| 18. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with a subject-plus-partitive-genitive construction: tines de kai tōn Epikoureion kai Stoikōn philosophōn syneballon autō {τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ | tinès dè kai tōn Epikoureíōn kai Stoïkôn philosophōn sunéballon autô}. The indefinites tines “some” frame a subset drawn “from among” the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, with the genitives indicating the philosophical schools as larger groups. The imperfect syneballon portrays ongoing or repeated engagement, best understood here as sustained discussion or debate, with autō in the dative marking Paul as the interlocutor.
A second group is introduced with another tines clause: kai tines elegon {καί τινες ἔλεγον | kaí tines élegon} “and some were saying,” which sets up the first direct quotation. Inside the quotation, the optative theloi with the particle an in Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein {Τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν | Tí àn théloi ho spermológos hoûtos légein} conveys potentiality and nuance—“what might this babbler wish to say,” suggesting contemptuous curiosity rather than a straightforward question. The pejorative noun spermologos, literally “seed-picker,” invokes the image of a bird picking up scraps, metaphorically describing someone who collects bits of ideas and speaks without depth.
A contrasting group is then introduced with hoi de {οἱ δέ | hoí dé} “but others,” followed by Xenōn daimoniōn dokei katangelēus einai {Ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι | Xénōn daimoníōn dokeî katangeléus eînai}. The genitive Xenōn daimoniōn functions as an objective genitive related to katangelēus, characterizing him as “a proclaimer of foreign divinities.” The verb dokei “seems” presents this as the group’s evaluative judgment rather than an established fact. The infinitive einai links dokei with the predicate nominative katangelēus, forming a “seems to be X” construction that captures accusation plus uncertainty. The placement of Xenōn “foreign” before daimoniōn “divinities” foregrounds the perceived strangeness of Paul’s message in the Athenian religious context.
Finally, the hoti clause explains the rationale for this misunderstanding: hoti ton Iesoun kai tēn anastasin euangelizeto {ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο | hóti ton Iesoun kai tḕn anástasin euēngelizeto}. The conjunction hoti introduces a causal statement, and the imperfect middle euangelizeto portrays Paul’s ongoing activity of proclaiming good news. The coordination of ton Iesoun and tēn anastasin as joint objects of euangelizeto succinctly summarizes his message as centered on the person of Jesus and the resurrection. In English, the discourse structure is preserved by keeping the three groups (“some… some… others…”) and by rendering the imperfects with progressive or iterative force (“were conversing,” “were saying,” “was proclaiming”) to reflect the sustained engagement in the Areopagus setting. |