ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

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.
Tony Pope
Posts: 110
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Tony Pope » June 11th, 2018, 10:52 am

MAubrey wrote:
June 9th, 2018, 6:31 pm
Tony Pope wrote:
June 9th, 2018, 6:20 am
Then I looked more carefully at what is said in the quote. I checked Winer-Schmiedel and discovered there a footnote referring to transitive examples in LXX. See the latter part of footnote 4 in
https://archive.org/stream/grammatikdes ... 8/mode/2up

On checking 1 Sam 15.12 in Rahlfs' edition of LXX I see a footnote "cf. Thack. p. 253". It turns out that Thackeray speaks of "The new transitive perfect ἕστακα". See
https://archive.org/stream/grammarofold ... 2/mode/2up

So what are we to make of that? Is the English translation tradition right after all?
Ah yes. I had forgotten about those! There is technically a case for the transitive sense. It's still really rare...even in the papyri. I did a paper on ἵστημι six years ago that maybe I need to dig up. The intransitive usage remains the dominant usage through at least the 6th c. CE (which, at the time, was the latest century I had texts from).
But the grammars are telling us there is a difference in form, not just two different senses of the same perfect form. The transitive form is -εστακα and the commoner intransitive form -εστηκα. At least that's what these grammars are saying: Veitch, Buttmann, Winer-Schmiedel, Thackeray, Moulton-Howard. And Thackeray gives LXX examples that have a direct object: 1Kgdms 15.12, 1Macc 10.20, 11.34, and (with variants) Jer 1.10 6.17 16.5.
Or has someone more recently argued that the difference is merely a matter of variant spelling, and you can read the form as transitive or intransitive as you wish?

As regards Acts 8.11, most of the manuscripts and apparently all editions read ἐξεστακέναι. (Some read ἐξιστακέναι, and a few ἐξεστηκέναι.
MAubrey wrote:
June 9th, 2018, 6:31 pm
But that question notwithstanding, I'm of the opinion that the English translation is tradition is right either way. Translations are under no obligation to retrain source language syntax in the target language.
Fine. I expressed myself unwisely. What I meant was "Is the transitive reading, which happens to be the syntax that the English translation tradition appears to follow, the right one?" (I'm not interested in defending a particular translation.) It may be of interest, though, that the Latin Vulgate dementasset eos [he had driven them crazy] is also transitive.

In any case, it seems that in this phenomenon lies the answer to Ruth's original question.
0 x



Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1244
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 11th, 2018, 5:23 pm

And so part of the confusion (per the OP) is that BDAG says this:

ἐξίστημι w. the Koine by-form ἐξιστάνω (B-D-F §93; Mlt-H. 241) Ac 8:9 (v.l. ἐξιστῶν fr. ἐξιστάω) fut. ἐκστησώ LXX; 1 aor. ἐξέστησα; 2 aor. ἐξέστην; pf. ἐξέστακα, ptc. [intr.] ἐξεστώς (Judg 4:21 B) and ἐξεστηκυῖα 1 Km 4:13; plpf. 2 sg. ἐξεστηκεῖς (TestJob 39:13). Mid.: impf. ἐξιστάμην; pf. ἐξίσταμαι. Pass.: aor. 3 sg. ἐξεστάθη (Judg 5:4 A). In both trans. and intr. usage the main idea is involvement in a state or condition of consternation.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 350). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2681
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 12th, 2018, 10:09 am

And neither does LSJ give any indication that different spellings of the perfect have different transitivities.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Tony Pope
Posts: 110
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Tony Pope » June 13th, 2018, 4:00 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
June 12th, 2018, 10:09 am
And neither does LSJ give any indication that different spellings of the perfect have different transitivities.
Were you looking at the entry for ἐξίστημι? At least under ἵστημι different forms are given, including ἕστακα in the Causal section, together with indication of occurrences of some of its compounds. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 28%2Fsthmi
0 x

Ruth Mathys
Posts: 13
Joined: September 5th, 2011, 6:11 pm

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Ruth Mathys » June 16th, 2018, 3:15 am

Thanks, everyone! This thread has been like a mystery novel with new twists in every post. On balance, it seems like ἐξεστακέναι here is indeed transitive.

The backstory is: I was in a reading group and we were looking at examples of the accusative + infinitive construction, of which there are a few in this passage. When we got to this verse, the group leader said that this is *not* an example of acc. + inf., and someone else asked how do we know? The leader said it's because the inf. is perf. act. so αὐτούς must be the object. I said that I thought the perfect of ἵστημι and its compounds was intransitive, but in any case I wouldn't be prepared to commit myself without checking the lexicons. I went home and checked my lexicons and was none the wiser, so I decided to post here. I'm relieved to find that my ἀπορία was justified!
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3428
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 16th, 2018, 3:51 pm

Tony Pope wrote:
June 9th, 2018, 6:20 am
Jonathan Robie wrote:
June 8th, 2018, 2:48 pm
Meyer has a helpful note on this.
Meyer wrote:ἐξιστῶν, from ἐξιστάω (ἐξίστημι); so ἐξιστάνων, W. H. from ἐξιστάνω (hellenistic), see Blass, Grammatik, pp. 48, 49, transitive in present, future, first aorist active, cf. Luke 24:22—so ἐξεστακέναι, Acts 8:11, perfect active, hellenistic form, also transitive; see Blass, u. s. (also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 118, and Grimm-Thayer, sub v.) (in 3Ma 1:25 ἐξιστάνειν also occurs).—ἵσταμαι, intransitive, Acts 8:13, Blass, u. s., p. 49—the revisers have consistently rendered the verb by the same English word in the three Acts 8:9; Acts 8:11; Acts 8:13, thus giving point and force to the narrative, see on Acts 8:13.
!!! SNIP !!!

But I was bothered by this quote from "Meyer". For a start, I wondered which Meyer was meant. The content looks late 19th century, but it can't be H.A.W. Meyer because he was dead and buried by the time Grimm-Thayer saw the light of day. Perhaps it's the American editor of H.A.W. Meyer, or a different Meyer altogether.
Yes, it is the American editor of Meyer. Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, I was presenting at a conference and not paying much attention. I was using the version on Studylight.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

MAubrey
Posts: 903
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by MAubrey » June 17th, 2018, 5:39 pm

Tony Pope wrote:
June 13th, 2018, 4:00 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
June 12th, 2018, 10:09 am
And neither does LSJ give any indication that different spellings of the perfect have different transitivities.
Were you looking at the entry for ἐξίστημι? At least under ἵστημι different forms are given, including ἕστακα in the Causal section, together with indication of occurrences of some of its compounds. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 28%2Fsthmi
Indeed, but LSJ itselfstill gives no indication of spelling differences signal differences in transitivity, as the same entry also says:
also ἕστηκα (v. infr.) in trans. sense
On the other hand, this is still really interesting, with a cursory search, since the shift is one directional. Perfects with the α don't appear to be ever intransitive...at least not unambiguously, but perfects with the η can occasionally be transitive.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2681
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 17th, 2018, 6:58 pm

MAubrey wrote:
June 17th, 2018, 5:39 pm
On the other hand, this is still really interesting, with a cursory search, since the shift is one directional. Perfects with the α don't appear to be ever intransitive...at least not unambiguously, but perfects with the η can occasionally be transitive.
The idea is not implausible, I can say that. The 19th century grammarians did not have the advantage of the documentary papyri. I wonder if the claim holds up if those are taken into account?
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

MAubrey
Posts: 903
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by MAubrey » June 19th, 2018, 3:29 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
June 17th, 2018, 6:58 pm
The idea is not implausible, I can say that. The 19th century grammarians did not have the advantage of the documentary papyri. I wonder if the claim holds up if those are taken into account?
Thackeray cites Mayser for the papyri, but he doesn't provide much data for the question:

https://archive.org/stream/grammatikder ... 0/mode/2up
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3428
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: ἐξίστημι in Acts 8:11

Post by Jonathan Robie » June 29th, 2018, 11:55 am

Correction - this wasn't Meyer at all, this was Expositor's Greek.

Sorry ... and thanks to Tony for pointing this out.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/egt/acts/8.htm

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/8-9.html

Jonathan Robie wrote:
June 8th, 2018, 2:48 pm
Meyer has a helpful note on this.
Meyer wrote:ἐξιστῶν, from ἐξιστάω (ἐξίστημι); so ἐξιστάνων, W. H. from ἐξιστάνω (hellenistic), see Blass, Grammatik, pp. 48, 49, transitive in present, future, first aorist active, cf. Luke 24:22—so ἐξεστακέναι, Acts 8:11, perfect active, hellenistic form, also transitive; see Blass, u. s. (also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 118, and Grimm-Thayer, sub v.) (in 3Ma 1:25 ἐξιστάνειν also occurs).—ἵσταμαι, intransitive, Acts 8:13, Blass, u. s., p. 49—the revisers have consistently rendered the verb by the same English word in the three Acts 8:9; Acts 8:11; Acts 8:13, thus giving point and force to the narrative, see on Acts 8:13.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Post Reply