"Acts" 17.28 Renehan, Robert Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1979; 20, 4; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 347

Acts 17.28 

Robert Renehan 

, , ...... ,y...... , I B '" t I "'" 
EV avTCp yap SWfLEV KaL KLVOVfLE a KaL ECfLEV, wc KaL TLVEC TWV 

Q' t ..... _, I 'T'....., \ I , , 
Kau ufLac 7TOLTJTWV HPTJKaCLV, .1 ou yap KaL YElIOC ECfLElI. 

THE GREAT AREOPAGUS SPEECH in Acts has generated a consider­
able literature, and this particular verse has played a promin­
ent role in the discussion.! The following points may be taken 

as established: 2 (1) The plural TLVEC TWlI ••• 7TOLTJTWlI is a normal 
Greek method of introducing a single and specific poetic quotation. 3 

(2) There is in fact only one piece of poetry cited here, namely 
ToD yap Ka~ YElIOC EcfLElI= Aratus, Phaenomena (beginning of) verse 5.4 

(3) Commentators who have maintained, because of the plural 
TLVEC, that the author of Acts is also quoting Cleanthes' Hymn to 
Zeus, verse 4, EK coD yap YElIOC ECfLElI, are wrong.5 (4) Those who, for 
the same reason, argue that Ell aOTo/ yap ~WfLEV Kat. KLlIO'lJfLEfJa Kat. 

ECfLEV is a poetic quotation are also wrong. 
It is with these last words that the present paper is concerned. 

Are they a (prose) quotation or an original coinage on the part of 

1 For references see especially Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia 
1971, trans!' from the 14th German ed. of 1965) 516,524-25. I do not pretend to have 
read all the literature. As a matter of convenience, the author of Acts shall be referred to 
as Luke; no judgement on actual authorship is intended. For a good statement on this 
question see A. D. Nock in Gnomon 25 (1953) 502=Essays on Religion and the Ancient 
World II (Cambridge [Mass.] 1972) 827. 

2 See especially my paper "Classical Greek Quotations in the New Testament" in 
The Heritage of the Early Church, Essays in honor of Georges Florovsky= Orientalia 
Christiana Analecta 195 (Rome 1973) 37-42. 

3 0p.cit. (supra n.2) 40-42. To the examples there adduced add Arist. Pol. 1252b 7ff 
~lt6 .panv Ot 1ToLYjTai (there follows Eur. fA 1400); Theod.Met. Misc. philos. et hist. p.515 
Mueller-Kissling Kat 1TOLYjTat U .panv (there follows Mel.fr.adesp. 103 Page) ; Zenob. 5.100 
8LO Kat cKdmTovTEC mhov 0; 1ToLYjTat ;AEYOV (there follows Philemon fr.190 K.); see also 
Pearson on Soph. fr.1048 (for Et.Gud. p.l42.46) and Ammonius s.v. 8ta{36YjTOC, p.35.15 
Nickau. Naturally, TWV 1TOLYjTWV TLVEC may also be used in a strict plural sense, e.g. Isocr. 
2.3, 9.72; Diod.Sic. 3.65. 

4 ECf.dv is a trivialization of Aratus' Eip.iv. 
5 See further below, p.35-3. 

347 



348 ACTS 17.28 

Luke? And if the latter, was there a model for them? Opinions have 
differed. Eduard Norden, for instance, compared the language 
preserved in Arius Didymus, Epitome 26 (= H. Diels, Doxographi 
Graeci p.461.23-25) : 0 8€ XPVCL7T7TOC Xpovov ELvaL KtV~CEWC 8LrXcT7Jf-La • •• 

\ ,\ " .... 0' ~ \ l' H KaL KaTa f-LEV TOV XPOVOV KtVHC aL TE EKaCTa KaL EtVaL. e went on to 
conclude, "Wenn wir endlich noch die bekannten stoischen Ety­
mologien erwagen: ZEVC a7To TOU 7TaCL 8E8wKEvaL TO ~fjv (Chrysippos 
bei Stob. ecl. 1 31, 12W.), KaAouf-LEV ailTOV Kat Zfjva Kat L1 La . .. , wc av 

El A€YOLf-LEV 8L' OV ~Wf-LEV (Ps. Aristot. de mundo c. 7 40 I a 13), wo also 
die Ubereinstimmung mit der Stelle der Acta sich bis auf die 
Verbalform selbst erstreckt, so werden wir in ~Wf-LEV, KLVOVf-LEOa, ECf-L€V 

stoische Begriffe zu erkennen haben, die aber vielleicht erst der Verf. 
der Acta zu einer formelhaften, feierlich klingenden Trias ver­
bunden hat." 6 Haenchen's comment ad loco is, "This anticlimax has 
not yet been found elsewhere. That Luke himself constructed it is 
unlikely: he would himself have maintained no such immanence of 
man in God as the wording of the text asserts. It must be a matter 
of a received Stoic formulation. . .. Hommel (199) proposes a 
triadic Platonic formula." 7 Before considering the question of a 
specific philosophical source, a more fundamental point should be 
made. 

~Wf-LEV Kat KLVOVf-LE8a Kat ECf-L€V: It can be shown that this phrase, 
both in diction and in form, is idiomatic Greek of a familiar type. 
Formally, the words constitute a tricolon, an old and frequent 
pattern of the Greek language. Eduard Fraenkel has called attention 
to " ... the widespread type of'tricolon' in which the third member 
is expanded." 8 The words that follow in Acts (WC Kat TtVEC . .. YEVOC 

ECf-L€v), with the final ECf-L€-" echoing the earlier ECf-LEV, probably have 
reference primarily to the third member and in a sense may serve 
to make the entire verse a tricolon of this expanded type. But 
expanded or not, there is a formal tricolon here. As for the diction, 
it too reveals a very old and characteristic feature of Greek, the 
collocation of several verbs as an emphatic means of expressing 

6 Eduard Norden, Agrwstos Theos, Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede 
(Leipzig-Berlin 1923) 22. 

7 Haenchen, op.cit. (supra n.1) 524 n.3. The Hommel reference is to H. Hommel, 
"Neue Forschungen z. Areopagrede Acta 17," ZNTW 46 (1955) 199. 

B Fraenkel on Aesch. Agam. 1243; see also the General Index to his edition of Agamemnon, 
s.v. TptKwAOV (vol. III p.841). 



ROBERT RENEHAN 349 

existence. Among the verbs found so collocated are ElvaL, ~ijv and 
KLvELc{}aL (as well as other verbs of motion, e.g. EP1TELV, 1TEpmaTELv). The 
evidence for this usage is quite abundant; examples which chance 
to occur in the philosophers are often quite untechnical Greek. I 
offer some illustrative material: fl. 1.88 EJ-Lffj 'WVTOC Kat bTL X80vt 
O€PKOJ-LEVOto (if. Od. 16.439); Il. 17.447 1TCfVTWV, occa T€ yaLav Em 
1TV€{EL T€ Kat Ep1TEL (= Od. 18.131); Aesch. Pers. 299 ~fj TE Kat cpaoc 

f3M1TEL; Agam. 677 Kat, ~WVTa Kat f3AE1TovTa; 9 Soph. Phil. 883 avwovvov 

f3M1TovTa Ka,._mvEovT' ETL (tricolon); Trach. 234--35 LcxvovTa TE I Kat 

~WVTa Kat {}aAAoVTa KOV VbCCP f3apvv; Eur. IA 1225 ~wcav TE Kat 

(}aAAovcav; fr.372 TeX L1 aLoaAELa 1TaVTa KLVELC{}at OOKEL I MYEW 10 T' 

ayaAI-wB'; Antiphanes fr.221 K. ~WVTa 1T€pmaTOUVTa < TE); Aeschin. 
3.94 ... TeX OEKa TaAavTa, ~WVTWV 11 CPPOVOVVTWV f3AE1TbVTWV EAaBov V/-'WV 

vcpEAb/-'EVOL (tricolon); Dem. 18. 72 ~WVTWV Kat, OVTWV }1{}TJva{wv; 

Antipho Soph. fr.60 D.-K. ~fj Toiho Esc. ~ 1Ta{8wCLC] Kat, {}aAAEL OLa 

1TaVTOC TOU f3{ov; PI. Symp. 203E {}aAAEL TE Kat, ~fj Esc. "Epwc]; Resp. 
369n TOU Elva{ TE Kat ~ fjv EVEKa; Legg. 945n ~ 1Taca OVTW {}aAAEL TE KaL 

EvoaL/-,OVEL xwpa Kat 1TbALC; Arist. Gen.Corr. 318b25 KaL ~ fjv Kat ElvaL; 

Iambl. VP. 212 [= D.-K. VS9 1.476.16] ~ elc TO €lva{ T€ Kat ~fjv 

acptgtc; LS] S.D. CPPOVEW IV " ... ~WV Kat cppovwv alive and in his right 
mind, freq. in Inscr. ... " Elvat used of deities in an expanded tricolon 
is found already in Homer, It. 2.485 V/-,ELC yap {}Eat €CTE, 1TapEcTE TE, 

tCTE TE 1TaVTa; so also Xen. Cyr. 8.7.22 BEQVC y€ TO~C aEt OVTac Kat 
I "-/" ~ " '" I '" \ 1TaVT €o.f'OpWVTac Kat 1TaVTa ovva/-,€VOVc, Ot KaL KTI\. 

I conclude that, so far as diction and structure are concerned, the 
words ~w/-,€V Kat KLVOV/-,EBa Kat EC/-,EV could have been composed even 
by someone qui numquam philosophum audivit. Even Kwov/-,E{}a, which 
has often conjured up formal theories of Motion, K{VTJCLC, is as old as 
Homer in a non-technical sense, Il. 1. 46-47: EKAaygav S' ap' Oi.'CTOt E1T' 

W/-,WV XWO/-,EVOto, I aVTou KLVTJ{}EVTOC' 0 S' 7Ji.'E VVKTL EOtKWC. 12 It is 
important to have thus established the roots of this language in 
normal, pre philosophical Greek. It does not follow that Luke had no 
philosophical source. For it is an easy matter to produce comparable 

9 Toup conjectured X>..wpov T€ Kat {3M1TOVTa on the basis of Hesychius: X>..wpOv TE Kat 

(3M1TOV<Ta)- aVTt ToD ~WVTa_ See Fraenkel ad loe. 
10 Myuv F. G. Schmidt: {3M1TEtV MSS. 

11 So P.Oxy. IV 703: OpWVTWV MSS. (More precisely, because of a gap, it is uncertain 
whether the papyrus had ~WVTWV instead of, or in addition to, OpWVTWV. The former is 
more probable.) 

12 Cf, KtVErcBat in Eur. fr.372 (supra). 



350 ACTS 17.28 

texts from formal philosophy. PI. Soph. 248E-249A wC aA'Y]8wc 
I , r' '.1.' , J. I 'i" ~ I 8 I 8 ~ KLV'Y]CtV KaL SW'Y]V KaL 'l'VX'Y]V KaL 'l'pOV'Y]CLV 'Y] pq.OLWC 7T€LC 'Y]COJL€ a Tep 

\ ~" , ~ ~'r~" ~, J. ~ , \ \ ' , , 7TaVT€I\WC own JL'Y] 7TapELVaL, JL'Y]O€ s'Y]V aVTO JL'Y]O€ 'l'POVELV, al\l\a C€JLVOV KaL 
--- --

" ~'" , I .,., N t th t ~'r ~ ., ayLOv, VOVV OVK €XOV, aKLV'Y]TOV €CTOC ELVaL; 0 e a JL'Y]O€ s'Y]V-ELVal 

constitutes a tricolon with expanded third element. A tricolon in 
Aristotle, De anima 414a12-13 is quite close in formal structure to the 
Acts passage: ... ~ t/;vX~ OE TOUTO c[J 'WJL€V Kat. alc(}avoJL€(}a Kat. 

OLavoovJL€8a 7TpWTWC. Particularly interesting is an entry from the 
Pseudo-Galenic Definitiones Medicae (19.355 K.): ... t/;vxf] ECTL 
7TV€uJLa 7Tap€C7TapJLEVoV EV OAep Tip CWJLaTL OL' 00 'WJL€V Kat AOYL'OJL€8a Kat -----
TaLc AOL7TaLc alc8f]c€CLV EV€PYOUJL€V v7T'Y]peTouvToC TOU cWJLaToc. Three 

tricola with quite similar openings (0/ 'wJL€V '" EV 0/ ,wJL€V '" OL' 00 
,wJL€v) from very different authors-Aristotle, Luke, a doxographer. A 
pattern of traditional formulations is emerging. Here too belongs ot' 
OV 'wJL€V, which Norden cited from the Pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo. 

Clearly, whether from the viewpoint of Greek in general or of 
philosophic Greek in particular, EV aihip yap 'wJL€V Kat KtVOVJL€(}a Kat. 

ECJLEv is, in diction, phrasing and structure, established usage. This 
may show that Luke had a real feeling for Greek idiom, not that he 
has necessarily introduced an actual quotation here. Indeed, were it 
not for the fact that TLV€C TWV • •• 7ToL'Y]Twv-another piece of idiomatic 
Greek-had, through a misunderstanding of the plural, conditioned 
readers to expect two quotations, it is doubtful whether anyone 
would ever have regarded the words in question as borrowed goods. 
For the thought-sequence itself strongly argues for the presence of a 
single quotation, as a paraphrase will make clear: "For in Him we 
live and move and have our being, as I can demonstrate even (Kat) from 
your own literature: 'For indeed we are the offspring of this one'. 
(29) Being therefore God's offspring we ought not ... " The quota­
tion from Aratus is introduced as a formal 'proof' of the preceding 
statement. Then verse 29 begins by paraphrasing the quotation and 
drawing an inference therefrom (YEVOC oov vmxPxovTEC TOU 8EOU .•. ). 

If verse 28 had begun with a quotation, the Kat in WC Kat TLV€C would 
have little point, and the plural TLVEC, which cannot look backwards 
and forwards at the same time, would seem to be doing precisely 
that. Bad Greek and bad rhetoric. 13 

13 In the paper referred to in n.2, I argued that there were only three 'classical' 
quotations in the New Testament (Aratus in Acts 17.28, Euripides or Menander in I Cor. 



ROBERT RENEHAN 351 

The question of philosophic content may now be considered. 
Attempts to pronounce the words peculiarly Platonic are fanciful 
and may be dismissed. It is a widely-held opinion that EV aimp yap 

~WJ1-EV Ked KLVOVJ1-EOa Kat ECJ1-EV is specifically Stoic. Norden, as we have 
seen (supra), was a strong advocate of this position. His arguments are 
not cogent. (I) A doxographic handbook, in an account of Chrysip­
pus' teaching about time, collocates KLvELCOat and Elvat. It has been 
documented above that such collocations are normal even in pre­
philosophical Greek. (2) The "well-known Stoic etymologies" of 
Zeus derive the word from ~fjv and DUx; in one passage of the De 
mundo the etymology is explained by the words DL' 8v ~WJ1-EV, "where 
the agreement with Acts extends even to the verb form." The 
derivations of Zeus from DUX (= LJla) and ~fjv (= Zfjva) are Stoic in 
the sense that the Stoics accepted them. They are neither original 
with that philosophical school nor peculiar to it. The etymology 
from DLa is probably alluded to already in Hesiod, Erga 2-3 and in 
IG 14.268 (Selinus, 5th cent. B.C.); both etymologies in PI. Grat. 
396B . .. DL' 8v ~ fjv aEt mxCL TaLC ~WCLV InrapXEL. Other passages could 
be cited. The parallelism in Dt' 8v ~WJ1-EV '" EV <p ~WJ1-EV fits a normal 
pattern and is nothing unique; the evidence has already been given. 
All this quite apart from the fact that there is not the slightest 
reference to a 'Zeus' etymology in Acts. What point would it have 
in a speech proclaiming to the Greeks the ayvwcToC OdJC? Haenchen 
described the words in Acts as a "received Stoic formulation"; he 
considered it improbable that Luke coined them because "he would 
himself have maintained no such immanence of man in God as the 
wording of the text asserts." The argument is fallacious; if Luke had 
strong theological objections to the thought, he would no more have 
borrowed the formulation than have composed it himself. 

Even though some of the evidence adduced is thus faulty, it would 
be foolish to deny the presence of Stoic coloration in the Areopagus 

15.33, 'Epimenides' in Ep. Tit. 1.12). I repeat briefly here an argument presented in 
detail on pp.42-45 of that paper. Certain church fathers, Greek and Latin, appeal to 
these quotations in order to justify the study of pagan Greek literature by Christians. 
"Three quotations," as I there wrote, "from all of the New Testament ... are not many. 
The probable inference is plain: If these Christian apologists for the classics had known 
of other quotations in the New Testament which would have bolstered their argument, 
they surely would have cited them. We must conclude that they knew of no others ... " 
(p.4S). This argument from silence still seems to me to have a certain force; it tells 
against the presence of a verbatim Stoic (or other) quotation here. 



352 ACTS 17.28 

speech. Clearly Luke had some familiarity with popular Greek 
culture and philosophy and uses it to very good effect. That he was 
steeped in Greek philosophy cannot be demonstrated. The most 
tangible piece of evidence is the citation from Aratus, and that 
unfortunately is ambiguous: (I) Aratus was a Stoic. (2) The quota­
tion comes not from a formal philosophical treatise, but from an 
extremely popular poem on astronomy. Luke did not therefore have 
to study philosophy to be familiar with the passage. Nevertheless the 
fact remains that he was able to produce an apt motto from a 
relevant Stoic context. 14 EV airTtfJ is often taken to be proof of formal 
Stoic pantheism; this is the point of Haenchen's reference to the 
'immanence of man in God' in this verse (supra). The prepositional 
phrase need not be so interpreted; even Plautus, vir comicus, can write 
"Iuppiter, qui genu' colis alisque hominum, per quem vivimu' vitalem aevom I 
QUEM PENES spes VITAE sunt hominum omnium eqs." (Pom. 
1187-88). Similarly here EV aVTtfJ could be interpreted to mean 'we 
are dependent upon God for our very existence', an unobjectionable 
statement for a Christian. Compare Dem. 18.193 EV yap TtfJ eEtfJ TO 
T01hov TEAoc 1jv; see further LS] s.v. EV 1.6. The closest parallel to 
EV aVTtfJ ~W/LEV may well be Christian, John 1.4 EV aVTtfJ ~w~ 1jv. But the 
educated Greek reader would more likely take the words in a Stoic 
(pantheistic) sense. This ambiguity, which results in a sentence ac­
ceptable to both Greek and Christian, is no coincidence. Luke knew 
exactly what he was about and coined a phrase perfectly suited to his 
purposes. It is much less probable that he found ready-made a Stoic 
quotation of such theological flexibility. If this analysis is correct, 
Luke knew something of Stoic pantheism; it need not have been a 
great deal. 

Consideration of Stoic accounts of pantheism leads to the same 
result. For the regular way of expressing this doctrine in Stoicism is 
to say that the deity pervades, is immanent in, all reality, not that 
man is immanent in God. Proclus in Plat. Tim. p.297 Schneider 
[ = SVF 2.308.3-4] 0 yap aVTOC eEOC •.• OL~KEL OLa TOU K6CJ.LOV Ka~ 

OLa TfjC vA7JC KTA. Alexander Aphr. De mixtione p.224 Bruns [= SVF 
2.112.29-31] ... /LE/L'ix(}aL Tfi vATJ AEyELV TOV (}EOV, OLa 7TI:XC7JC alhfjc 
OL~KOVTa KTA. Clemens Alex. Protr. p.S8 Potter [= SVF 1.42.18-20] 

14 For the aptness of the original context in Aratus, see M. Dibelius, Aufsiitze ZUT 

Apostelgeschichte3 (Gottingen 1957) 49-50. 



ROBERT RENEHAN 353 

, >, - ~ - ~" "\ , II - ~, TOVC a7TO TYJC .<:JToac .•• ota 7TacYJC VI\YJC ..• TO UHOV otYJKHV 

"'YOVTac. Diogenes Laertius 7.147 [=SVF 2.305.l7ff] Elvat OE TOV 
, ~ ,..... 1'/\ .... \" .,.... \ ~ ..... 

/LEV oYJ/LtoVpyov TWV OI\WV ••• KOtVWC TE Kat TO /LEpOC aVTOV TO otYJKOV 

8t<x 7TavTwv ••• L1la /LEV yap cpaet Ot' O! Ta 7TavTa KTA. Observe that 
8t' OV T<X 7TaVTa (compare Ot' OV ~WIJ.EV etc.) is explicitly linked with 

the all-pervasiveness of the deity. Scholars have been too quick to 
see €V aim:jJ as a specifically Stoic phrase and concept; it is not. 

There is one further, and tantalizing, clue. In the Hymn to Zeus 
of the Stoic Cleanthes a phrase occurs so similar to Aratus' TOU yap 

Kai y€VOC €c/L€V that many have believed that both passages are being 
quoted in Acts. That is not the case (supra), but it is not unreasonable 
to suppose that Luke could have known both passages. Here are 
verses 4--5 of Cleanthes' Hymn: 

..... ff Y' \1'1 ()"', .... /LOVVDt, oca ",WH TE Kat Ep7TH VYJT E7Tt yatav. 

In verse 5 ~cfJEt TE Kat Ep7TH is a collocation of verbs of the same 
formal type as in Acts; many examples have already been adduced. 
All three verbs of Acts have their counterparts in these two verses­
~W/LEVnWH, KtVovp.E()a!Ep7TH, €cp.€v. It is very tempting to see here 
the very Stoic material whence, in part at least, Luke fashioned his 
own original creation EV aVTCfJ yap 'W/LEV Ka~ KtVOV/LE()a Ka~ EC/LEV. 
This is undemonstrable; these lines remain a valuable final comment 
upon our passage. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA 

September, 1979 

15 For the most recent discussion of this still unsolved crux see G. Giangrande in 
AntCl42 (1973) 181-84.