Acts 17:18

‘And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others, “He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods”, because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.’

We can see then why these philosophers had a sceptical attitude towards what Paul was teaching. The word rendered ‘babbler’ was applied to ‘seed-picking birds’, and then to people who picked up random and second hand ideas without any consistency of thought or real understanding. In their conceit the idea of these philosophers was that others like Paul, were like birds who went around picking up a seed here and there at random, without having a consistent system and logic. They were smug in their own understanding.

Others were amused because he seemed to set forth ‘strange gods’, because he spoke of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Anastasis’ (‘Resurrection’). There were in Athens many altars, not only dedicated to gods, but to ideas, to philosophy and beneficence, to rumour and shame. Thus the personalising of the term ‘Resurrection’ would tie in with these ideas, and some may have seen that idea as being presented here. But this appears rather to be an after-comment by Luke, which militates against this interpretation. Luke’s point is rather that they were reacting to Jesus Himself, as presented, and then especially to the idea of resurrection (compare Acts 17:32). The charge of bringing ‘strange gods’ had also been made against Socrates. It may simply be a way of expressing disapproval of what they did not understand. As his ideas did not tie in with theirs, he must clearly be introducing ‘strange gods’. Neither Epicureans nor Stoics thought of any such gods as relevant to life.

In contrast this especially brings out what Paul’s emphases were. His first emphasis was Jesus. He ‘preached Jesus’ (compare Acts 8:35). This would have included all the different emphases as described previously including his life and death. His second emphasis was on the resurrection. And he kept stressing both. Thus he proclaimed the full central message that he always preached. Indeed he could not have proclaimed the resurrection without the cross. Thus we do him wrong if we suggest that here he did not preach the cross.