Re: APEPLANHQHSAN in 1 Tim 6:10

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Sun Apr 26 1998 - 08:47:30 EDT

Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> I have noticed recently while consulting the commentaries on 1 Tim 6:10
> that some commentators (e.g., J.N.D. Kelly) render APEPLANHQHSAN as
> "have been led astray" while others (e.g., Dibelius/Greeven) render it
> "have gone astray". Guthrie points out that the verb is passive, and
> Kelly obviously takes it in this sense. But D/G and others obviously
> give it an active sense. So which is it to be? And why?


BAGD renders APEPLANHQHSAN as an active in 1 Tim 6:10 and so does J.E. Huther
(Meyer's Handbook) who quotes Luther as doing the same. Am I correct that the
form APEPLANHQHSAN is a probable case of the passive form marking a
intransitive use of an otherwise transitive verb? Or is there some other kind
of issue involved here?

As far as the context in 1Tim 6 is concerned, I can see no compelling reason
to go either way on this. If APEPLANHQHSAN is read as a passive then one would
look for an agent. Perhaps the question comes down to whether OREGOMENOI
indicates an internal agent or an external agent. If it is an internal agent
then APEPLANHQHSAN could be read as intransitive. If it is an external agent
the APEPLANHQHSAN could be read as passive. Some might argue that the agent
is actually FILARGURIA, but this resolves nothing. The same question arises
with FILARGURIA, whether its an external or internal agent.

These are but the musings of a muddled mind. Perhaps someone else can clear
this up.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT