Acts 17:26

An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 17:26-27: Grammatical Relations and Textual Variants

This exegetical study of Acts 17:26-27: Grammatical Relations and Textual Variants is based on a b-greek discussion from Mon Oct 30 11:33:47 2006. The initial query focused on the interpretation of Culy & Parsons’ assertion that the infinitive phrase ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν (Acts 17:27) is in apposition to the infinitive phrase κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς (Acts 17:26). The original poster found this puzzling, noting that linguistic definitions of apposition (e.g., Trask, Crystal) typically emphasize co-referentiality, but not necessarily qualification, which seemed counter-intuitive for the relationship between these two clauses.

The core exegetical challenge in this passage involves two primary issues. First, there is the syntactical relationship between the infinitives κατοικεῖν (“to dwell”) and ζητεῖν (“to seek”). While some commentators propose an appositional relationship, alternative interpretations, such as both infinitives functioning as separate or sequential purpose clauses, warrant examination. The difficulty lies in aligning the concept of apposition—typically understood as re-naming or qualifying a preceding noun phrase—with two clauses describing actions. Second, a significant textual variant in Acts 17:26 concerns the presence or absence of αἵματος (“blood”) after ἐξ ἑνός (“from one”). This variant impacts the understanding of humanity’s common origin, whether from a singular, unspecified source or specifically “from one blood,” influencing the theological implications of Paul’s address to the Areopagus.

Greek text (Nestle 1904):
ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνός πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν, 27 ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν, εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The word αἵματος (blood) is absent after ἑνός (one) in SBLGNT 2010, consistent with the critical text tradition, whereas it is present in some Western and Byzantine manuscripts.

Textual criticism (NA28): The crucial textual variant in Acts 17:26 centers on the inclusion or omission of αἵματος (blood) after ἐξ ἑνός. The NA28, reflecting the critical text consensus, omits αἵματος. This omission is robustly supported by a broad range of early and weighty manuscripts (e.g., א A B C D* Ψ 33 81 1739 vg syrp,h co). The longer reading, which includes αἵματος, is characteristic of the Western text tradition (e.g., D lat MSS) and also appears in the Byzantine Majority Text. Metzger’s *Textual Commentary* assigns a ‘B’ certainty rating to the omission, suggesting that αἵματος likely represents a typical Western expansion, perhaps introduced to explicitly clarify humanity’s common origin from a single progenitor, potentially influenced by Genesis accounts or early Christian anthropological discourse. While palaeographical arguments for accidental omission (homoioteleuton) exist, the Committee prioritized the strength of the external evidence supporting the shorter text.

Lexical notes:

• ζητεῖν (zētein): The infinitive of ζητέω (zēteō), meaning “to seek, search for, investigate, strive for, desire.” BDAG defines its nuances as “to make an effort to find out about something” and “to try to obtain or achieve something.” In this context, it signifies an active, purposeful quest for God. KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes the intentional and often laborious nature of this pursuit, implying a desire for deeper understanding or relationship.
• κατοικεῖν (katoikein): The infinitive of κατοικέω (katoikeō), meaning “to dwell, inhabit, reside.” BDAG notes its use for both temporary and permanent dwelling. Here, it refers to the act of humanity inhabiting the earth.
• ἑνός (henos): The genitive form of εἷς (heis), meaning “one.” When used without an explicit noun, as in the critical text, it implies “one [man],” “one [source],” or “one [ancestor].” The textual variant αἵματος (blood) explicitly specifies this “one” as referring to a common “bloodline” or shared ancestry.
• ὁρίσας (horisas): The aorist active participle of ὁρίζω (horizō), meaning “to delimit, mark out, define, determine, appoint.” BDAG offers “to designate beforehand, appoint, determine.” This term underscores God’s sovereignty and providential control in establishing the boundaries and periods of human habitation.

Translation Variants

The grammatical relationship between κατοικεῖν (v. 26) and ζητεῖν (v. 27) presents interpretive challenges:

• Apposition (as proposed by Culy & Parsons): If ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν is in apposition to κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς, it would imply that “seeking God” is somehow equivalent to or redefines “dwelling upon the whole face of the earth.” Grammatically, this is problematic because classical apposition typically involves two nouns or noun phrases that share the same syntactic function and where the second renames or clarifies the first. While infinitives can function substantivally, they more commonly express purpose, result, or epexegetical modification when dependent on a verb like ἐποίησεν. If “co-referential” is understood broadly as both clauses pointing back to the ultimate *purpose* of God’s action in ἐποίησεν, it stretches the typical understanding of apposition, which usually implies an *equivalence* or *re-description*. Rhetorically, such an interpretation would profoundly link human existence and global settlement to an inherent purpose of seeking the divine.
• Separate Purpose Clauses: A more widely accepted interpretation views both infinitives as expressing distinct but related *purposes* or *results* of God’s actions. In this view, God “made every nation of humanity to dwell… *in order to* seek God.” Here, κατοικεῖν describes the immediate, physical consequence or purpose of God’s creative act—the global dispersion and habitation of humanity. Subsequently, ζητεῖν describes a *further* or *ultimate* purpose, or a *consequence* that flows from their dwelling. They are distinct teleological objectives, both ultimately dependent on the main verb ἐποίησεν. Rhetorically, this highlights God’s overarching teleological design for humanity, where physical habitation on earth serves as the context and opportunity for spiritual pursuit.
• Epexegetical Infinitive: It is less plausible that ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν functions as an epexegetical infinitive clarifying the *nature* of the “dwelling.” Epexegetical infinitives typically explain or elaborate on a preceding noun, adjective, or general statement. In this context, “seeking God” does not directly explain *how* humanity dwells, but rather *why* or *for what reason* they dwell, thus favoring a purpose interpretation over an epexegetical one.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical contention regarding apposition between two infinitive clauses serving as purposes is difficult to sustain based on standard linguistic definitions. While both infinitives ultimately articulate aspects of God’s providential plan as initiated by ἐποίησεν, understanding them as distinct but interconnected purpose clauses (as in the “Separate Purpose Clauses” variant) offers a more grammatically coherent and rhetorically compelling interpretation. The act of dwelling (κατοικεῖν) and the imperative to seek (ζητεῖν) are seen as discrete yet interdependent components of God’s divine design for humanity. Regarding the textual issue, the omission of αἵματος in the critical text is strongly favored by external evidence, suggesting that Paul’s argument emphasizes a broader concept of common origin for all humanity, rather than specifying “one blood” as the single source.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions are offered:

1. “He made from one [source] every nation of humanity to dwell on the entire face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their habitation, so that they might seek God, if perhaps they might feel for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”

   This translation emphasizes a clear teleological relationship, with “so that they might seek” directly indicating the purpose of God’s prior actions, without implying strict apposition between the infinitives. The bracketed “source” clarifies the indefinite “one” in the critical text.

2. “And he created from one [ancestor] every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having set the appointed times and the fixed boundaries of their habitation, with the aim that they should seek God, if indeed they might grope for him and discover him, though he is not far from any one of us.”

   This rendering uses “with the aim that” to convey purpose, allowing for a nuanced connection where the act of dwelling is itself an opportunity or condition for seeking God. “Ancestor” is a possible interpretation of “one” when “blood” is omitted, reflecting a common theological understanding.

3. “From one, he made every nation of humanity to inhabit the whole earth, establishing fixed times and the limits of their dwelling, for them to search for God, if perhaps they could touch and find him, for he is not far from each of us.”

   This option uses “for them to search” as a concise way to express purpose, maintaining a slightly more direct flow. It avoids over-specifying “one” and focuses on the actions established by God.