I do enjoy your style of writing as it seems as if you are just talking to a friend that is also trying to stay grounded in the gospel and stay the course. Thanks for sharing your journey.
Why thank you! I think you may have seen my testimony where I detailed some of my problems with "religious" people, owing in part to being trans. Twice, I turned away, and you could say I "turned to a life of science" (as opposed to "crime"), and of scientism mingled with deism, over the span of half a lifetime. Now, I like to use ordinary language for writing about the gospel, because that was done in Jesus' time. I use religious language when I am with people that understand it well, because it simplifies conversation, but it can also be such a turn-off to others for one reason or another. Also, there are those that "speak" it but do not understand it.
There is, as I understand it, a kind of "prayer language" used in certain passages in the NT -- I see it in Matthew's "Lord's [Disciple's] Prayer" and in Luke's as well -- but for the most part the NT employs ordinary Koinē (common) Greek of the day. The special prayer form uses the aorist active or passive imperative verb tense, and it had me scratching my head until I learned why.
Interestingly, Paul sometimes switches to Greek pagan religious language, at least briefly, and I have been encountering that in Romans 1. I've wondered, then, what kind of language Paul used before the Areopagus in Athens, and I took a peek at it just now. In my quick look I don't see the same pattern of aorist imperative (there is the optative, semi-explained below), and I don't know if he switches to pagan usage the way he does in Romans 1, but wow, his rhetoric is something else, extremely fine-tuned according to the expected understanding of his listeners! None of this is apparent from reading any of the common translations.
At the risk of abusing fair use, here is most of the discussion of Acts 17:27 from my Acts Greek-level commentary (Eckhard J. Schnabel, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, Zondervan, 2012, pp. 735-6) It begins with an English translation and the Greek text of the verse:
17:27 So that they would seek God and perhaps feel around for him and find him, even though he is not far from any one of us (ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν, εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα). Paul continues his argument that he does not proclaim a foreign god, a deity that would need to be formally introduced to the Athenians, because he is already “here.”
Third, Paul asserts that the human race was created by God so that people are in fellowship with him. Beyond the (physical and) historical existence of the human race, God created human beings so that they would “seek” (ζητεῖν) him, i.e., that they would try to find him. The use of this verb here implies that human beings do not know God and do not know how or where to find God, but it also implies that they desire to find him and have a relationship with him. The introduction of the speech (vv. 22–23) reflects Paul’s acknowledgment that the Athenians, including the educated members of the Areopagus Council, are searching for God.
The verb translated as “find” (εὕροιεν) indicates “confidence in the possibility of successful seeking.” The conditional clause it is in, however, signals uncertainty concerning the outcome of humankind’s search for God. (1) The verb translated “feel around” (ψηλαφήσειαν), which denotes “to look for something in uncertain fashion,” is sometimes used for the groping around of a blind man who has difficulties finding the object that he seeks to touch or hold. (2) The optative of the verbs “feel around” (ψηλαφήσειαν) and “find” (εὕροιεν), combined with the conditional conjunction (εἰ), strengthened with a marker (here) of indirect questions (ἄρα) — translated “and perhaps” — implies an element of questioning and expectation that may or may not be answered.
Paul adds a participial clause that is either concessive or intensive in which he states that God is “not far” from any human being. The present active participle (ὑπάρχοντα) expresses the continued presence of God in his creation, indeed among the human race. This statement establishes a further point of contact with members of the Areopagus Council versed in Stoic philosophy, which asserted the presence of the divine in the world. Seneca formulated that “god is near you, with you, in you.” At the same time, Jewish listeners would have recognized the implied conviction that even though the pagans search for God, they have not found him, and even though God is “near” to them, they have not encountered him — they do not hear his voice, he does not save them. This is the implication of Moses’ rhetorical question in Deut 4:7 (“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”), and of the statement in Ps 145:18–20: ... [omitted]
Got all that? He spoke very precisely, but understood the beliefs of his varied listeners, taking them into account in choosing his words. I'm nowhere near that level, but I try to apply similar principles where I can, attempting to keep the language simple and direct.
I long for people to see what the scriptures say about _why_ these things we see happening today are coming about. It is not mystery or paradox. It can be understood. And it is so important for understanding what it is that we can do that will actually work and support permanent change (although we still have a wait until that happens).
I do enjoy your style of writing as it seems as if you are just talking to a friend that is also trying to stay grounded in the gospel and stay the course. Thanks for sharing your journey.
Why thank you! I think you may have seen my testimony where I detailed some of my problems with "religious" people, owing in part to being trans. Twice, I turned away, and you could say I "turned to a life of science" (as opposed to "crime"), and of scientism mingled with deism, over the span of half a lifetime. Now, I like to use ordinary language for writing about the gospel, because that was done in Jesus' time. I use religious language when I am with people that understand it well, because it simplifies conversation, but it can also be such a turn-off to others for one reason or another. Also, there are those that "speak" it but do not understand it.
There is, as I understand it, a kind of "prayer language" used in certain passages in the NT -- I see it in Matthew's "Lord's [Disciple's] Prayer" and in Luke's as well -- but for the most part the NT employs ordinary Koinē (common) Greek of the day. The special prayer form uses the aorist active or passive imperative verb tense, and it had me scratching my head until I learned why.
Interestingly, Paul sometimes switches to Greek pagan religious language, at least briefly, and I have been encountering that in Romans 1. I've wondered, then, what kind of language Paul used before the Areopagus in Athens, and I took a peek at it just now. In my quick look I don't see the same pattern of aorist imperative (there is the optative, semi-explained below), and I don't know if he switches to pagan usage the way he does in Romans 1, but wow, his rhetoric is something else, extremely fine-tuned according to the expected understanding of his listeners! None of this is apparent from reading any of the common translations.
At the risk of abusing fair use, here is most of the discussion of Acts 17:27 from my Acts Greek-level commentary (Eckhard J. Schnabel, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Acts, Zondervan, 2012, pp. 735-6) It begins with an English translation and the Greek text of the verse:
17:27 So that they would seek God and perhaps feel around for him and find him, even though he is not far from any one of us (ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν, εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα). Paul continues his argument that he does not proclaim a foreign god, a deity that would need to be formally introduced to the Athenians, because he is already “here.”
Third, Paul asserts that the human race was created by God so that people are in fellowship with him. Beyond the (physical and) historical existence of the human race, God created human beings so that they would “seek” (ζητεῖν) him, i.e., that they would try to find him. The use of this verb here implies that human beings do not know God and do not know how or where to find God, but it also implies that they desire to find him and have a relationship with him. The introduction of the speech (vv. 22–23) reflects Paul’s acknowledgment that the Athenians, including the educated members of the Areopagus Council, are searching for God.
The verb translated as “find” (εὕροιεν) indicates “confidence in the possibility of successful seeking.” The conditional clause it is in, however, signals uncertainty concerning the outcome of humankind’s search for God. (1) The verb translated “feel around” (ψηλαφήσειαν), which denotes “to look for something in uncertain fashion,” is sometimes used for the groping around of a blind man who has difficulties finding the object that he seeks to touch or hold. (2) The optative of the verbs “feel around” (ψηλαφήσειαν) and “find” (εὕροιεν), combined with the conditional conjunction (εἰ), strengthened with a marker (here) of indirect questions (ἄρα) — translated “and perhaps” — implies an element of questioning and expectation that may or may not be answered.
Paul adds a participial clause that is either concessive or intensive in which he states that God is “not far” from any human being. The present active participle (ὑπάρχοντα) expresses the continued presence of God in his creation, indeed among the human race. This statement establishes a further point of contact with members of the Areopagus Council versed in Stoic philosophy, which asserted the presence of the divine in the world. Seneca formulated that “god is near you, with you, in you.” At the same time, Jewish listeners would have recognized the implied conviction that even though the pagans search for God, they have not found him, and even though God is “near” to them, they have not encountered him — they do not hear his voice, he does not save them. This is the implication of Moses’ rhetorical question in Deut 4:7 (“What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?”), and of the statement in Ps 145:18–20: ... [omitted]
Got all that? He spoke very precisely, but understood the beliefs of his varied listeners, taking them into account in choosing his words. I'm nowhere near that level, but I try to apply similar principles where I can, attempting to keep the language simple and direct.
I long for people to see what the scriptures say about _why_ these things we see happening today are coming about. It is not mystery or paradox. It can be understood. And it is so important for understanding what it is that we can do that will actually work and support permanent change (although we still have a wait until that happens).