^{page 94 note 1} Dibelius, M., ‘Paul on the Areopagus’ (1939), in idem, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Scribner's, 1956) 57.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 2} Danker, F. W., Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982) 28.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 3} Arist, . Rh. 1.3.3 (1357b 7–8).Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 4} Kennedy, G. F., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1963) 85.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 5} Arist, . Rh. 3.12.2 (1414a 35–36).Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 1} Arist, . Rh. 3.13.3 (1414b 8–9).Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} Arist, . Rh. 3.13.3 (1414a 37–1414b 1).Google Scholar Despite his impatience with the narratio, Aristotle does go on to treat this division.

^{page 95 note 3} Kennedy, , Art of Persuasion, 265.Google Scholar See also Solmsen, F., ‘The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric’, American Journal of Philology 62 (1941) 46–50, esp. p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 4} Cic. Part. Or. 8.27Google Scholar; and for the discussion see 8.28–15.52.

^{page 95 note 5} Quint, . Inst. 3.4.1.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 6} Quint, . Inst. 3.9.5.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 7} As I have argued in my ‘The Function of Natural Theology in the Areopagus Speech’ (unpublished dissertation; Chicago, 1984) 129–30, 203, 211–12.

^{page 96 note 1} Quint, . Inst. 3.8.15.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} Quint, . Inst. 3.8.29.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} Quint, . Inst. 4.1.76.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 4} Arist, . Rh. 3.14.12 (1415b 37–38).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} One could also argue for isolating the propositioas a separate part (cf. Arist, . Rh. 3.13.4 [1414b 8–9]Google Scholar). Our decision to include it as the conclusion of the exordium (cf. Quint, . Inst. 4.1.76Google Scholar) is based on the close connection between 'Αγνώστψ θεᾥ and ὃ ον άγνοοÛντες εύσεβεςτε.

^{page 98 note 1} Dibelius, , ‘Paul on the Areopagus’, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} Rh. Al. 1423a 22–26.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 3} Rh. Al. 1423a 30–33.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 4} Cf. the speeches of Demosthenes and Thucydides. On the earlier history of deliberative oratory, see Kennedy, , Art of Persuasion, 203–6.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 5} Quint, . Inst. 3.8.15, 29.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 6} Dem. Exordia 54.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 1} Betz, H. D., ed., Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 201 and n. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} See our analysis above.

^{page 99 note 3} Dio Chrys. Or. 12.48.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} So titled in the LCL edition. Quintilian expresses the view that the two types of oratory, deliberative and epidecitic, are closely related: ‘… panegyric is akin to deliberative oratory inasmuch as the same things are usually praised in the former as are advised in the latter’ (Inst. 3.7.28).

^{page 100 note 1} In the Olympic Discourse we find: exordium (1–24), propositio (25–26), probatio (27–83), and peroratio (84–85).

^{page 100 note 2} See chapter 7 of my ‘Natural Theology’ (pp. 220–69).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} Found in many speeches, e.g. (randomly chosen), Arist, . Pan. Or. 1Google Scholar ‘ώ ἃνδρες ‘Αθηναοι’.

^{page 101 note 2} Cf. Conzelmann, H., ‘The Address of Paul on the Areopagus’, in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., eds., Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 219.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 3} Rh.Al. 1436a.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 4} Arist, . Rh. 3.15.1 (1416a).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 5} Xen. Mem. 1.1.1, ‘Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities [ἒτερα δἑ καινὰ δαιμóνια είσφέρων] …’.

^{page 102 note 1} Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd English ed.; trans., ed. and aug. by Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, F. W. and Danker, F. W.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979) 173.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} Plutarch contrasts ‘atheism’, by which he means the Epicurean doctrine, with δεισιδαιμονία; see Plut. Mor. [De superst.] 164E–171F, esp. 165B. Plutarch's characterization of δεισιδαιμονία, argues Festugière, A. J. (Epicurus and His Gods [Oxford: Blackwell, 1955] 54)Google Scholar, probably draws on Epicurean stock themes.

^{page 102 note 3} Athenians are not solely δεισιδαιμονέστεροι in a laudable sense, for their city has already been characterized negatively as κατείδωλος (v. 16).

^{page 102 note 4} Dio Chrys., Or. 12.16–22.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 5} On Athenian sanctuaries generally, see Paus. 1.1.17–19. On altars set up in honour of unknown gods, see Philostr. VA 6.3, Paus. 1.1.4, Diog. Laert. 1.110. Also of interest is the inscription found at Pergamum by H. Hepding in 1909; see Deissmann, A, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (2nd rev. ed.; New York: Doran [trans. 1926]) 287–91.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 6} Dibelius, M., ‘Paul in Athens’, in Studies, 81.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 1} Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 521.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 2} Conzelmann, , ‘Address of Paul’, 218.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 3} Cf. Dibelius, M., ‘The Speeeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography’ (1949), in Studies, 165Google Scholar: ‘This is how the Gospel is preached and ought to be preached!’