SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS Acts 19:29,32 Gen 11:7,9
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Sep 29 01:24:14 EDT 2002
on 9/28/02 11:45 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
>> The use of the cognates SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS in Acts 19:29,32 seems to resonate
>> with the LXX use of the same in Gen 11:7,9. J. Wevers* notes that these words
>> are used to render a cognate pair from BBL in the MT Gen 11:7,9.
>>
>> Kind of surprised not to see this mentioned in Barrett (Acts, ICC) or
>> Fitzmyer (Acts, AB) or in any other source I have handy on Acts.
>>
>> ACTS 19:29 KAI EPLHSQH hH POLIS THS SUGCUSEWS, hWRMHSAN TE hOMOQUMADON EIS TO
>> QEATRON SUNARPASANTES GAION KAI ARISTARCON MAKEDONAS, SUNEKDHMOUS PAULOU.
>> ACTS 19:32 ALLOI MEN OUN ALLO TI EKRAZON: HN GAR hH EKKLHSIA SUGKECUMENH KAI
>> hOI PLEIOUS OUK HiDEISAN TINOS hENEKA SUNELHLUQEISAN.
>>
>> GEN. 11:7 DEUTE KAI KATABANTES SUGCEWMEN EKEI AUTWN THN GLWSSAN hINA MH
>> AKOUSWSIN hEKASTOS THN FWNHN TOU PLHSION
>> GEN. 11:9 DIA TOUTO EKLHQH TO ONOMA AUTHS SUGCUSIS hOTI EKEI SUNECEEN KURIOS
>> TA CEILH PASHS THS GHS KAI EKEIQEN DIESPEIREN AUTOUS KURIOS hO QEOS EPI
>> PROSWPON PASHS THS GHS
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
>> Three Tree Point
>> P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
>>
>> *Wevers, John William. "Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis." (Society of
>> Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies ; 35). xxv, 880 p .
>> Atlanta: Scholars Pr, 1993.
>
To which Steven R. Lo Vullo replied:
> Clay:
>
> Why would you choose Acts 19.29,32 rather than, say, Acts 21.27, 31 as an
> allusion to Gen 11.7,9? If I had to choose a text in Acts as an allusion to
> Gen 11.7, 9, it would be Acts 2.6:
>
> GENOMENHS DE THS FWNHS TAUTHS SUNHLQEN TO PLHQOS KAI *SUNECUQH*, hOTI HKOUON
> hEIS hEKASTOS THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi LALOUNTWN AUTWN.
>
> In the Genesis 11 passage the *confusion* of tongues leads to the confusion
> of the city; in Acts 2, commonly believed to allude to Gen 11 and to be the
> reversal of that judgment, it is the *intelligibility* of tongues that leads
> to confusion. Irony? There are other verbal parallels in the context as
> well.
> ============
>
> Steven R. Lo Vullo
> Madison, WI
Steven,
Good question. Not sure I have a great answer.
My nose was buried in Acts 19 and Pentecost was far from my thoughts. What
we find in Acts 19:29,32 but is missing in Acts 2 is the combination of the
cognates SUGCEW & SUGCUSIS in one context. This use of cognates amounts to a
kind word play BLL,BBL in the MT of Gen 11.7,9. Wevers notes that the LXX
does a good job of preserving the word play using the noun/verb pattern.
So I wasn't thinking along the lines of the confusion of tongues, just
noting Luke's use of these cognates in a context were confusion has taken
hold of the crowd. Also there seems thematic connection, in that the stories
in Genesis 11 and Acts 19 texts are concerned with idolatry. So I was
thinking of a sort of semiotic link Idolatry <-> Confusion and looking at
the word play associated with this link.
Certainly a case can be made for Acts 2:6. However, Barrett (Acts 2:6, ICC)
notes that SUGCEW is a Lukan word (Acts only) in the NT, and suggests
caution in finding a connection with Gen. 11.
I think Barrett is too cautious.
Thanks Steven, for pointing this out.
greetings, clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list