[B-Greek] Do we have a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech in Acts 7:15-16?

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 25 20:10:08 EST 2010


Hi Mark!
 
Good points! Maybe, awkward was not the right word. What I meant was there could have been a clearer way to state the facts (if my assumption is correct) – thus the different translations. It seems when one writes something down one tries to make sure it is clear enough so it cannot be misconstrued. Obviously, we fail more than we succeed at such a task. However, there seems to be more latitude in spontaneous oratory which, while it might be understood by the hearers, if written down could be less than clear.
 
As far as Stephen’s speech being written down, I also thought about how that came about. This was a “council” meeting and they were trying to indict him. Perhaps, because he was accused of blasphemous words (Acts 7:13), someone was instructed to write down his words for the record. (Was their Hebrew shorthand? : >) 
 
Or, perhaps, there were some young Jewish lads (sons of the officials), at a B-Greek coffee klatch and they they were reading Gen. 50:13 in the LXX that morning, thus, when they went to the council meeting and heard Stephen speak, they took special notice of Stephen’s words KAI ETELEUTHSEN AUTOS KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN KAI METETEQHSAN.  Since our ancient brothers were more attune to retaining oral tradition, perhaps, they remembered that phrase, even to their old age, and when Luke came to Jerusalem doing research for his gospel, he talked to this now old Jewish lad who recounted to him that dramatic speech with this particular phrase still burned into his mind. How about that for an explanation!!
 
Of course, there is a third option, but I will not talk about that option. : >)
 
Sincerely,
Blue Harris




________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 4:16:30 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Do we have a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech in Acts 7:15-16?


Hi, Blue,

Very interesting theory.  AUTO AGAPW.

It seems to me you are arguing four things.
I'll respond to each as I go along.

1.  ETELEUTHSEN goes with Jacob and the
Fathers but METETEQHSAN and ETEQHSAN
go only with the Fathers.

PERI #1 LEGEI FWSFOROS:

I can't find anything in the Greek text which
would rule this out.  I would not take it this
way, but I have no problem with you doing so.

2.  The Greek is a little awkward here.

PERI #2 LEGEI FWSFOROS:

The Greek is only awkward if you take the
text the way you do.  Otherwise it looks
fine to me.

3.  The Greek would be less awkward if
it were spoken Greek than written Greek.

PERI #3 LEGEI FWSFOROS:

I don't know enough about the difference
between spoken and written Greek to comment
on this.  Let me rephrase that.  I don't know
ANYTHING about the difference between spoken
and written Greek.  I'm not sure anyone really does.

4.  Since #2 and #3 above are true, we may have
a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech in Acts 7:15-16.

PERI #4 LEGEI FWSFOROS.

Well, #2 is only true if #1 is true and #3 
can probably not be demonstrated to be true.  But this is
beside the point.

Whether we have a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech
in Acts 7:15-16 is a very important, complicated, historical
and theological question.  Important historical and theological
questions are never, and in my opinion, ought never, to be
decided base on the vagaries of the Greek text.

So, FWSFOROS has no light to bring on #4 except 
to say that if I were Stephen delivering this speech and I 
saw some guy writing it down, I would get a little freaked
out.  I would be wondering if he knew something I did not.  ;)  

Mark L


FWSFOROS MARKOS

--- On Thu, 2/25/10, Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Do we have a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech in Acts 7:15-16?
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 2:26 PM
>
>
>Mark Lightman, are you out there? Actually, this is for anyone. I just mentioned Mark because he has talked a lot about conversational Greek the last few weeks.
> 
>In Acts 7:15-16 Stephen says the following:
> 
>KATEBH DE IAKWB EIS AIGUPTON KAI ETELEUTHSEN AUTOS KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN, KAI METETEQHSAN EIS SUCEM KAI ETEQHSAN EN TWi MNHMATI hWi WNHSATO ABRAAM TIMHS ARGURIOU PARA TWN hUIWN EMMWR EN SUCEM
> 
>Is it possible that we might have a remnant of the actual speech of Stephen in these verses? This sentence seemed a little awkward. I do not know if anyone has ever edited written material as opposed to transcribe spoken material, but if one has, he or she, more than likely, has noticed  a marked difference between the two. That made me wonder about this portion of Stephen’s speech.
> 
>The phrase, KAI ETELEUTHSEN AUTOS KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN KAI METETEQHSAN, seems strange to me from a written perspective. It seems if it was written in this way it would make more sense.  KATEBH DE IAKWB EIS AIGUPTON KAI AUTOS KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN “ETELEUTHSAN”  KAI METETEQHSAN EIS SUCEM KAI ETEQHSAN EN TWi MNHMATI hWi WNHSATO ABRAAM TIMHS ARGURIOU PARA TWN hUIWN EMMWR EN SUCEM
> 
>Nevertheless, if this was an actual remnant of his verbal speech, it would  make  sense without any change. This is how he could have made the statement:  KATEBH DE IAKWB EIS AIGUPTON KAI ETELEUTHSEN (pause) AUTOS (with emphasis and a longer pause) KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN (spoken with  rising intonation and another, but shorter pause)  KAI METETEQHSAN EIS SUCEM KAI ETEQHSAN EN TWi MNHMATI hWi WNHSATO ABRAAM TIMHS ARGURIOU PARA TWN hUIWN EMMWR EN SUCEM
> 
>I prefer to translate AUTOS as “himself,” therefore in English it would be as follows:
> 
>And Jacob went down into Egypt and died (pause) himself, (with emphasis and a longer pause) and our fathers (with another but shorter pause and spoken with  rising intonation) and were carried over to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
> 
>The result of this is that with a pause after ETELEUTHSEN and another after AUTOS emphasis is given to the fact that Jacob died and a separation is created in the mind of the hearer. However, with KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN spoken with a rising intonation in one’s voice and with another short pause, the hearer realizes that the speaker is saying the fathers "also" died. But because the pause is shorter and the words KAI METETEQHSAN EIS SUCEM KAI ETEQHSAN EN TWi MNHMATI hWi WNHSATO ABRAAM TIMHS ARGURIOU PARA TWN hUIWN EMMWR EN SUCEM are spoken immediately, one realizes that the speaker is saying the patriarchs were the ones carried to Shechem to be buried and not Jacob and the patriarchs combined. This seems to be confirmed since Stephen uses ETELEUTHSEN and not ETELEUTHSAN. Thus ETELEUTHSAN becomes understood after KAI hOI PATERES hHMWN.
> 
>“And Jacob went down into Egypt and died, himself, and our fathers [died] and were carried over to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.”
> 
>This may not be perfectly clear in written form, but in verbal form it seems to make perfect sense.
> 
>Why, speak about this?  Jewish tradition says Jacob was buried in a cave in the field of Machpelah, not Shechem (Gen. 50:13). On the surface it appears Stephen is claiming he was buried in Shechem. However, upon closer examination this may not have been what Stephen was saying at all. If this is so, is it not possible this could be an actual remnant of Stephens’s verbal speech showing that he did not even address where Jacob was buried?
> 
>Below are some versions of this verse:
> 
>ASV (1901) – And Jacob went down into Egypt; and he died, himself and our fathers; and they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a price in silver of the sons of  Hamor in Shechem. 
> 
>NASB –   And Jacob went down to Egypt and there passed away, he and our fathers. And from there they were removed to Shechem, and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
> 
>NIV –   Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died.  Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.
> 
>KJV – So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.
> 
>ESV – And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
> 
>NKJV – "So Jacob went down to Egypt; and he died, he and our fathers.  And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.
> 
>NET – So Jacob went down to Egypt and died there, along with our ancestors, and their bones were later moved to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a certain sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
> 
>Sincerely,
>Blue Harris
>
>
>      
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list