[B-Greek] Acts 26:2-3
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 11:56:26 EST 2008
EYXARISTW Iver
The reading with EPISTAMENOS does smooth things out nicely. And it
isn't badly attested.
And while it is true that MALISTA typically controls a piece of a
proposition, (here it controls 'you being known'),
questions remain. See below. **
On Feb 3, 2008 3:57 PM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
> Carl mentioned the "lingering force" of hHGHMAI and an "implicit participle of some sort". I think
> these are excellent leads, but I don't see how GNWSTHN ONTA SE can be grammatically connected to
> either SOU or DEOMAI. I am reluctant to accuse Luke of producing "bad grammar", so I am exploring
> other options.
>
> I want to suggest that we first need to look at the key word MALISTA. Let me quote a few other
> usages of this word where words in brackets are not in the text, but understood from context:
>
> Act 25:26 DIO PROHGAGON AUTON EF' hUMWN,
> KAI MALISTA [PROHGAGON AUTON] EPI SOU, BASILEU AGRIPPA
> That is why I brought him before y'all and especially [why I brought him] before you, king Agrippa
>
> Gal 6:10 ERGAZWMEQA TON AGAQON PROS PANTAS,
> MALISTA DE [ERGAZWMEQA TON AGAQON] PROS TOUS OIKEIOUS THS PISTHS
> We should do good towards all people, but especially [we should do good] towards fellow believers
>
> Php 4:22 ASPAZONTAI hUMAS PANTES hOI hAGIOI,
> MALISTA DE [ASPAZONTAI hUMAS] hOI EK THS KAISAROS OIKIAS
> All the saints greet you, but especially those from the house of Caesar [greet you]
>
> 1Ti 4:10 hOS ESTIN SWTHR PANTWN ANQRWPWN,
> MALISTA [ESTIN SWTHR PANTWN] PISTWN
> He-who is saviour (for) all people, especially [saviour for all] believers
>
> 1Ti 5:8 EI DE TIS TWN IDIWN,
> KAI MALISTA TWN OIKEIWN [OU PRONOEI], OU PRONOEI
> But if anyone does not care for his own (people), and especially [does not care for] his own
> household
>
> 1Ti 5:17 hOI KALWS PROESTWTHS PRESBUTEROI DIPLHS TIMHS AXIOUSQWSAN,
> MALISTA hOI KOPIWNTES EN LOGWi KAI DIDASKALIAi [PRESBUTEROI DIPLHS TIMHS AXIOUSQWSAN]
> Consider those elders who have been good leaders, worthy of double honour,
> especially [consider worthy of double honour] the elders who are labouring in speaking and teaching
>
> I could go on listing examples, but the key point to notice is that in all these cases the clause
> with MALISTA has no finite verb in it. Instead, the verb phrase from the previous clause is to be
> carried over, or if you want, it is doing double duty. (In one case, the MALISTA clause was placed
> inside the main clause, but the verb is still to be understood from the main clause).
>
> DIO, it is normal for a MALISTA clause to have no finite verb, but to take over the verb from the
> main clause. If we look at Acts 26 again, this is what I would consider to be carried over:
>
> 1a hHGHMAI EMAUTON MAKARION
> 1b EPI SOU MELLWN SHMERON APOLOGEISTHAI,
> 2a MALISTA [hHGHMAI EMAUTON MAKARION]
> 2b GNWSTHN ONTA SE PANTWN TWN KATA IOUDAIOUS EQWN TE KAI ZHTHMATWN
> I consider myself fortunate
> that it is before you I am about to defend myself today,
> especially [I consider myself fortunate]
> you being knowledgeable of all the Jewish customs and controversial issues
>
> That doesn't explain the grammar, though, since we don't have an infinitive in 2b as in 1b, but
> rather an accusative object (?) SE with a participial clause attached. Semantically SE connects with
> SOU, but the grammar is awkward.
**RB: Yes, that is the problem. And your 2b becomes an accusative
absolute, as mentioned in other posts.
> Now, there is an interesting parallel in Acts 24:10:
> EK POLLWN ETWN ONTA SE KRITHN TWi EQNEI TOUTWi EPISTAMENOS
> EUQUMWS TA PERI EMAUTOU APOLOGOUMAI
> I defend myself gladly (before you) about the things (I am accused of) knowing you as having been a
> judge for this people group for many years
>
> Here the participle EPISTAMENOS is connected to the first person subject of the following finite
> verb.
**RB: Nice parallel. Notice that there is no repetition of
'you/before you' in the main clause. See below.
> Looking at NA, there is very good internal and external textual support for the alternative reading
> with the missing participle:
> 2b GNWSTHN ONTA SE PANTWN TWN KATA IOUDAIOUS EQWN TE KAI ZHTHMATWN EPISTAMENOS
>
> The main verb hHGHMAI is then qualified by the participial clause where SE is the object for
> EPISTAMENOS exactly as in 24:10. The parallel with Acts 24:10 tells us that this is how Paul (or
> Luke) would express himself. EPISTAMAI (be aware of) is an "Acts" word in that 64% of all NT
> occurrences are found in Acts.
**RB: very nice observation. Yes, EPISTAMAI is an Acts word, with 5
out of 7 exx from Acts 16-28 (not counting 26:3), with one example in
Mk 14:68 and none in the gospel of Luke. A true Lucanism. (Incidently
Mk 14, Acts 10:28 and 15:7 are all the words of Peter. Hugh are you
listening? But it's not in 1-2Peter and it is difficult to imagine a
history that would transfer Aramaic and/or Hebrew into Greek and
preserve a 'Petrine Greek style', not to mention the low statistics.)
> I won't go into textual arguments on this list as to why the final participle was lost in some of
> the early and less reliable mss, but only say that this is one way to solve the grammatical
> awkwardness. For those who prefer the NA text, the easiest solution is to agree with Carl that a
> participle is implied, in this case EPISTAMENOS.
>
> (There is also reasonably good textual support for SOU after DEOMAI, illustrating Carl's point that
> DEOMAI requires a genitive).
**RB: Yes, DEOMAI takes genitive, no question, and SOY would be
demanded if EXPLICIT within a DEOMAI clause. [[Textually, SOY is
weaker than the EPISTAMENOS reading and most of those that have
EPISTAMENOS do not have SOY. This would be like your parallel at Acts
24 where there is no explicit adjunct 'before you'.]]
But the question remains, what to do with the accusative phrase ONTA
SE? Why explicitly switch from SOY in the previous clause to SE?
In a sense everyone is agreed.
ONTA SE is 'extra clausal' in the grammatical/syntactic sense.
It can be given a name (accusative absolute, and some people feel
better with a name given),
or the accusative absolute can be explained as the object of an
implied verb (EPISTAMENOS),
or the accusative absolute can be explained as an extraclausal,
dangling subject to the infinitive 'hear' (that was the first
connection that I heard when having this immediate sentence read, see
below).
All three deal with the 'accusativeness' of the phrase, and all three
admit a disconnected 'chopiness' to the text.
So how bad is' bad grammar'?
I would say that if this sentence went to a style editor, it would be
corrected.
A separate question is how to correct it, and the easiest way to
correct it is to add EPISTAMENOS.
Maybe that's what Luke wrote, as some texts have it, and maybe not.
But the Acts 24 parallel supports that Luke may have almost thought
it, if he didn't write it. This is a good example of why it is good to
read or hear a work in its entirety.
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
שלום לכם וברכות
randallbuth at gmail.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list