Writing in defence of the accuracy of the record in Acts 17 of Paul’s speech at the Areopagus, Jennifer Marie Creamer offered the following considerations against the thesis that the speech is an example of a speech invented, more or less, out of whole cloth, as some have argued:
A few considerations in favor of an accurate rendering of the Areopagus speech include the following:
1. Luke establishes his concern for accuracy in his writing in the prologue of his gospel. Concern for accuracy was expressed by historical writers of the Hellenistic period. The historian Polybius (second century B.C.), criticized a certain Timaeus for inventing speeches rather than recording the actual words:
The special province of history is, first to ascertain what the actual words used were; and secondly, to learn why it was that a particular policy or argument ailed or succeeded . . . The historian therefore who omits the words actually used, as well as all statements of the determining circumstances, and gives us instead conjectures and mere fancy compositions, destroys the special use of history. In this respect Timaeus is an eminent offender, for we all know that his books are full of such writing. (Histories 12.25)
Continuing his negative evaluation of the writing of Timaeus, Polybius asserts the necessity of carefully investigating a topic among reliable eyewitnesses as well as researching documents:
Study of documents involves no danger or fatigue, if one only takes care to lodge in a city rich in such records, or to have a library in one’s neighbourhood. You may then investigate any question while reclining on your couch, and compare the mistakes of former historians without any fatigue to yourself. But personal investigation demands great exertion and expense; though it is exceedingly advantageous, and in fact is the very corner-stone of history. (Histories 12.27).
Lucian (second century A.D.) also stressed accuracy in historical writing and the importance of eyewitness investigation. In his work, How to Write History, Lucian describes the careful historian: “As to the facts themselves, he should not assembly them at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, listen to those who tell the more impartial story” (VI. 47).
2. It is not impossible that a written form of the speech did, in fact, exist. Eckhard Schnabel details the procedure for an orator giving a declamation in the eastern Mediterranean world. An orator would usually be given one day in which to prepare a speech. The declamation would be written down and then memorized by the speaker: “In the early imperial period, such declamations were often copied and circulate in the city. There is evidence for this practice related to Athens” (2005:176).
3. There is abundant evidence for writing in the ancient world (Millard, 2001:17-229). Clerks used abbreviated forms of writing for recording council proceedings and debates in legal courts as far back as the Classical period. Evidence for shorthand in Greece exists from the second century B.C. onward (Millard, 2001:175-176). Furthermore, there is evidence that ancient philosophers took notes. Diogenes Laertius mentioned that Xenophon took notes on Socrates’s teachings (Lives II48). He also mentioned that the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes took notes on Zenos’s lectures (Lives VII.174). Flavius Arrian took copious notes on lectures by his teacher, Epictetus, also a Stoic philosopher (Oldfathr, 1998:xii). It is possible that someone in the Areopagus could have recorded the speech at the time it was delivered.
4. It is generally accepted that ancient letter writers kept copies of their letters. These copies may have been retained in parchment codex form (Richards, 1998:155-166). Paul, likely, also retained parchment copies of his letters. He places great value on his parchments when he requests Timothy to bring them to him in Rome: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13, NRSV). If Paul kept a notebook of his letters, it is possible that he could have also kept a copy of his speech in Athens.
5. Memorization was emphasized far more in the ancient world than it is now. In Memory and Manuscript, Gerhardsson details the rigorous demands of rote memorization of oral texts in the religious education of Jews (1998:93-112). Memorization of Torah passages was considered the most elementary stage of learning: “Knowing the basic text material in the oral Torah by heart is an elementary accomplishment, presupposed of every teacher and pupil at the more advanced stage” (1998:101). Rabbis would call on their teaching assistants, known as tannaim, to recite verbatim—from memory—any text needed for a class (1998:94). This emphasis on memorization found its counterpart in the Greek would with Homeric rhapsodists (1998:95). Paul’s speech may have been memorized. In addition, the Spirit could have assisted in memory recall (14:26).
6. Luke spent a considerable amount of time with Paul. Although he was not with him in Athens, he was with him on other occasions. Paul may have known about Luke’s writing projects and could have been consulted for feedback regarding accuracy.
If Luke, the companion of Paul, is the author of Acts, it is not impossible that he could have recorded words of the actual speech of Paul in Athens. In summary, both Polybius and Lucian outline standards of best practices for historians. The expectation was accurate written history that was based on sound research. According to Polybius, speeches should record the exact words spoken. Luke seems to be an historian of this order. It is possible that a written record of the speech may have existed and that Luke could have had access to it, as well as to the author, in person. It is likewise possible that Luke could have had a personal interview with someone who had been present for Paul’s speech in Athens and had memorized it accurately, such as Dionysius or Damaris (Acts 17:34). Finally, the Holy Spirit could have reminded Paul or an eyewitness of the words spoken at the Areopagus. (Jennifer Marie Creamer, God as Creator in Acts 17:24: An Historical-Exegetical Study [Africanus Monograph Series vol. 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2017], 12-15)
