[B-Greek] ACTS 18:18 TOIS ADELFOIS

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Dec 25 07:44:16 EST 2006


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)


 
On Monday, December 25, 2006, at 01:51AM, "CTCE" <jfs at jfsanders.com> wrote:
>It is appears these postings have veered from attempting to understand the association of the dative in Acts 18:18 to a theory of composition.

I wouldn't quite call it a "theory of composition" so much as a dispute over whether there's a fixed standard word-order of precedence for complements of verbs. I think this thread would have died a much earlier (and more natural) death if it hadn't brought a fresh focus on disputed matters of word-order.

It appears to me that you're focusing on the same question even with regard to Luke's prologue. 

>If there is no objection, I would like to return to the original query.  
>
>Given:
>
>ACTS 18:18 hO DE PAULOS ETI PROSMEINAS hHMERAS hIKANAS TOIS ADELFOIS  APOTAXAMENOS EXEPLEI EIS THN SURIAN, 

>
>As I understood the two options presented set forth, the sense of the meanings would be:
>
>1) But Paul yet remaining sufficient days with the brethren, leaving (Paul understood by construction of the participle, from the brethren by placing adjacent to the dative) sailed to Syria, etc.
>
>2) But Paul yet remaining sufficient days, leaving the brethren sailed to Syria, etc.
>
>I had to changed the position of the dative in 2) because the English does not have the flexibility of Greek.

There's no need whatsoever, unless one is endeavoring to be "woodenly literal," to preserve the word-order of the Greek in English. I'd write your alternatives thus:

(1) But Paul stayed a few days longer  with the brothers, said farewell and set sail for Syria ...
(2) But Paul stayed a few days longer, said farewell to the brothers, and set sail for Syria ...

The question is simply whether to understand TOIS ADELFOIS as a dative complement with the ptc. PROSMEINAS or rather with the ptc. APOTAXAMENOS. Iver has steadfastly insisted that the dative MUST be construed with PROSMEINAS; I and some others are more inclined to think the dative should be construed with APOTAXAMENOS. I think there's also been a suggestion that it be taken APO KOINOU, i.e., that it construes with both, or that at any rate, if it construes with PROSMEINAS, it is implicitly understood with APOTAXAMENOS as well. That would yield something like:

     But Paul stayed a few days longer with the brothers, bade them farewell and then set sail for Syria

I guess that if I were convinced (as I am not) that TOIS ADELFOIS must absolutely construe with PROSMEINAS, then I would be arguing for this last way of understanding the sequence. I think that "the brothers" (I refuse to acquiesce in using the archaic "brethren" in what has been called "Biblish" -- that special dialect of archaic English used for translating Biblical texts even in our days) are clearly in view in Paul's extended stay and that if he bids farewell to anybody at all in this situation, it must surely be to "the brothers." The original question then devolves into: which of the two aorist active participles may more properly claim to take TOIS ADELFOIS as the explicit complement.

>
>I am not looking for debate, but understanding.  I live in China, I do not have at my disposal any Greek texts, I cannot procure them, Amazon (nor anyone else) delivers to China.  In addition, there are restrictions on importing materials that are connected or appear to be connected to religion.  So far, this is not a problem, the internet has many resources.
>
>To return to the question, for those who prefer 2), what grammatical or lexical signals in the language commend this reading?
>
>I have a similiar question with Luke 1:3,
>
>EDOXE KAMOI PARHKOLOUQHKOTI ANWQEN PASIN AKRIBWS KAQEXHS SOI GRAYAI KRATISTE QEOFILE. 
>
>Most translators that I have seen assoicate KAQEXHS with the verbal form GRAYAI rather than with PARHKOLOUQHKOTI.
>
>I presume that if we paused after AKRIBWS, then the assoication with "to write" is natural, but if we paused after KAQEXHS, then we would assoicate it with "haveing followed".  Is that what we are doing in ACTS 18:18, we are each supplying our own pauses where we think fit?  

I would understand PARHKOLOUQHKOTI ANWQEN PASIN as circumstantial to AKRIBWS KAQEXHS SOI GRAYAI: "to write a precise and sequential account for you on the basis of my close investigation of everything from the outset."

>With all the native speakers dead, that perhaps is all we can do.  Anyway, give me some help here for those who prefer the second reading.

By that I suppose you mean (2) above, the construction of TOIS ADELFOIS with APOTAXAMENOS. I don't think it can be demonstrated conclusively. It has been shown that both PROSMENW and APOSTASSOMAI are commonly used as intransitive verbs construing with datives of the person(s) attended or bidden farewell. The ultimate question in this thread has become whether word-order resolves the question.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list