✠ daily readings

jump to a date

readings are available from 2025-01-01 through 2026-12-31.

search

search by feast, season, or scripture reference.

type to search…

←
Wed · May 13, 2026 · Eastertide

Our Lady of Fatima

→
USCCB ↗

First Reading · Acts 17:15, 22—18:1

No verses found for this reference.
commentary

The Douay's too superstitious (v. 22) is a harder word to place than it looks. The Latin is superstitiosiores, and the Greek behind it, Haydock's footnote explains, is deisidaimonosterous, built from deido, "I fear," and daimon — a fear of divine powers. The same note adds, on the authority of Budæus, Plutarch and Suidas, that deisidaimonia "is sometimes taken in a good sense for religio, as also superstitio in Latin." Paul's opening word may therefore not be an insult at all. Witham reads it as tactics: before an audience of learned men Paul "does not so openly blame them for being vainly and foolishly superstitious," but takes notice instead of "how nice and exact they pretended to be" in omitting homage to no god whatever. The same precision returns at (v. 27), where feel after him renders si forte attrectent eum, ei arage pselapheseian, which Witham glosses palpare quasi in tenebris — to grope as though in the dark. Athens is not charged with having no religion. It is described as a room full of men with their hands out.

What the altar Ignoto Deo — agnosto theo — was for, Witham declines to settle: some interpreters take it as a catch-all for any god of any nation not yet come to their knowledge, some for "that great God hinted at in the writings of Plato," others for the God of the Jews, whose name the Jews themselves called ineffable, and Lucan's incerti Judæa Dei is quoted for that last. What Haydock does refuse is the comfortable inference that the Athenians therefore held the true God by implicit faith, and he gives three reasons: the worship of the true God can never exist alongside the worship of idols; explicit faith in God is required of all; and implicit faith cannot admit what contradicts it, as this altar does by ranging its unknown God among the pagan ones — "for God to be at all, must be one." Paul accordingly argues from descent rather than from good intentions, quoting Aratus, a Greek poet and, Haydock notes, his own countryman from Cilicia: if men are God's offspring, then offspring cannot have fathered the graving of art and device of man (v. 29). The same logic governs (v. 24). Haydock grants the premise and denies the usual conclusion — the infinite cannot be confined to space, so "temples are not for God, but for man," who is the one they assist; Challoner adds that God does dwell in the temple and in the soul of the just, only not shut up there as the idols were in theirs.

So (v. 30) is not an amnesty. Witham allows that despiciens, uperidon, might mean God looking down on an ignorant world and pitying it, but leans to the harder sense: he permitted the long ages of an ignorance that was all the while "wilful and inexcusable." The Athenian error survives best in its polite form: the reserved judgment that keeps a slot open for whatever may be out there and calls the keeping-open humility. Athens did not worship too little. It worshipped everything and committed to nothing, and an inscription with no name on it confesses exactly that. Paul closes the opening by naming a date and a man: a day appointed for judgment in equity, made credible, as Witham puts it, by God's raising one man from the dead. Most of the court laughed, and some said they would hear him another time. Dionysius, who by Estius's account had once watched the convulsions of nature at the cross and concluded only that the God of nature must be suffering, stayed to hear the end of the sentence.

· sources ·

The complete public-domain commentary this reading's note draws from, unabridged. Every claim in the note traces to a passage here.