[B-Greek] EXESTAKENAI in Acts 8:11: transitive orintransitive?

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Mar 11 11:55:06 EST 2005


Randy, did you actually settle finally upon the form EXESTAKENAI being
intransitive? I must confess that I've come in the end to think rather that
it must be transitive and that the "A" form of the root may well be
intended as a feature distinguishing it from the intransitive EXESTHKA
forms--and suggesting it relates to the secondary active form EXISTANW of
EXISTAMAI, and the fact that it is the active participle EXISTANWN in 8:9
two verses before EXISTAKENAI seems to me to favor that interpretation. I
do think that BDAG is inconsistent on this matter, since he lists both Acts
8:9 and 8:11 as transitive usages (under I), but then says in II
"intransitive" that 2 aor. and pf. active are intransitive. Of course
normally it may be, but in Biblical Greek we have only EXESTHKUIA in 1 Sam
4:13--there are no other perfect-tense forms of this verb in LXX or GNT.

I am inclined to attempt to reach Fred Danker and see whether the
inconsistency in the BDAG entry on EXISTHMI is an oversight error and how
he might weigh the scanty evidence regarding EXESTAKENAI. If I learn
anything from him one way or the other, I'll report it.

At 7:31 PM +0300 3/11/05, Iver Larsen wrote:
>> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Randy Leedy
>> Sent: 10. marts 2005 00:00
>>
>> Thanks to Stephen Carlson and Iver Larsen for helpful input. The
>> quotations from the medieval sources seem particularly helpful toward
>> establishing the legitimacy of a transitive sense. And I appreciate
>> seeing the REB's rendering.
>>
>> I'm not quite ready to base an understanding of the Perfect on what the
>> Aorist does, though, especially given the strong pattern of a transitive
>> first aorist and intransitive 2nd aorist. Also, I do not find any
>> INtransitive Present actives in the NT, so I'm not sure a claim that the
>> Present active can be transitive or intransitive can stand up, at least
>> not for the NT (I do recall that Liddell & Scott indicated that the
>> Present active can be transitive, so I assume the claim can be defended
>> across the broader literature, though I wonder what the chronological
>> distribution may be).
>
>Hi, Randy,
>
>Now that I have had a bit of time to look at this more closely, I confess
>that my other comment was too hastily written. I was partly confused by my
>own two examples:
>
>Lk 8:56 KAI EXESTHSAN hOI GONEIS AUTHS  - her parents were amazed
>Lk 24:22 ALLA KAI GUNAIKES TINES EX hHMWN EXESTHSAN hHMAS - but even some
>women among us amazed us
>
>What confused me was that there is no difference in third person plural
>between 1. and 2. aorist of this verb. So, it seems likely from context that
>the first instance is the intransitive 2. aorist and the second is the
>transitive 1. aorist.
>You are also correct that there doesn't seem to be any present active
>intransitives, at least not in the Biblical data.
>
>Why BAGD lists Acts 8:11 under the transitive usage, but still lists the
>perfect forms under intransitive is not clear to me. Maybe that is one
>reason why many translations have opted for the transitive sense here? Or
>they followed the lead of the KJV? I am now inclined to agree with you that
>it is most likely intended to be intransitive with AUTOUS being subject in
>spite of the medieval evidence and many translations.
>
>Thanks for educating me,
>
>Iver Larsen
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

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