy 3:3, and Titus 2:3 (false accusers )In such cases never with the article. The Devil, Satan, the god of this world ( ὁ διάβολος ), is always with the article and never plural. This should be distinguished from another word, also wrongly rendered devil in the A. V. - δαίμων , and its more common neuter form δαιμόνιον , both of which should be translated demon, meaning the unclean spirits which possessed men, and were cast out by Christ and his apostles. The Rev., unfortunately, and against the protest of the American revisers, retains devil for both words, except in Acts 17:18, where it renders as A. V. gods. [source]
Luke 1:62 Made signs [ενενευον]
Imperfect tense, repeated action as usual when making signs. In Luke 1:22 the verb used of Zacharias is διανευων — dianeuōn he would have him called Note article το — to with the indirect question, accusative of general reference. The optative with αν — an is here because it was used in the direct question (cf. Acts 17:18), and is simply retained in the indirect. [source]
Luke 15:26 He inquired [επυντανετο]
Imperfect middle, inquired repeatedly and eagerly.What these things might be (τι αν ειη ταυτα — ti an eiē tauta). Not “poor” Greek as Easton holds, but simply the form of the direct question retained in the indirect. See the direct form as the apodosis of a condition of the fourth class in Acts 17:18. In Acts 10:17 we have the construction with αν ειη — an eiē of the direct retained in the indirect question. So also in Luke 1:62: See Robertson, Grammar, p. 1044. [source]
Luke 15:26 What these things might be [τι αν ειη ταυτα]
Not “poor” Greek as Easton holds, but simply the form of the direct question retained in the indirect. See the direct form as the apodosis of a condition of the fourth class in Acts 17:18. In Acts 10:17 we have the construction with αν ειη — an eiē of the direct retained in the indirect question. So also in Luke 1:62: See Robertson, Grammar, p. 1044. [source]
Luke 6:11 Communed [διελαλουν]
Luke puts it in a less damaging way than Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:14. This aorist optative with αν — an is the deliberative question like that in Acts 17:18 retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5:18) where “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus. [source]
Luke 6:11 What they might do to Jesus [τι αν ποιησαιεν Ιησου]
Luke puts it in a less damaging way than Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:14. This aorist optative with αν — an is the deliberative question like that in Acts 17:18 retained in the indirect form here. Perhaps Luke means, not that they were undecided about killing Jesus, but only as to the best way of doing it. Already nearly two years before the end we see the set determination to destroy Jesus. We see it here in Galilee. We have already seen it at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5:18) where “the Jews sought the more to kill him.” John and the Synoptics are in perfect agreement as to the Pharisaic attitude toward Jesus. [source]
John 5:2 There is [εστιν]
Bengel argues that this proves a date before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is probably only John‘s vivid memory. By the sheep gate Supply πυληι — pulēi (gate) which occurs with the adjective προβατικη — probatikē (pertaining to sheep, προβατα — probata) in Nehemiah 3:1, Nehemiah 3:22. A pool A diving or swimming pool (from κολυμβαω — kolumbaō to swim, Acts 27:43), old word, only here in N.T. Which is called “The surnamed” (present passive participle, only N.T. example except Acts 15:40 first aorist middle participle επιλεχαμενος — epilexamenos). In Hebrew “In Aramaic” strictly as in John 19:13, John 19:17, John 19:20; John 20:16; Revelation 9:11; Revelation 16:16. Bethesda Aleph D L 33 have ετζατα — Bethzatha or House of the Olive, while B W Vulg. Memph. have ετσαιδα — Bethsaida Having five porches Στοα — Stoa was a covered colonnade where people can gather from which Stoic comes (Acts 17:18). See John 10:23; Acts 3:11. Schick in 1888 found twin pools north of the temple near the fortress of Antonia one of which has five porches. It is not, however, certain that this pool existed before a.d. 70 when the temple was destroyed (Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 55). Some have identified it with the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7), though John distinguishes them. There is also the Virgin‘s Well, called the Gusher, because it periodically bubbles over from a natural spring, a kind of natural siphon. This is south of the temple in the Valley of Kedron and quite possibly the real site. [source]
Acts 18:27 Helped [συνεβάλετο]
The radical sense of the word is to throw together: hence, to contribute; to help; to be useful to. He threw himself into the work along with them. On different senses of the word, see notes on Luke 2:19; and see on Luke 14:31; and compare Acts 4:15; Acts 17:18; Acts 18:27; Acts 20:14. [source]
Acts 17:23 Declare I [καταγγέλλω]
Compare καταγγελεὺς ,setter-forth, in Acts 17:18. Here, again, there is a play upon the words. Paul takes up their noun, setter-forth, and gives it back to them as a verb. “You say I am a setter-forth of strange gods: I now set forth unto you (Rev.) the true God.” [source]
Acts 10:17 Might be [an eiē)]
Optative with an in indirect question simply retained from the direct (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1021, 1044). See note on Acts 17:18, for the direct and note on Luke 1:62 for the indirect It is the conclusion of a fourth class condition. Having made inquiry (dierōtēsantes). First aorist active participle of dierōtaō another compound of dia to ask one after another, to ask through, old verb, but only here in the N.T. It took diligent inquiry to find the obscure house of Simon the tanner. Stood before the gate Second aorist active indicative of ephistēmi intransitive. Note repetition of epi The messengers stopped right at the folding gates of the passage (pulōna) which led from the street to the inner court or house. [source]
Acts 17:20 For thou bringest certain strange things [χενιζοντα γαρ τινα εισπερεις]
The very verb used by Xenophon (Mem. I) about Socrates. Χενιζοντα — Xenizonta is present active neuter plural participle of χενιζω — xenizō and from χενος — xenos (Acts 17:18), “things surprising or shocking us.” [source]
Acts 17:31 In that he hath raised him from the dead [ανιστημι]
First aorist active participle of anistēmi causal participle, but literally, “having raised him from the dead.” This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them. [source]
Acts 18:2 With his wife Priscilla [Πρισκα]
Diminutive of δια το διατεταχεναι Κλαυδιον — Priska (Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19). Prisca is a name in the Acilian family and the Prisci was the name of another noble clan. Aquila may have been a freedman like many Jews in Rome. Her name comes before his in Acts 17:18, Acts 17:26; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:9. [source]
Acts 18:27 Helped them much [συνεβαλετο πολυ]
Second aorist middle indicative of συνβαλλω — sunballō used in Acts 17:18 for “dispute,” old verb to throw together, in the N.T. always in the active save here in the middle (common in Greek writers) to put together, to help. Through grace (δια της χαριτος — dia tēs charitos). This makes sense if taken with “believed,” as Hackett does (cf. Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14) or with “helped” (1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 1:12). Both are true as the references show. [source]
Acts 17:23 The objects of your worship [τα σεβασματα υμων]
Late word from σεβαζομαι — sebazomai to worship. In N T. only here and 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The use of this word for temples, altars, statues, shows the conciliatory tone in the use of δεισιδαιμονεστερους — deisidaimonesterous in Acts 17:22. An altar (βωμον — bōmon). Old word, only here in the N.T. and the only mention of a heathen altar in the N.T With this inscription On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of επιγραπω — epigraphō old and common verb for writing on inscriptions To an Unknown God (ΑΓΝΟΣΤΟ ΤΕΟ — AGNOSTO THEO). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are “altars to gods unknown” (βωμοι τεων αγνωστων — bōmoi theōn agnōstōn). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of αγνωστος — agnōstos old and common adjective (from α — a privative and γνωστος — gnōstos verbal of γινωσκω — ginōskō to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the “confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion” (Hort, Hulsean Lectures, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. So he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. In ignorance Present active participle of αγνοεω — agnoeō old verb from same root as αγνωστος — agnōstos to which Paul refers by using it. This set I forth unto you (τουτο εγο καταγγελλω υμιν — touto ego kataggellō humin). He is a καταγγελευς — kataggeleus (Acts 17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read οντουτον — hoṅ̇touton (whom--this one) rather than οτουτο — hȯ̇touto (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in Acts 17:24. [source]
Acts 17:23 With this inscription [εν ωι επεγεγραπτο]
On which had been written (stood written), past perfect passive indicative of επιγραπω — epigraphō old and common verb for writing on inscriptions To an Unknown God (ΑΓΝΟΣΤΟ ΤΕΟ — AGNOSTO THEO). Dative case, dedicated to. Pausanias (I. 1, 4) says that in Athens there are “altars to gods unknown” (βωμοι τεων αγνωστων — bōmoi theōn agnōstōn). Epimenides in a pestilence advised the sacrifice of a sheep to the befitting god whoever he might be. If an altar was dedicated to the wrong deity, the Athenians feared the anger of the other gods. The only use in the N.T. of αγνωστος — agnōstos old and common adjective (from α — a privative and γνωστος — gnōstos verbal of γινωσκω — ginōskō to know). Our word agnostic comes from it. Here it has an ambiguous meaning, but Paul uses it though to a stern Christian philosopher it may be the “confession at once of a bastard philosophy and of a bastard religion” (Hort, Hulsean Lectures, p. 64). Paul was quick to use this confession on the part of the Athenians of a higher power than yet known to them. So he gets his theme from this evidence of a deeper religious sense in them and makes a most clever use of it with consummate skill. In ignorance Present active participle of αγνοεω — agnoeō old verb from same root as αγνωστος — agnōstos to which Paul refers by using it. This set I forth unto you (τουτο εγο καταγγελλω υμιν — touto ego kataggellō humin). He is a καταγγελευς — kataggeleus (Acts 17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read οντουτον — hoṅ̇touton (whom--this one) rather than οτουτο — hȯ̇touto (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in Acts 17:24. [source]
Acts 17:23 In ignorance [αγνοουντες]
Present active participle of αγνοεω — agnoeō old verb from same root as αγνωστος — agnōstos to which Paul refers by using it. This set I forth unto you (τουτο εγο καταγγελλω υμιν — touto ego kataggellō humin). He is a καταγγελευς — kataggeleus (Acts 17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read οντουτον — hoṅ̇touton (whom--this one) rather than οτουτο — hȯ̇touto (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in Acts 17:24. [source]
Acts 17:23 This set I forth unto you [τουτο εγο καταγγελλω υμιν]
He is a καταγγελευς — kataggeleus (Acts 17:18) as they suspected of a God, both old and new, old in that they already worship him, new in that Paul knows who he is. By this master stroke he has brushed to one side any notion of violation of Roman law or suspicion of heresy and claims their endorsement of his new gospel, a shrewd and consummate turn. He has their attention now and proceeds to describe this God left out of their list as the one true and Supreme God. The later MSS. here read οντουτον — hoṅ̇touton (whom--this one) rather than οτουτο — hȯ̇touto (what--this), but the late text is plainly an effort to introduce too soon the personal nature of God which comes out clearly in Acts 17:24. [source]
Acts 17:31 Hath appointed a day [ιστημι]
Rather, is going to judge, κρινω — mellō and the present active infinitive of κρινει — krinō Paul here quotes Psalm 9:8 where εν ανδρι ωι ωρισεν — krinei occurs. By the man whom he hath ordained Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ‘s own words in Matthew 25. ωρισεν — Hōi (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of οριζω — hōrisen (first aorist active indicative of ανδρι — horizō) to the case of the antecedent πιστιν παρασχων — andri It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God‘s place and power in human history. Whereof he hath given assurance (παρεχω — pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of πιστις — parechō old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of πιστις — pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews 11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of πειτω — pistis grow out of this one from αναστησας αυτον εκ νεκρων — peithō to persuade. In that he hath raised him from the dead First aorist active participle of anistēmi causal participle, but literally, “having raised him from the dead.” This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them. [source]
Acts 17:31 By the man whom he hath ordained [ωι]
Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ‘s own words in Matthew 25. ωρισεν — Hōi (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of οριζω — hōrisen (first aorist active indicative of ανδρι — horizō) to the case of the antecedent πιστιν παρασχων — andri It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God‘s place and power in human history. Whereof he hath given assurance (παρεχω — pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of πιστις — parechō old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of πιστις — pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Hebrews 11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of πειτω — pistis grow out of this one from αναστησας αυτον εκ νεκρων — peithō to persuade. In that he hath raised him from the dead First aorist active participle of anistēmi causal participle, but literally, “having raised him from the dead.” This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them. [source]
Acts 17:32 Some mocked [οι μεν εχλευαζον]
Imperfect active of χλευαζω — chleuazō a common verb (from χλευη — chleuē jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in Acts 2:13 (best MSS. διαχλευαζω — diachleuazō). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul‘s statement they declined to listen further to “this babbler” (Acts 17:18) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans). But others (οι δε — hoi de). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (Acts 17:19). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. “ It is a sad story--the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history--and he never cared to look on it again” (Furneaux). [source]
Acts 18:2 Lately come from Italy [προσπατως εληλυτοτα απο της Ιταλιας]
Second perfect participle of ερχομαι — erchomai Koiné{[28928]}š adverb, here only in the N.T., from adjective προσπατος — prosphatos With his wife Priscilla (Πρισκα — kai Priskillan gunaika autou). Diminutive of δια το διατεταχεναι Κλαυδιον — Priska (Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19). Prisca is a name in the Acilian family and the Prisci was the name of another noble clan. Aquila may have been a freedman like many Jews in Rome. Her name comes before his in Acts 17:18, Acts 17:26; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:9. Because Claudius had commanded Perfect active articular infinitive of Δια — diatassō old verb to dispose, arrange, here with accusative of general reference. Dia here is causal sense, “because of the having ordered as to Claudius.” This was about a.d. 49, done, Suetonius says (Claudius C. 25), because “the Jews were in a state of constant tumult at the instigation of one Chrestus” (probably among the Jews about Christ so pronounced). At any rate Jews were unpopular in Rome for Tiberius had deported 4,000 to Sardinia. There were 20,000 Jews in Rome. Probably mainly those implicated in the riots actually left. [source]
1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? [Που σοποσ που γραμματευσ που συνζητητης του αιωνος τουτου]
Paul makes use of Isaiah 33:18 without exact quotation. The sudden retreat of Sennacherib with the annihilation of his officers. “On the tablet of Shalmaneser in the Assyrian Gallery of the British Museum there is a surprisingly exact picture of the scene described by Isaiah” (Robertson and Plummer). Note the absence of the Greek article in each of these rhetorical questions though the idea is clearly definite. Probably σοπος — sophos refers to the Greek philosopher, γραμματευς — grammateus to the Jewish scribe and συνζητητης — sunzētētēs suits both the Greek and the Jewish disputant and doubter (Acts 6:9; Acts 9:29; Acts 17:18; Acts 28:29). There is a note of triumph in these questions. The word συνζητητης — sunzētētēs occurs here alone in the N.T. and elsewhere only in Ignatius, Ephesians. 18 quoting this passage, but the papyri give the verb συνζητεω — sunzēteō for disputing (questioning together). [source]
1 Corinthians 10:20 To demons, and not to God [δαιμονιοις και ου τεωι]
Referring to lxx text of Deuteronomy 32:17. It is probable that by ου τεωι — ou theōi Paul means “to a no-god” as also in Deuteronomy 32:21 επ ουκ ετνει — ep' ouk ethnei (by a no-people). This is Paul‘s reply to the heathen who claimed that they worshipped the gods represented by the images and not the mere wood or stone or metal idols. The word δαιμονια — daimonia is an adjective δαιμονιος — daimonios from δαιμων — daimōn an inferior deity, and with same idea originally, once in this sense in N.T. (Acts 17:18). Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness (Ephesians 6:12) that are under the control of Satan. The word δαιμονια — daimonia so common in the Gospels, occurs in Paul‘s writings only here and 1 Timothy 4:1. Demonology is a deep and dark subject here pictured by Paul as the explanation of heathenism which is a departure from God (Romans 1:19-23) and a substitute for the worship of God. It is a terrible indictment which is justified by the licentious worship associated with paganism then and now. [source]

What do the individual words in Acts 17:18 mean?

Some then also of the Epicureans and Stoics philosophers encountered him And some were saying What - may desire of the babbler this to say Others however Of foreign gods he seems a proclaimer to be because - Jesus the resurrection he was proclaiming the gospel of
Τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ καί τινες ἔλεγον Τί ἂν θέλοι σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν οἱ δέ Ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο

Τινὲς  Some 
Parse: Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Plural
Root: τὶς  
Sense: a certain, a certain one.
καὶ  also 
Parse: Conjunction
Root: καί  
Sense: and, also, even, indeed, but.
τῶν  of  the 
Parse: Article, Genitive Masculine Plural
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
Ἐπικουρείων  Epicureans 
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Plural
Root: Ἐπικούρειος  
Sense: belonging to the sect of Epicurius, the philosopher.
Στοϊκῶν  Stoics 
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Masculine Plural
Root: Στοϊκός 
Sense: pertaining to the Stoic philosophy, the author of which, Zeno of Citium, taught at Athens.
φιλοσόφων  philosophers 
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Plural
Root: φιλόσοφος  
Sense: a philosopher, one given to the pursuit of wisdom or learning.
συνέβαλλον  encountered 
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural
Root: συμβάλλω  
Sense: to throw together, to bring together.
τινες  some 
Parse: Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Plural
Root: τὶς  
Sense: a certain, a certain one.
ἔλεγον  were  saying 
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Active, 3rd Person Plural
Root: λέγω  
Sense: to speak, say.
ἂν  - 
Parse: Particle
Root: ἄν  
Sense: has no exact English equivalent, see definitions under AV.
θέλοι  may  desire 
Parse: Verb, Present Optative Active, 3rd Person Singular
Root: θέλω  
Sense: to will, have in mind, intend.
  of  the 
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Singular
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
σπερμολόγος  babbler 
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Masculine Singular
Root: σπερμολόγος  
Sense: picking up seed.
οὗτος  this 
Parse: Demonstrative Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Singular
Root: οὗτος  
Sense: this.
λέγειν  to  say 
Parse: Verb, Present Infinitive Active
Root: λέγω 
Sense: to say, to speak.
οἱ  Others 
Parse: Article, Nominative Masculine Plural
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
δέ  however 
Parse: Conjunction
Root: δέ  
Sense: but, moreover, and, etc.
Ξένων  Of  foreign 
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Neuter Plural
Root: ξένος  
Sense: a foreigner, a stranger.
δαιμονίων  gods 
Parse: Noun, Genitive Neuter Plural
Root: δαιμόνιον  
Sense: the divine power, deity, divinity.
δοκεῖ  he  seems 
Parse: Verb, Present Indicative Active, 3rd Person Singular
Root: δοκέω  
Sense: to be of opinion, think, suppose.
καταγγελεὺς  a  proclaimer 
Parse: Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular
Root: καταγγελεύς  
Sense: announcer, proclaimer.
εἶναι  to  be 
Parse: Verb, Present Infinitive Active
Root: εἰμί  
Sense: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present.
ὅτι  because 
Parse: Conjunction
Root: ὅτι  
Sense: that, because, since.
τὸν  - 
Parse: Article, Accusative Masculine Singular
Root:  
Sense: this, that, these, etc.
Ἰησοῦν  Jesus 
Parse: Noun, Accusative Masculine Singular
Root: Ἰησοῦς  
Sense: Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor.
ἀνάστασιν  resurrection 
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular
Root: ἀνάστασις  
Sense: a raising up, rising (e.
εὐηγγελίζετο  he  was  proclaiming  the  gospel  of 
Parse: Verb, Imperfect Indicative Middle, 3rd Person Singular
Root: εὐαγγελίζω  
Sense: to bring good news, to announce glad tidings.