A question regarding Acts 28:23

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.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
teemo2711
Posts: 5
Joined: June 9th, 2022, 8:48 am

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by teemo2711 »

I agree with Shirley (and others). It's difficult to explain what is wrong in some method or view if it's totally different than what you know is right. So it's difficult to explain why your question isn't the right question. But I try.

Greek was a living language. People who wrote the New Testament didn't analyse it like some of the modern interpreters do. You wouldn't handle English like you handle Biblical Greek. Try to imagine that the NT was originally written in English. How would the person who wrote something in it understand it? If it was spoken, how would the hearers understand it? You wouldn't ask if the definitions of "testify" and "convince" could be subsets of the definition of "expound". That question would be nonsense for any normal English speaker or even a language teacher who knows grammar and semantics.
I see.
You could do yourself a service and find a copy of Moises Silva's God, Language and Scripture. Your approach reminds me of "gems" or "gold nuggets" described in the introduction of that work.

The best you can do with Greek is to learn to read it as running text, as normal communication, with flow of thought and context.
I've read the introduction and I see how my approach reminded you of the "gems" described in it. I agree with how it warns about over interpretation of a word and the dangers and interpreting the meaning of word and the meaning of the passage of the word based on how the word was used in non-biblical sources, and it is not something that I ever do in bible study. I'm only interested in how the word means in a biblical context, and I understand that even solely considering how the word are used in biblical contexts it may still hold different meaning for the respective contexts that the word is used in (from the example of the "gem" finding in that book). However I do know there are instances where this approach is edifying, such as what we can learn about the definition of the word προφητεύω in the following verses:

ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ· ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ – 1 Corinthians 14:4

τούτῳ δὲ ἦσαν θυγατέρες παρθένοι τέσσαρες προφητεύουσαι ἐπιμενόντων δὲ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας πλείους κατῆλθέν τις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας προφήτης ὀνόματι Ἅγαβος καὶ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ἡμᾶς καὶ ἄρας τὴν ζώνην τοῦ Παύλου δήσας τε αὐτοῦ τὰς χεῖρας καὶ τοὺς πόδας εἶπεν Τάδε λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον Τὸν ἄνδρα οὗ ἐστιν ἡ ζώνη αὕτη οὕτως δήσουσιν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ παραδώσουσιν εἰς χεῖρας ἐθνῶν – Acts 21:9-11
I don't mean that word study or grammatical details are meaningless. But you should have a wider view first. It's also OK to have a concrete theological question as a motivator, but a theological (spiritual) motivation combined with shaky exegetical and hermeneutical foundation -- including how the Greek is handled -- and especially with predetermined convictions will lead to a house built on sand even though it may feel strong.

I'm far from perfect on what I preach, you can find me paying unwarranted attention to details and having more or less warranted convictions, but I think I have learned something. "Greek is just a normal language among others, so handle it accordingly" is one of the lessons learned.
I agree.
teemo2711
Posts: 5
Joined: June 9th, 2022, 8:48 am

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by teemo2711 »

If you' like to try learning some basic NT Greek, you are welcome to try the (free) Online Textbook at http://www.drshirley.org/greek/textbook02/contents.html
Thank you!
teemo2711
Posts: 5
Joined: June 9th, 2022, 8:48 am

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by teemo2711 »

Eeli and Shirley gave great responses. I think Greek lexicography comes after learning to read Greek texts, in Greek, to the point that it is natural.
That makes sense.
You really have to learn the language first. And once you do that, and can read good Greek lexicons and articles on the subject, I think you will find yourself asking different kinds of questions. You will understand the relationship between the Greek language and our attempts to define them in English. You will be able to read the quotes from a lexicon in context and grasp the shades of meaning.

Your questions are valid, but you aren't really in a position to answer them yet. I hope they will drive you to learn Greek. I suggest that you start as a beginner and learn the language.
I know that it is not quite the philosophy of this forum, but I'm happy to be given the answer with an explanation. I wouldn't say Greek lexicography is the direction I desire to go to, but I'm already greatly encouraged to learn Greek through this forum.
Here's what B-Greek policy has to say about this:

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... ?f=38&t=11
Jonathan Robie wrote: May 6th, 2011, 9:46 am B-Greek is about Greek texts and the Greek language, and most of the forums in B-Greek require a working knowledge of Biblical Greek; that is:
  • recognition of inflected forms of verbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and adverbs
  • recognition of standard syntactic structures
  • a grasp of principal parts of common irregular verbs, and the ability to recognize them in a text
In the Beginner's Forum, we welcome beginners who do not yet have a working knowledge of Biblical Greek, and are actively working to learn the language. We want to help. Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.

Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome. Sometimes we may encourage beginners to postpone questions that are over their head at their current level of understanding.
Sounds good.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by Jonathan Robie »

teemo2711 wrote: June 13th, 2022, 4:03 am I think that the exegetical work would still be improved if she and I were to pay attention to the greek, even when both of us have no formal education in Greek and do not know how to read it as it is, as the interlinear Greek to English dictionaries online are very helpful with providing the definitions of every word, and the grammar of every word; hence we can study it word by word and understand the implications of every word in its context. It is tedious work but both of us are willing to do so and be patient. Yes ultimately we do this to feed on the Scriptures, but we still desire to feed on it rightly, hence I think being polemical on it would aid that purpose. We did also consult articles written by scholars who hold different sides on this and we try to compare them to see who has the coherent argument and why.
Interlinears rot your brain and make you think you can read Greek when you can't, and they actually do very little to help you understand the relationships in a sentence. If I show you a verb in an interlinear, how do you know what the subject and object of that verb are? They aren't even marked. And an interlinear doesn't expose you to anything like a good Greek lexicon.

So when you use an Interlinear, what you usually wind up doing is relying on your intuition for the English glosses, using the syntax of English to guess at the syntax of the Greek text, using your knowledge of English words to guess at the meaning of Greek words, using the glosses supplied by Strong's or such instead of actually learning to read a lexicon.

In general, you would be much better off using English translations, seeing where they differ, what they commit themselves to and what they do not commit themselves to. Or even better, learning Greek and learning to use real Greek lexicons that do word study.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by Jonathan Robie »

teemo2711 wrote: June 13th, 2022, 5:55 am I know that it is not quite the philosophy of this forum, but I'm happy to be given the answer with an explanation.
In general, we want beginners to do their share of the work, pushing them along. And we want them to be on some path toward learning the Greek language. Shirley gave you one source, here's another:

https://www.youtube.com/c/AlphawithAngela/videos

They are a little out of order currently, find Lesson 1 and start there.

Back to your question ... you'll pardon me, but I still don't hear a precise question that's about anything in that Greek sentence.
teemo2711 wrote: June 10th, 2022, 2:46 am The text that I am referring to in my previous reply 1 hour ago:

Acts 28:23

Ταξάμενοι δὲ αὐτῷ ἡμέραν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ξενίαν πλείονες οἷς ἐξετίθετο διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπό τε τοῦ νόμου Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀπὸ πρωῒ ἕως ἑσπέρας.
OK, but what exactly is your question about this sentence or the words in this sentence?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:20 pm Back to your question ... you'll pardon me, but I still don't hear a precise question that's about anything in that Greek sentence.
teemo2711 wrote: June 10th, 2022, 2:46 am The text that I am referring to in my previous reply 1 hour ago:

Acts 28:23

Ταξάμενοι δὲ αὐτῷ ἡμέραν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν ξενίαν πλείονες οἷς ἐξετίθετο διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀπό τε τοῦ νόμου Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, ἀπὸ πρωῒ ἕως ἑσπέρας.
OK, but what exactly is your question about this sentence or the words in this sentence?
I think the question is back in the OP here:
teemo2711 wrote: June 9th, 2022, 9:29 am However in Acts 28:23, it is written that Paul "ektithēmi diamartyromai ho basileia ho theos", "ektithēmi" being the word used in Acts 18:26. The reason why I brought this up because previously by considering the NT systematically, the difference between didasko and propheteuo has been settled between us, which I defined didasko being "a form of teaching or instruction done in a position of authority, either formally or informally, in a public or private setting, regarding the inerrant word of God.", but it seems that Paul in Acts 28:23 verse is doing just that. Ultimately, my question is that seeing "ektithēmi" as the main verb, with "diamartyromai" then later "peithō" being participles, is "diamartyromai" and "peithō" the outcome of "ektithēmi", or are they distinct from each other? Right now what I see is that since the participles are present participles, they are happening in a simultaneous fashion to "ektithēmi", hence it seem to suggests that they are the same thing. Thank you in advance.
Basically he's asking whether the post-nuclear present participles (i.e., the present participles that follow the main verb) are the "same thing" as the main verb. Their discourse function is to the elaborate the event referred to by the main verb, which can happen by adding additional actions to the description of the event or focusing on particular subaction. The syntax isn't really precise enough to answer the question (which has all the hallmarks of an "XY problem"), which is why I think people are saying that the OP should learn Greek as a language and get a good set of expectations of what the language can and does achieve.

Another indication of the absolute beginning nature of the OP is the statement:
I defined didasko being "a form of teaching or instruction done in a position of authority, either formally or informally, in a public or private setting, regarding the inerrant word of God."
Well, there's lots of problems with it. First it's defining a verb as a noun. Many parts are tautological ("either formally or informally," "in a public or private setting"). Some are too narrow as to be wrong ("regarding the inerrant word of God") since διδάσκω is used all the time in non-Christian Greek for all kinds of teachings. Finally, "done in a position of authority" doesn't really take into account that slaves and other people in the first-century hierarchical world were regularly involved in teaching children, regardless of status, gender, or ethnicity. I've never heard of complementarianism being used to argue that women cannot teach children, or that they can only teach female children.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Stephen Carlson wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:42 pm [Many parts are tautological ("either formally or informally," "in a public or private setting").
I think these kind of restrictions or descriptions come from some specific claims in debates, or at least from the need which arises from them. For example, someone may anticipate a theological claim that Christian teaching means only public teaching. Then in one's mind it becomes necessary to take a stance on that specific feature of the word, is it used in this or that kind of context. It makes sense from the standpoint of some discussion, but it's not the way how lexicography is done. These features aren't part of the meaning or the definition of the word; they are different contexts in which the word can be used. When doing word study or exegesis, I guess it would be proper to say for example that "the word can be used in contexts where teaching is either public or private, or from our standpoint formal or informal". It gives information of the real usage, yet not confusing the meaning of the word with contextual factors.
Some are too narrow as to be wrong ("regarding the inerrant word of God") since διδάσκω is used all the time in non-Christian Greek for all kinds of teachings.
We come to context again. The word may (or may not) in our NT writings be used for teaching something related to the word of God, but only because our corpus is very limited in scope.

The word "inerrant" clearly comes from modern theological discussions, not from 1st century Palestine. Whether it's a correct dogma or not, that's not how they framed their thoughts (through errant/inerrant, liberal/conservative dichotomies which clearly exist behind this word). I'm not saying this modern hermeneutical-theological conclusion would be wrong, but if Greek words are defined through our modern theological grid, I can't see how eisegesis can be avoided in the end.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4159
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: A question regarding Acts 28:23

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:42 pm
OK, but what exactly is your question about this sentence or the words in this sentence?
I think the question is back in the OP here !!! SNIP !!! Basically he's asking whether the post-nuclear present participles (i.e., the present participles that follow the main verb) are the "same thing" as the main verb.
I tried to answer that question here:

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... 857#p37857
If I am riding a unicycle while whistling and playing a drum, all at the same time, that doesn't mean that these verbs mean the same thing. Or if I am writing to you now, looking for a clear way to explain, that doesn't mean that these things don't have different meanings, writing and explaining are not identical in meaning, looking for a clear way is not the same as writing.
But I think he still has a question. Or maybe my explanation wasn't clear.
Stephen Carlson wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:42 pmAnother indication of the absolute beginning nature of the OP is the statement
Well, sure, but he acknowledges that he is a beginner and he seems to be interested in learning. In the beginner's forum, being a beginner is not a bad thing. He's 17 years old, few people at his age are biblical scholars.
Stephen Carlson wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:42 pm First it's defining a verb as a noun. Many parts are tautological ("either formally or informally," "in a public or private setting"). Some are too narrow as to be wrong ("regarding the inerrant word of God") since διδάσκω is used all the time in non-Christian Greek for all kinds of teachings. Finally, "done in a position of authority" doesn't really take into account that slaves and other people in the first-century hierarchical world were regularly involved in teaching children, regardless of status, gender, or ethnicity. I've never heard of complementarianism being used to argue that women cannot teach children, or that they can only teach female children.
I agree. I think there are two basic issues here:

1. Learning what a dictionary definition is and how scholars decide what a word means (which is in scope for B-Greek), and
2. Reading more widely about the theological issue, which is not in scope on B-Greek, though mentioning a few articles might be as long as we don't debate them here.

I really like Eeli's latest post. If we try to think in terms they used back then, it's easier to come closer to the way they thought.

I'm not convinced that the dictionary definition of the word answers the theological question, though.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”