[B-Greek] ACTS 18:18 TOIS ADELFOIS
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Dec 21 03:02:06 EST 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> ACTS 18:18 hO DE PAULOS ETI PROSMEINAS hHMERAS hIKANAS TOIS ADELFOIS
>> APOTAXAMENOS EXEPLEI EIS THN SURIAN, KAI SUN AUTWi PRISKILLA KAI
>> AKULAS, KEIRAMENOS EN KEGCREAIS THN KEFALHN, EICEN GAR EUCHN.
>>
>> Parsons & Culy take TOIS ADELFOIS with PROSMEINAS hHMERAS hIKANAS.
>> Bruce (NICNT Acts 2nd ed) joins TOIS ADELFOIS with APOTAXAMENOS.
>> APOTASSW frequently takes a dative argument, see Danker's 3rd page
>> 123 under APOTASSW.
>
>[CC:] I'd take APOTAXAMENOS with TOIS ADELFOIS.
>
> Mk 6:46 KAI APOTAXAMENOS AUTOIS APHLQEN EIS TO OROS PROSEUXASQAI.
>
> 2 Cor 2:13 ... U, ALLA APOTAXAMENOS AUTOIS EXHLQON EIS MAKEDONIAN.
>
> Seems to me that the parallels with these instances of the ptc. of
> ANATAXASQAI with datives of person followed by verbs of departure is
> pretty close. The verb really should have a middle lemma and has the
> standard sense, "say farewell (to)."
PROSMENW is used 7 times in the NT, and in each instance it is followed (never preceded) by a dative
complement. It appears that if you stay with someone or something, you need to specify who or what
that is.
APOTASSW is used 6 times in the NT, and in four of these it is followed (not preceded) by a dative,
two of these in Luke - although not participles - the other two listed above. In Acts, it only
occurs here in v. 18 and in 18:21: ALLA APOTAXAMENOS KAI EIPWN [speech] ANHCQH APO THS EFESOU.
The verse in 21 is very parallel to 18 and very close, and it has no explicit dative object. It is,
of course, understood from context who he is saying good-bye to.
I don't have means to do a thorough search outside the NT, but it seems to me that both verbs could
easily be construed with the dative and normally require a dative object. Because of the examples
above, but mainly because of the word order, I am fairly confident that TOIS ADELFOIS should be
connected with PROSMENW. There is no good reason to front it before APOTASSW. On the other hand,
once the "brothers" are identified as those he stayed with, it is naturally carried forward to also
be the implied object of APOTASSW, and there is no reason to repeat it or have an explicit object
for APOTASSW.
The tradition in English versions is based on KJV (and its predecessors?) which took the brothers
with APOTASSW, and that is why the majority of translations have followed that tradition, but a few
like TEV and NCV break with tradition and take it with PROSMENW.
As an aside, the SIL computer program and database I use has the option of showing or not showing an
interlinear gloss. When I do look at the interlinear for various reasons I have ample opportunity to
disagree with it. It inserted a comma in v. 18, effectively associating "brothers" with APOTASSW.
That is an interpretive decision that I happen to disagree with.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list