Acts 17:6 use of participles
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Apr 24 07:34:52 EDT 2002
At 9:27 PM -0400 4/23/02, richard smith wrote:
>Verse 5 ZHLWSANTES DE hOI IOUDAIOI KAI PROSLABOMENOI TWN AGORAIWN ANDRAS
>TINAS P0NHROUS KAI OCLOPOIHSANTES EQORUBOUN THN POLIN KAI EPISTANTES THi
>OIKIAi IASONOS EZHTOUN AUTOUS PROAGAGEIN EIS TON DHMON
>
>For some reason this verse is giving me difficulty with its translation.
>Finally it seemed best to understand ZHLWSANTES as adjectival and
>PROSLABOMENOI and OCLOPOIHSANTES as temporal adverbs.
In fact ALL of these participles are adverbial: all are in predicative
position--outside the article-noun group hOI IOUDAIOI--and moreover every
one of them is in the common construction of aorist participles indicating
the sequence of actions culminating in the action of the main verb:
ZHLWSANTES ... PROSLABOMENOI ... OCLOPOIHSANTES ... EQORUBOUN, then
EPISTANTES ... EZHTOUN PROAGAGEIN. Strategies for Englishing this kind of
Greek construction include the more literal representation of the
participles with adverbial phrases or adverbial clauses: "after becoming
jealous ..." or "after they had become jealous ...", but another legitimate
and perhaps more normal English sequence is coordination of all the
participles and the main verb one-after-the-other: "became jealous ...
gathered up to their company ... amassed a mob ... and proceeded to riot"
-- and then, "they assailed ... and endeavored to bring forth ... " I don't
find anything to complain about in any of the versions you've cited. It
seems to me that what we have here is the use of circumstantial participles
in succession and culminating in an indicative main verb to describe the
course of sequential actions preceding and culminating in a decisive
action. And in my view, all these participles are of the same sort:
adverbial, circumstantial, essentially temporal.
>The NRSV, however, does not seem to give this nuance to its translation.
>
>My effort in translation so far is as follows:
>
>"But the Jews, who had become filled with jealousy, took up association
>with certain degenerate men among the market place idlers and collected a
>mob. Then they started to cause a stir in the city. When they came near
>the home of Jason, they began to search for them (Paul and Silas) in order
>to take them before the people."
>
>With the NRSV, the Jews become jealous and they are helped by the ruffians
>in forming a mob.
>
>NRSV "But the Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in
>the marketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. While
>they were searching for Paul and Silas to bring them out to the assembly,
>they attacked Jason's house."
>
>If the first participle is adjectival, is it intending to describe the
>Jews who as a class had become jealous, or is it intending to describe
>those of the Jews who had become jealous? Is the participle descriptive of
>a whole class or does it identify and separate the Jews who became jealous
>from the Jews who did not become jealous?
>
>This question may be asking if the participle is predicative or
>attributive. (I think that I am beginning to come to a sense of their
>basic semantic difference.) And if my question is whether predicative or
>attributive, then the anarthrous position would provide an answer.
>
>(Of course the first participle might be adverbial - The Jews, after they
>became jealous.)
>
>Anyway the context may decide the matter of whether the jealous Jews were
>a specific group of Jews or the whole class of Jews, by the preceding
>reference specifically to Hellenistic proselytes to Judaism and leading
>women.
>
>Two other questions regarding the verse.
>
>Are the next 2 participles (PROSLABOMENOI and OCLOPOIHSANTES) best
>understood as temporal? The NRSV seems to render PROSLABOMENOI as means
>and treats OCLOPOIHSANTES with increased force as a finite verb that is
>modified by PROSLABOMENOI. This increased force seems to give that
>participle equal prominence with EQORUBOUN as the co-main verb rather that
>as a temporal marker for the main verb. It is as if forming the mob and
>stirring the city are equal in force. In fact the NRSV rendering in my
>mind gives more force to forming the mob than to causing the stir.
>
>Additionally, the NRSV seems to imply that the Jews together with the
>ruffians formed a mob. The Greek seems to imply to me that the Jews made
>the extra effort necessary to associate with ruffians and to form a mob,
>with the focused intent to stir up the city.
>
>The point I am trying to ask may be too subtle, or perhaps plain wrong.
>
>But any help with these questions will help me gain in understanding how
>to treat participles.
>
>The last question regarding this verse concerns the NRSV translation of
>EPISANTES THi OIKIAi IASONOS EZHTOUN AUTOUS PROAGAGEIN EIS TON DHMON.
>
>The NRSV translates, "While they were searching for Paul and Silas to
>bring them out to the assembly, they attacked Jason's house."
>
>It seems to me that the NRSV translators have switched the main verb with
>the participle, and by doing so have changed the nuance of the reading,
>however slightly.
>
>Might there be a different sense if the sentence were translated, "After
>they came near Jason's house, they (the mob just now formed) began
>searching for them in order to take them before the people."
>
>(I have Gingrich's Short Lexicon, which defines EFISTHMI as "attack" in
>this one instance of Acts 17:5, but it seems to me to make more sense to
>keep the word's basic meaning of "come near".)
>
>Again, all of these points may be overly subtle or even wrong. I am sure
>that they are much ado about nothing, but it will help me even to know if
>that is the case.
Intransitive verbs compounded with EPI are not so easily characterized, but
they often involve hostility, and I think that's the case here.
Louw & Nida on EFISTAMAI (I think they're right):
"39.47 EFISTAMAId (and 2nd aorist active); KATEFISTAMAI i (and 2nd aorist
active); EPERCOMAIb; EPITIQEMAIb: to use sudden physical force against
someone as the outgrowth of a hostile attitude - 'to attack, to assault.'12
EFISTAMAIdÚ EPISTANTES THi OIKIAi IASONOS EZHTOUN AUTOUS PROAGAGEIN EIS TON
DHMON 'they attacked the home of Jason, trying to bring them out to the
people' Ac 17:5. Although according to the Greek text the attack was made
on the home of Jason, the actual objects of the attack were the persons in
the home. The attack may very well have involved battering down the door,
and in some languages it may be necessary to make explicit this aspect of
the attack."
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list