Great post, Jonathan. I agree that Acts 17 is a strange place to go to show that Paul required a literal view of Adam and Eve. Instead, it seems to show Paul’s willingness to use whatever stories a culture values, as long as he can still end with preaching Christ.
If Paul can use Greek stories like that to Greeks, I wonder if he’s using Genesis as a text esteemed by Jews in places like Romans 5. That would explain why Paul only raises Adam in chapter 5, well after he’s made his central points. The Jewish story of Adam seems to function in Romans much like the Greek stories of Zeus he cites in the Acts 17 speech: they are more illustrative than foundational. Paul isn’t trying to prove that Adam (or Zeus!) is historical, but rather show how their stories point to Jesus.
As you later note, the text doesn’t say “from one blood” either, just “from one” (compare Rom. 5:15 where Paul does say “one man”). Given the phrasing “from one God made all nations,” the question seems to be, “One what?” But while “one man” and “one blood” require adding words not in the text, “one nation” would simply allow the end of the phrase to clarify the beginning.
@Christy Is the Greek more complex here, or is there a nuance that makes “one man” a more likely reading? In a one…all construction, is it reasonable to use the type of the all to define the type of the one (e.g. all nations at the end suggests one nation at the beginning)?