You have really come about as far with that as could be expected with a knowledge of New Testament Greek, but there is just one general point about word order.
Demosthenes, [i]On the Halonnesus[/i] 7.22 wrote:ὡς ἅπαντα Φίλιππον ποιήσοντα ὅσ᾽ ἂν ὑμεῖς ψηφίσησθε
Jordan Day wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:Jordan Day wrote:ἅπαντα Φίλιππον ποιήσοντα ὅσ᾽ - I think I understand this....let me know
ποιήσοντα ≠ ποιήσαντα as you have taken it to be
as you yourselves may vote on everything Phillip will
write
Don't rely on word order to give you the interrelations between words! Word order patterns in Greek are quite formalised, but they are different from English. In this case, I would expect the ἅπαντα to be right before the ὅσα. The differrent order is used for emphasis - EVERYTHING
Consider, the Golden Rule:
Πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἂν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς· οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται.
or
Luke 4:40 wrote:Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου, παντες ὅσοι εἶχον ἀσθενοῦντας νόσοις ποικίλαις ἤγαγον αὐτοὺς πρὸς αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθεὶς ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς.
Where
Πάντα and
ὅσα are together. There are many other examples of this (expected) word order.
Perhaps, if we add ὑμῖν, it could be clearer... ὡς
ἅπαντα Φίλιππον ποιήσοντα {ὑμῖν}
ὅσ᾽ ἂν ὑμεῖς ψηφίσησθε.
You are trying hard to turn this on its head.Philip wasn't following Ullman and Wade's Shock and Awe military doctrine, or even Clausewitz's principle of the destruction of enemy forces and the aqutisition of land (especially capitals). Philip wanted to see a unified and equal Greece, with a minimum of destruction. He was acieving peace as he conquered, not just winning a military operation. Leaving the "capitals", allowed the leaders of various city-states and opportunity and freedom, as in this case, to debate, modify and accept his offers. War ends in peace, not just victory or occupation. To put it another way, Philip did not snatch away his children's most precious toys, and then demand obedience before he would give them back - he wooed them to share and play together.
The most "natural" way for an English speaker to take it would be as you have, but neither the order of clauses nor the word order within clauses is the sweet-sounding friend that they appear to be.
Going beyond the New Testament Greek.
Demosthenes, [i]On the Halonnesus[/i] 7.22 wrote:ἐκέλευεν οὖν τοὺς λέγοντας ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τῇ μὲν εἰρήνῃ μὴ ἐπιτιμᾶν
Stephen Hughes wrote:ἐπιτιμᾶν - cf. Luke 4:39 Καὶ ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς, ἐπετίμησεν τῷ πυρετῷ (a thing not a person), καὶ ἀφῆκεν ("stop it working" effect) αὐτήν· παραχρῆμα δὲ ἀναστᾶσα διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. And Luke 8:24 Ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος (things not people)· καὶ ἐπαύσαντο ("stop it working" effect), καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη.
Did Jesus address the fever, wind and waves directly, or did he address the πενθερὰ τοῦ Σίμωνος or the οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ who just woke him up and were beside themselves?
So, apparently, there is a difference between the NT usage and the one we see here... Let's look into it.
The people in this passage were talking
about the peace treaty in a formal debate, not
to it. The basis of "rebuking"
someone is to
find fault with them first, and then second to get them to
stop. When this word is used in the Gospels to describe Jesus action, the most important thing is the second, the
stopping. In the case of this passage, it is the first thing, the
finding fault, while also having as their aim the second thing, the
stopping. I.e. ἐπιτιμᾶν is finding fault, saying something (to or about) and wanting / making it stop.
Demosthenes, [i]On the Halonnesus[/i] 7.22 wrote:παύσεται δ᾽ ἀπιστούμενος ὁ Φίλιππος
Jordan Day wrote:Im having trouble with the mid/passive voices in παύσεται and ἀπιστούμενος ... (translation))"and Phillip will be cease being distrusted"
With a New Testament background, I wouldn't anticipate a problem with παύσεται being middle... In the earlier period, there is a distinction between παύειν "cause to cease" and παύεσθαι "to cease". Have a look at
Acts 5:42 wrote:Πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν χριστόν.
That is the common usage here and in most other places in the New Testament. I'm not sure meaning of παύειν "cause to cease", is expressed by in the New Testament - it seems to be indirectly expressed. Physically restraining someone seems to be with καταπαύειν, which occurs just the once as a transitive verb in
Acts 14:18 wrote:Καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντες, μόλις κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους τοῦ μὴ θύειν αὐτοῖς.
The where only place in the NT where παύειν = "cause to cease" is in
1 Peter 3:10 wrote:Ὁ γὰρ θέλων ζωὴν ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθάς, παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κακοῦ, καὶ χείλη αὐτοῦ τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον·
Which is a "quote" of an older type of Greek.
The supplementary participle ἀπιστούμενος < ἀπιστεῖν, has two meanings just as πιστός means either "trusting / believing" or "(capable of) being trusted / believed" plus the alpha privative. Let's leave both of those possibilities open till we have a good reason to choose one in preference to the other. Aspect (tense) is not an issue here, it being the
present participle is the syntax required by the verb παύειν, so let's not make a big to-do about it - it's effectively unmarked for aspect. This is not a future participle, so it is not marked for time either.
As for the question of voice,
if ἀπιστῶν is taken to mean "not trusting (others)", then ἀπιστούμενος would mean "seen by others as being not trusting". If it is taken to mean "not being trustworthy", then the middle participle would mean "seen by others (/ seem to others) as not being trustworthy". They are debating terms for a peace treaty, some people are disparaging Philip, and finding fault in his offer for peace, they are deciding whether to trust him or not, so they are wondering if Philip is πιστός "(capable of) being trusted / believed". So, I would take ἀπιστούμενος as "(seemingly) untrustworthy".
I'll post a fair copy under this post, and when you have been through yours again and you are ready, you could scroll down and look at it.
Demosthenes, [i]On the Halonnesus[/i] 7.22 wrote:μὴ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀνθρώποις.
The way that I take this phrase is quite different from the way that the translator does. I take it as adding an extra result to the phrase παύσεται δ᾽ ἀπιστούμενος ὁ Φίλιππος. I don't see Philip as ordering the Athenians who to listen to in their parliament. It is my thinking that the current speaker wants the assembly to not listen to such people. But, of course I recognise that I am an amateur
and poorly qualified to make that assertation, and that there will be other possible readings of the passage.