I have been wondering over the last few months what the correct translation of Acts 17:22 should be...
At the risk of oversimplifying, I think we have three basic options, but please let me know if there are more...
"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." - KJV
"And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious." - RV
"So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious." Acts 17:22 - ESV
1. In Acts 17:22 is it "too superstitious?" (Paul could be offending his listeners in his opening statement...)
2. Or could it be "very religious?" (Paul could be complimenting his listeners' idolatry / spirituality...)
3. Or was it some sort of word in between these two meanings ie. "somewhat superstitious?" (Paul could be choosing a word with a double meaning, to leave his listeners wondering whether he was actually for or against them...)
Check out what Daniel Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, (which is the standard seminary textbook for second year Koine Greek), has to say from the NET Bible Notes on Acts 17:22,
Finally, what are the evangelistic implications of which it could be? (I am not saying that we are to base the foundation of our evangelistic approach to one passage of scripture... So feel free to bring in to the discussion other scriptures which support your views.)tn The term *... (deisidaimonesterou") is difficult. On the one hand it can have the positive sense of “devout,” but on the other hand it can have the negative sense of “superstitious” (BDAG 216 s.v. *...). As part of a laudatory introduction (the technical rhetorical term for this introduction was capatatio), the term is probably positive here. It may well be a “backhanded” compliment, playing on the ambiguity.
(*Greek words had to be removed from the quote so that post could be submitted...)
Lastly, isn't it interesting that up until the 20th century practically every translation seemed go with the negative "too superstitious?" or a closely related variant. Ie. Wycliffe's New Testament has "vain worshippers", Young's Literal translation has "over-religious." Meanwhile, all the modern translations seem to go unquestionably with "very religious" without even a footnote! (Exception: NET Bible.) This makes me wonder how much our culture influences the way translation is done and how much culture affects the way we perceive the Bible...
-----Added 5/13/2009 at 11:44:31 EST-----
Here's Bahnsen's opinion:
From his Acts 17 exposition here,"The term used to describe the Athenians in verse 22 (literally “fearers of the supernatural spirits”) is sometimes translated “very religious” and sometimes “somewhat superstitious.” There is no satisfactory English equivalent. “Very religious” is too complimentary; Paul was not prone to flattery, and according to Lucian, it was forbidden to use compliments before the Areopagus in an effort to gain its goodwill. “Somewhat superstitious” is perhaps a bit too critical in thrust. Although the term could sometimes be used among pagans as a compliment, it usually denoted an excess of strange piety. Accordingly, in Acts 25:19 Festus refers to Judaism, using this term as a mild reproach for its religiosity. It is not beyond possibility that Paul cleverly chose this term precisely for the sake of its ambiguity. His readers would wonder whether the good or bad sense was being stressed by Paul, and Paul would be striking a double blow: men cannot eradicate a religious impulse within themselves (as the Athenians demonstrate), and yet this good impulse has been degraded by rebellion against the living and true God (as the Athenians also demonstrate). Although men do not acknowledge it, they are aware of their relation and accountability to the living and true God who created them. But rather than come to terms with Him and His wrath against their sin (cf. Rom. 1:18), they pervert the truth. And in this they become ignorant and foolish (Rom. 1:21-22)."
PA045-- Ó Covenant Media Foundation – 1-800/553-3938
Now according to Bahnsen,So should I scratch this out in my Bible and write in "somewhat superstitious" (or something!)-- or at least as a foot note?“Very religious” is too complimentary; Paul was not prone to flattery, and according to Lucian, it was forbidden to use compliments before the Areopagus in an effort to gain its goodwill.
But then Bahnsen says,I wish he would have said more about this. Why exactly is it too critical? Perhaps this is part of the apostolic response to idolatry? I fail to see how it is "too" critical... Now it will not make friends to speak like this, but when we consider the treatment in the old testament of idolaters within and without Israel... it does not seem overly critical, to me at least...“Somewhat superstitious” is perhaps a bit too critical in thrust.
I think Bahnsen's opinion is very interesting, especially where he basically said we do not have an adequate term in the English language for the meaning of "deisidaimonesterou." He said, "There is no satisfactory English equivalent." Well, I am not yet a linguist, but I do know in basic linguistics 101 they teach that even though certain languages do not have certain words which other languages may have, the languages lacking certain words are not inferior languages because humans have the ability to create words if we need them to express a thought or idea that has previously been unexpressed. So, technically, assuming this (Chomskian) theory of linguistics is indeed correct, (...and Noam Chomsky has dominated the field for quite a while), we should be able to create a new word in the English language to express this thought of Paul, when he said "deisidaimonesterou" in Koine Greek. But we must first come up with a clear explanation and definition of this term. What does it mean? What was Paul thinking? HOW would we use such a term today in our English language, if one existed? Should we try to create a word to see if this works-- just for fun? Or am I completely missing the point? Honestly, I still am not quite sure what Bahnsen thinks deisidaimonesterou means because he mentions various possibilities in that quotation, but never really gives us a clear definition.
Maybe our Bibles should simply go with Bahnsen's literal translation, "fearers of the supernatural spirits”-- and leave the interpretation up to readers and preachers? Also, if this is indeed the literal translation, then WHY does the NASB (most literal...?) still render it as "very religious"?
I know I have a lot of questions in here... Please if anybody has some light on the subject-- PLEASE share it.