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

Randy Leedy Rleedy at bju.edu
Fri Mar 11 14:22:39 EST 2005


Iver, 

Thanks for your clarifications. I, too, have been working hastily (it's
mid-term time) and I hadn't noticed myself that your first example was
indeed intransitive. Of course in all the other forms of the indicative,
at least, and perhaps of all the other modes, too (I'm not going to take
time to chase this detail all the way through), the first and second
aorist of hISTHMI will differ in form. I guess you probably already got
that figured out. 

I, too, have been wondering whether the KJV and BDAG may have combined
to give us such a strong bias toward the transitive. I don't know what
Tyndale had, but I understand that the KJV is about 90% Tyndale, and it
in turn, of course, has had a major influence on subsequent versions.
Most of the versions recent enough to be relatively free of that
influence are very deferential to Bauer, etc., so the transitive
understanding has perhaps been perpetuated by that lexicon. If it turns
out that the intransitive reading really is better, your suggestion
would seem to me to account for the persistence of the transitive pretty
well.

Thanks for thinking further and for sharing.

Blessings in Christ! (Acts 3:26),

Randy Leedy

>>> "Iver Larsen" <ialarsen at multitechweb.com> 03/11/05 11:31 AM >>>
> [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




More information about the B-Greek mailing list