Contextualization; a bit more.

I love comments on old posts.

Well, good ones.

So check the post. It's about Acts 17, where Paul (according to some) soft-soaps the Athenians into listening to his message by appropriate contextualization.

But does he?

I doubt it, and Alex does too.

Here's his comment, unedited despite the invitation because Matilda is about to get taken to netball:

[update: edited just a teeny bit. Matilda's at netball, so I sit and edit, as editors do.]

Gordon, my friend, I really have to thank you for initiating this debate on Acts 17 and for arguing strongly against using Paul's speech as an argument for "contextualizing the gospel".

After a bit more research on Acts 17 which I had to conduct in the last days, I am even more inclined to agree with you and want to add three points to your list:

1. What is often overlooked is the context of the Areopagus speech, the framing narrative. The Areopagus speech itself is not the start of Paul's preaching in Athens, it is his last word there.

He apparently started preaching soon after he arrived in Athens. Note that from the beginning of his preaching he addressed not only the Jews and the God-fearers in the synagogue but also gave public talks in the market-place (v 17).

And what was the content of his message to the Athenians? The usual stuff: Jesus and the resurrection (v 18).

So Paul confronted the pagan Athenians with the Gospel right from the beginning, and there is not the slightest hint of "contextualisation of the gospel".

2. In the Areopagus speech itself he is indeed not too nice to the well-educated, philosophy-loving Athenians. His reference to the "unknown god" (agnostos theos, v 23) is often understood as if he were saying: you poor guys, I understand that God is difficult to know; I'll help you.

But that's much too soft an interpretation.

What he actually does in this verse is calling the philosophers, who are terribly proud on their education and knowledge because of which they think they know everything - he calls these guys agnoountes (note the plural): 'those who know nothing', who, despite of their brillant education and knowledge, have not the slightest idea of the true God.

Your philosophical knowledge, Paul says, on which you are so proud, does not help you at all. To put it bluntly, he calls them 'stupids' - wrapped in philosophical clauses.

3. agnoountes derives from ag-noein, literally: 'having no mind'.

Later in the speech, v. 30, Paul uses this compound again, as a noun, ag-noia, together with another compund with -noein: the well-known meta-noein, literally: 'to change one's mind', mostly translated with 'to repent'.

So in v 30 Paul not only characterizes the Athenians again as being in the state of agnoia, of ignorance, but he also calls them to turn their minds!

This is rudest philosopher bashing, and it is a real surprise that they interrupt him not already then but only after he mentioned the resurrection (again!, one has to add).

In consequence, one can't really say with Phil Nicholson (s.a.) that Paul is making adjustments because he wants "to get a hearing for the gospel and make it understood". I think Christoph Stenschke (Luke's portrait of Gentiles, p. 224) has it right that "the speech addressed and revealed at every point the misconceptions behind and the inadequacy of pagan theology, worship and piety, all of which are branded as ignorance of the true nature of God and his worship. ... The best educated Gentiles appear as spiritual 'write-offs'."

One may call this 'contextualisation', if one wants to.

(If this comment needs editing, feel free ...)

Alex

"This is rudest philosopher bashing..."

Yes!

Not all thinkers will appreciate this, however.