Acts 17:18 · Bible study
Acts 17:18 Commentary: Paul and the Philosophers at Athens
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why Epicurean and Stoic philosophers called Paul a 'babbler' and accused him of foreign gods, and what this reveals about the gospel's challenge to
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul's gospel of Jesus and the resurrection clashed directly with Epicurean materialism and Stoic pantheism, leading to mockery and misunderstanding.
- Key words: σπερμολόγος (babbler, seed-picker), καταγγελεύς (proclaimer), ξένα δαιμόνια (foreign deities), εὐηγγελίζετο (he was proclaiming good news, imperfect, ongoing action).
- Main debate: Whether Paul was taken to the Areopagus for a formal trial or an informal inquiry; the verse itself only records the philosophers' initial reaction.
- Theological theme: The gospel is inherently confrontational to human wisdom, yet the confrontation opens doors for proclamation.
- Best use: A case study in cross-cultural evangelism, showing how to engage worldviews without compromise.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others said, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was proclaiming the good news of Jesus and the resurrection.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also were conversing with him. Some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be advocating foreign deities,” because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
KJV King James Version 1769
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, What would this babbler say? others, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And certain of the Epicurean and of the Stoic philosophers, were meeting together to see him, and some were saying, `What would this seed picker wish to say?' and others, `Of strange demons he doth seem to be an announcer;' because Jesus and the rising again he did proclaim to them as good news,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers attacked him. And some said, What would this chatterer say? and some, He seems to be an announcer of foreign demons, because he announced the glad tidings of Jesus and the resurrection [to them].
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics disputed with him. And some said: What is it that this word sower would say? But others: He seemeth to be a setter forth of new gods. Because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y algunos filósofos de los Epicúreos y de los Estóicos, disputaban con él; y unos decían: ¿ Qué quiere decir este palabrero? Y otros: Parece que es predicador de nuevos dioses: porque les predicaba á Jesús y la resurrección.
E alguns dos filósofos epicureus e estoicos discutiam com ele; e uns diziam: O que quer dizer este tagarela?E outros: Parece que ele é pregador de deuses estranhos. Porque ele lhes anunciava o Evangelho de Jesus e a ressurreição.
Quelques philosophes épicuriens et stoïciens se mirent à parler avec lui. Et les uns disaient: Que veut dire ce discoureur? D’ autres, l’ entendant annoncer Jésus et la résurrection, disaient: Il semble qu’ il annonce des divinités étrangères.
Etliche aber der Epikurer und Stoiker Philosophen stritten mit ihm. Und etliche sprachen: Was will dieser Lotterbube sagen? Etliche aber: Es sieht, als wolle er neue Götter verkündigen. (Das machte, er hatte das Evangelium von Jesu und von der Auferstehung ihnen verkündigt.)
En sommigen van de Epikureische en Stoische wijsgeren streden met hem; en sommigen zeiden: Wat wil toch deze klapper zeggen? Maar anderen zeiden: Hij schijnt een verkondiger te zijn van vreemde goden; omdat hij hun Jezus en de opstanding verkondigde.
E anche certi filosofi epicurei e stoici conferivan con lui. E alcuni dicevano: Che vuol dire questo cianciatore? E altri: Egli pare essere un predicatore di divinità straniere; perché annunziava Gesù e la risurrezione.
Tedy niektórzy z Epikurejczyków i Stoików filozofowie spierali się z nim, a niektórzy mówili: Cóż wżdy ten plotkarz mówić chce? A drudzy: Zdaje się być opowiadaczem obcych bogów; bo im Jezusa i zmartwychwstanie opowiadał.
Некоторые из эпикурейских и стоических философов стали спорить с ним; и одни говорили: "что хочет сказать этот суеслов?", а другие: "кажется, он проповедует о чужих божествах", потому что он благовествовал им Иисуса и воскресение.
還有 伊壁鳩魯 和 斯多亞 兩門的學士，與他 爭論。 有的 說：「這 胡言亂語的 要 說 甚麼？」有的說：「他似乎 是 傳說 外邦 鬼神的。」這話是因 保羅傳講 耶穌 與 復活的道。
And some of those who were supporters of the theories of the Epicureans and the Stoics, had a meeting with him. And some said, What is this talker of foolish words saying? And others, He seems to be a preacher of strange gods: because he was preaching of Jesus and his coming back from the dead.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · Acts 17:18
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Acts 17:18 describes the first direct clash between Paul and the leading philosophies of the Greco-Roman world. The two sects named, Epicureans and Stoics, represented the most prominent intellectual currents of the day, and both were fundamentally incompatible with the gospel. Vincent's Word Studies notes that Epicureans were materialists who denied providence and the soul's immortality; Stoics were pantheistic fatalists who subjected even God to necessity. Calvin observes that Luke 'maketh mention of two sects, which, though they were diametrically opposed, had their contrary vices.'
The term σπερμολόγος (spermologos), literally 'seed-picker', a bird that scavenges scraps in the marketplace (so Vincent, citing Shakespeare for the parallel), was a contemptuous dismissal: Paul was a 'babbler' with nothing original to offer. The second charge, that he proclaimed 'foreign gods,' arose because the philosophers heard 'Jesus and the resurrection' (τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν) and assumed these were two new deities. Barnes and Wesley both point out that a Greek audience, surrounded by altars to personified concepts (Fame, Shame, etc.), could easily mistake the resurrection for a goddess named Anastasis. Gill adds that the reaction shows the complete foreignness of Christian proclamation to the Athenian mind: a crucified Jew raised from the dead fit no category in their philosophical system.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Dismissive misunderstanding: The philosophers genuinely could not grasp the gospel; 'babbler' and 'foreign gods' reflect their cultural and conceptual distance from Jewish and Christian categories.
- Hostile mockery mixed with curiosity: The same crowd that insults Paul takes him to the Areopagus (v. 19) – suggests the mockery was not the final word; Athenian love of novelty (v. 21) kept them listening.
What is clear: The philosophers rejected Paul's message as both trivial (babbling) and dangerous (foreign gods), and this rejection arose from the deep incompatibility between their worldviews and the proclamation of a crucified and risen Messiah.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Epicurean and Stoic worldviews | Both schools sought happiness through reason and self-discipline, but their core dogmas (chance/atomism vs. fate/pantheism) were incompatible with a Creator God who acts in history and raises the dead. | Some commentators emphasize the Epicurean denial of providence as Paul's main target, while others highlight Stoic fatalism; both are addressed in Paul's Areopagus speech. |
| Meaning of σπερμολόγος | The word literally means 'seed-picker' and was used as an insult for someone who collects and retails scraps of knowledge. | Whether it carries overtones of a bird (crow) scavenging (so Vincent and most commentators) or simply means 'chatterer' (Darby 'chatterer'), a minor semantic difference. |
| Accusation of foreign gods | The philosophers understood Paul to be presenting two new deities: Jesus and a goddess 'Resurrection.' | Wesley suggests the Athenians counted the resurrection a deity as they did Shame and Famine; others see it as a simple misunderstanding of Paul's grammar ('Jesus and the resurrection' as a single complex proclamation). |
| Paul's response to the mockery | Paul did not withdraw but continued engaging, adapting his message to the audience (Acts 17:22, 31). | Whether his approach was a model for all contexts or uniquely suited to Athenian intellectual culture, earlier in Acts he uses more direct apocalyptic language. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Athens in the first century AD was the intellectual capital of the Roman world, its reputation for learning and philosophy reaching back centuries. The city's identity was bound up with its schools: the Academy (Plato), the Lyceum (Aristotle), the Garden (Epicurus), and the Stoa (Zeno). By Paul's time, the Epicurean and Stoic schools were the most visible in public life, each offering a comprehensive account of reality and how to live.
The Epicureans, following Epicurus (341, 270 BC), taught that the universe consisted of atoms and void, that the gods existed but took no interest in human affairs, and that the goal of life was pleasure, understood by the founder as tranquility rather than indulgence, though many followers, as Barnes notes, had degenerated into 'gross sensualism.' They denied any afterlife, making the resurrection a nonsense.
The Stoics, founded by Zeno of Citium (c. 334, 262 BC), held that the universe was a rational, material whole permeated by the divine Logos, with all events determined by fate. Happiness consisted in aligning one's will with this cosmic reason. They viewed the soul as material and, at death, eventually absorbed into the world-soul, some allowed survival only until the final conflagration. The idea of a personal bodily resurrection was utterly alien.
Literarily, this verse sets the stage for Paul's Areopagus speech (vv. 22, 31), where he directly addresses these worldviews. Luke also comments (v. 21) that Athenians and visiting foreigners 'spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing', a cultural trait that explains both their initial curiosity and their dismissiveness. The verb συνέβαλλον (suneballon) is imperfect: they 'were encountering' Paul in an ongoing, perhaps combative, exchange. His message of Jesus and the resurrection was so novel it could only be heard as either worthless chatter or a threat to the religious order.
Textual Notes
The supplied commentaries and lexical data note no significant textual variants for Acts 17:18. The Greek text is stable across the major manuscript traditions. The only variation among translations is the rendering of σπερμολόγος (usually 'babbler' or 'chatterer') and ξένα δαιμόνια ('foreign deities' / 'strange gods'), which reflects interpretive choices rather than textual differences.
Reception History
This verse has been read across church history as a paradigm of the gospel's encounter with pagan philosophy. Early apologists like Justin Martyr and Tertullian saw in the philosophers' mockery a confirmation that Christian faith was not a human invention but a divine revelation that exceeded human wisdom. Augustine, in Book 7 of the Confessions, describes his own disappointment with the Platonists, echoing the sense that while philosophy could glimpse truth, it could not bring the humility of the Word made flesh.
During the Reformation, Calvin used this passage to encourage ministers who face contempt: 'he was enforced to enter such a conflict contrary to his purpose…that by their gainsaying the truth may more plainly appear' (Calvin's Commentaries). The story also featured in nineteenth-century mission literature, illustrating how the gospel must address the core assumptions of any culture. Eastern Orthodox interpreters have often highlighted the irony: the Athenians, who prided themselves on wisdom, mistook the very Lord of glory for a 'babbler.' However the verse is used, the constant thread is the conviction that the resurrection of Jesus is the non-negotiable center that challenges every human system.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The philosopher's contempt: The term 'babbler' (σπερμολόγος) reveals how worldly wisdom dismisses the gospel as secondhand, trivial, or unoriginal. The Athenians thought they had heard it all before.
- The mistaken accusation: 'Foreign gods' was a serious charge in Athens, where introducing unauthorized deities was a crime. Paul's message of a resurrected Jew sounded like polytheism to people who personified everything.
- The gospel that refuses to stay silent: Despite mockery, Paul did not retreat. The imperfect εὐηγγελίζετο ('he was proclaiming good news') shows persistence. This encounter leads directly to his famous Areopagus address.
Five-point outline
- Context of encounter: Paul in the marketplace, provoked by idolatry (Acts 17:16, 17), engaging daily with whoever met him.
- The philosophical opponents: Epicureans (denied providence, afterlife) and Stoics (pantheists, fatalists), two worldviews that together framed the intellectual climate of Athens.
- The insult: 'Babbler', not just rudeness but a category judgment: Paul's teaching was beneath serious consideration.
- The theological misunderstanding: 'Jesus and the resurrection' heard as two new gods. This shows how far Greek polytheism was from biblical categories.
- The bridge to the Areopagus: Their mockery turns to curiosity (v. 19), giving Paul an open door to address the council.
Illustration hooks
- The dismissive phrase: Someone says, 'That's just a meme' or 'He's just recycling old ideas.' The 'babbler' charge today appears when the gospel is called derivative or unsophisticated.
- The personification trap: Even in a secular age, people often hear 'Jesus and the resurrection' as two separate things, a teacher and a nice concept, missing the core claim that the resurrection is the vindication of Jesus himself.
- The marketplace of ideas: Picture a modern university quad where various speakers hold forth. Paul's voice is one among many. How does the gospel sound when heard as one more option among philosophies?
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is it wrong to feel angry or hurt when people mock what I believe? How did Paul handle it?
- How can we tell when someone is genuinely curious about the gospel versus just wanting to debate?
- What do we do when Christians are accused of 'inventing' God or 'importing foreign' beliefs?
Leading a Discussion
This verse shows the gospel entering a sophisticated, pluralistic environment for the first time. The philosophers' reactions, mockery and misunderstanding, are not unique to Athens. Small groups can explore how the same dynamics play out today when faith meets culture.
Discussion questions
- Read Acts 17:16, 18. What provokes Paul to speak in the marketplace? How does his emotional response (v. 16) shape his engagement?
- The Epicureans and Stoics represented the two main worldviews of their day. In your own words, what did each group believe? How do those beliefs conflict with the gospel?
- The word 'babbler' (σπερμολόγος) literally means 'seed-picker.' Why is this insult so cutting? Have you ever felt your faith was written off as shallow or borrowed?
- The philosophers thought Paul was advocating 'foreign gods' (δαιμονίων ξένων). Why did they misunderstand him? What does this tell us about the cultural gap between Greek polytheism and Christian monotheism?
- Why did Paul's preaching of 'Jesus and the resurrection' cause confusion? How might we explain the resurrection in a way that avoids sounding like we are adding a deity to a pantheon?
- Notice that Paul did not stop when he was mocked (v. 19 leads to the Areopagus). When should we persist in sharing our faith, and when should we move on (cf. Matthew 10:14)?
- How does this encounter prepare us for our own conversations with people who hold different worldviews? What can we learn from Paul's approach?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Proverbs 23:9 | Don’t speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words. |
| Proverbs 26:12 | Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. |
| Mark 9:14 | Coming to the disciples, he saw a great multitude around them, and scribes questioning them. |
| Luke 11:53 | As he said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be terribly angry, and to draw many things out of him, |
| Acts 4:2 | being upset because they taught the people and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. |
| Acts 6:9 | But some of those who were of the synagogue called “The Libertines”, and of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia arose, disputing with Stephen. |
| Acts 17:31 | because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to all men, in that he has raised him from the dead.” |
| Acts 17:32 | Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, “We want to hear you again concerning this.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke highlights that Paul's address directly targets the specific errors of the Epicureans and Stoics who disputed with him. The Epicureans denied divine oversight, the soul's immortality, and the resurrection, while the Stoics believed in fate but rejected receiving good from God and also denied the resurrection. Other philosophical schools like the Academics and Peripatetics held purer views and did not oppose the apostles.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes emphasizes that the Athenian philosophers dismissed Paul as a mere "babbler," a Greek term for a seed-picker or gossip who retailed scraps of knowledge. He further explains that when Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection, the Epicureans and Stoics assumed these were two foreign deities, a natural mistake for minds shaped by polytheism.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin observes that Paul did not seek out the philosophers but was forced into debate by their stubborn attacks. This shows that godly teachers must be ready to defend the truth when challenged, yet avoid ambition and vain quarrels, speaking sound doctrine with modesty.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Note highlights how the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers dismissed Paul as a babbler and assumed he was promoting two new gods, because they misunderstood the resurrection as a separate deity alongside Jesus. This reaction reveals the world's wisdom mistaking the gospel's central message for pagan novelty.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill notes that the term "babbler" translates a Greek word meaning "seed-picker," a contemptuous label for an idle person who gathers scraps. He explains the Athenians mistook Paul's preaching of Jesus and the resurrection as introducing two new, strange deities.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies the Epicureans and Stoics as representing the two enduring enemies of the Gospel: pleasure and pride. Both systems, though philosophically opposed, are equally hostile to the Christian message. He also notes that the term "babbler" was a general slur for any pretended teacher, and the "strange gods" referred to Jehovah and the risen Jesus.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange emphasizes that Paul responded to Athens' renowned art with moral indignation, not aesthetic admiration, because those masterpieces served idolatry. This first encounter between Christianity and classical art ended in rejection. Paul then used their own altar inscription and poets to proclaim the unknown God, showing their worship was sincere but ignorant.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry highlights that Paul, though a trained scholar surrounded by Athens' celebrated philosophers, shows no interest in debating their ideas for its own sake. Paul's spirit is stirred not by intellectual curiosity but by the city's rampant idolatry, driving him to confront it directly. Henry sees this as Paul counting human philosophy as vain, focused instead on turning people to the true God.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent explains that "babbler" literally means "seed-picker," a bird that picks up scraps in the market, so the Athenians dismiss Paul as someone who collects and retails bits of borrowed ideas. He also provides the philosophical background: Epicureans denied divine providence and sought pleasure, while Stoics were pantheists governed by fate, with varying views on the soul's immortality.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley highlights the Athenians’ foolish mistake in thinking Jesus and the resurrection were a god and goddess. He finds this unsurprising, since they also deified abstract ideas like shame and famine. For Wesley, this underscores how confident human philosophy resists the gospel—Paul had little success at Athens.