[B-Greek] Acts 22:6 Revisited
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 11 10:04:15 EDT 2004
At 8:59 PM -0600 4/9/04, Martin Culy wrote:
> At 7:40 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:
>>EGENETO DE MOI POREUOMENWi KAI EGGIZONTI THi DAMASKWi
>>PERI MESHMBRIAN EXAIFNHS EK TOU OURANOU PERIASTRAYAI
>>FWS hIKANON PERI EME
>_____________________
>
>The comment in Culy/Parsons is based on an argument presented in a recent
>article entitled, âEURoeThe Clue is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival
>and Adverbial ParticiplesâEUR [Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003):
>441-53], where I argue that adverbial participles, which function like
>adverbs and modify verbs, are generally coreferential with the finite verb
>they modify, i.e., they have the same subject. To show that the subject of
>the participle is the same as the subject of the finite verb, the participle
>will bear the case of the main verbâEUR(tm)s subject (nominative). If the
>subject of an adverbial participle was different than the subject of the
>main verb, Greek writers used the genitive absolute construction, as a
>âEURoeswitch referenceâEUR device. The tendency to call oblique case
>participles âEURoeadverbial,âEUR I believe, stems from the common tendency
>to work from translation to syntax, rather than vice versa. Because it
>sounds good to translate Acts 22:6 using a temporal expression (âEURoewhen I
>was traveling and nearing Damascus . . .âEUR), we conclude that the
>participle must be adverbial/temporal. The PRS article suggests that if
>Greek used genitive case whenever the subject of the participle was
>different than the subject of the main verb, then other oblique case
>participles must have an adjectival rather than an adverbial function. Such
>an analysis has implications for how we understand texts with putative
>oblique case adverbial participles. It also has significant implications
>for how we teach students to analyze Greek participles. I realize that
>these claims go against conventional wisdom and welcome critique of the
>article.
>
>Martin Culy
>Associate Professor of New Testament
>Briercrest Biblical Seminary
Far be it from me to disparage illuminating new approaches to Greek
grammar; God knows I have not found much support for my notions about how
middle and passage voice in ancient Greek are best understood. Moreover, I
haven't read the Professor Culy's above-referenced paper and I'd like to do
so before offering any comment on the general worth of his proposition.
I would add also that I quite agree that we ought NOT to analyze the
grammatical construction of a Greek phrase or sentence in terms of how we
translate it into any target language; I've repeatedly questioned the
distinction between "subjective" and "objective genitive" as categories
having any foundation in the Greek usage itself rather than being
categories formulated for the sake of translators.
Nevertheless I am troubled by this notion that POREUOMENWi and EGGIZONTI in
Acts 22:6 are to be understood as ATTRIBUTIVE or ADJECTIVAL rather than as
PREDICATIVE or ADVERBIAL participles. The Greek text in question is cited
above from Eddie Mishoe's original message. Now let me cite the note on
this text from Culy/Parsons:
" POREUOMENWi. Pres. dep ptc masc dat sg. POREUOMAI. The use of participles
rather than infinitive ... is unusual. While there is no question that a
good English translation will render the two participles using a temporal
expression, strictly speaking the participles cannot be adverbial since
they have no verb to modify (both EGENETO and PERIASTRAYAI have different
subjects). Instead, they are clearly attributive modifiers of MOI (see Culy
2004; contra, e.g. Rogers and Robers 291). The use of participles rather
than the more usual infinitives probably serves to keep the focus on Paul
himself rather than the background events: 'There I was, going along and
nearing Damascus at about noon, when a bright light from the sky suddenly
flashed around me!'"
The article cited in the parenthesis has evidently not yet been published
(indicated in the Bibliography of Culy/Parsons as 2004 although cited above
as 2003), and so is not available. Nevertheless, although I approve
wholeheartedly of the English version given at the end of the passage I've
cited from the _Handbook on the Greek Text of Acts_, and although I think
it admirably represents the efficacy of the word-order (the fronted
participial phrase headed by MOI) it clearly does NOT represent the
syntactical structure of the Greek sentence. I myself would understand the
syntactic structure of the sentence thus: the infinitive phrase EK TOU
OURANOU PERIASTRAYAI FWS hIKANON PERI EME functions as the subject of
EGENETO MOI; the participial phrase POREUOMENWi KAI EGGIZONTI THi DAMASKWi
still seems to me to be adverbial and to set forth the circumstances of the
predicate EGENETO MOI; the adverbs PERI MESHMBRIAN EXAIFNHS could be taken
either with PERIASTRAYAI or with EGENETO MOI, but I think I would prefer to
understand them with EGENETO MOI as part of the adverbial clarification of
those two words of the predicate.
Professor Culy says that "strictly speaking the participles cannot be
adverbial since they have no verb to modify (both EGENETO and PERIASTRAYAI
have different subjects)." Technically speaking, that is, of course, true:
EK TOU OURANOU PERIASTRAYAI FWS hIKANON PERI EME is the subject of EGENETO
MOI and FWS hIKANON is the subject of PERIASTRAYAI.
But wouldn't it make more sense to understand EGENETO MOI ... PERIASTRAYAI
FWS as a passive transformation of an active formulation such as EPAQON
FOWS PERIASTRAYAI or EIDON FWS PERISASTRAYAN? And IF we should understand
the construction as such as passive transformation, then wouldn't the
subject of that active verb EPAQON or EIDON or the like be such as to bear
the participles in the nominative POREUOMENOS KAI EGGIZWN THi DAMASKWi:
"experienced/saw, as I journeyed and approached Damascus, a bright light
suddenfly flash about me"? And wouldn't we understand the participles in
such a construction as circumstantial, i.e. adverbial? And if so, aren't
those participles just as much adverbial in the sentence as it appears in
Acts 22:6?
It seems to me that this very vivid expression of Paul's experience is
structured carefully so as to underscore the personal experience; note the
beginning and end: EGENETO DE MOI ... FWS hIKANON PERI EME. To be sure,
Paul narrates this experience in such a way as to make clear its OBJECTIVE
nature: it was not something he dreamed but a personal experience, and in
what follows immediately he breaks into the active voice: EPESA ... KAI
HKOUSA ... I think that the force of those participles in 22:6 is not at
all merely attributive but adverbial: "it happened TO ME, WHILE I WAS
WALKING AND NEARING DAMASCUS, SUDDENLY, AT NOON , that a bright light
flashed ... "
I don't think that I am understanding the meaning of the narrative
statement otherwise than as does Professor Culy; but we evidently have a
very different understanding of the syntax of the verse.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list