INTRODUCTION

Because our chief concern is with the two Thessalonian letters —

and this can be no more than just a beginning for a comprehensive
study of the Pauline corpus —we must here elicit what Luke says in
his account of Paul's stay at Thessalonica which is relevant to our
question. W e must there fore examine the "intellectual element” in
Acts 17, 2-1, as it is reflected in Paul’s missionary methods.

i) First come some comments which attempt to show—however

cursorily —how this passage fits into the whole Pauline section of
Acts.
ii) Next we must show, again somewhat cursorily, how the Thessalonica
and Bcroea pericopes hang together.
iii) Within the Beroea pericope we find evidence to suggest that it
would be helpful to treat both pericopes together for the purpose of
our investigation. From this will follow our procedure and methods
of investigation.

To i) Adeney’s comment.’ "The brief epitome of Paul’s preaching

at Thessalonica in Acts sheds an interesting light on his method of
evanseliring”, raises the question of what other information Acts
gives us on Paul's missionary methods.
a) Up to the end of ch. 16 there arc hardly any detailed statements
on Paul's missionary methods. AU the accounts of the first missionary
journey given to us in this respect are either characterized by the
absolute and all-embracing use of the word "preach" in various
formulae 1 or else attention is focused on some miracle and the preaching
is "tagged on” to that (13, 6-12; 14, 3.8-13; 15,*.(12*
1 7.
* aarayya-lci, aw tvv 13. 5 ; 15, 36 ; surnyy/AAcrai 4ph
13, 3 8 ; atayreVCwSa* 14. 7,15.21 ; 16. 10 ; r r 13. 32 ; ... ithtoawm
15, 35 rlalrir 14. 1.9 ; 16, 1 3 ; tor ioyirr 14, 25 ; 16, 6 ; riir loyor roi 6»ou 13, 4 6 ; 16, 3 2 ;
to p pirrn raira 13, 42 . too ZZmUutr AaAsv owr 13, 45 ; 16, 14.
1 13, 1 2 : miracle and teaching inseparably connected. There is no mention o f
preaching- in the account of the miraele. Faith follows because of the miracle, not
beeattre of preathine. 1 I, 3 : miracles confirm the preaching. Full aeeuunt of the miraele
and the reaction to it (v. 13). The sermon follow* this.— 14, 9.11 : miraculous healing
directly connected with his preaching Division amonj the people because of the muscle
 12 acts IT, 2-4
b) But from ch, 17 these references become more frequent and more
regular. Now Paul’s preaching comes more into the foreground and
references to the manner of his preaching occur more often.* Cor-
respondingly, miracles that occur are either no longer so directly
related to the preaching or at least dearly play a secondary role com-
pared to it (19, 12 ; 20, 10 f.), or else have nothing more to do with the
preaching and occur completely separately and do not evoke faith
(chs. 27, 28).
These general considerations lead ns to conjecture that when Paul
moved to the West his preaching methods changed. This change can
also be summarised as follows : in 11, 3 Paul’s preaching is confirmed
by miracles, in 17, 11 Paul’s hearers confirm his preaching after
*II
critical hearing. 1 In 1-!, 9.11 there is dissension among the people
because of a miraculous healing, and in 17, 18.34 because of Paul’s
words. In other words, from ch. 17 on there appears to be in place
of miracles real argument or exposition which appeals to the hearers’
reason.* This conjecture needs fuller corroboration in the context of
and not really because of the message. —15. 1 2 : trrmeta Koi rtparn. — I ft, I ftff. : central
to this arn two miracles : i) exercizing of dfimoM (vv. 18ff.}, ii) earthquake pointing to
hearing of prayer (vv. 26fL). Paul's ji reaching is completely eclipsed. Faith is the result
of the miraculous experience.
< 17, 1 7 ; 18. 1 9 ; 19, 9 ; 20, 7,9 ; 24, 25.
17, 2.
StaA/yeoflai 17, 2.
5taAcy£CT&M ircAfat*18, 4 ; 19, 8.
ffcTtfcrp ... wck&uv ... cwcifovro 28. 23 f.
do-riadtjaav 17, 4.
&c£arra top Ad/ov . . . dtMxpdporrtj. . . 17, 11.
ScBdmrcur . . . top Aoyok rov QmS 18, 1.
avayyeAAciv mil 3t5, . . . 2fl, 20 f,
rr w/ati*' d|T /JaaiX. roti 0tuti rtu St5d «iv ri trepi mu ffvptou ... 28, 31.
ifciAcfr 20. 11 ; 24, 26.
aitrS ... 17, 18.
(Jwtt TU Tfli XJyu> . . . 18, 5.
I
When Fo write* that "These people listened to th*? arguments ... and verified them
by dally nxaminatinn" (162) then we could formulate it accordingly thus : in cha, 13-15
Paiii's preaching is "verified” by signs anil wonder*.
II
As far as I know, the only one to ses here a shift of emphasis like this ts Bi * 'Tn
the synagogue of the ra&t fascAift# was the method cf instruction ... and, the Christian
evangelist accordingly taught. ami preached the word. But in the more critical atmosphere
of the west dogmatic aiwertion was not sufficient and S. Paul had to adopt the method
of rttMOTbwg. in w hich he was on adept” (295). A shift of emphasis of a rather different
sort is described by 0. Glombitza in his nrtiric “Tier Schritt Hack Europa : Erwagungen
xu Act 16, 9 1 5 ” in ZJWF53. 1962, 77-82.
INTRODUCTION 13
an investigation of the whole of Acts. Here it will serve us as il general
hypothesis for our investigation.
To ii) There is no particularly clear connection with the Philippi
pericope (16, 14-40). On the other hand the close connection with the
following Beroea pericope is immediately revealed by the following
points :
a) evyei'toTepoi Tiiiv ev GtaoaXantcy (v. 11)
b) ol ton) ttjj 0 e<TCTaAovtmj<r 'lov&aioi —*■ aaXe&nrres Kai rapaacrm'Tes
(v. 1 3 ; cf. v . 5}
c) rmv re ae opercov 'llAArJraji' woAtf. yuveuKuH 1 rt T<ov irpioruv
ovk dArya.1(v. 4) —twc ’ CAArji'idtui' yiA'aiKtuy TWH evoyr]p6i'iMi' wal
dvSpdm ovk dAiycn (v, 12)
d ) I0b-14
e) in both cases the use of the Scriptures is emphasized, in 17, 2 in
the context of Paul's 5m,Vy«cr$ai
in 17, 11 in t h e context of the hearers’ avamplveiv
To iii)
ft) dvaxpn'cm ras ypu af (17, 11) corresponds to SiaXeyeatfai ... duo
tHiv yp'i<t><j>v (1 7, 2).
b) When in v. 11 the Beroeans’ reaction is described as that of those
oirmej 1 ibc uvrn rov Aoyov pterd mMH/r fr/HiStrict ?,• jre>j Kad’ e-
7
A lot depends an the correct rendering of this relative pronoun. Many transUte it
with “for they” (Br I , 328; Han 175; Wi 196 ot at), "in that” ( R a g 299; A 2, 140),
"uuuimuch as” (Gr 1, 123), "da” (SchU 1, 210 et al,). although M I I I (48) states that
in "Ac 17, 11 they wore not more noble hfcauac. they received the message, hut riniply
w’Zuj received the mowinge". Others avoid this difficulty by following Ila (447) in his
assumption that "Mil ofrwer beginnt praktitfeh tin ncticr Sats” (so, e._s., 8ti 225; Co 91).
Rut a point raised in M 123f. must, it flremx to me, be considered. After a discussion
of M I (92) and H . J. Cadbury (ni JBL 42, 1923, IfiOff.), Mouls remarks a propus of a
distinction still to be made or no longer to be made in the New Testament. iMtween
17, 5 and wnj, ynj, an that in A 17. I l "it in pouibh to argue that ... a distinction
pertainly improves the sense and may have been intended” (124). Moult thinks that
the use of atrirtf here ii "essential” and has the meaning "«AirA by it? very nature”
(following F. J. A. Hort, The Fir* EpiHU <jf 51. faster, 1.141.17, London, 1808, p. 133),
If applied tn our passage that would then mean tliat the Beroeans wore not cuyix&rrepoi
because they showed irpo u in and bee4Us«? of this applied thcmeelvea to aMvqHrt*?. but
that they did these last two things because they were euyocirrcpot. Would their readiness
(and capacity) for dvax ixir rdtimaloly rest upon what is meant by cuyEP&Tc/kM ? Apart
from Mode, Rao (299) also buculs to incline to this line of interpretation when he "argue#
14 acts IT, 2-4
prxi’ 0 ttvowpfvovrcs’ raff ypatjfrus ai l a eyoi 11 Ttiwra obrtuy ... a icrrevirar
then we have to bear this in mind when in v, 1 it was only briefly
said of the Thessalonian *hearers* reaction that k<u rives c£ avraiv
erreioliqcrai’ ml TTpoaeuXtiptABrjaav ...
c) When i t is remarked in passing in v. 13 ori aai ev rfj Bepota
Kunjy/fX-rj faro rou flavXov 6 Aayoy rov fkov, then behind this
thin t lie Berean Jews were more up.-n to fnnvintion because of Uli ariatoCMtie bark-
ground, and presumnldv a Iwt.tar arliinatlan" (ao in BJ 130— quite apart from the fact
thiut Bae dore tint mention the first hut diillhtlrea intends the latter, AecardiiiK tu A 2,
110 Luther and Calvin also assume an "aristneratie background"). The great majority
of interpreters, however, somewhat hastily reject this Interpretation on the grounds
that " Luke ... does define his meaning, nod it. atieuia clear from the explanatory clause
that he calls the Bereaua ‘more noble* because their eumluet contrasted with that of
the Thessalonian mob . . . " (Bl 130 and many others, many of them writing years after
Moiiln’s first, ed. and Turner’s grammar, but taking no notice st ill of them). I n contrast
to L IE),12 and I C 1, 26 where in fact repsrijv means “well. born, high-born” (A-G 319),
“wrll-bnrn, noble" (L-S; ill! 259f.), it la here rmphusiicd that "it I aiytrij;) came
tn denote those qua!: Lies which were expected in people so horn" (Br I . 338; ao also
Ln I , 303; Wi 198; A 2, I -11). The emphasis is therefore on their disposition rather than
on their pedigree, Thia [rails to translations [ike ’ l n<iL4c- tnitldt-d" I A-G 319), "von
odler Gesintnnig” (Hol 109). or simply "edler" (Sehin I, 210), “von edlerent Charnkter"
(We 301) and thus, thoroughly moralizing "anataudiger' (Co 9 4 ; Ha 447; Slli 225;
Pre 106). But if Houle’s preplans! is right and we have to relute rvyt, eerspei closely to
wpoSupia ®ud di apwav, then a translation like "more ingenuous or open-minded"
(Bar 207), "free from prejudice" ;FoI62), "more candid and impartial" (A 2, 141)
Would bn more appropriate. - -Be us that may, it seems to bn ultimately of secondary
importance fnr our question whether we are dealing here with a certain clnas of men
or with qualities which arc characteristic of such a class of men. But what is impartant
for us is the idea suggested by Monies proposal, namely that a certain intellectual
openness is here a prerequisite for an intelligent acceptance of the tue»s«“e. This idea
is the Beri>cnn pericope’s contribution to the Thessalonian pcrieupe. This element was
not evident in the latter in its diswription of the Tbesaiduuiaus' reaction. Wc should
certainly read it between the lines there, however.
• A stock formula ; examples in TDST VI 699. n. 13 ; of. also D B 254f. ; T> NB S3 ;
Ml I , 111and comms. Its meaning is eomethimj like "willingness, readiness" (A-G 713;
L-S), •■enthusiasm" ( M M 540), "zeal" (TDNT VI dflfl).
9 to the content—of Paul's preaching in 17, 2 1.
As in L 11. 2 : 19, 17 ; an adverb. Cf. Rob 487. Tlx : "Paulus predigte ilium: also
tuglich, ohno doss von tiglichen Gottesdiensten die R«le ware” (447).
!■ Mill (127) ; "... clauses introduced by ti and dependent on a Verb like {yrtisare
virtually indirect questions, a eltua. survival". CL also n. 7.
it M ITT (130): “Luke is fond of this opt. (in indirect question#)." Cf. also p. 131
for the possible consequences which Turner draws from this for the dating of T./A- Cf.
also Bur 11 ; Si 112; Rob 890, 1408, 1044 : "tbs change is made from an indicative ..."
(of. atvo 1021). The use of the opt. here throws an interesting light on the precess of the
SfyL-otim. Apparently the word was only accepted on tins condition that one wanted
first to teat the cor lecture. of what Paul said.
INTRODUCTION 15
general statement lies all that was described in so much more detail
in 1 t t 2f. : dieAe£urc> avrotj arra rtZv Stacoiyojp reett mapan-
Oepevos . . . KarayyeXXfu ... The cleared! difference within these two
connected pericopes is thus that in the Thessalonian pericope the
manner of Paul's jmacking is in the foreground and in the Beroean
one the manner of the A.'Uriis’ o-irfro;: to his preaching, which is
only mentioned here in passing; both are closely related to the
"Scriptures"’. But that means that the manner of Paul’s preaching is
reflected in the manner of his hearers* reception of it, and vice versa.
These observations, especially the hist, justify us, us we have said,
in evaluating these two accounts together in our investigation into
Paul's missionary methods in general and into the intellectual element
within those methods,in particular, and indeed they make it advisable
that we thus proceed. In both accounts we have more or less the same
situation and events, but one deals with this ami the other with that
element.
But how then can Acts 17, 2-4 and the Beroea pericope throw any
light, perhaps even a particularly clear light, on our problem ?
Procedure
Verses 17, 2 13 .3 13 .4 ’ ' use of Paul’s preaching the terms SiaA yeafJtu,
Sicrecuyeie, ■mipa.ridea&a.i and KarayytAAem and of the hearers’ reaction
wciSea&at and rrpoanXijpoijadai.
On the basis of the thesis that Paul's preaching methods are
reflected in the way that his hearers react to his preaching this
investigation of Acts will proceed along two paths :
§1-1
First wc will make a general survey of the “intellectual element"
in all the concepts with which L describes t h e manner—as opposed
This is followed by a preliminary’ attempt at correlating the concepts
investigated and their possible consequences for our investigation.
§1.2
Then we willtry to think through in theological terms this intellectual
i l On this vrrar in general cf- R-D F lB9f 1 ; Bob tOS, 537 ; Bu 1161 Si 196.
’3 On thia verue in general of. Bur 30.
n On thia verge in general cL Bob 224, <560,1163 ; M 111 282; W 234; Si 8-L
16 ACTS 17, 2-4 INTRODUCTION 17

element, that we have detected and provisionally correlated; this will With regard to the New Testament the following rule holds good,
have to be done within the context of the understanding- at present that we shall, in investigating Acts 17, 2-1, stick as closely as possible
still to be defined —which L has of the apostle’s task. to the immediate context. We do nut want to throw away the chance
of gleaning valuable knowledge from this text by precipitately reading
§2.1 the two Thessalonian letters into it.
We will then investigate further that expression which above all
also has in view the hearers of the preaching, and in particular their
reaction to it— But wc will confine ourselves to the active
form, since even here when paying more attention to the hearers'
reaction our principal concern is for the methods of Paul's preaching.

§2.2
Using our investigation of this concept in classical Greek we must
then try to interpret theologically the concept conveyed by this
word in Acts.
But the procedure and argument of the Acts section of our
investigation will only become fully apparent when it is noted that
the division previously mentioned (between § I and § 2) coincides
with another division which also characterizes the whole investigation :
The first main section {§ 1) is rather like the observation of the
tips of various icebergs. The survey of interrelated ideas (SiaAcyeodm,
draxpu'em, Siavoi'yetv, trnpaTiSeufhu, Kn.TayyiXXeii') which Only deals
with what is above water level is presented solely for what it can
offer for the clarification of relations and the answering of our specific
question, namely what is the function and significance of the human
reason in the life of Christians, as it is reflected in the example —
fragmentary though it is- -of Paul’s method of preaching. In the
second major section (§2) a considerable part of the underwater
mass of owe iceberg (wetdeu') receives closer examination. This will
enable us to subject the result obtained through the survey, which
would be open to the charge of arbitrariness, to a n additional control,
that of a study in depth of a concept belonging to the same circle
of ideas.
This union of two interrelated investigations seems to mo to be
justified on two grounds :
i) such a two-pronged attack is invited by the text itself ;
ii) it provides the easiest way of guaranteeing that, despite the. fact
t h a t this study is limited to such a narrow field, we yet obtain a
relatively assured and representative insight into the function and
significance of the human reason in the life of the first Christians.

5 1 . The “Intellectual Element” tn Paul’s Methud of
PREACHING WITH ReSI'ECT TO THE SOURCES :
the “Argument” from Scripture
Section 1 : Observations
*IV 1
A) SiaAcyeoflai
I) Survey of the problem.
Acts uses this word almost 3 exclusively of Paul’s missionary
activities. Yet 1 it. has been understood in various different ways. 4
Two considerations arc in place with regard to this varying under-
1 Occurs in all 13 times ia the New TwsUinent, onoe in Mk (9, 34}. once in Hb (12, a),
once in Jud (0) and 10 time* in Acta (17, 2.17; IS, 4.19; 19, 8.9; 20. 7.9; 24. 1125).
1
Of. A 20, 7.
» On in tlymvto-pa, ef. Bo 5S3f. ; Buck 12fi3ff. ; Fr II 94-6; Ho 175; Ka TI 10; Mcy
IV 496ff. ; Po M S ; Pr 293; W - P II 422; also vanH 204; op. r:t. A p r 50.
* While none of the NT Inxiouus, aru menu's or electee i«. so f.ir M to apply to t h -
Ncw Testament the meaning of oAryeo c. a* "gewandt seyn itn Redsn ” which is found
in P I sSfl and Ps I 1, 645 and which arises naturally from the h.lt-a t-f dialectieiii pro-.-e-
<lura. yet many >;rn- with the other, more central meaning of "... rich unterreden,
unterhalfen ... im tt fwhiwlgesprarh etwas ins Klara hringon (T and Ps, np. nt.}.
So vb find "dinettes, conduct a discusaian . . o f lectures winch were likely to cad in
diajniUtiooa" (A-GI84; E 9 9 ; M a l l I, 93.105.117); "rich besprwhen" |P-K 1353;
St'hla 1, 268); Weeluselgeapraehe" (Hol 1, 109; We 358 = dialogue form); then "to
reason" (Wi 196) arid /or "discourse" (Pa 128; Bar 295) or " t o argue" lilac 295; Hau
173; Beg IV 203); "reasoning in friendly iritoroonrae” (Mi 3, xsvi); "he conducted
discussions" (□'Nell!, J. C., Tin TAroiopy of A ch in ds fctaforicol trtiinff, London, 1961,
120) ; be-lcutet die Piskussiun" ill 138. who on p. 159 lumps npuVui. SusAsyo.uai
and Jtarpi w together) Her (60) thinks that- " 'Disputed' gives the force of JmAej-ce&u
better than ‘reasoticd’ " (ef. also M il ISO; Schl J SS6; Z J27 ; Sdi 1. 53.60; Ma 11 1,
255.313; II 3. 46; He 95, 99; Th 21. 4.6). On the other hand Schrank (in TDNT 1191)
rejects "disputation" categorically ("no reference”) and dreidta ia fas our of “delivering
of religious lectures or sermuns". Similarly categorical are Dibelius (Dibelius, M-,
SiuditA in the AtU oj (far ApoMcj, Lemina, 1956, 74); Co (96); Pre (105), while Ha (443,
n. 7) and Furst (in Tblil Iblf.) choose the middle way and say that thia word comes
Very near the meaning of "eino Ansprnclw ha Iten, predigea" (also A-G, ibid., considers
this possible). Hcfeniug to it, Br (1, 372) emphasizes that it ia "A conversation rather
than an address ..." (cf. also 349) and Fo holds that it is "... arguing, not necesstutilv
preaching . . . The verb fazAefarc ... has the sunn- meaning as our word dialogue, and
instruction was carried on ... by question and answer".
THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE 19
standing of SiaAlyea&ai, which chiefly concern t hose who understand
it to mean preaching (cf. n. 1).
1) If (SioAt'/ccrftn really means “preach”, how can we explain
the fact that this word only appears from ch. 17 onwards ? If hy
5iaAcye<r&u L really meant “preaching” here (as earlier), why did lie
not use for it the rich vocabulary that he had at his disposal and
which he had used up till now ?
2) Let us assume for the moment that L really meant “preach”
here. Do we not then have to go on to ask what is the significance
of L‘s being able to use SiaA/yeaSai for “preach.” here and apparently
having to use it here and in many subsequent passages ? Why does
he speak of 8i<tAeye<r3ai when he means to say “preach” I What does
that tell us about “preaching ?
Now it seems to me that those who either simply assume that
SiaAtytu&u here means “preach”, or else come to the same con-
clusion either arguing from this word’s origins or its destined use.
cannot answer this question. Should we not rather, at least for the
time being, ignore the use of tins won! in past and future and form
our judgments on the basis of its jtresenl meaning in this context?
But let us linger awhile with a representative example of those
scholars who argue from the origins of the word.
Schrenk (cf. n. I) traces its usage in classical and Hellenistic Greek,
and in Polybius. Epictetus, the LXX. Josephus and Philo. He then
concludes with regard to the biaXeyeaOai passages in Acts that the
“only relevant parallels are in Hellenistic Judaism rather than Greek
philosophy”. And again. “Linguistic parallels may be found in Polyb.
..., Diod. S,, Jos. Thus Schrenk plumps for “preach, give an
address”, its meaning in Hdlenistic-Jewish literature, as opposed to
“dispute”, its meaning in philosophical writings, where It refers to
an eliciting of the truth.
Two things need to be said here :
1) a check on the authors and passages cited by Schrenk shows
that bioAiyeadai in the Hellenistic-Jewish literature adduced mostly
means official, political or military negotiations or, above all, an
address given to the people by a king, a general or some other
important person. That immediately shows that there is no oppor-
tunity in such a context to draKpirrir ei ravra o bruts ...
» TDST 11 9-if.
 20 acts 17, 2-4
••
2) on the other hand, when Furwt,* describing the ScaAeycothu of
the Greek philosophers. says that “man debattiert und gewinnt so
tin Gesprachsabhiuf Erkrnntnisse", or when Schrenk shows that In
classical and Hellenistic Greek fitaAcycatfar mostly means “converse,
disrnssion' ? and that for Socrates. Pluto and Aristotle it means
“the art of persuasion and demonstration ... in the form of question
and answer then in our immediate context (fitoimiyciv, TraparlOcaOat,
avaxpivtiv, weiOtaOai) we are nearer to this usage than to the military
speeches and political negotiations in Josephus and Polybius. Thus
one cannot assume froni the mere fact that in Hellenistic-Jcwish
literature SioAtyeo&ii can occur with the meaning “make a speech*’
that it means that in A 17. 2 without first examining the immediate
context of A 17, 2. And this context clearly indicates a situation of
seeking the truth, through dydirq ttji dATj eiaj (II Th 2, 10), and
accepting it, rather than of an official address. The very fact that
the Thessalonian Jews are unfavourably contrasted with the Beroean
ones because they did not - ■ eagerly join in the search for the truth
also shows us that we are nearer to philosophical Greek than to the
military speeches of Polybius, etc.
But what led Schrenk, who used the same evidence as we have,
to deny categorically the influence of the philosophical usage of
SmAeyco a* here? This categorical denial is itself a pointer to a weak-
ness in his argument. Fur here a false alternative lurks in the back-
ground, which treats everything Greek as bad. except when it has
passed through the filterof Judaism. 'I Lis is clearly show :> by liis reasons
for his conclusion : “In the New Testament there is no instance of
the classical use of 5iuAeya <« in the philosophical sense. In the
sphere of revelation there is no qnolion of reaching the idea through
dialectic. What is at issue is the obedient and percipient acceptance
of the Word spoken by God, which is not an idea, but the compre-
hensive declaration of rhe divine will which sets all lite in the light
of divine truth".* But is that the alternative which is also justified
by the New Testament passages in which StaAr/£<70ai occurs? If the
wurd SiaAcyecdhn is of such “central importance" | a for Greek philo.i-
• TAW 181.
’ TDAr n 03.
■ Ibid.
* TbST I! 94.
•• Ibid, 93.
THE "ARGUMENT'* FROM SCRIPTURE 21
ophy. why could J, use this “dangerous ' word, even in a context of
discovering the truth f For dvoJcpiVcH' et cyoi ravra oJrtiK and "to
open their minds to love nf the truth are inseparably connected
with StaAeyccrfac.
Let us also pause briefly to consider the case of those who argue
from the future use of the word. They point out huw &aAeyc<rf(u
Liter meant “preach". 1. 11 points that out too. but he also points
out that this is only one meaning among others The primary on«* is
still “to hold converse with”.
But what does it mean when one says that SiaA<y€cr0<u comw tery
wear to the meaning of “make a speech, preach" (Furst) ? This word's
meaning, therefore, is in flux. That in itself is not surprising. And
one aJ&o says wAerr it, is g >ing, namely in the direction of “preach .
But what is surprising is that we are not told whence, i.e. from what
range of meanings, i t has corrie. And that is just as important —also
for the understanding of its destination! S<> the statement that
5<aA<7€<ri?tii shows here “schon den Cbergang zur >pateren Bedeutung
‘predigen’ ” (Haenchen) seems to me to give no answer to the question
of the significance of the fact that an L can despatch a word like
SioAeyfcrflat on its way (to keep our metaphor) or can use a word that
is already on the way, so that at its journey s cm! it will have token
on the meaning “pr+.-a< h . Xml if one then adds “Savhlich bandelt es
sich um Lesung und Auslegung des AT (Furst), then that h correct
but does not answer the question ir/iy L has used SioAtytoflai here
and what nnc idea is introduced here (apart from that expressed by
other words fi»r “preach like arayyeAAei , Ei-ayyeAtXt cdtar,
AaAetv, AZyerv). Have we not too quickly docketed this word under
the heading +i; -reaching" without taking the time to consider the
particular meaning conveyed by this word perhaps even in contrast
or in relation to jcaTayytAAciv. Perhaps the decisive factor is whether
and how one relates SiaAeytoflaj t o “preaching" or “making n speech”.
We can onlv fullv grasp the exact meaning of SiaAcytcdtac within
Paul’s preaching activity when :
1) we have curried out a thorough investigation of this word and
its meaning within and outside the New Testament, and
2) we have information from other sources on the function of
StaAtyto&ii within the synagogue. For if Foakes Jackson is correct
when he writes : “a synagogue was not so much a preaching- house
11
355.
 22 acts 17, 2-4 THE “ARGUMENT” FROM SCRIPTURE 23

as a school, in which education was carried on by discussion”, 11 then
that is of immediate relevance for our enquiry. Unfortunately we
cannot do either of these here, and so we must content ourselves
with our verse and its context; yet, I think, two observations can
already be made here which help us better to understand what is
meant by biaAe-yeafbit..
II) Towards a solution
(I) StaAcyeo as dative and accusative
SiaAc'/c<d?ai can be followed either by a dative ” or by wpds —■ the
accusative.11 In the following section we will put forward some Con-
siderations, not in order to show that a thorough investigation of this
1*1
word and its meaning is unnecessary, but rather to show first that
one is necessarv ; these considerations arise mainly from these two
possible constructions and the opinions of the foremost grammarians
on them. The question is. what significance has it for the possible
meaning of StnAcTca tu — t h e dative that it can also be followed by
wpoy 4- the accusative ?
i) The grammatical data
n) A look nt grammars obscures the matter rather than clarifies it.
Three factors are. responsible for the problem :
aa) already in classical Greek both constructions arc found
together.’’
bb) in MGr the dative disappears and is replaced by the
accusative ami the genitive or also by prepositional phrases, 11
cc) on the other hand, in the New Testament the dative “is still
retained ... in a wide range of usages”. 11 Yet we can alreadv find
“traces of the process which ended in the complete disappearance of
the simple dat. in MGr”.’*
»» 159; so also P) 3. 117.
« A 17, 2.
11
A 17. 17; ef. Jlk 9 , 3 4 .
» CL B D - F 193. 4 ; B-T 467 etc.
Jfi
Including wpor 4- •«.
17
B-D-F 120 (with literature on thia whole problem).
" M ITT 236,
How arc we to explain the occurrence and the meaning of the two
constructions in the New Testament in the light of these three basic
facts ’
On aa) t Should wc explain i t primarily with respect to the basic
fact aa) 1 Those representing this view interpret the prepositional
construction as contrasted with the dative construction and try to
define the difference: the “simple dative” refers to “nur ganz all-
gemeinc” ” relations, i.e. to an “an rich weiten und vagen Bereieh’’. 1"
The use of prepositional constructions is the inevitable result of the
fact that “der menschliche Geist tiefer in die Bcziehungsverhaltnisse
der Dinge einzudringen anfing” 11 and this means that they had a
defining function ; in contrast to the simple dative they indicate
“bestimmtere Verhaltmsse”, 11 at first only spatially more definite;
they express “die mannigfaltigen Beziehungen ... bestimmter und
scharfer”,13 indeed “logisch bestimmter".** “Die 1’rapositionen
kun nten . . auch gedankliche Schattierungen ausdruckeu, die fiir die
blossen Kasus unerreichbar waren
On bb) : Or should we explain this primarily with reference to
fact bb) ? Those representing this view interpret the prepositional
construction as a substitute for the dative construction and thus
presuppose considerable synonymity. They base their argument on
the disappearance of the dative 11 in MGr and therefore treat the
alternative construction 1 1 from the viewpoint of the competition
between the two constructions and the final successful dispossessing
of the dative by the prepositional construction : " . . . das im Ngr
fertig vorliegende Ausgehen des Dativs (hangi zusammen) . . . " *• with
their “encroachment" ” and the successful “Eind rmgen von Pra-
u K-G n 1, 448.
>" S II 432.
» K-G II 1 . 449.
» Ibid. 448.
1W. 449.
« Ibid. 450.
» S II 432.
» F. Krebs, Zar Ration der Cant* t a der rpdkren kirierMrAea Gnintdr, 1887-90,
investi»»tr» the Literary koine more thoroughly ; ef. »!» S 11 17l>f.
17
Dat. and epos -i- ace.
» B-D-F 120.
« /drf.
21 ACTS 17, 2-4
positionen” » which had the task in the Koine “of supplanting the
disappearing dative”.** So we have :
a) a basic thesis also for the New Testament data : “Fiir die
Entwicklung der kojitj mid des Nnugriech. kommt vor allem der
Ersatz des Duties dureh den Akkusativ ... nnd dutch pripositionalc
Wendungen ... in Betracht' .11
fi) The presupposition for this thesis is that originally the simple
dative was in no wav general or iU-deHned; rather it then possessed
the whole “Kraft” ’* and “Scharfe und Reinhdt".’* The loss of this
original “Scharfe mid Reinheit” is a sign of the decay of the case.
Correspondingly, the prepositional construe lions which spring np “in
Stellvertretung” “ of and as “Ersatz” ” for the dative to restore its
original “Kraft”, "Schirfe and Reinheit” are “nieftts wetter ■’ als
Alterscrscheinungen der Sprache",” and so not a sign of t h e deeper
penetration of the human spirit into the relations of things. Thus one
has here no sense of added meaning in the prepositional constructions:
rather they merely fill up gaps arising from the “decay" *’ of the
dative : “Prapositionen dringen an Stelle der alten Casus ein, weil
diese an urspriingliclier Kraft mehr und mehr verlicrcn".* 0
y) The consequence of this thesis is that the prepositional construc-
tions could have no other meaning than their function of replacing
the simple dative. "Verse LiebLingen auf dein Gebiet der Bedeutungen
kommen dabei weniger in Fruge”. 41 The corresponding
5) rule is that : “Da der Accusativ in Vcrhindung mit tls oder
wpd; den Dativ vertreten kann, so durfen alle Wort er. welche den
Dativ regieren, auch mit dem Accusativ in Verbindung mit eis oder
repos construiert werden”,* 1
n Rob 026.
n B.T 430.
» Ra 137.
** Hu 1’4.
» Hi IBS.
« 4U 131.
17
My itaiizing.
M
R* 131.
» M I 63.
4(1
Ri 137.
« Itnd.
" Mu 195.
THE * ARGUMENT" FROM SCRIPTURE 23
On aa) and bb) : Or should we try to explain it by taking both
facts into account ? The contradiction is then even clearer.
For example. Buttmann says on the one hand that the prepositional
construction expresses “dir- mannigfachcn inneren ... Bezieh ungen”
better than the simple dative.** On the other hand, such prepositional
constructions are in the New Testament merely w UniBchreihuiigen'*,*«
“anstatt oder ini Sinne des Dativs”,** “statt des Dativs",** which
here "ebenso gut stehen konnte”.* 1 It is not used because —and the
two reasons that he gives contain the same contradiction —
a) “die adverb. Umschreilmng lebendiger. bildlieber, der orien-
talischen Anschau tingswetse angemessener (ist)".*’ Similarly, W ”
says : “Den N.T. Schriftstellern Icgte sach die Construction mit Pru-
position wohl auch dureh du1 expressjvere und iinscbnulicherc Rcde-
weise der vaterliindischen Sprache nahe” ;
fl) “mit dem Verfall einer Nation in der Regel auch ein Verfall in
spraehlicher Hinsicht einzutreten pflegt", or. in more concrete terms,
“es wird die mehr aufliisende und zersetzende Sprache der Spateren
oft schon Prapositionen mit ihren Casus da gohrauchen, wo die altcre
noch mit den Llessen Casus ausreichte”. w
b) The fundamental question remains how — the
dative and vpiy ■ the accusative are affected by this problem. Do
both constructions have the same meaning, expressed in different
form 4 , or not ? K-G 11 assumes that the meaning changes but “rein
raumlich”, but gives no further clue as to what figurative sense “rein
raumlich" has in the case of ScaAeyewfl'ii and trpdy — the accusative:
8 ** also only states that changes of construction can occur with or
without change of meaning.
c) At any rate, two facts must not be overlooked :
aa) the “intensified free use of prepositions” in Hellenistic Greek,
" Bn iso.
** 149f. ; cf. aIk ths detailed excun'.is in j 133, 3 and $ 203.
“ 150.
“ 153.
" 150+
*• 7W.
« 191.
“ Bu 134.
n II 1, 431 A I.
« 11 73.
 26 ACTS 1 7 , 2-4
“where we are perpetually finding prepositional phrases used to
express relations which in classical Greek would have been adequately
given by a case alone’*,1 ’ should not blind us to the fact that already
in classical Greek the parallelism of StaXeyeaOai - the dative and
-pds -I- the accusative is characteristic. So we have to ask whether
SmAeyeoftu + the dative was used synonymously with fiiaAc'yeoflai —
the uccusative in classical Greek or not. If not, then can we find,
as the language develops, cases of the construction with irpos being
used where earlier the dative would have been used ?
bb) on the other hand, we should not forget the New Testament
data to which M III 11 refers: “the process has scarcely liegun ...”
and “the dat. does sometimes oust the class, accus. . . . and in NT
the dat. is still retained in a large range of meanings, notwithstanding
the constant tendency to add rv”,1 ’
ii) SinAeyradai mrrms and wpdv and the accusative
With reference to our passage A 17, 2 we merely note the foliowing :
a) what is meant bv SiaAeyeaScu -• the dative is characterized by
* two things :
aa) bid :
a) Preposition.1 * The basic meaning ia "entzwei, auseinander,
zer-"? 7 “The etymology of the word is ‘two’, 3 do ... But the preposition
has advanced a step further ... to the idea of by-twain. be-tween. in
two, in twain. This is the ground meaning in actual usage”.” “Durch”,
“through”, i.e. “passing between two objects or parts of objects” s *
is thus not the original meaning of 3«f 14 but it is “being evolved
from the idea of duality or ‘betweenness’ ”.*1 “of interval between”.* 7
So “erhielt dutch eine Bedeutungsverschiehung ... das idg. dis- im
Griechischen die Bedeutung ‘dutch’
“ M 1 61; m 351. 274.
M 236.
»’ CT. A lso 249.
54
Literature is given in TDNT II 63; M HI 367 A 1 ; S It 443-54.
57
S II 449.
M IM. 301.
Rob 580 ; so also M 54.
“ Rob SSL
« Over against ; A-G 178; W 337; cf. B-T 520.
« M 54.
« Rob 681; cf. K - G I l I , 480; 31 II 300; 51171867; Si 139; B u 2 8 7 ; BD.F-222f.
« S II 449.
THE “ARGUMENT” FROM SCRIPTURE 27
P) Sid in compounds.’4 It is well known that in the New Testament,
where we find in all 79 bid compounds, L uses them the most
200 out of 343 occurrences arc to be reckoned to him. But whereas
t h e basic meaning of Sid, “asunder, from another, apart”, is onlv
preserved in a relatively pure form in Latin and Gothic, it exists in
Greek only as a verbal prefix. Thus we find Sid “ah Praverb noch
iiberwiegend in der Bedeutung 'auseinander* “Der Begriff der ...
Trennung. der im lat. dis gegeben is-t . rmmlmint nur im Pravcrbium”.*7
So. too, M II states” t h a t ; “The survey of the whole field (i.e. of
Std-compounds) shows us that the etymological connexion with two
justifies itself by usage”. This clearly shows what meaning is conveyed
by <5id in : it shows this verb to be basically a relational
word: “To represent it graphically, We have two points or areas
(A) (B) set over against one another, and the preposition ( = Sid) is
concerned with their relations and their interval between them’’.**
8td tn the sense of dis (not per, trans, or inter) “emphatically dwells
on the interval as a gulf fixed between them”.’* “Trennung von
Verschiedenartigem bedeutet Ordnung ... Trennung bringt Ivr-
schiedenleit, Hervorhsbung ... so auch naclihom. von konkurrierender
Taiigkeii meftrerer : ’urn die Wette’ (Smymi-i' opcu) ...” 71 Corres-
pondingly, the “mutual relation of the A and B " indicated in the
case of ScaAeyecdlai 7- by the “mediating bid" is best translated by
“between, or to and fro” 73 and thus “im Wechsel” ; by means of
this, “die Sonderung des Verschiedeuen Klarheit, Genauigkat erzielt’’. 74
The hid in 3ioAeye<dhii is thus the sign of “des Verkehrs zwiseben
Pcrsoncn", 71 the 8id “recailfs) the two parties in a conversation”. 74
M
Literature given in B D - F 318. 5.
** A good list —still valuable but needing updating — m Winer. G. B. lie eerbonm
dm praep. compel. in -YT USS,1834-43 pt- 3 and 5.
** S II 449.
•’ B-T 520.
•» 300.
« M II 30b.
74
S IT 460,
73
As also SmAnAAs. StaAoyifa ai, Ai.pturrua etc.
77
M U 302.
74 S H 450; at. also 353, 398, 522. 531
74
B-T 521.
7» M II 302.
28 acts 17, 2-4
Lb) airrutj. We have only got as far as the statement that the Sid
in 5i<tAryea&u shows this verb to be a relational concept. How can
we advance bevond this basic description to describe this mutual
relation ? That is made possible by the definition of the*avne*v as a
dot. gociativus-armitatirutf.’’'’ a dative “der Gemeinschaft J 6 What
relevance has this for our question ?
It is well-known that Greek had three cases with which it could
express objective relations : accusative, genitive and dative. Amongst
these, “die Ilauptfunktion des echtcn Dativs . . . " is “die Bezeiehnung
der persdulichen Beteihgung an der Verbalhandlung oder die Stellung-
nahme derselben”.’* So the dative’s meaning can be called that of
“personal interest”, so that the dative ‘ has a distinctive personal
touch not true of the others ( — accusative and genitive)”. 10 In other
languages we find, besides these three cases which mostly serve to
express purely grammatical relations, three farther local cases, i.e,
once used in the first place of spatial relations, the ablative to indicate
whence, the locative to indicate where, and the instrumental, which as
a true instrumental ease expresses the means by which and as a
eomitatice expresses that together with u-hich an action u> performed.
Greek originally also possessed these three cases but later, apart from
a few traces,*1 lost them when the relations expressed thereby were
taken over by the dative and genitive. The dative and genitive can
be described in this respect as mixed cases ” or syncretistic cases.’ 1
From this arise two fundamentally important points for the definition
of SiaheyeaOai A the dative :
a) The instrumental dative as comtotw indicates the person (or
thing, or object) “mit der zusammen der Trager der liandlung dicse
volirieht” “ —"together with” means here “irnter dereti Mitwirkung,
Gegenwirkung oder Begleitung” “ Thus there appears scattered
throughout the whole of Greek literature the preposition-less but
” B-D-F 193b.
*’ W ISTf.; R* I27f.; B u 149; Rub S2Sf.
» S II 139.
“ Rob 536.
« Cf. K-G I I I . 405 A 1.
«• Ro 126; 8 II 138.
” K-G II 1, 404.
M " S H 138.
B-T 428.
e
Ibid. 438; c£ ib® 466; K-G TI 1. 292; 430.
“ K-G n 1, 405.
THE “ARGUMENT” FROM SCRIPTURE 29
“mejst pereonliche” i T comitative in conjunction with verbs “die cm
gemeinsames Sein oder Tun ausdrdeken, also schon an rich komitativ-
soziative Bedeutung haben or, alternatively, “die dutch sich
selbst eine \ ereinigung oder eine Zusammenwirkung ausdrucken”.*’
indeed, Ra ” points out- that they occur with both persons and things.’ 1
"Erst griechisch ist gewohnheitemasrige Vcrbindung eines Komitativs
mit aurqj ... anrofi- .... wobei der pronominal® Bestandteil des Syntag-
mas zur Stiitze oder gar zum (Haupt-)Trager der komitativen Be-
deutung zu werden scheint”.” Such verbs are an expression “fur die
Gemeinschafl, die jemtind mit einem anderen eingeht" ” and thus
are “Verben der Gemeinschaft, der Vereinigung, des Vertebra”.”
both friendly d/nAere, uyvvvai, avp-, wpos, piyvvadat, Ktpavvviat.
koivovv, (dra)KOteoeoflai, Koiiurdi', SiaAAtrrrcie, etc. and
also hostile : dyturi caOai, tpiitiv, rroXcpciv etc. ; this goes for
StaAcycoSa;,” too.
In contrast, in the “echten Dativ” ” there appears “die Person
oder Gesamtheit. die bei der Handlung eines Verbs bctciligt ist,
ohne von ihr unmittelbar erfasst zu werden . . . Zuwcilcn ist Me nichts
welter als das Ziel, auf das die Aktion gerichtet ist : ... Aeyere nvi”.”
P) The boundaries between the sociativecomitative and the
instrumental dative in the narrower sense are fluid; “denn das, in
dessen Gesellschaft man eine Handling ausfuhrt, ist oft nur das
Mittel oder Werkzeug”.” K-G 100 formulates this fully but precisely :
“Als Vertreter des Instrumentalis bezeichnet der Dativ tells im Sinne
des Komitativs die Person oder Sache, mit der zusammen ... cine
Handlung vollzogen wird, tells im Sinne des eigentlichen Instrumentalis
01
S n 159.
« ibid.
» B-T 467.
* ICT.
” E-g- Tm, «Vr*Ctur oH • ■ ■
« 8 II 164.
» R* 126.
« K G II 1 , 430.
» B-D-F 193, 4
« Cf. for the whole S U 160.
M R* 126; e£ e b o n . 1.
” Re 137.
>®» Il 1, 405.
30 Acts 17, 2-4 the “argument” FROM SCRIPTURE 31

das Mittel, die Ursache, das Mass tisw ...”. 101 M III 1U1 regards the the great difference that could lie in the fact that in the one case
two as no longer distinguishable and states that the "dativus sociati- (SutAeycodat -|- the dative) the avroi in the process of SnxVyeaSai
vus” or "comitativus” “expresses the ‘means by which’, but with could be, by virtue of the close connection of dat. soeintivus and dat.
strong emphasis on physical accompaniment or nearness”, instrumentalis in the true sense, as it were the axe which someone
(the apostle) has in his hand to fell a tree, whereas in the other case
b) A 17, 17 has the dative and accusative together. (SiaAtyrcrdni with trpas and the accusative) the auro; 111 are simply
aa) Apart from the question whether the two usages mean the the passive object against which the blows are directed. In the first
same or not, the preposition jrpos l t '1 belongs, through its meaning of case one speaks (together) uith them, in the second one simply speaks
a spatial relation, to that group of prepositions “welche raumliche to them.
Gegcnxiitze ausdrikdten”. 104 Its basic Lndo-Germanic meaning is bb) M I 131 seems to make a correct observation, which should
“entgegen, gegennber, gegen”,’ n* “over against”: ,,,7 “The idea seems be quoted here in full because it is of immediate relevance for our
to be ‘facing’, German gegen"."“ Since “jede Proposition . . . eine question : “We should not assume ... that the old distinctions of case-
Gru nd bed cutting (hat), die sir iibcrnU fest halt”,11 * rrpdy -f- the accu- meaning have vanished, or that wn may treat ns mere equivalents
sative with verbs of speaking conveys the figurative sense of “die those constructions which are found in common with the same word.
Eichtung des Geistes auf etwas” 110 and thus “motion to”, 111 “direc- The very fact that in J u I. 23 TrpovKvvtiv is found with dat. and then
tion”,u ’ “Richtung” 113 and in such a way that “sich der Redende with ace. is enough to prove the existence of a difference, subtle no
gegen einen wendet”,114 either “zu Personen bin (eig. ‘gegeniiber, doubt hut real, between the two, unless the writer is guilty of a most
gegen’)”, 111 “tending towards ... with reference to (almost against)”, 1" improbable slovenliness. The fact that the maintenance of an old and
or “im llinhlick a u f . . . angesichts”, 111 “concerning . . . in view of”,11 ’ well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with ace. saves
or “betreffend, angehend, interessierend”,* 1 * “in Beziehtmg auf the author of Ac 9, 7 and 22. 9 from a patent self-contradiction, should
(sprechcnd auf sic hindeutend)”.131’ by itself be enough tn make us recognise i t for Luke ... until it is
A comparison of this last statement with ii) a) bb) clearly shows proved wrong”. Should not this also apply to the two uses of
SiaAeyrcrdat in A 17, 17? “ I t depends upon the character of the word
»« So suaikrir S H 169. itself. If its content be limited, it may well happen that hardly any
“• 2 4Of. appreciable difference is made by placing it in one or another of
,os
Literature given in M ITT 273 ; S II 60S. n. 3. certain nearly equivalent relations to a noun. But if it is a word of
K.-G 11 L 451. large content ami extensive use, we naturally expect to find these
los
On its etymology cf. K-B 1 2. 249.
w» B-T 615; S IT 509.
alternative expressions made use of to define the different ideas
M» M U 333. connected with the word they qualify ... In such a case we should
10» Rob S23; cf. 024. 626. expect to see the original force of these expressions, obsolete in con-
101
K-G H 1, 461. texts where there was nothing to quicken it, brought out vividly
110
W 360.
where the need of a distinction stimulated it into new life”. M gives
cu M 5 2 .
«» M n 323. an example of this observation by citing the case of wmreden' -j- the
113
K-G II 1, 518. dative, with and im and cv. This needs to be done in the case of
•" Ibid, 619. SiaAeyeafhii 4- the dative and wpds -r the accusative.
«» S II 510.
111
M 53.
»« 8 I I 511.
< « M 53.
U» S I X 511. 141
For translation cf. M 103; also M HI 15L
u
“ W 360.
 32 acts 17, 2-4 THE “ARGUMENT” FROM SCRIPTUBE 33

iii) Conclusions
A 17, 17 indicates that in all probability SuzAeyrcdhu could certainly
have the sense “make a speech”. but when it was constructed with
the dative i t could not have this sense. Then the avroi are not just
objects at which Paul's address is directed but are those “mit denen
zusammen der Trfiger der Handlung diese vollzieht”. The etorot bear
114
*
the same relationship to SiaAeyeatlai as the a£rm to x/njp<iT<'£eii>.li3
(2) dr; Kplvciv
Our statement that the Sid in represented the “inter-
course between persons’’ is confirmed, from the other end so to speak,
by the dvavpiveiv connected with it. What can the mention of the use
of dvaKpivtiv u < on the part of the hearers tell us about the meaning
of 5iaAtye<d?a< !
i) The original local-adverbial meaning of drd 1,3 seems to have been
“auf” — “(an einer schrage n Fliiche and senkrecht) empor”,11 * "an —
hin, auf hin”,liT "upwards, up” "denoting motion from a lower
place to a higher”,1’ 9 although "the NT usage is not easy to connect
134
with such a sense, except when ohd is compounded with verbs
ii) But the cod of the compound dmxpZveiv 111 does not retain the
original local meaning of ded used separately.’” Rather the dw£133
4
here has an "intensifying ' force.” On the other hand, the expression
"perfective force” seems to be problematic in the case of the ava of
dvaKpiveiv 155 in view of the criticism of it. 33 * (Cf. also “looking
through a series (aed) of objects or particulars to distinguish (wpAmj)
or search after”.) The intensifying function of di-d in dvaapteew seems
to me to be most clearly expressed if the original local meaning "from
bottom to top”, 139 "to sift up and down",”* "von union bis oben” 1 9 9
is used figuratively "fur ‘deutlich, genatf ".*«
iii) If drd “intensifies”, what does the uneompoimded stem mean ?
The basic meaning of wpii eiv is “die Tfttigkeit lies Richters von der
iogi.tchrn Seite aus, nach der er das Ftir und Wider erwagt und
hernach seinen Spruch abgibt”.’ 4’ This projects in the first place
“die Erwagung der Umst&nde, die priifende Tatigkeit”, the "genaue
Prufung des Sachverhaltes” and of the "Tatsachen” “in den Vorder-
grund”, something “was nur unter Ruhe geschehen kinin”.143
iv) The “intensified” meaning of dvaKpivciv is therefore "to examine
closely”, 1 , 1 "to examine well, search carefully”,’ 43 "implying a
thorough examination”, 144 "make careful and exact research”,* 4’
while simply "to examine, investigate, question”, 14 * "befragen, aus-

>» s n 160. 4.
114 133
On the etymology of. Bo 31Sf., Ch 384f„ Fr IT 30f., Ho 161. Ka 1 474, Msy U In onbv 13 eases does and still have a local sense in com pounds in the New
4071.. Pn 946. Pr 245. W-P II 664; al*o tTI 64, Ch Or I 4 !4 with litr-raturei- Testament.
” a According to LM 111 734 a “procthnic” preposilion, in later Greek — including 133
Aa also. e.g., in daa&rr&r, di-attaapGa, envptvKM ete.
papyri arid inscriptions (Ba 116)— “stark redutiert’’ a» a “cparatc word ( B I ) F 2 u 3 ; >M M 68.
also Ba 138, M PH 240, Si 137) and in the Hew Testament the rarest preposition 3111 396.
(13 times; contrasted with 10 pp. of ird —compounds in M G Cone.; manv further ”* S 11268.
compounds according io Ma II 2, 486 in papyri; according to J 366 it then completelr
»» G-T 39.
disappears as a separate word in MOr, yet DM completely eliminated (like, e_g., op40 333
V I 428.
because of its “distributive use” (M I 100) already found "Im lUtattischan" (Bn 20) 15* Ro m 274f.
and then often found in the papyri (M-M 29). 1 » 8 IT 440.
U* 8 IT 4 4 0 ; st K-G 11 1 . 473. >41 Ibid., u also, e.g., in arri'popai, dropurrdo. arwm aKtpai etc.
”■ W35o.
l« Sch I 357.
A-S 27, while according to M IT 295 — and S 11 440 — “over, of space covered, ’ « Op. eft. 358.
on . . . , and up to, of a goal attained, are developments reached in other Irmgorges than »*» L-S; L 197.
Greek”. »« H 47.
G-T 34. V I 428.
130
M 66; cl. also B 98f., A-G 49, Ha 140, 143-5, Bob 57 If., Bn 285, B-D-F 204.
331
’« Ro nr 275.
(X A-S 27, G-T 36, II 40.
A-S 31, A-G 56, G-T 39.
 34 acts 17, 2-4 THE "ARGUMENT*’ FROM SCRIPTURE 35

fragen, untersuchen" 1 ( 5 cities not rio justice to the “intensifying" vi) Conclusion
aspect Of dt'twrpiveu'.118
dvaKpivem ras ypafait ... describes from the other end what is
involved in the process of biaAtyetrOat *•* dird 143 T<±b> -ypa<f>cuf. Accord-
v) The ai'iiKpu tiv here is thus an expression of what Be 488 calls
ing to this the d>>cta-ptt>«tv, characterized I v understanding (as a result
"character verac rebgionis. quod se dijudieari patitur” and so implies
of one s own careful scrutiny of the arguments and facts) is perhaps
three things :
in contrast to the cvrrArJcrrrLaSai 1 , 1 which is marked by lack of under-
standing. What helped to stimulate the Christians to faith were not
a) Classical Greek used this word of a “preliminary investigation”
and I, generally uses it of "holding an enquiry”.111 It is thus a matter inexplicable mighty "signs and wonders” but the apostles’ StaAcyeofla*
of eliciting the truth from the one examined by putting the right which was meant to be examined carefully afterwards.
*
questions. Thus avaKplveiv implies both “the ability to sift the facts”. 1 '’
or “sifting evidence" 113 and objectivity, "unbiased equanimity" and
Ill) Conclusions from II 1 and 2 together
"open to conviction" 111 —in contrast to "pride and prejudice". 1 **
Referring to ypoiJupfa Be 488 comments: “promta voluntas et
scrutinium accuratum bene conveninnt”. (1) and dptutpAtttv imply that the hearers were not
b) The Beroeans are represented as such : they “verhorten” the surrendered helpless and without resources to the mercy of "signs
Scriptures “um namlich zu prufen 341
“Here we h a v e n note- and wonders". Rather Paul surrenders himself and what he is com-
worthy instance of the right of private judgment. Even an Apostle's missioned to say to the mercy of 8<.aXcytrrf)ai and its concomitant
word is not to be taken for granted'*? 5’ dvax-pmem : what Paul has to say hus to be proved and made good
c) This "right of private judgment" must, however, be taken in the arena of argument and counter-argument.
with the a i d and Ka&'rjpepav. For not only the did but also the Correspondingly the chief emphasis in the verification of what he
14 118 has said, both on Paul's side and on that of his hearers, lies in the
KaO'v)p.tpuv ‘ point to an "offcubar intcnsivcs" study and examin-
ation of the scriptural passages cited by Paul rrepi Xpirrrov and so argumentation carried on by the presenter of the arguments as well
of the arguments 1,1 and method of argumentation ; in short of t h e ns by those accepting them and in no way on the additional signs
hermeneutics by means of which Paul was aide to adduce these and wonders (14, 3). This process, designated by the two poles of
passages at all. 8taA<*yecrda; and avaicpiketv, is. whether AioAcycoba; means here
"discuss” or "preach”, essentially bound up” ... with the idea of
intellectual stimulus”.1’ 1 This clearly shows that the decision on the
1 « £’-K I 92, Ma 1 3, 207; preferable la "bu»., durch-, nnohforsclien" 1 ’ 1 1 9 3 ; meaning of SraAtyeu8ai in the sense of an either-or is ultimately of
Ps I 1, 179; E 30; TDXT 111 916. or eimply “foreehen" ThBl 511. secondary importance as long as we can grasp what in essence was
>“ Ct alsn M-M 36; Sohl; Z 42; F ISO L ; K 174; W 22, 68; Pal 147. meant by it in t h a t situation.
«» L 23, 14; A 4, 9 ; 19. 19; 24, S ; 28. 18. It seems to me that t he best short description of the process described
111
Li 182.
15 by SiaAeyeuthii (and dyuicpibfiv) is this : “Reasoned, or discoursed
» Lu I, 303.
<« A 2, 141.
154
Rae 300; Br 2, 347; Fo IM. i n G-T : “To think different things with o n e s self, mingle thought with thought . . .
155
We 361.
revolve in mind'* (139).
I*’ Lu I . 303. lw
14a here* “The notion of aouree is the real Iden” (Rub 570) and W (333):
Ct mwyawperov rrrpi ooG quoted in P-K I 112.
“auegebend ( tei seine** Unlvmdungen) von Jer heil. Sehrift oder von ihr seine Bowi-Im
Sti 226.
1M
entlehnenti ..."
Using “tealimoma" as his thesis or producing them himself* Cf. Wi 198; Han 175. 151
A 13, 12.
151
Rae 300. 155
Ro HI 287.
36 ACTS 1 7 , ‘2-4
argumentatively, either in the way of dialogue _ or iu that of formal
and continuous discourse". 1 **
(2) But. leaving behind the more fundamental meanings of HinXeycaBai
and deajrpieeip and the process which they indicate, we discover an
interesting and important fad., when we examine tlie.se expressions
in their relation to what is meant by KiiTayyeAAei*' and draw that into
our interpretation. We will attend to that in E). But here we can
already see in our correlation of those ideas their striking prcwiwitty
to one another. For the way in which fuaAeyeadai and dvaKpiveiv are
introduced in the text in no way gives the impression that they refer
to something additional or something secondary to the real “gospel-
event” constituted bj KT/pvaacu- on the one hand and nwr«ue«v on
the other, perhaps in the form of a clearing up of preliminary questions
or of a subsequently deepened intellectual understanding. In relation
to A-arayycAAeii', StaAfyecrfitu and druKpiitu- at any rate do not seem
to refer tn something which is only additional or an afterthought
which is ultimately of no importance. No, if the gospel means a
“salvation- event" then it is not achieved in isolation from the process
referred to by SiaAcyecrfai and di'aKpmciv. How and how closely
biaXeytaOm j dvaxpivtiv on the one hand and /rarayy eAAeii' on the other
are to be coordinated —so as not to err in a ton speedy identification
of them — will be considered, as we have said, in E).
B) Siatoiyeti' 1,7
I) Apart from Aik 7, 34 Siovra'yeu' only occurs in L.“‘ Our starting-
>» A 2, 136.
W f "Explain, interpret" (A-G 166); "erulTnen, auslegmi, erklaren" [Ha 446); "Auf-
whlnss gehen" (Hot 1, 109; We 356); "expuunrling" (Beg IV 203; Mu 164 ; G-T 1+0);
“cxplainniR" (Han 174; G’Neill, op. n't. 120); "opening up Bi> an to connect" (TV;197):
"opening u p their meaning" (Bar 295); "making plain what before wm not understood”
(Lu 1,300).
With regard to the gratnmatiral structure. 1 would follow Brg TV 203, who takes
w> riif ypo4"5r with the following participles, but tlien goes on : “But Luke is
aeciutoilted to place ulaUMS in ambiguous pontinns pork a pa uith the invention of not
attaching them exclusively either to what precedes or tn what follows". Ct. also PI 3,
a.v . Amphibolous coustructfons.
14s
4 time# in L, 3 in A. It has as object
the eyes : L 24, 31 —ArtyiHumtww
the Scriphires : L 24, 32
the understanding : L 24, 45—swiiwu
the heart ; A 16, IS—srponr ein
TILE ARGUMENT' FROM SCRIPTURE 37
point must be the recognition that Siarotyetv in A 17. 3 is parallel to
Jesus’ Siorotycu' in L 2 4 . 31.32, -15. The meaning and function of
Stavofyem here can only become clear to us when we consider briefly
the context of this verb in L 24.
We can describe this context in which Stafoiyeir appears in ch. 24
as one of the identification of the resurrected Jesus. For apparentlv
there are obstacles to this identification. That is clear on the one
hand in the encounters with the risen J e s u s : in the case of the
Emmaus disciples they cannot recognize him and in the ease of the
main body of disciples they think that they are seeing a ghost. On
the other hand, it is shown by the rich vocabulary in ch. 21, which
reflects well t h e confused situation which reigns in that chapter. 14 *
How could this situation have arisen? The text gives two reasons :
1) that they had forgotten Jesus’ own words and teachings and
indeed had not properly understood them even in his lifetime (21,
6.44; cf. 9, 45).
2) they had also, however, been too slow of understanding “to
believe all that the prophets had spoken" (v. 25).
For these reasons Jesus called them not "unbelieving", but “slow
of understanding"; not unbelieving, because their love and loyalty to
Jesus is largely only the reason for their present sorrow, but slow of
understanding because "Unverstand und Langsamkeit des Herzens
(sie) a m Glauben (hindern), den sie auf Grund dcssen .... was durch
Propheteumund verkundet ist, hatten fassen kuunen". 170 This dif-
ficulty in identifying him, this lack of understanding, thus have “in
ihrvn falschen Er wartungen ihren Grund”.171 “Jhr Zweifel hernht
etnfach auf ihrer Unwissenheit uber den Verhcissenen. Sie haben ihr
Bihl von ihm weniger der Schrift entno rumen, wie sie es hatten tun
sollen, als es durch die eigcncn Wiinsche prSgeri lassen". 1 7* The
identification problem is therefore based not on any defect in their
ls
* airopeso&u V. 4 ; ejria-rtt# W . 11, 41: OjiaJleA, avfyyrrtv v. 15; emyrdirm V. 16:
Jftarriiu V. 22; &vrrtn *oi Seoirir t j xopSia V. 25; Trroy&'rrre ... «<d I ogo; V. 37;
T«riipay;:<iw ... ScttAoymjad . . V. 36.
17® Grttndmotin, W.t lAw nacA Lvkat, Berlin 1SBI B, 446.
in Op. al. 446.
173
FfohgMfotT, K. H„ Oai Ei’anijttium wjrh l.abu, Gottingen 1958, 263; cf- also
Zahn, Th., EtOKyrhum dm Euair, Leipzig 1913, 724 : “Er tadelt lie . . . wegiin ihrei
Mangels an SohriftreratAndnin'’.

38 acts 17, 2 4
love for Jesus, hut is the result of "slowness of thought and percep-
tion" 1711 and is thus a matter of the “intellectual side" of man, 111
How does Jesus tackle this identification problem ' How does he
prove that, tyoj el/u abros (v. 39) ? Essentially there seem to be two
possible ways :
1) Jesus could by a supernatural event prove himself ditedly to
La Ilin resurrected One. In other words. Jesus would be “recognized”
as such in s moment of the suspension of the normal laws of perception.
There are in fact indications, but only indications, of such a super-
natural event in cur passage :
1) his mysterious coming and going (2-1. 31.36). and
ii) his belonging to a different form of reality (24, 37-39).
But these supernatural signs seem rather peripheral to the account
and are related to their “recognition" of him not so much as answers
to their question, as posing new questions and increasing their con-
fusion. This brings us to the second possibility :
2) Jesus could show himself to be the resurrected One imlircdly,
i.e. with the help of normal human means of perception. And in fact
these are more prominent in L : Jesus identifies himself as the risen
One by making himself open to proof, indeed inviting this (39b : 41b).
This proof takes a threefold form :
i) a cosmological proof : the empty tomb (24, 3)
ii) a proof through t he senses ; touching Jesus (21, 4b) and his
eating (21, 4143), and
iii) an intellectual proof : the “opening" of their understanding so
that they can understand the Scriptures concerning himself (24,
45.27.32, the dupfir/vevcii').
It is within this context that we must understand biavoiyctv and its
allied concepts.176 Ultimately one thing is involved, a coming to terms
173
AUeuey, W. F, t &. LmAz, Edinburgh and Landon, n.d., 392.
174
Rngg, L., St- Luke, London 1922. 316.
1,1
L 24 f 45 i rnre (hjtuh* rot' pofiy fo£> oiwcZmu raff ypct nr — Stijpotyev
ray (v. 32) = fi+ p/ATjvctJCTCi' auroty a- ffaatnf Tali ra ir<pi f’avrnv (V. 27),
Siaposyfty Ifl thus Bynum moua with Cucp/Avykt l-cla* and rrtniet-du and him the hum&n
an it? object. <nnM&*at here nicana "vcrutohen, oinsehen, begrvifen, zur Eirwjcht
kuiniunf’ (EflfU)’ “to jierueive, undentand" (G-TC05; M-M 6iJ7f.) And really goes
brick to the literal maiming 4‘to bring together, to rail. togctlior’' (MM ibid.),i.e. “to set
THE “ABnUMENT” 1'KOM SCRIPTURE 39
with the reality of the risen Jesus. In other words, just as Jesus made
himself available that he might be recognized as the risen One, not
by his unusual nature or by an unusual miraculous event, but by
normal means, and thus that he might be recognized not through the
suspension of the usual organs of perception but through their help,
so he invited recognition by means of the human vot>s. Thus we do
not perceive Christ directly, e.g. in a direct vision or flash of insight,
but indirectly through the human organs of perception. Self-authen-
tication is clearly replaced here by the various forms of authentication
which can, so to speak, be called in to help from outside. The authen-
tication here takes concrete forms which can only be called “human".
We will not be wrong in suspecting an apologetic interest to lie
behind this. Jesus counters in two ways a problem of identification
caused by a misunderstanding (v. 21) : firstly he starts from the
present. On the empirical level be shows himself to be t he risen One
through the senses (vv. 36-43). Then he turns to the past, to the
Scriptures: on the intellectual level he shows himself to be the risen
One through the reason (vv. 14-16). To Ed. Meyer's comment that
“Lukas kommt alles darauf an. jeden Zweifel an der RealitAt der
Auferstehnng tiieilerzuse.hlagen mid die Einwatule, weltdie der ehrist-
lieheti Mission immer wieder gegen die Mogliclikeit einer Auferstehmig
des Klei'i'lies ... gemimht wurden ... durch die vbllig gesicherte
geschiehtliche Tatsache zu entkraften".1 7 1 we must add that L does
not onlv put all the emphasis on the empirical proofs of the historical
fact of the resurrection but also, to the same end, he places as much
emphasis as possible mi I lie idea that, as far as the reason (roes') is
concerned, there is no reason for drropetaOai and ef icttj/ii with regard
to the resurrection. Proofs for the historical fact come from the
empirical. Proofs for the rationality of this historical fact come from
the ’‘Scriptures”. From them the disciples' defective knowledge of
Jesus as a prophet is supplemented by a new vision of his Messiah-
ship : the Messiah must suffer ami die and only thus attain to his
glory. Thus it is the Easter-event which makes it possible for the
disciples also to share I he understanding which Jesus had from the
Scriptures. The risen One stands up to the scrutiny of the human
senses, but he also stands up to that of the human reason. — Un-
or join together in the mliiil*’ (C-T op. r.it.). It uyiiODyniijtig with wwZm (Mk 8* 17),
jnirt a* aptJijrof (L 24, 26) And dtrihofTOr are synonymous (Mt 15, ItJf.}.
174
Urspnnig I 24.

-10 acts 17, 2-
mistakable is the special significance attached here to a correct under-
standing of the Scriptures. in contrast perhaps to proof through the
senses. We can agree with Ed. Meyer when he writes : “der Schrift-
stelk-r will dies fundamentale Moment so naclulriicklich wie mogiich
einpriigen, welches das Ratsel der Passion lost mid die Realitat der
Auferstehung des Hessian dadurch, dass tie vorausverkundet. ist, alter
jeden Zweifel erhebt”. 1 7 7 Thus the motif of the explanation and
understanding of the Old Testament runs like a constant refrain
through the whole chapter (w. 6 f. ; 27 ; 45 f.J. On each occasion this
“opening’’ arisen from luck of understanding and aims at understanding:
v. 4 a.TToptt00ai
v . 25 decnp-oi
v . 45 roe i-ou»- to v avvicvai
And it is Jesus himself who leads them to "understanding’' : on the
one hand 39.41b, on the other 26.44-46. In both it is ultimately a
matter of identifying him. of verifying that tyro eZ/u avrrfc. The miracle
of the resurrection of the crucified One must be understood —as a
wonder.
II) What does this exegesis con tribute to our understanding of
A 17, 3 ! We were struck how much significance was attached to
um/r-rsfaWinj the wonder of Jesus* resurrection in L 24 —and attached
to it by the risen Jesus himself! This, one would think, would have
been a situation in which an appeal to the reason would really have
been unnecessary. We also noticed that Stawnyeiv is used in L‘24 in
the context of identifying the risen Jesus ; eyweigi auros. Transferring
this to our passage we Cud that Snu-oiyere serves to identify him who
is proclaimed and indeed is present in Paul’s KarayytAAw.Stavoiycn-
refers to the identification of the Lord present in the proclamation
on the level of the understanding and reason. Just as the authentication
of eyw tlfu avTos was not possible without empirical and intellect ual
identification, so tcarayytAAero is not possible without such an iden-
tification. Naturally the story of the historical Jesus on the one hand
and the testimony to the risen Jesus on the other replaces the empirical
identification. Just as the tyu> tipi aurdy could in theory have been
an illusion, so the icarayyeAAeri-. in which the risen Jesus is present,
could be a phantom -unless supported by the vovs. Just as the
presence of the risen Jesus was not self-evident but could only be
177
Op. at. 29.
the “akclment" from scripture 41
indirectly grasped as his presence, so the Lord present in the
<aT<iyye'AAe<v must he mediated. And no more than the presence of
the risen Jesus could be grasped without the assistance of the normal
organs of perception could the "proclamation", representing the
presence of the risen Jesus, avail without the voSy. Here &iavoiyttv is
not, so to speak, a technical procedure, a means which could be
completely detached from its purpose. For, as we learn in L 24, 31f.,
the “opening1 of t h e Scriptures, however “human" an activity it
may be, at the same time opens their eyes to the present activity of
the Lord.
C) rraparidcaOai 171
If in the investigation of the concept of AotvoZyetv we asserted that
this first part of ihaAcyrotiaj meant above all the "opening" of the
vouj for a new understanding of the Messiah based on I he Scriptures,
so TTaparlOcadai with its following “declarative** on, 1,1 which also
goes with the preceding 3;ai*otyroi',lie is above all concerned with
man’s understanding. In this, the second part of SraAeyrrdJat, so to
speak, the emphasis is above all on the idea of “putting forward” 1!1
proofs “in addition to” ( = rapd l a i ) the new understanding of scrip-
ture presented by Pauh We can but agree with Wendt 1 M when he
regards the difference between Utarotyciv and aptniOca iu as that
between the “MerkniaJ der Neuheit" and the “Merkmal der heweisen-
1” On the rtymology ef. Bo 9694: Frll397t; Ho365; K» 11457; Mt-y 11 743;
Po 235ff. : IT 461 ; W-PI82ML: ct also vanH 628; id. App. I IM; S I 492, 722,
735. 741,7614, 774f.t 792.
1*« CL Rob 1034.
>« CL op. ot. 1035.
3»1 —To bring fortt ard, qunte ar evidenro” (A-S 343 ; Br 1. 324) ; "to cite AS eviilenr*"
(L-S ; Bep I V 203) ; "bring fanrarel by Tray of proof" (M-M 490 ; cf. the <«am plea quoted
here); "prove by citations from writers” (Pa -MM J; "adducing in proof" (Bar 293;
Han 174); "als Zeugon, ale Beweis fiir rich anfubren. bran Boweisstcllea for riii 11.
seine Metaling citieren” ( P Lt 503); "lehrend dsrjegtm. aiucinandcrsetxeu" (Maurer in
TDXT VIII I M ) ; "daneben strllen um au verrlciehen, dah. aueeitiandwhallnn, dagegan
halwn. Terglriehen" ( P e l l I ) ; "ror., darlcgand" (£319); “demonstrate. point out"
(A-G 628; O’Neill, op. c*t. 129) etc, Ct also Be 197; C 1013; P K II 25BL; Schill 429;
Sch 18, 8 ; IM. 3 ; Z 430; Me 124 : Ma 11 1, 103.314, 3, 49.
US Literature on rnipa in M HI 272, n. 2 ; tnpi as a verbal prefix— cf. M II 318-20;
ct Also H 4 5 ; 8 II 493; Rob 561.
1 « 358.
 42 acts 17, 2-4 T H E “ARGUMENT" FROM SCRIPTURE <3

den Ausfuhrhchkcit”. “Explaining” 1 , 4 and “expounding 144 are

really too weak as expressions for what is meant here if we do not E) Correlation
*
include therein the element of “presenting proofs”. 1 ” The extent to
which this concept too is essentially part of man's “understanding” I) Thus far onr survey. After making all these observations we
is clear from the following quotation : “... he expounded the OT must ask what indications we have found for the correct co-ordinating
scriptures ... bringing forward as evidence of their fulfilment the of the concepts investigated and their associated ideas, This can onlv
historic facts accomplished in the ministry, death and exaltation of be provisional despite the fact that we shall adopt certain individual
Jesus, setting the fulfilment alongside the predictions in order that insights from the preceding study (particularly from B).
the force of his argument might be readily grasped'. 1 *7 It is important to attend to the correct correlation of these since
no word and an attendant- concept leads an isolated existence, but —
over and above its basic meaning- it leads something like a second
D) MarxtyytXAcm ’*• life within its context. The specific nature of a word's meaning, and
with it its concrete, actual use and life, can only be elicited from the
In coming to this concept wc pass from tlie sphere of teaching, context within which such a word and its concept live and breathe.
explaining ami understanding and of giving proofs into that of Thus it makes a fundamental difference for our understanding,
“proclaiming "and “preaching " , According to Schmewind this
whether the correlation of words and concepts demanded by the
won! “always" has a “sacral" meaning and "the thought of
context is understood as fitting them together or setting them apart,
proclamation is uppermost”. 1 ” Its sense is “that of the proclamation
as standing either in relation to one another or in contrast to one another.
or declaration of a completed happening ... the expectation of the
In the first case (and here we must note the structure of the text
drtftrracnc has become a reality ‘in Jesus’ and is now declared
and the direction in which it moves) one understands a won! when
(A 4, 2).’»i Similarly... in 17, 3 . . . the expected Messiah is now’
one recognizes it in its relation to other words and concepts (with all
present. In both cases the expectation is fulfilled in the name of
that such a relation may imply) and thus accordingly asks why they
Jesus”. This saniy/sMur is an expression of Paul’s personal
are so related. —The reason must be something like a unity of an event
testimony.
or a reality, which Linds them both together but is also prior to both
of them. This would Le too extensive, too diverse, too rich and thus
> ” M u 164; G - T 4S6. too vital to be adequately expressed simply by one word. Rather
■o Wi 197.
*** H a 44d. Similarly R o l l i 2 6 8 : “Paul km not only *expcnnsdtng' the Scripture,
this reality which is prior to all its explications is unfolded and
he was also ’propcanding’ (the old intanlti# uf ’allege*) his doctrine — quoting the develops different emphases and nuances with the help of different
Script lire to prove lus contention ...” words and concepts. If the use of different words was evoked by the
Br2,34X baric unity of a reality, then the relation in which we see one word
1”* Occurs only in A and P. Synonymous with ojpt' imr, “or
standing to another can only be properly understood in the light of
(twice each ill A : 9, 20; 19, 1 3 and 5, 4 2 : 8, 35k Only cmoc «n n vtn;t -cq.- 8, 5
and oner cvayrtA/veoftu rw rvpth-r '/•jeatr 11, 20. In P : r®vA’purro •xrruyycAAw Ph t ,
this prior reality. Thus it is false to disregard this actual function
1 7 : l o l l - 28; -Ypt-Troj x-a’-ay VAArrnt Ph l T I V Sy not: % um>u« » i t h this are .Ypt-urw which these words have when we define their meaning. But this can
■ypixwtu Ph 1 , 15 etc. a n d Gal I . IHff. Similarly *o evoyycAujF KtrnyytAAgpr happen easily when, for whatever reason, through isolated investi-
I C 9. 14 ror Aoyci tub dsoi" A 13, 5 ; 17. 1 3 : -rot? wpuiv 15, synanymoiU with this gations of different terms and ideas, the presupposed unity of a reality
is tt» jinp-vptm | — jynrmym of rut 1 C 2, 1.
is rapidly lost to view. This reality, which it was the original function
«* In TDNT I 7 J ,
1#o
So also A-G 410 and M-M “makr proebunatian with authority" (324): W«t-
of these various terms to explain, has therefore no longer an adequate
eertt, B, F„ TAf tf Si. JoAa, Cambridge I960 1 . 15 : **tO proclaim with authority”. bearing on the interpretation of the text. Then a feeling for nuances
,w
Westcott, < W, : **in urrayycAav the rrUtion of t h e bearer and hearer of the or aspects of meaning gives way to a preoccupation with differences
tncwsagr (i>) . . . most prominent". and finally perhaps even with contrasts.
44 acts 17, 2-4
In the second case, correspondingly, the key to understanding lies
in “separating" the words from one another, not in finding their
“closeness" to one another,
II) Since 8icn,oiye(v and mptsrlffealhii spell out more fully what is
involved in SioAryecrPtu 1,1 we have to co-ordinate the following :
SmAeyetrflixi - A/yete - Atlyos
K-ixrayyrAAriv - ayycAAcrv - evayythiov
These two seem to form the basic co-ordinates of Paul’s preaching.
The studv of our text clearly showed that the correlation of these
two is to be defined in terms of their relation to one another and not
in terms of their contrast. These words and their associated ideas are
related to one another and are not opposites. So, if we want to arrive
at an adequate interpretation of L's witness, we, with the above
principle in view, must ask this further question : why do these words
stick together and, as it were, sympathize with one another and sup-
port one another 1 What or who is the one common factor which is
prior to Loth of them and always anticipates them and so also forms
their basis, with reference to which they arc related to one another ?
Thus it is not the separation of the words and their ideas from one
another but their wwieM to one another and, above all, that which
first’ forms the basis of that nearness, which must be regulative for
the definition of their relation — with all that that implies.
This is directly relevant to our specific question. For the intellectual
element attracted our attention especially in our investigation of the
AtaAfyfcrflai-group (together with ttvaKptv&v). Therefore we must
suppose that only by a correct definition of the relation of these two
basic terms (>earayyiAAeii' and 3<e,by tod at) to one another can we
gain a deeper insight into the understanding which the Lukan Paul
had of the relation of faith and intellectual activity within his own
preaching activity. The relation of faith and intellectual activity
thus takes part in the question of the relation of (carayyeAAeiv and
SiaXcycaQai,of rikiyytAivc and Adyoj. The hermeneutic key to the
correct understanding of StaAdyroSai and thereby of the intellectual
element in its relation to warayyZAAw is thus this relationship itself —
ami that with reference to that reality which first makes this
relationship possible. In other words, it means, negatively, that the
intellectual element—as L wanted us to understand it —cannot
a* B-D-F 327.
THE ARGVME5T" FROM SCRIPTURE 45
adequately be defined as such, and, positively, that we can actually
achieve an adequate understanding of the function and significance
of the human reason within t his relationship. We must in our inter-
pretation reckon just as much with the reality of this relationship as
with the reality that precedes it and thus forms the basis for it.
But what is this reality which always precedes and anticipates both
icarayy/AArm and diaAcyecflai and the intellectual element within it
alike? When we say that SiaAryeaffcn and (tarayycAArm are related,
then that implies that the intellectual element expressed by ihaAcycodai
is related to the object of the KarayyeAAew. But if the "object" of
KaTayytAAei.1' is none other than the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead and his being alive and present, then the intellectual element,
represented by StnAfyepflai, "is related" to the presence of the risen
Jesus. This appears fo be the reality which always precedes both the
iraTwyyeAAeiv and the biaXcyeafftu—and will continue to do so. This
conclusion is in essence nothing but the statement that the “methods"
of Paul's preaching, within which we are trying to trace the intellectual
element, cannot be separated from its “contents". Here perhaps the
influence of the contents of his preaching on his methods is detectable.
That fact we must give its due attention.
But if the necessity for the employment of human reason within
proclamation arises from its relation to the presence of Christ and
the presence of the risen Christ itself is somehow the determinative
cause of the involvement of the human reason in "matters of faith",
then there arise two important, questions :
(1) in what sense is the intellectual element related to the presence
of the risen Christ I In other words, in what way can Christ’s
presence be determinative for the employment of the powers
of reason I
(2) what influence does the presence of the risen Christ have on
the intellectual element and so on our understanding of i t !
On ( I) Two observations help us here :
i) we should first note the twofold distinction which seems to hold
these two aspects apart :
a) indirect speech after SiaAeytoflai,
direct speech 1 , J after KarayyeAAnv, and
1« CL Kot 442, 1034 s Bu 330 s “E» 1st nicht. m vcrkeiuwn, daaa vor alien Lukas
46 acts 17, 2-4
b) an emphasis on the -ypaAai in connection with SniXtyeaSai,
an emphasis on the eyo* l *’ in connection with zrarayycAAcm.
Thus in connection with biaAcycatiai "the Scriptures take first
place, and with aaru/yeAArir Paul himself.
A aeoond observation may further show how this distinction in
fact assists in the definition of the relationship rather than of the
difference.
ii) We should remember that in L 24 the recognition of the presence
of the risen Christ stood so emphatically in the centre of attention
because without this recognition there is no possibility of an encounter
with him. Thus the risen Christ is present with his disciples long
before they identify him. Le. recognize him as the One who is present
and so encounter him. Encounter can thus only take place in and
after recognition of his presence. Quite apart from L 24, passages
like Mt 18, 20 and 28, 20, and also 25, 31-46, which one could call
the parable of the perceived and unpereeived presence of Christ,
show that the recognition of the presence of Christ was already a real
problem for the earliest Christians. In the case of L 24, recognition
of his presence and so encounter with the eyiu eifU, auros comes about
not through the disciples' leaving behind or ascending away from
what was familiar to them, or a t any rate leaving it. e.g. by entering
into a vision that bypassed the normal organs of perception, or into
inward contemplation. Recognition rather comas about by referring
to what is “to hand” ; ultimately one was only conscious of his presence
because Christ, even as the risen. One, presented proofs, whether
perceptible or intellectual, appropriate to t h e different human organs
of perception. Jesus was grasped an<1seen to be the present and risen
One by reference to and use of the normal means of recognition.
Thus encounter as recognition of his presence “happened'’ not only
through “touching" him (24. 40) and his “eating before their eves”
(24, 41-3; of. also w. 30 f.) but also through the tradition about the
“empty tomb" (24, 3) and through the “opening" (of their minds and)
of the Scriptures (24, 27.32.45). &avo<yeiv thus plays a fundamental
part in identifying the risen Jesus and so in meeting with him as
rich dieze edit griechisehe Attadruekzwciw am moisten zu eigen ecuiaidil hat". Transition
from indirect to direct speech also in 1 . 4 ; 14, 22, 23, 22; 25. 5. Sti 224 : “Dec per-
soalicha Cliurtiktcr dienw zveiten Teik der Bolachaft izt von Lnkas dnrch den Cber-
gang a az der indimklcn in die direkte Rede m m Aawiruek cebracht".
>« Cf. Br 2, 325.
THE ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE 47
present. The “employment " of the human reason understood in this
way thus leads into the presence and so into the sphere of the work
and influence of the risen Jesus.
Applied to A 17, 2-4 this means that the personal eym tlfju airros
found its expression in the emphatically personal testimony of the
apostle. The presence of the risen Christ accredited itself in Paul’s
personal testimony. But this is not simply the same as saving that
one also really recognizes the presence of the risen Christ proclaimed
in the apostle’s testimony and encounters him himself. According to
L 24 Siai'oiyem is a means contributing to the encounter with the
present and risen Christ. Siaroiyeiv in our passage is used in a similar,
if not in an identical, sense to t h a t of L 24 27.32.45. In addition,
this term is here an explication of StaAe-peaCai. What does that tell
us about the meaning of StaAeyeodoi I One could perhaps formulate
it in general terms thus— and, to avoid possible misunderstanding,
this must be qualified later : zcareyyeAAem roe A/kotov is accomplished
by the use of SiaAeytadac. This formulation has the advantage that
proper scope is given for the element of xinndta>u'ity. Thus we protect
ourselves from regarding one element as prior to the other;1 *1 there
is nothing here like an (essentially less important) human part., let us
Bay a technical part aliirh would comply with the laws of human
logic, anil a separate second part (which is ultimately all-important)
which could only lie understood as a “solemn appeal' . TrriStaOat ”*
and wpocrirATjpovtrtfai 1 , 7 in v. 4 complement one another in a similar
way. But we must not reach our understanding of this simultaneity
at the expense of a correct definition of their relation ; we must not
therefore understand it as a n identity. We must rather hold fast to
the simultaneity and also do justice to t h e distinction indicated by
t he terms 8taA<yc<r0<u and KarayytAAem. Thus just as the reality and
presence of the eytu ci'/xi aurdj is revealed only by means of a n effective
tackling of the problem of identification, so the “proclaimed" present
Lord, announced in the apostles ja-rsonal testimony, is only revealed
through tackling the SuzA/yeodai. This search for identification cer-
tainly made use not only of “the Scriptures” but also of accounts of
the facts about the historical Jesus.*** The “simultaneity of
xarayytAAem and SiaAeytodat of which we spoke must thus be qualified
*« Cf., e.g., Sti 224.
>« Of. | 2 ofthfr thesis.
I*7 Cf. dictionaries and onmnu.
i»* Ct o4toj in 17. 3.
48 acts 17, 2-4
by saying that and the intellectual element contained in
it have in relation to xaTuyyc'AAen the rum-lion ot assisting in the
identification of the risen Jesus proclaimed as present in the apostle's
personal testimony and thus I -ringing about encounter with him. But
this implies that the relation of faith and the intellectual element to
one another is as close and intimate as the approach of Christ himself
to his disciples can l«e intimate — so close that they can touch him
and thus identify him. Faith and the intellectual dement, as reflected
in Paul s method of preaching are together like two peas in a pod —
but rm doser. Neither merges with the other at the expense of its own
identity.
On 2) What consequences has this insight into the function and
importance of SioAeyttrfai and thus of the intellectual element for
our understanding of SuiAZyEirfai itself? The relation m which faith
and the intellectual element stand to one another is not just one
uhich of necessity arises from the presence of the risen Christ; but
also this relation —and thus also SjaAf'yeotfai is itself characterized
by this presence :
i) if identification is the way by which the encounter with the
already present Christ is mediated, then the practice of SiaAcyorfai
(with all which that may involve in terms of form and content) as a
means to this identification is nothing but an expression of the actual
encounter with the present Christ proclaimed in the apostles personal
testimony. But then is not also preaching and procla-
mation — but only with respect to the One encountered ?
ij) if the activity referred to as SmAtytadai, embracing speaker
ami hearer (di'mrpii cir), is the basis for the production of lilerorv
materials, then can such products be anything other than testimonies
to actual encounters with the risen Christ —and ns strt'A also pro-
clamatiou, tuayycAiorf Seen in this way, 5«iAc-/caflat would haw the
character of proclamation, without ceasing also to be real SioAi-gorthi*!
±Scc$ion 2 : Interpretation of the findings
In the preceding first sub-section we tried to discern the relation
between faith and intellectual activity by noting Parti’s methods of
preaching in respect of the intellectual element in them.
In doing this what we describ'd in our observations more and more
crystallized around the question of the relation of the intellectual
element to the presence of the risen Jesus.
t h e “aegvmem" from schtptube 49
In the following second sub-section wc must try to iri/rrpref this
closeness of the intellectual element to the presence of Christ in the
light of the task given to Paul 11 ol •■<; cally or chri.stok-•gicnllv. i e.
with regard to the doctrine of the presence of Christ within P a u l s
testimony.
A) Thr fra nn' -'orl of inti rpretafion■:
l*ai/P5 num i7i j j,$ion —act ion and suffer i ?i j
I) Tani s action—God’s action
(1) P a u l s action
*
What Paul does not come from himself, Bather it was the “Holv
Spirit or “God who wpocrK/A-AijTtu (13, 2 ; 16, 10). nr "the Lord ’
who TftlftKCv '13, 47); “for him’ therefore he is u uxevoi' ocAoyTjy
(9. 15). And since God him i22, 14; 26, 16), he will
vnrrtTfTax turn (22, 10).
Correspondingly, he dwj what he does, not on his own initiative,
but he has “received" (Aa di-etv 20, 24) a ministry. he d/fopi&Tat to
it and is -'jpiAjSop/. «r through the “Tidy Spirit’’ in the Church
(13, 2 ; I t 26) ; he is sent (dmxrreAAenM, e’£amocrr€ Aera*(26,17 ; 22, 21).
He himself does not say what he has to “do"* hut AoAiwreTai crot ...
(9. 6 ; 22, 10), I* <-r «■;< tqmto . . . t-■■.' am . . . (26. 16).
of these elements are often expressed simply through the use
of the word OeZ : Paul is under a /fceentZy (9, 6 ; 23, I l : 27. 24).
There are two basic characteristics of Paul's commission :
i) the carrying out of his commission implies a going: 22. 21
(18, 6); 28, 26; 16* 7 1 6 ; 17. 14; 19. 1.21; 20, 1.22; 21, 5 etc. Its
execution is significantly compared (■.■ a £pJpur which one runs and
'‘finishes’’ (20. 24),
ii) Paul's basic commission involves doing (nxxcu' ; 9, 6 ; 22, 10)
something (.. o rf 9, 6 ; ... irep* wan-inv ... 22. 10). In i ng called
ci’s rd rpyov (13, 2 ; 14. 26; 15. 38), to which he (15.38) and
which he rrA poi (14, 26).— And thia “doing” is really essentially a
AoAeu' (19. 9). a Acycn- (17, 18; 28, 26). for this particukr “work"
cannot lie “fulfilled" or done through auinrav (18. 9) even though
he runs the risk of being mocked a- a -r ep oAdyo? (1 7, 18). And through
this “s[H*aking" Paul is to carry out ths Saord&w to oi-opd pov (9, 15).
And to oyufiu. pou stands for dc&caii' djiapruDv Aa/rudeciv ( Hf, 13);
50 ACTS 17, 2-4
rirniAouem Tri; dpaprias (22, Id) : SuTopi; : tarns, cnjptia, repara (3. 10 ;
I, 30; 16, I S ; 19, 13,17); raMtw (2, 21; 4, 12); (4, 12).
Baffra eie to dvopd pov thus involves a waraj-yeAAeu' . . . dSov oairijplas
(16, 17). So Paul is sot “to bring salvation”. In short. Paul must
cvayyeMaauQat (16, 10). But this eiayyeMaaoSai is achieved essentially
by means of “hearing witness” : the apostle should be a pAprvs “for
him” (22, 15; r.f. 13, 31 and 13, 2—a opt'fem 8t) pm). or a v-nrjpd'njt
Kai pdprus (26, 16), with his paprvpla mpi e p o v (22. 1ri). Therefore he
“received the ministry" of Siapoprupetoflai to fvayyeXiav Tp; ydpirof
rov Otofi (20, 24), 01 simply of txapaprvpiiuOrii [puprupeii') ra rrept
epou (23, 11).
This is to take place otoirim f'Aw re Kai /SamA/aic m'uip re 'IgpaijX
(9, 15) or. putting it geographically, «us errydrou rpc yp; (13. 47) or
also cl; ‘lepuvaaXpp . . . tit ‘ Ptjjprp' ... (23, 11). Thus Paul is ecumenical
(this squares with the accusations levelled a t him : 16, 20; 17. 6 ; 18.
13; 19. 26; 24, 5). And just because of the Jews' rejection has he become
“only ’ a <5; eftOi* (13, 47) and c aTroartAAcrai . . . ci; ellinj pax adv
(22, 21).
(2) God’s action
Yet Acts does nut only make statements about Paul's “doings'
but also about those of God. Or, more accurately, when the apostles
speak of their action they speak of God’s action. This can happen in
different ways :
1
i) Saa cirotyacv d Bro; pcr’ailrulv ..- *® 11, 27 ; 15, 4
oca erroiYjaev 6 Bro; . . . Si’tiurdiv . . . 15, 12
cue c’jTDtpnev 6 Bro; ... 21, 19
ii) Correspondingly, in the context in which the Holy Spirit separates
the apostles ecj rd epyov (13. 2 ; cl. 14, 26; 15. 38) God speaks:
mere . . . on epyoi> epyd opai eycb . . . epyov . . . (13, 41),
iii) 1 1. 3 ; o' xilpioy o paprvpun' rd> Xdyiy tt/s ydptrof avroii
The action of the apostles and the action of God are thus not two
different actions but in some respects me. action — though we must
1,9
M (61): " . . . ussociniion with ... Arfa 1 | , 2 7 . . . may well mean ‘all that God
imd dour in fellowship (or ou-upiTiitiiHi) with them* ’’ and tlicrehirc nord not be a
Scmitiam (no also Hob I Kill; M,M 101). Cf. nlno M ITT (269) : “of mutual participation ...
In ouiitiaat to uw, the meaning of ptru la never ‘in addition to’ ",
THIS "argument" from scripture 51
tint deny the concrrleneas ami reality of the apostles’ activity. The
interplay of God’s action and the apostles’ is interestingly balanced
in the summaries about the growth of the word or of the Church
(9. 31 ; 13, 49; 16, 5 ; 19, 10; 19, 20 etc.). God's action and the apostles'
are not simply identical with one another, any more than God and
the apostles arc. Rather they are m paiwot and as such SooAut rat Btov
(16. 17); they tipcuorraBct; naiv i'pm nvtlpcorroi and as such runyytAi-
Wptvoi (14, 15). Or the same thing can be put thus in respect of their
activity by means of the word StaKoeia ; what God “did" among the
Gentiles he could do 8itl ri); Siairon'af aurov (21. 19), or simply per’
auruiv (14, 27; 15. 4) and Si’avrwv (15. 12), since Paul received his
SiaKowa rrapa r o u Kvptou ’IifooH (2(1, 24), God “does his work in your
days" through and by paeans of the actions, i.e. I he preaching, of the
apostles. Thus he can only really do this when lie serves him (20, 19 :
SouAedojc t<u Kvpt'cp ; 24, 14 : Aarpevoi rip •na.rpuiw deep , , . ) .
This is an essential ami fundamental statement which we must
constantly remember in all that concerns the manner of the carrying
out of this ministry if we are to understand the individual statements
aright,
(3) Conclusions
We have shown that the apostles’ action, for all its difference,
expressed in the idea of Stawovia, at the same time can be called God’s
action. Both are hound together through the Sianov/a which charac-
terizes the apostle’s activity; it is thus not an activity on the same
level, so to speak, us if it were completely identified with it. but un
activity in God's service in obedience and siibordination. Here we
showed that the rroieiv entrusted to Paid is essentially his AaAem,
i.e, fSatrrd civ t o dvopd pov — evayyeX< e<r0ai. I t is no argument
against this that. Paul from time to lime also performs signs and
wonders and miracles of healing. These are only occasional outward
signs or testimonies — in contrast perhaps to the inward signs which
consist in the belief or unbelief “worked.” by this AaAeiv (e.g. opening
of the heart : 16, I I or 14, 27)—of the power and effectiveness of the
revelation of God declaring itself in this AuAtie. These outward and
inward signs are one in that they- both of them — are the proof, the
evidence, of the wonderful power and effectiveness of the preaching
of the word of grace.
GEORGE MARK ELI *LR; .
The Cincinnati Bible Seminary