So what, in fact, does ἑβραϊστί mean?

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Either way it is a phrase open to interpretation and not a s

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Either way, the phrase Ελληνιστί γνώσεις; is one that requires interpretation (perhaps within a less broad range of possibilities than I've suggested). That seems like not a good foundation to rest his argument on.

Do you speak Greek? could be as gruff as you'd like it to be. If Paul started speaking in Aramaic, the question "Do you speak Greek?" could have been in either language, but I think it would be in Greek, as that would be a test of whether or not he could. In

In consideration of what you mention for the power relationship... Coirier's interpretation, the change of language is initiated by the prisoner. I'm suggesting it comes from the person who holds power.

The majority of the Egyptian population only spoke Coptic. The tribune may well have known of that situation. It is a matter of interpretation as to how strongly the tribune believed his prisoner to be Egyptian. The stronger his belief, the more likely his surprise.

I read it as a real question because I think that Paul would have nodded (or some other polite reaction to the question).

Are there other examples where a question asking the obvious expresses surprise in Greek?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: So what, in fact, does ἑβραϊστί mean?

Post by RandallButh »

Stephen,

You're trying to interpret the one sentence without the context and the ἄρα that follow up. Paul's knowledge of Greek is the new datum that leads to the conclusion.
If the chiliarch asked a real, simple question, one would expect a response from Paul, not a conclusion from the chiliarch.

The chiliarch said 'you know [at least a little] Greek[?] then you're not the Egyptian.' It is not even necessary to punctuate the rhetorical question as a question. It can be a statement. Either way, the main point follows.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Emmending the punctuation.

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Yes, that is my next point.

To follow the interpretation that Courier gives, it would be better to emend the punctuation.

Without it being a question, and it being connected to the previous question, which would be as you say it's context, it would do well to have a connective, perhaps λοιπόν (so) Ελ. γινώσκεις. OR φαινομένως / φαίνεται ούν (evidently then) Ελλ... OR έα (Crikey!) Ελλ...
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Due consideration of the άρα

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I thought we had reached an 'agree to differ' point in discussion, but on reflection and rereading your posts, perhaps we need to duscuss this point further because it seems to me that we are on different pages about punctuation.

How the άρα is taken, ultimately depends on how one interprets the punctuation of verse 38.
Οὐκ ἄρα σὺ εἶ ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ὁ πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀναστατώσας καὶ ἐξαγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον τοὺς τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας τῶν σικαρίων;
  • ου introduces a question that the person asking the question expects to be answered in the affirmative.
  • ου in a statement is used when the person making the statement believes that the situation is not the case.
So just by interpreting the punctuation the meaning is reversed, more or less.

So the question that is ultimately behind your and my reading of John Coirier's argument is whether verse 38 is a question or not?

Verse 39 doesn't indicate clearly because Paul doesn't say clearly ου or ναι. He just makes his self-introduction.
Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Παῦλος , Ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος μέν εἰμι Ἰουδαῖος , Ταρσεὺς τῆς Κιλικίας , οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως πολίτης · δέομαι δέ σου , ἐπίτρεψόν μοι λαλῆσαι πρὸς τὸν λαόν .
What the reason for that might have been I can only speculate. Perhaps saying 'no' and disagreeing directly with someone who has a troop of soldiers with swords was considered imprudent (lending support to the suggestion that verse 38 was a question expecting a positive answer), or perhaps it was a συ είπες situation where agreement is assumed, and Paul follows the tribune's line (lending support to the suggestion that verse 38 is a statement). It is a fine (vague) point of cultural as much as linguistic distinction.

Because both the question and statement possibilities are open for verse 38, we should look at them both.

If verse 38 is a question perhaps the άρα has nothing to do with the language that was being spoken, and more to do with the riot at hand, "Are you, as a consequence of this tumult I see, the Jewish anti-Roman trouble maker from Egypt?"

If verse 38 is a statement, then what John Courier is saying could be valid, "I see that you are a hellenised Jew, using our common language of Roman administration, not refusing to speak Greek and only using dialects used in your own community, so you mustn't be the (Jewish) radical from the land of Egypt come to Jerusalem to murder pro-Roman pilgrims."

[My earlier comments about him being an Egyptian radical speaking Egyptian were wrong, I now believe.]

Another way might be to take the Ελληνιστί γινώσκεις as a question and verse 38 as the second part of a conditional, "Can you speak Greek and therefore (prove to me that) you are not the Egyptian revolutionary?" Then Paul introduces himself in a stylised way neither refuting or really answering the the question that was asked, just the underlying thing on te tribune's mind. That would imply that Paul spoke first to the tribune not in Greek, but perhaps Aramaic.

The change marked by the ἑβραϊστί would be that he did not continue speaking Greek to his compatriots after his loyalty test was over.

Having said all that I still think John Courier is building a lot on a shaky foundation. That's not no say that I agree or disagree about it.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: So what, in fact, does ἑβραϊστί mean?

Post by RandallButh »

Several items should probably be clarified at this point.

1. The person cited in the article is "Poirier," not "Courier."

2. The problem with Poirier's argument is not verse 37-38, where the situation is clear, but before that. Had Paul spoken at all before verse 37 where the Romans could hear him? If not, then it is conceivable that the mob had only heard Greek from Paul, though the Romans only had silence from Paul upon their arrival. However, it is more likely that some language had been used by Paul in the presence of the Romans. If so, then it was not Greek (otherwise the repartee in verse 37 couldn't have happened), and not probably not Hebrew (since Hebrew is brought in as something that gets the crowd's attention in ch 22, thus as new), so the language of the riot was most likely Aramaic. I agree with Poirier on that point, but I do not see it as 'proof', only probability, as to what went on before verse 37. After 37 the situation is clear because Luke told us that Paul spoke in Hebrew and that fits the context well.

3. the chiliarch heard Paul speak Greek in verse 37 in order for him to make his conclusion that Paul was not the Egyptian. I hear you suggesting that the chiliarch wanted Paul to switch to Greek and he wanted to suggest that Paul was the Egyptian. And he then went ahead and gave him permission to address the crowd. I consider that a bizarre reading and I'm not sure that it is contextually possible, let alone probable.

4. Greek is the proper language to address a public Roman officer in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially when asking for a favor.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Sorry about the mistake in Poirier's name

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thanks for correcting me on Poirier's name.

My ineptitude for names is chronic and socially debilitating. I mistook the initial P for a C, and my inability to reign in the typing auto-correct feature on the phone let it do the rest.

Do you take verse 38 as a question or a statement?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: So what, in fact, does ἑβραϊστί mean?

Post by RandallButh »

statement.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Logical outcomes in interpretation from the statement/questi

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thank you. I have enjoyed our discussion and have a better appreciation of άρα now.

A minority of English translations follow suit with you. The majority ignore the άρα, it seems.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”