[B-Greek] DIAPONHQEIS ... KAI EPISTREYAS Acts 16:18
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Sep 11 15:39:24 EDT 2006
On Sep 11, 2006, at 11:05 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
> It appears to me that it is simply attendant circumstance --
> certainly not purpose.
>
> _____________
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:
> ACTS 16:16 EGENETO DE POREUOMENWN hHMWN EIS THN PROSEUCHN PAIDISKHN
> TINA ECOUSAN PNEUMA PUQWNA hUPANTHSAI hHMIN, hHTIS ERGASIAN POLLHN
> PAREICEN TOIS KURIOIS AUTHS MANTEUOMENH. 17 hAUTH KATAKOLOUQOUSA TWi
> PAULWi KAI hHMIN EKRAZEN LEGOUSA: hOUTOI hOI ANQRWPOI DOULOI TOU QEOU
> TOU hUYISTOU EISIN, hOITINES KATAGGELLOUSIN hUMIN hODON SWTHRIAS. 18
> TOUTO DE EPOIEI EPI POLLAS hHMERAS. DIAPONHQEIS DE PAULOS KAI
> EPISTREYAS TWi PNEUMATI EIPEN: PARAGGELLW SOI EN ONOMATI IHSOU
> CRISTOU EXELQEIN AP' AUTHS: KAI EXHLQEN AUTHi THi hWRAi.
>
> Parsons/Culy (Acts Handbook) argue that the function of DIAPONHQEIS
> in Acts 16:18 cannot be causal because it is linked to EPISTREYAS
> which is not causal. This may have the support of greek syntax
> according to the rules but semantically it is counter intuitive.
> There appears to be an obvious cause and effect relationship between
> DIAPONHQEIS and Paul's subsequent action.
>
I would agree it isn't purpose. Barrett (Acts ICC) waffles on this
question, with a tentative nod toward coincident action. But if you
look at the flow of the story I think we should conclude that
DIAPONHQEIS and EPISTREYAS have different SEMANTIC functions in this
passage.
We see a chain of cause and effect in these events, in the later part
of the chain TOUTO DE EPOIEI EPI POLLAS hHMERAS is linked to
DIAPONHQEIS PAULOS which in turn is linked to Paul's subsequent
action. EPISTREYAS is just a dramatic detail, not a part of the
causual chain. If you remove DIAPONHQEIS from the chain then we have
to infer (relavnce theory) that Paul came to the end of his patience.
If you remove EPISTREYAS nothing needs to be supplied. It is a non-
essential detail and not a part of the chain.
So calling both of these "attendant circumstance" (Culy-Parsons)
might be OK if you stretch the definition of attendant circumstance
but this use of the terminology seems to mask a significant
functional difference between DIAPONHQEIS and EPISTREYAS.
Do we have any alterantives concerning how we read the KAI in
DIAPONHQEIS DE PAULOS KAI
EPISTREYAS TWi PNEUMATI EIPEN ?
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list