And just two more significant observations as i move forward, then i’ve been far too verbose and i still owe some time to reading Kendal’s thoughts…
Firstly, just to touch on why i take Paul’s engagement in Athens as commendable and worthy of our emulation, as there seems to be significant diversity of thought here. Narratives can indeed be confusion as to whether they are presenting positive/commendable accounts, negative/warning/judgment accounts, simple history of what actually happened without significant commentary, or some mixture or something across the spectrum.
Judges, for instance, gives some horrific things that were done in Israel, especially in the last four chapters or so… but it is made abundantly clear that these are negative examples/warnings given the, “in those days israel had no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes” refrain.
And granted of course, Luke in Acys records various “errors” on the part of his main protagonists… apostles continued confusion about Jesus establishing the kingdom immediately, Peter’s inclination against being unclean, disputing with the Lord in his dream and thus “learning” that God would include the so-called unclean gentiles, Apollos less than complete messaging, and (obviously) Paul’s preconversion behavior. But all of these errors are generally and pretty obviously shown to be erroneous by the “correction” coming right there in the context. Otherwise, Luke is recording the activities of his protagonists in a very consistently positive light.
Moreover, if we’re suggesting that Paul’s approach in Athens was erroneous, because of the reaction of his hearers, well, there are plenty of other problems we’d have to visit… nearly every synagogue wherein many didn’t repent,… “Jews [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so…” So, Paul had more “success” with the Jews in Berea than in Thessolanica. Is this because Paul did something wrong in Thessalonica? maybe he learned a lesson and modified his approach to the Bereans? not to mention, if Berea had been such a success, why don’t we hear any more about the church established there, why is there no letter to them?
But that said, it seems to me that to pass any judgment of “error” on any of Paul’s, or Peter’s, or any other disciple’s ministry as recorded, while i wouldn’t rule it out automatically, still seems extremely problematic, i would be extremely cautious about embracing such an interpretation without very good cause. Do we similarly condemn Stephen’s speech, since it only resulted in enraging his hearers rather than (apparently) bringing about a single convert? the way Luke records this account it sure doesn’t seem so, his face like an angel, him being full of faith and the holy spirit, seeing God’s glory and Jesus standing at the conclusion of his speech, Jesus standing to welcome his servant, and the like. So given the way Luke is pretty exclusively portraying the ministry of his protagonists in such positive light, except when he rather explicitly observes faults on their part requiring pretty explicit correction, i just don’t see much reason to see Luke as having suggested Paul’s approach in Athens as being problematic… especially going into such great detail, extensive quoting of both Paul’s own speech and his pagan references, and affirming some prominent converts by name.
If Luke was trying to cast this in a negative light, i’m just not seeing it.
if he didn’t mean for that to be held up as a positive example. it sure seems to me he wanted to record much of the details of his speech here for posterity, like he did with his speeches to authorities, or stephens speech, or peter’s sermon on pentecost, rather than making a passing reference to an engagement that didn’t go very well.
Secondly, i’m not convinced that even in his letters to churches, that there aren’t elements of apologetic/intellectual lines of reasoning that engage or otherwise use elements of “evidence” or “human” reasoning, when there is some reason to fear that his hearers are not convinced of a basic doctrine… In discussing the resurrection, Paul outlines the historic case for why it is trustworthy, including naming various witnesses. he doesn’t limit himself to telling them or proclaiming the truth, he references historic evidence, and then presents a “counterfactual” observation that is at least somewhat related to modern arguments others have used from morality/justice/consequences (if there’s no resurrection, than eat, drink, be merry, etc.).
Again, these are passing observations that serve his larger gospel purpose, he isn’t making a formal, exclusive, rational/reasoned structured argument, the end purpose being intellectual assent. But i just don’t see a hard wall of separation between the two… Paul proffering apostolic/revelation based gospel as opposed to using reason/ historic evidence. but as noted earlier, i think it obvious which is serving the other, and which is the main purpose.
(it isn’t unlike Peter’s epistle, where he observes his own eyewitness confirmation of Christ as "evidence"that this is true and not a “cleverly invented tale”, but then appeals to the even higher authority of Scripture?)