[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 21:02:26 EST 2010


Thank you Dr. Conrad –
 
The verdict is still out in my mind, so I will look at this passage again with the added information you mentioned.
 
One thing concerning the following item that you mentioned – 
 
<You are aware, aren't you, that all ancient written texts were composed in order to be read aloud, not read silently by parties receiving the text. What' important about that is that we need to be aware that all ancient Greek texts were composed with a view to how LISTENERS would HEAR them, not how silent readers might ponder a sequence of words that they could deconstruct and reconstruct while looking at a piece of writing.>
 
Good point, but were not some things written down as they were spoken without any editing? For instance, off the top of my head, the statement of Jesus from the cross, ELWI ELWI LAMA SABACQANI ?
 
With best regards,
Blue Harris




________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 4:58:13 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Do we have a remnant of Stephen's verbal speech in Acts 7:15-16?

On Feb 25, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:
> 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.

Mark Lightman was out there and has reported already. This here is Anyone -- and there are other Anyones also, I'm sure.

>  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,

You are aware, aren't you, that all ancient written texts were composed in order to be read aloud, not read silently by parties receiving the text. What' important about that is that we need to be aware that all ancietn Greek texts were composed with a view to how LISTENERS would HEAR them, not how silent readers might ponder a sequence of words that they could deconstruct and reconstruct while looking at a piece of writing.

> 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

I don't find anything odd about the sequence of ETELEUTHSEN AUTOS KAI hOI PAERES hHMWN. I think that the AUTOS whether you want to "translate" it as "himself" or take it as the common singular verb with plural add-on subject "he died as did also our fathers and they (their bodies) were transported for burial ... " This standard pattern is discussed in BDF§135 "Connected by και (ἤ).  Regarding agreement with two or more subjects connected by καί, the same loose rules are valid for the NT as for classical usage. The following examples with persons as subject may be noted: (1) When the subject consists of sing. + sing. or of sing. + plur. the verb agrees (a) with the first subject if the verb stands before it, ... "

I think the sense is really quite clear, and I think it is reflected in the versions that you cite below; they all seem accurate enough but some are more "woodenly" literal, while others better reflect the way we normally use English today.

I don't see any rationale whatsoever arising from the textual sequence for speculation regarding a possible "source" for this speech. There may well be such a source, or the substance of some source may be reformulated here by the composer of this narrative. We don't know.

Carl W. Conrad

>  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




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


      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list