[B-Greek] Acts 22:17 Septuagintal?

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Wed Jan 25 08:05:03 EST 2006


I think this has been a useful thread, although I am not convinced  
that all the questions concerning Acts 22:17 have yet been adequately  
resolved. I do appreciate Iver's careful delineation -- and Randall's  
more detailed consubstantiation -- of the distinction between the  
EGENETO ... KAI + indicative constructions and the EGENETO ... +  
infinitive constructions and the significant different distributions  
of these in Luke and in Acts. Perhaps it deserves repeating that  
there's no dispute (I believe) over the CONTENT -- the meaning -- of  
this verse; the questions have concerned the syntactic construction(s).

(1) We began with the question whether the participial phrase MOI  
hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM should be considered a "dative absolute"  
and I rather think we are in agreement that it is NOT a dative  
absolute, that the dative participle construes with the MOI and the  
MOI with the initial EGENETO.

(2) I raised the issue whether the construction involved here might  
represent LXXII usage deriving from Hebrew usage. I accept the  
differentiation noted by Iver and Randall, and I am well aware that  
the construction EGENETO+ dative + infinitive is common in  
Hellenistic prose (in checking the archives for earlier discussions  
relevant to our question I note that Jeffrey Gibson did a TLG search  
and discovered numerous instances of this construction). I'm grateful  
to Dirk for calling attention to the comparable construction in Acts  
22:6 and noting that this is in the same cited speech).  I think,  
however, that Randall is right to see it as essentially a Hellenistic  
construction derivative from an older Attic construction SUMBAINEI/ 
SUNEBH + dative + infinitive, and I rather like Randall's suggestion,  
"What is interesting about Acts 22:17 is that it shows the "real  
Luke" when trying to sound somewhat Septuagintal." Of course there  
are all sorts of background issues of common authorship of GLuke and  
Acts and the like that are not appropriate for discussion in this  
forum, but I do think that Randall is probably right about this and  
that the author seems intent on sustaining a style that is suggestive  
at the same time of Greek historiography and Hebrew Septuagintal  
narrative. That may appear to some to be a subjective judgment, but  
to me, at least, it seems not improbable.

(3) There's been some juggling over the question whether the syntax  
of Acts 22:17 is "awkward." Culy-Parsons: "the whole construction  
follows the rules of Greek syntax (though it is somewhat  
complicated)," but notes the judgment of BDF that the construction is  
"astounding" and perhaps questionably Lucan in authorship. Elizabeth  
Kline has cited Barrett more fully: "The construction of this verse  
is astounding; surprisingly it does
not seem to have provoked correction on the part of copyists. Perhaps  
we are too fastidious" -- and Elizabeth wants to underscore that  
"Perhaps we are too fastidious." Dirk Jongkind says:

> 2) I have great problems with the designation superfluous/clumsy to
> describe a construction where a Genitive Absolute is used with a
> resumptive pronoun later in the sentence (by the way, this pronoun can
> be in any case). It may be clumsy according to Atticist standards, but
> it is quite likely perfectly acceptable for first-century Koine. And
> since when is language 'economical' (as suggested by 'superfluous')?

Unquestionably there's a lot of subjectivity in a judgment of what is  
lucid and articulate in a given text and what is awkward or widely  
divergent from conventional usage. I think we generally agree that  
there are "solecisms" in Revelation; many think that Mark's Greek is  
rough, although I've come to think that there's considerable  
stylistic variation within GMark and that the rougher passages have  
more to do with his sources than with the author's own competence in  
Greek. There are those who have a much higher opinion of the  
eloquence of Ephesians 1:3-14 than I, but I personally think that  
sequence defies any convincing diagramming. Dirk's question above is  
fair; I don't doubt that Acts 22:17 is "perfectly acceptable for  
first-century Koine" but that begs the question inasmuch as there's a  
vast range of stylistic divergency in first-century Koine. Nobody is  
questioning the intelligibility of this verse; what is questioned is  
its eloquence. What's wrong with MOI - MOU -ME accompanied by a  
dative participle, a genitive participle, and an infinitive within  
the span of sixteen words? Should he have written something like  
hUPOSTREYAS DE EIS IEROUSALHM, EN TWi hIERWi PROSEUCOMENOS EN  
EKSTASEI EGENOMHN? I wouldn't have expected this author to write like  
Plato or Xenophon, but I do think he could have been more articulate  
in structuring this sentence.

(4) And then there's the matter of the KAI preceding PROSEUCOMENOU  
MOU. I just can't see it simply linking the two participial phrases  
if we construe the first of them (MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM)  
with EGENETO and the second PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi with  
GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI. It seems to me that if we understand the KAI  
as simply linking them as comparable adverbial phrases to EGENETO  
GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI then we might as well agree that MOI  
hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM really IS a dative absolute. But I'm not  
ready to do that.

> 4) On Acts 22:17 the use of KAI.
>  I tend to agree with Iver on this one, but I am wondering whether the
> KAI has something to do with the following infinitive: EGENETO MOI ...
> KAI ...(gen. abs.) ... GENESQAI ... KAI IDEIN ...  I would never bring
> this up unless I found something equally problematic in Acts 11:26
> where, in similar vain, I don't know what to do with the first KAI:
> EGENETO DE AUTOIS KAI ENIAUTON OLON SUNACQHNAI EN THi EKKLHSIAi KAI
> DIDAXAI OCLON IKANON.
> I will be more than happy if someone can point out that this  
> example is
> irrelevant.

I do NOT think that example is irrelevant; it MAY be adverbial "even  
for the extent of a whole year." Is it a remnant of the Hebraic Wa  
that we really have to English as "that"? I doubt if anyone else will  
buy that notion, but something like it seems to me may be implicit in  
Randall's suggestion that "'the real Luke"' may be trying to sound"  
'somewhat Septuagintal.'" I do think this is "the real  
Luke" (whatever that means) and the KAI still puzzles me. Chalk it up  
to my obtuseness or KARDIA PEPWRWMENH.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list