Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:According to the context, which I believe does include the philosophical background of such a statement, the phrase itself simply is talking about everything we do, and that all these things are in dependence upon God. Whether we live or move or simply "be" in the first place, it is by God that we really can do all these. That is the point of that portion; to underscore that whatever we do, it depends on God to allow it. I don't quite care whether the linguistic term for it is "the instrumental dative", because it does not really tell the whole picture. In the examples I gave the datives cannot all be understood as instruments. Instrumental indeed, not instruments.
If we're going to argue context, I'm perfectly happy with the common locative (sphere of influence) understanding of ἐν in Acts 17:28. Look at, for example, the immediately preceding clause καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα ("though he is not far from each us"). Verse 26, about the locations of where people live, is also locative.
Actually that to me is also not dealing with literal location. Now I hope this discussion is okay because it might step a little beyond the immediate context but I think it is necessary if we want to tackle this question:

Acts 17:24-26 say clearly that God made all things and gave to all things and set bounds upon all things. Therefore God is evident in all things, thus Acts 17:27 implies that God is not hidden far away. This is very similar to Rom 1:19-20, 10:6-8 and Deut 30:11-14.

In any case I don't have a problem with your interpretation being possible also. It is just that I probably tend in the opposite direction to that of Robertson that you said, partly because it is quite a stretch to get "sphere of influence" to cover those examples I gave, to me at least.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by Stephen Carlson »

David Lim wrote:Actually that to me is also not dealing with literal location.
Yeah, that's basically the point of the sphere of influence interpretation.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
klitwak
Posts: 30
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 2:03 am
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by klitwak »

Stephen,

First, with regard to the philosophical issue, the Stoics were pantheists. That means that for them, everything is God (or could, I suppose be said to be located inside God because there is nothing outside of the Stoic god. So if Luke/Paul is saying that everything exists within the boundaries of the entity divine Logos, in order to get the Stoics to look favorably on the message, I can understand that. Since however, this is absolutely not going to be something a trained Jewish rabbi would ever entertain, location is completely implausible based on the historical context. Second, I would regard "sphere of influence" as a artificial category that cannot even be demonstrated to exist with certainty. I haven't seen any examples in this thread that would be best understood that way.. Third, as I recently heard N. T. Wright observe, Paul is often compressed/compact in what he says. There is no reason that a NT author has to spell out every last detail if he (or she perhaps for Hebrews) thinks it will be fairly obvious. So I can see Matt 12:24 meaning "by the power of Beelzebul" but I have no idea what it would mean to do something in the location of or in association with Beelzebul. As much as I respect Robertson and am aware he knew Greek better than I ever will, I'm not going to force every single instance of EN to be locative. That is not, in my understanding, how language, Greek or otherwise, works.

As for what English translations do, they often use "in" for translating a dative when I think it is obvious something besides location or association with is meant. So Gal 5:16: LEGW DE, PNEUMATI PERIPATEITE, what would it mean to walk in the location of the Spirit or in association with the Spirit? Does that look like fog, snow, what? There is no evidence here that we should understand this as the Spirit's sphere of influence. That is eisegesis in my opinion. If, however, one looks at the text and see that one can walk by the sinful actions prompted by the flesh (this is exactly what Paul argues for in Romans 7--"I' was led to sin by sin's use of the weak, frail flesh (as Dunn puts it) in light of the Law. So to here, if "we walk by means of the Spirit's aid, we will not fulfill the lusts that come from the flesh." From an English point of view, what could it mean to "walk in the Spirit"? That, to me, is simply incomprehensible, like sentences I see in papers by students for whom English is not their first language.

Now going back to Acts, 17, the language here, like Galatians 5, leaves out the obvious. Humans live, breathe, and exist because God caused that to happen in the first place and he is still active in enabling humans to exist. So humans live, breathe, and exist by the power/sustaining/enablement of God. Just because English translations cop out and offer a translation that would only make sense if Luke/Paul is trying to sound like a Stoic. Sphere of influence? That's a new one on me, and I've read through more than a few Greek grammars. I could be wrong, though (which is why I posted in the first place), and we should instead avoid the obvious shorthand of 'by God" here and read it as a statement that no Jew could possibly make or invent a new flavor of dative, the "sphere of influence," whatever that might mean. I do not mean to be sarcastic or flippant. I'm quite serious. The dative case does some basic things. As I read in this forum many years ago, the various labels for very specific flavors of cases help English speakers but whether those fine distinctions were present in the mind of the speaker is another matter.
Kenneth D. Litwak, Ph.D.
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Mill Valley, CA 94941
kennethlitwak@ggbts.edu
Adjunct Professor of New Testament in ExL
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, KY
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Hi Ken, thanks for your comments. I suspect we're near the point of impasse. All I can suggest in that case is that if you continue to feel strongly about it, you should write it up for a peer-reviewed journal and take it from there. Although I ultimately disagree with it, I feel that it is sufficiently interesting of a proposal to bring to the larger scholarly and exegetical community. If you do that, I suggest you might want to take the following points into consideration.

1. I am baffled by the statements that you "would regard 'sphere of influence' as a artificial category that cannot even be demonstrated to exist with certainty" and that "no Jew could possibly make or invent a new flavor of dative, the 'sphere of influence,' whatever that might mean" The "sphere of influence" interpretation is just a simple and straightforward metaphorical usage of the locative meaning of ἐν and the dative. In fact, it is so common of a metaphorical extension that grammars and lexica mention it as a conventional use. It may be a "new one on" you, and I don't know which grammars you've consulted, but it's in Robertson, Wallace, Brooks and Winberry, Porter, and LSJ under ἐν. Heck, even Smyth recognizes it with verbs of ruling. So it's not some category somebody cooked up for the occasion. (Furthermore, demanding "certainty" as you've done in the first statement I quoted is usually a "tell" that one's case is weak and that one is trying to salvage it by imposing an onerous burden of proof on the other side.)

2. Your Stoic objection seems to take the locative sense literally, but the entire point of the sphere of influence interpretation is that it represents a non-literal metaphorical use. Thus, the objection has the feel of a strawman. You also make the strong claim that "this is absolutely not going to be something a trained Jewish rabbi would ever entertain." Well, this claim begs all kinds of questions about Paul's training, about which we have no direct evidence. Even so, 1 Cor 9:19-22 evidences a considerable amount of rhetorical flexibility on Paul's part to make his case before all kinds of people in ways they can readily appreciate. Why wouldn't Paul sound like a Stoic if the occasion were appropriate? So I cannot see how one can limit a priori what Paul would or would not have entertained or sounded like.

3. I haven't yet seen a good argument for an instrumental reading of ἐν αὐτῷ. I agree that there is a strong sense of God's sovereignty in the passage. But this is the reason that makes it difficult for me to see instrumental readings. If God is sovereign, how can God be people's instrument? If God is sovereign, how can God be people's indirect agent? It just doesn't make sense to me, especially in a passage that emphasizes God's sovereignty. On the other hand, the sphere of influence interpretation unproblemmatically locates us within the place where God is sovereign.

4. As for Gal 5:16, I have no problems at all with understanding πνεύματι as sphere of influence, and it is perfectly consistent with Paul's theology as I understand it (but B-Greek is not place to be debating Paul's theology). The objections about fog or snow merely show that one has not appreciated the metaphorical nature of the interpretation.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by Stephen Carlson »

For those reading the thread, I should point out that Ken has published an article on this speech (though not on this topic, which is new):
Before reading this piece, I had not fully appreciated the strong intertextual echo of seeking God in the previous verse.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
klitwak
Posts: 30
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 2:03 am
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by klitwak »

Hi Stephen,

Well, I have not researched the "sphere of influence" interpretation of the dative case. So I will do that before further argument over this specific passage. My chief difficulty with it is that it seems, at least from reading Porter's treatment, rather, well, nebulous, as to what it might actually indicate. I was quite surprised to see that BDAG understands Col 1:16, (OTI EN AUTW EKTISQA TA PANTA EN TOIS OURANOIS KAI EPI THS GHS, as a sphere of association.

I don't want to make another "extreme" statement, or talk about something outside the realm of Greek, but you are probably acquainted (especially since Richard Hays at Duke, whose work on intertextuality inspired my dissertation (as one might gather from its title, _Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts_, and subsequent essays) is well-known for this position) with the view of Hays and others that no NT writer should be described as having used Midrash or a midrashic approach to interpreting the Scriptures of Israel in part because "Midrash" in this case pins a label on a literary phenomenon without actually explaining anything. I have the same sense about "sphere of association" in Col 1:16 or Acts 17:28. What does it mean, from a grammatical point of view, to say that all things were created in the sphere of association of Jesus? Association or influence are rather broad categories. In light of our dialogue, I am going to make time in the near future to read all the grammars I have (Wallace, Robertson, Dana and Mantey (which I used in my second-year Greek course), BDF, plus the idiom book by Moule (I have Porter's but have already read what he had to say about this topic). That is influence of one variety. I argued in a paper at SBL a few years ago that while the story of Hannah might have had an influence on the description of Jesus growing in wisdom and stature in Luke 2:40, 52, it is most probably not a source of that story in any manner, having intertextual affinities with the birth of Isaac but not of Samuel. Influence there is fairly vague.

So too is the notion, I think, that all things were created by ???? within the sphere of Jesus' association or influence. What does that mean? It means the agent of creation is unstated. It means that it is difficult from that understanding of the syntax to posit that Jesus is superior to other created things, which is, as all the commentators I read, assert is precisely Paul's point. Association might merely mean that Jesus was present part of the time (but not necessarily all of the time, since it is only association according to BDAG). Jesus could have been present doing any number of things, including some association or influence after he himself was created, with or upon whatever did the creating. It seems clear to me that if we understand this as "influence" or "association," we must conclude that the grammar rules out Jesus as the one who created. Influence is not causation. If we are in the same room my mass has a gravitational affect upon you, according to my college astronomy teacher years ago. That effect or influence would hardly cause you to move. It seems to me that if we say EN AUTO or EN CRISTW mean association or influence, both fairly broad and nebulous terms in English at least, these prepositional phrases cease actually to explain anything, and require that some unknown agent is making something happen that makes the association or influence of relevance (Acts 17:28) or even possible (Col 1:16). However, I will not assert that this is categorically so. I need to read the grammars first.

I am glad you found my article. I am working on this passage again for another purpose, but have again been reading Bertil Gartner's _The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation_, which makes the case convincingly that Paul's wording should be understood (as I think I showed in my article) has significant resonances of Israel's Scriptures and later Jewish thought, and not resonances of Stoic "natural revelation."

Ken
Kenneth D. Litwak, Ph.D.
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Mill Valley, CA 94941
kennethlitwak@ggbts.edu
Adjunct Professor of New Testament in ExL
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, KY
Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: Acts 17:28: Sphere of Influence (Porter) or Instrumental

Post by Iver Larsen »

Coming a bit late to this discussion, because I have moved from Kenya to Denmark this last month and have been too busy.

I am not in favour of either (metaphorical) locative, instrument or sphere of influence. When the noun refers to God or Jesus it seems to me that it often includes a metonym for an action of the person and a cause, that is, "in Christ" can often mean "because of what Christ has done". Whereas these Greeks were worshipping many different gods, Paul is introducing them to the Creator God (v. 24) who gives life and breath to all (v. 25). God Creator is the one who made people dwell on earth with their various boundaries (v. 26). From this background it seems natural to take v. 28 in the sense that this Creator God is the one who gave people life, ability to move and indeed to exist.

While most translations use the rather meaningless and vague "in him", GW does say: "Certainly, we live, move, and exist because of him." CEV is somewhat similar: "he gives us the power to live, to move, and to be who we are."
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”