Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby klitwak » May 6th, 2012, 11:39 pm

Acts 17:22 begins with a circumstantial participle, STAQEIS (the whole prhase is STAQEIS DE [(O] PAULOS EN MESW), which is an aorist pass. part nom.s. mas. It seems that translators take this as an active voice. However, (ISTHMI is not deponent in the 1st or 2nd aorist that I can see. BDAG does not say that the pass. part. should be understood in an active sense as a rule. I found nothing on this verse or (ISTHMI in Wallace that was of relevance, nor in the references to this verb in BDF (93-96) not to this verse (244, 416). It seems to me that it would be perfectly plausible to translate it as, "When he had been placed in the middle" of the Areopagus, he said.... So, what is the basis for the active understanding of this participle? Thank.s

Ken
Kenneth D. Litwak, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor of New Testament
Adjunct Theological Reference Librarian
Software Developer
Azusa Pacific University
680 E. Alosta Ave.
Azusa, CA 91724
klitwak@apu.edu
klitwak
 
Posts: 14
Joined: November 6th, 2011, 2:03 am
Location: Covina, CA

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby Scott Lawson » May 7th, 2012, 1:44 am

LSJ has:
ἵστημι (cf. ἱστάω, ἱστάνω),
I. causal, make to stand, imper. “ἵστη” Il.21.313, E.Supp.1230, “καθ-ίστα” Il.9.202: impf. ἵστην, Ep. “ἵστασκε” Od.19.574; 3pl. “ἵσταν” B.10.112: fut. στήσω, Dor. “στα_σῶ” Theoc.5.54: aor. 1 ἔστησα, Ep. 3pl. ἔστα^σαν for ἔστησαν dub. in Od.18.307, 3.182, 8.435, al. (v. ἔστα^σαν): hence, in late Poets, ἔστα^σας, ἔστα^σε, AP9.714,708 (Phil.): aor. 1 Med. ἐστησάμην (never intr.), v. infr.A.111.2, 3: pf. “ἕστα^κα” Cerc.3, (καθ-) Hyp.Eux.28, UPZ 112.5 (ii B.C.), (περι-) Pl.Ax.370d, (ἀφ-) LXXJe.16.5, (παρ-) Phld.Rh. 1.9S., al., (συν-) S.E.M.7.109; also ἕστηκα (v. infr.) in trans. sense, (δι-) Arist.Vent.973a18, (ἀφ-) v.l. in LXX l.c.; ἑστακεῖα trans. in Test.Epict.1.25.

B. Pass. and intr. tenses of Act., to be set or placed, stand, Hom. etc., ἀγχοῦ, ἆσσον, Il.2.172, 23.97; “ἄντα τινός” 17.30; “ἐς μέσσον” Od.17.447; “σταθεὶς ἐς μέσον”

Your thought that Paul was "placed in the middle" of the Areopagus certainly fits the context of verses 18 and 19 where is charged with the offense of publishing foreign deities and laid hold of and led to the Aeropagus to make his defense.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby David Lim » May 7th, 2012, 3:20 am

klitwak wrote:Acts 17:22 begins with a circumstantial participle, STAQEIS (the whole prhase is STAQEIS DE [(O] PAULOS EN MESW), which is an aorist pass. part nom.s. mas. It seems that translators take this as an active voice. However, (ISTHMI is not deponent in the 1st or 2nd aorist that I can see. BDAG does not say that the pass. part. should be understood in an active sense as a rule. I found nothing on this verse or (ISTHMI in Wallace that was of relevance, nor in the references to this verb in BDF (93-96) not to this verse (244, 416). It seems to me that it would be perfectly plausible to translate it as, "When he had been placed in the middle" of the Areopagus, he said.... So, what is the basis for the active understanding of this participle?


See the following which have the same word that must be understood as semantically active and intransitive:
[Luke 18:11] ο φαρισαιος σταθεις προς εαυτον ταυτα προσηυχετο ο θεος ευχαριστω σοι οτι ουκ ειμι ωσπερ οι λοιποι των ανθρωπων αρπαγες αδικοι μοιχοι η και ως ουτος ο τελωνης
[Luke 18:40] σταθεις δε ο ιησους εκελευσεν αυτον αχθηναι προς αυτον εγγισαντος δε αυτου επηρωτησεν αυτον
[Luke 19:8] σταθεις δε ζακχαιος ειπεν προς τον κυριον ιδου τα ημιση των υπαρχοντων μου κυριε διδωμι τοις πτωχοις και ει τινος τι εσυκοφαντησα αποδιδωμι τετραπλουν
[Acts 2:14] σταθεις δε πετρος συν τοις ενδεκα επηρεν την φωνην αυτου και απεφθεγξατο αυτοις ανδρες ιουδαιοι και οι κατοικουντες ιερουσαλημ απαντες τουτο υμιν γνωστον εστω και ενωτισασθε τα ρηματα μου
[Acts 5:20] πορευεσθε και σταθεντες λαλειτε εν τω ιερω τω λαω παντα τα ρηματα της ζωης ταυτης
[Acts 11:13] απηγγειλεν τε ημιν πως ειδεν τον αγγελον εν τω οικω αυτου σταθεντα και ειποντα αυτω αποστειλον εις ιοππην ανδρας και μεταπεμψαι σιμωνα τον επικαλουμενον πετρον
[Acts 27:21] πολλης δε ασιτιας υπαρχουσης τοτε σταθεις ο παυλος εν μεσω αυτων ειπεν εδει μεν ω ανδρες πειθαρχησαντας μοι μη αναγεσθαι απο της κρητης κερδησαι τε την υβριν ταυτην και την ζημιαν

The same stem used in the future passive conjugation also seems to be semantically active, though many translations render some with the passive "be established":
[Matt 12:25-26] ειδως δε ο ιησους τας ενθυμησεις αυτων ειπεν αυτοις πασα βασιλεια μερισθεισα καθ εαυτης ερημουται και πασα πολις η οικια μερισθεισα καθ εαυτης ου σταθησεται και ει ο σατανας τον σαταναν εκβαλλει εφ εαυτον εμερισθη πως ουν σταθησεται η βασιλεια αυτου
[Luke 11:18] ει δε και ο σατανας εφ εαυτον διεμερισθη πως σταθησεται η βασιλεια αυτου οτι λεγετε εν βεελζεβουλ εκβαλλειν με τα δαιμονια
[Rom 14:4] συ τις ει ο κρινων αλλοτριον οικετην τω ιδιω κυριω στηκει η πιπτει σταθησεται δε δυνατος γαρ εστιν ο θεος στησαι αυτον
[2 Cor 13:1] τριτον τουτο ερχομαι προς υμας επι στοματος δυο μαρτυρων και τριων σταθησεται παν ρημα
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby cwconrad » May 7th, 2012, 5:21 am

David Lim wrote:
klitwak wrote:Acts 17:22 begins with a circumstantial participle, STAQEIS (the whole prhase is STAQEIS DE [(O] PAULOS EN MESW), which is an aorist pass. part nom.s. mas. ... So, what is the basis for the active understanding of this participle?


See the following which have the same word that must be understood as semantically active and intransitive ...


(1) The terminology commonly used to describe these voice forms is misleading. It doesn't make sense to speak of an intransitive verb as being "semantically active." Active form ought not to be confounded with semantic active. If truth be told, the active forms in Greek are better described as "unmarked for subject-affectedness" and the middle-passive forms should all be understood as "marked for subject-affectedness." Users of BDAG need to be aware that Danker regularly characterizes what used to be termed "deponent" verbs as "passive with intransitive sense" -- "passive" meaning "having middle-passive endings, whether of the MP1 (μαι/σαι/ται) or MP2 (θην/θης/θη) type.

(2) What is still not widely acknowledged in Biblical Greek grammatical discussion is that the -θη- forms have been in the process of supplanting the middle forms (e.g. γενόμενος -- > γενηθείς, ἄποκρινάμενος --> ἀποκριθείς) and the second-aorist "active" (e.g. στάς --> σταθείς} and future-middle forms (e.g. στησόμενος --> σταηθησόμνος). This transition was still in progress at the time of the composition of the GNT, but it is a fact that needs to be recognized if one has learned Greek morphology in the traditional oversimplified (and muddled) pedagogical description. There's not an ounce of difference semantically between στάς and σταθείς.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby Scott Lawson » May 7th, 2012, 8:42 am

cwconrad wrote:There's not an ounce of difference semantically between στάς and σταθείς.


Very funny Carl, since one of the meanings of ιστημι is to weigh out on scales! I'm sure that was on purpose!
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby cwconrad » May 7th, 2012, 9:14 am

Scott Lawson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:There's not an ounce of difference semantically between στάς and σταθείς.


Very funny Carl, since one of the meanings of ιστημι is to weigh out on scales! I'm sure that was on purpose!


It's perilous to assume intentional puns. I had no remote notion of the balance-beam nor did I think it such a weighty matter. I was simply saying that there's no difference in meaning between στάς and σταθείς.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby Scott Lawson » May 7th, 2012, 10:30 am

cwconrad wrote:... nor did I think it such a weighty matter.


Ha!

Well Mr. klitwak after Carl's comments and looking at ἵστημι in BDAG under B, 2 where Acts 17:22 is referenced I'm more inclined to agree with the traditional translation of "stood." As a causative, I guess this could be viewed as: he caused himself to stand or simply stood.This suggests that even though Paul was laid hold of he boldly presented himself to the Aeropagus. This fits well with his character.

Thanks for the interesting question!
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby Scott Lawson » May 7th, 2012, 10:44 am

cwconrad wrote:It's perilous to assume intentional puns.


I know it’s perilous but it leads to awkward moments and I’m a collector and connoisseur of awkward moments. :)
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
 
Posts: 308
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby David Lim » May 7th, 2012, 12:17 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:As a causative, I guess this could be viewed as: he caused himself to stand or simply stood.This suggests that even though Paul was laid hold of he boldly presented himself to the Aeropagus. This fits well with his character.


No. Please look at the examples I listed. It cannot be claimed that the verb implies that Paul boldly presented himself. Though the verb can be used as a causative, it does not mean that its other meanings must also be causative in the slightest.

cwconrad wrote:It doesn't make sense to speak of an intransitive verb as being "semantically active."


Sorry for my use of the word "active", which was because I considered all intransitive verbs "active". Is there a concise way of saying "[un]marked-for-subject-affectedness"?
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 822
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Acts 17:22 STAQEIS, pass. part., translated as act.

Postby cwconrad » May 7th, 2012, 12:52 pm

David Lim wrote:
Scott Lawson wrote:As a causative, I guess this could be viewed as: he caused himself to stand or simply stood.This suggests that even though Paul was laid hold of he boldly presented himself to the Aeropagus. This fits well with his character.


No. Please look at the examples I listed. It cannot be claimed that the verb implies that Paul boldly presented himself. Though the verb can be used as a causative, it does not mean that its other meanings must also be causative in the slightest.

cwconrad wrote:It doesn't make sense to speak of an intransitive verb as being "semantically active."


Sorry for my use of the word "active", which was because I considered all intransitive verbs "active". Is there a concise way of saying "[un]marked-for-subject-affectedness"?


(a) One should distinguish carefully between ἵσταμαι, στήσομαι, ἔστην/ἐστάθην, ἕστηκα (intransitive in sense "come to a stand" or "come to a halt", and ἵστημι, στήσω, ἔστησα (causative in the sense "make stand" or bring to a standstill".

(b) One will come to less grief with voice morphology if one is cognizant of the fact that the MP forms are "marked" (for subject-affectedness" and that the so-called "active" forms are unmarked. That is to say, the distinction between the forms we call "active" and the forms that we call "middle-passive" and "passive" lies in the "grammaticalization" (I despise the word but acknowledge its usefulness) of subject-affectedness. The so-called "active" forms may be semantically transitive and active (e.g. ἀποκτείνω), intransitive, either agentive (βαίνω) or non-agentive (πίπτω), and may even carry a semantic passive sense (e.g. ἀποθνῄσκω ("be put to death") or πάσχω -- with instrumental or ὑπὸ + genitive constructions). I think that "agentive" is a useful term, but that "active" is misleading unless it is used to refer strictly to the "active" morphoparadigm.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἄτοπον, ἔφη, λέγεις εἰκόνα καὶ δεσμώτας ἀτόπους.
ὁμοίους ἡμῖν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. Plato, Rep. 7 (515a)
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Next

Return to What does this text mean?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest