Acts 13:48 multiple choice question

Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl
Thu Dec 19 17:31:39 EST 2002


Iver Larsen wrote that:
> Richard van den Hengel wrote:
> > Acts 13:48 runs as follows: AKOUONTA DE TA EQNH EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON
> > LOGON TOU QEOU KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION.
> >
> > How would you translate this verse?
> > A. 'And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the
> > word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed' (RSV).
> > B. 'The Gentiles were glad when they heard (this) and praised the Lord and
> > all who were aimed at eternal life believed' (Theodor Zahn: Kommentar zum
> > Neuen Testament). In German: 'Die Heiden freuten sich, da sie (dies)
> > hörten und priesen Gott und es wurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Leben
> > gerichtet waren'.
> > C. 'When the gentiles heard this they were glad and praised the word of
> > God and as many as were (present) believed, having been placed in position
> > towards (or: 'having been directed towards') eternal life' (My own
> > translation).
> > D. … . (Your alternative translation)
> 
> My alternative:
> When the non-Jews heard this, they started rejoicing and praising God for
> his message, and all those who were appointed to receive eternal life,
> believed.

Thanks Iver, for your extensive answer.
However, your answers elicit some questions. Why do you write that the
non-Jews started praising God for his message? Doesn't the text say that
they praised the word of God instead of God himself?

> 
> > Arguments:
> >
> > Translation A:
> > 1. The words HSAN and TETAGMENOI form the verbal phrase, like HSAN and
> > similar participles do in other places (see Matthew 9:36, Luke 8:2, 9:32,
> > Acts 12:12). HSAN is an auxiliary verb and has no meaning of itself.
> 
> That HSAN is an auxiliary verb does not mean that it has no meaning or
> function. Notice how the preceding verbs are in imperfect tense. This tense
> is often used to describe a situation that lasts for some time. The
> auxiliary plus perfect participle similarly describes the state some of them
> were in, that is, they were appointed to receive eternal life.
> 
Of course an auxiliary verb has a function. I agree it indicates time. But
don't you agree that an auxiliary verb has no meaning of itself?

> > 2. The best translation of TASSW is "to ordain", for most English
> > translations choose for this meaning of TASSW.
> 
> Not necessarily the best. "Ordain" has obtained a religious and limited
> connotation in modern English that no longer fits the Greek. "Destined"
> might be used, but that word again leads to theological controversy.
> "Appointed" is more natural English, but there are other options, like "set
> apart".
> >
I couldn't find the meaning "destined" in any lexicon. I couldn't find the
meaning "set apart" in any lexicon either (see: A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament, Walter Bauer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, Greek English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott,
Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Timothy and Barbara
Friberg). Why do you choose for such meanings? It seems to me these
translations are derived from a theological background.
The meaning "to appoint" makes more sense to me, for it can be found in
most lexicons.

> > Translation B:
> > 1. The idea of predestination to eternal life does not follow from Acts
> > 13:48, for if Luke would have had this intention, the addition hUPO (TOU)
> > QEOU to HSAN TETAGMENOI would have been indispensable (see Romans 13:1:
> > hAI DE OUSAI hUPO QEOU TETAGMENAI EISIN).
> 
> This is false argumentation, because you let your theological
> presuppositions override what the Greek text says. Whether or not a hUPO
> phrase is present, the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI is God.
> 
I don't understand why you accuse Theodor Zahn of false argumentation. To
me it seems his arguments are based on textual comparison. He mentions an
example of a sentence in which TASSW is being used in combination with
hUPO QEOU to show that the use of hUPO (TOU) QEOU in combination with
TASSW lies at hand if an author wants to express that God is the agent.
Why do you say that the agent for the middle-passive TETAGMENOI must be
God. Do you mean that such a middle-passive is always a divine passive?
Why can't the word of God be the agent, or Paul and Barnabas? Do you want
to exclude these possibilities beforehand on the basis of textual
arguments?
On exegetical grounds it can be argued that the word of God was the agent
of TETAGMENOI, for the non-Jews didn't praise God, but they praised the
word of God, for the word of God had directed them towards eternal life,
and the word of God spread throughout all the region (verse 49). Do
textual arguments make such an exegesis impossible?
On exegetical grounds it can also be argued that Paul and Barnabas were
the agents of TETAGMENOI. They were "set to be a light for the Gentiles"
and to "bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth" (verse 47).
Do textual arguments exclude the possibility that Paul and Barnabas were
the means chosen by God through whom the Gentiles were directed towards
eternal life?

<skip>

> > 3. Luke didn't intend to mention who caused the action, just as we do not
> > wonder who dressed the president when we say: "the president was dressed".
> > Luke only talks about Gentiles who were unhappy in their thinking and
> > striving with their religion and who were aimed at/looking for eternal
> > life. They wanted to know more about eternal life. Therefore they had
> > invited Paul and Barnabas to speak to them (verses 42 and 44). With the
> > words KAI EPISTEUSAN hOSOI HSAN TETAGMENOI EIS ZWHN AIWNION Luke simply
> > means that those who were aimed at/looking for eternal life, believed.
> 
> There is no way TETAGMENOI can possibly mean "looking for", and "aimed at"
> makes little sense. People are not "aimed at" anything.
> 
You are right. I think that I translated Theodor Zahn not precisely
enough. I think it would have been better to translate the words "und es
wurden gläubig alle, die auf ewiges Leben gerichtet waren" with "and all
who were directed towards eternal life believed". The word TASSW which
means 'to place in position' in combination with EIS can mean "to direct"
(See Barclay M. Newman, Jr. A Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament). Theodor Zahn argues that the non-Jews were directed towards
eternal life (not explicitly by God nor explicitly by themselves, but just
directed) because they were not satisfied with their lives and because
they had heard Paul and Barnabas speak to the Jews of a better life.
Therefore they "begged that these things might be told them the next
Sabbath" (verse 42). Maybe now you understand Theodor Zahn something
better. Do you think such a translation conflicts with the Greek text?

> > Translation C:
> > 1. The phrase hOSOI HSAN should be translated as "as many as were
> > (present)". The phrase hOSOI HSAN occurs only twice in the NT: in Acts
> > 13:48 and in Acts 4:6. The ASV and the AV translate Acts 4:6 (KAI hOSOI
> > HSAN EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU) as "and as many as were of the kindred of the
> > high priest". In both phrases hOSOI HSAN the word HSAN has its own
> > meaning. It is not used as an auxiliary verb. In Acts 4:6 the word HSAN
> > indicates presence (EK GENOUS ARXIERATIKOU indicates descent) and in Acts
> > 13:46 HSAN also indicates presence.
> > 2. Verbs should only be translated as auxiliary verbs if it is clear that
> > they cannot have any meaning at all, for degrading verbs to auxiliary
> > verbs, robs these words of their meaning.
> 
> There is no doubt whatsoever that HSAN here is an auxiliary verb to be taken
> together with the perfect participle. It is not permissible to twist the
> Greek text to say what you want it to say, and it is not permissible to add
> "present" to the translation.
> 
The addition "present" or "available" is necessary in English to express
the meaning of EIMI (see A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
Walter Bauer, EIMI, I, 6). It is no addition that alters the meaning of
EIMI. If HSAN is not taken as an auxiliary verb, such an addition is
indispensable.
Why don't you doubt that ESAN is an auxiliary verb here? Why should ESAN
in combination with a perfect participle always form the verbal phrase? A
quick query search for "OSOI HSAN" showed some results that seem to plead
for the meaning of "as many as were there" (OSOI HSAN IN TAIS ELLHNIKAIS,
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War book 1, chapter 17, section 1, KAI
AQHNAIWN OSOI HSAN IN BOIWTOIS, Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War book 5,
chapter 35, section 5, OSOI HSAN EN TH ATTIKE, Thucydides, The
Peloponnesian War book 2, chapter 6, section 2). If you combine these
search results with the fact that OSOI HSAN in Acts 4:5 also indicates
presence, why do you refute the local sense of EIMI as a possible
translation?

> > 3. The translation "and as many as were there believed" corresponds with
> > the fact that the gentiles EXAIRON KAI EDOCAZON TON LOGON TOU QEOU. To
> > them the gospel was really a joyful message, for they heard that the Lord
> > had commanded Paul and Barnabas: ‘I have set you to be a light for the
> > Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the
> > earth'. Just like in Joppa all who were present believed (Acts 10:19-48).
> > In both cases none of the believers were Jews, in accordance with the
> > composition of the book of Acts. The overwhelming acceptance of the Gospel
> > by the Gentiles is in accordance with the triumph of the Gospel expressed
> > by the following verse: DIEFERETO DE hO LOGOS TOU KURIOU DI hOLHS THS
> > XWRAS.
> 
> Are you saying that every non-Jew who heard the Good News believed it? If
> so, this is not what the text is saying, nor what Luke could possibly have
> meant.
> 
That is what I am saying indeed. Why should such a translation be refuted?

<skip>

> > However, my translation 'to place in position' is mentioned in most
> > lexicons as the main meaning of TASSW (see: A Greek-English Lexicon of the
> > New Testament, Walter Bauer, TASSW, 1, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of
> > the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, TASSW, 1 and 1a, Greek English
> > Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1., Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New
> > Testament, Timothy and Barbara Friberg, TASSW (1)). The gentiles were put
> > in position towards eternal life, like soldiers who are placed in position
> > to move towards the enemy (see for this military origin of TASSW: Greek
> > English Lexicon, Liddell-Scott, TASSW, I.1. and Luke 7:8), or like pieces
> > on a chessboard which are placed in position to move towards the other
> > side.
> > The perfect time of the participle TETAGMENOI indicates that Paul first
> > revealed that salvation and eternal life were also meant for the gentiles
> > (verse 47) - placing them in position towards (or: directing them towards)
> > eternal life - and after hearing this revelation the gentiles believed.
> 
> So, you are saying that Paul is the implied agent for TETAGMENOI? That is a
> highly unusual interpretation, and it certainly cannot be derived from the
> perfect tense form.
> 
Paul and Barnabas could also be the agent, just like the word of God as I
argued above. It may sound unusual, but do you think that the perfect
tense form of TETAGMENOI excludes the possibility that others than God are
the agent?

> > The verb TASSW in combination with the preposition EIS is used in this
> > sense of 'to direct to' in Matthew 28:16: EIS TO OROS OU ETACATO AUTOIS hO
> > IHSOUS (RSV: to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them).
> 
> No, it is not permissible to take words out of their context to try to prove
> a preconceived idea. The phrase EIS TO OROS depends on the preceding word
> EPOREUQHSAN and it is parallel to another destination mentioned: EIS THN
> GALILAIAN. The disciples went to Galilee, more specifically to the mountain
> where Jesus had appointed for them to go and meet him.
> 

The meaning "to direct" of the verb TASSW can be found in Barclay M.
Newman, Jr. A Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Moreover, if the main meaning of TASSW ("to place in position") is
combined with EIS, why shouldn't we translate the words "to place in
position towards" with "to direct towards"? It seems so obvious to me.

> Kind regards
> Richard van den Hengel
> The Netherlands



More information about the B-Greek mailing list