Acts 10:48

[] Acts 10:48 (was Question) Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 20 19:54:47 EDT 2006

 

[] Question [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Dear CJ,>I’m not sure if this has been covered or not seeing as I have at LEAST 50 of>these emails to go through but this question has been nagging me for years.> >Did Peter command Cornelius et al to be baptized, or did he command others>to baptize them? How does the greek render it?> >Thanks for any input and now back to trying to read all of these volumes.I understand Acts 10:48 to say that Peter commanded Cornelius et al to be baptized. The verb baptize is passive. The same people commanded are those who ask Peter to stay for several days. They apparently wanted further instruction in the faith.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Question[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Apr 21 13:01:50 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Weigl egrapsen:>> Did Peter command Cornelius et al to be baptized, or did he command>> others>> to baptize them? How does the greek render it?CarlConrad APEKRIQH:>The text: Acts 10:48 PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI IHSOU>CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI.>That is, “he gave orders that they be baptized in the name of Jesus>Christ.”>The Greek text offers NO CLEAR INDICATION of who would be performing>the baptism, which means that your question can be answered only in>terms of probabilities.>The NET translators have this note: “The Greek construction (passive>infinitive with accusative subject) could be translated either “he>ordered them to be baptized” or “he ordered that they be baptized,”>but the implication in English in either case is that Peter was>giving orders to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house, telling them to>get baptized. It is much more likely in the context that Peter was>ordering those Jewish Christians who accompanied him to baptize the>new Gentile converts. They would doubtless have still had misgivings>even after witnessing the outpouring of the Spirit and hearing the>tongues. It took Peter’s apostolic authority (“ordered”) to convince>them to perform the baptisms.”This may illustrate one of Carl’s points on voice. It also illustratesthat texts need to be read from within the culture or shared frameworkof author and audience.A person should ask how a first century Judean might read the passage.Baptism/tevila, after all, was a common Jewish practice, for some adaily practice, for others an occasionally ritual cleansing, and alsopracticed with prosolytes. Archaeologically, we have miqvaot (baptismpools) all over the Land. Not just the massive installations aroundthe temple, but at Qumran, and next to an olive press at Gamla in theGolan (showing 1st century halachic practice), and in such Hellenisticcities as Tsipori, to illustrate the cultural spread.Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as awitness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunkor pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with theirown motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people onthe list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water itself,but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the culturalpictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKHexperiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.The larger point is that these texts are approaching 2000 years oldand repeated familiarity with a text can create an illusion ofcloseness. Regardless of whether one accepts the reading suggestedabove, as much as possible these texts should be read as firstcentury, and from a Jewish cultural world view. And passages like thisremind us of potential differences and gaps.ERRWSQE on the 9th day of the Omer,Randall Buth–Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgybitan at mscc.huji.ac.ilrandallbuth at gmail.com

 

[] Acts 10:48 (was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Apr 21 13:44:19 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Dear Randall,>Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a>witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk>or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their>own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on>the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water itself,>but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural>pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH>experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.> > HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he ordered them to get baptized . . . “?Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 21 14:16:45 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Dear Randall,> >> Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a>> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk>> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their>> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on>> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water >> itself,>> but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural>> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH>> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.>> >> > > HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he> ordered them to get baptized . . . “?Better: “get themselves baptized” (text: PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI), understanding BAPTISQHNAI in an aorist MIDDLE sense. That is, as Randall explained it, they were to perform the acts for themselves.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Apr 21 14:31:10 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Let’s not forget that, in the mouths of the gospel writers, John was capableof saying, “I baptized you”. Paul also talks about having baptized somepeople. So the physical process (does someone lay hands on the person beingbaptized, lead them to the water, stand in the water with them, dunk them,etc.) is not necessarily what is determinative of the meaning of the verbhere. The question is, in the terminology of the writer of Acts, is onebaptized by others, or does one baptize oneself? I think the former can beasserted with confidence. I think the writer intends to convey that Peter ordered Jewish Christiansstanding there to baptize those who had received the message.Webb Mealy > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]> On Behalf Of Carl W. Conrad> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:17 AM> To: Harold Holmyard> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)> > > On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> > > Dear Randall,> >> >> Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a> >> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk> >> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their> >> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on> >> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water> >> itself,> >> but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural> >> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH> >> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.> >>> >>> >> > HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he> > ordered them to get baptized . . . “?> > Better: “get themselves baptized” (text: PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi> ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI), understanding BAPTISQHNAI in an> aorist MIDDLE sense. That is, as Randall explained it, they were to> perform the acts for themselves.> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad2 at mac.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 21 14:45:28 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) On Apr 21, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Webb wrote:> > Let’s not forget that, in the mouths of the gospel writers, John > was capable> of saying, “I baptized you”. Paul also talks about having baptized > some> people. So the physical process (does someone lay hands on the > person being> baptized, lead them to the water, stand in the water with them, > dunk them,> etc.) is not necessarily what is determinative of the meaning of > the verb> here. The question is, in the terminology of the writer of Acts, is > one> baptized by others, or does one baptize oneself? I think the former > can be> asserted with confidence.Why with confidence? What do we know of actual practice — AT THE TIME OF JESUS AND PAUL? Is there NT evidence for what — precisely — the BAPTIZWN physically did to the BAPTIZOMENOS? This question has nothing to do with early or later) ecclesiastical practice. I think we tend to approach this question with a load of assumptions that haven’t been validated.> I think the writer intends to convey that Peter ordered Jewish > Christians> standing there to baptize those who had received the message.> Webb Mealy> > > >> —–Original Message—–>> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org> [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]>> On Behalf Of Carl W. Conrad>> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:17 AM>> To: Harold Holmyard>> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>> Subject: Re: [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)>> >> >> On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:>> >>> Dear Randall,>>> >>>> Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a>>>> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not >>>> dunk>>>> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with >>>> their>>>> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many >>>> people on>>>> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water>>>> itself,>>>> but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural>>>> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH>>>> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.>>>> >>>> >>> >>> HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he>>> ordered them to get baptized . . . “?>> >> Better: “get themselves baptized” (text: PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi>> ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI), understanding BAPTISQHNAI in an>> aorist MIDDLE sense. That is, as Randall explained it, they were to>> perform the acts for themselves.>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>> cwconrad2 at mac.com>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >>>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Apr 21 15:08:33 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Clarification re voice form: Acts 10:48 Dear Carl,>>> Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a>>> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk>>> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their>>> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on>>> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water itself,>>> but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural>>> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH>>> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.>>> >> HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he>> ordered them to get baptized . . . “?> > > Better: “get themselves baptized” (text: PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi > ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI), understanding BAPTISQHNAI in an > aorist MIDDLE sense. That is, as Randall explained it, they were to > perform the acts for themselves.HH: I’m uncomfortable with such an emphasis on the middle. Even if aperson submerged himself in the water, that does not mean another personcould not have accompanied him into the water and could not have beenviewed as responsible for the baptizing. To me, Acts 8:38-39 suggeststhat both men went into the water and came out of the water, not thatthey both went down to the water and came up from the water. The texteven emphasizes that both of them did these things. The emphasis seemsmore plausible if they both went into the water rather than both goingto and from the body of water.The NT constantly stresses that one person baptizes another, even thetext in Acts 8:38-39. So the passive idea would be perfectly appropriatein Acts 10:48. Since the aorist of BAPTIZW has distinct middle forms (Mk7:4; Acts 22:16), I am inclined to take the passive form here in Acts10:48 as a genuine passive. Also, the aorist passive forms of BAPTIZWare used elsewhere with clear evidence of agency (“be baptized bysomeone”), showing that a true passive is intended (Matt 3:13-14; Mk1:9; Lk 3:7). And middle-passive forms of BAPTIZW are used in otherconstructions with a true passive sense (imperfect: Matt 3:6; Mk 1:5;aorist participle: Lk 7:30).The NET note mentions that Jewish Christians might have hesitated tobaptize Gentile believers, but Peter would not have hesitated to do so.Also, Gentiles might have hesitated to undergo a Jewish ritual.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Clarification re voice form: Acts 10:48

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Apr 21 16:59:01 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] 2nd Year Greek An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20060421/b51c937b/attachment.pl

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] 2nd Year Greek

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sat Apr 22 16:18:53 EDT 2006

 

[] Clarification re voice form: Acts 10:48 [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [Buth]:> This may illustrate one of Carl’s points on voice. It also illustrates> that texts need to be read from within the culture or shared framework> of author and audience.Looking at the 77 instances of BAPTIZW in the GNT, at the most 3 are middle in sense, the rest are active or passive.> A person should ask how a first century Judean might read the passage.> Baptism/tevila, after all, was a common Jewish practice, for some a> daily practice, for others an occasionally ritual cleansing, and also> practiced with prosolytes. Archaeologically, we have miqvaot (baptism> pools) all over the Land. Not just the massive installations around> the temple, but at Qumran, and next to an olive press at Gamla in the> Golan (showing 1st century halachic practice), and in such Hellenistic> cities as Tsipori, to illustrate the cultural spread.I think we should first and foremost ask how the word is used in the NT, rather than trying to squeeze the text into a Jewish mold, where it does not fit.The normal word in the NT for the common Jewish miqvah cleansing is hAGNIZW (John 11:55, Acts 21:24, etc.)Only two times is the verb BAPTIZW used in a sense that corresponds to this common Jewish practice.One is Mark 7:4 where the aorist middle is used: BAPTISWNTAI. Here there is no indication of any agent, and it is implied that the people themselves perform the cleansing. (The noun BAPTISMOS is also used in this verse for Jewish ritual cleansing, although the reference is to cleansing of things, not people. There are different BAPTISMOI – Heb 9:10, but only one BAPTISMA – Eph 4:5).The other is Luke 11:38. Here the word is passive in form, but probably middle in sense. It is not clear to me from this text whether the cleansing was only for the hands or whether the intention was a complete immersion in a miqvah.> > Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water itself,> but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.> As far as I can see these claims are not supported by the texts we have in the NT.If you can tell us more about the use of baptism with proselytes, that may help us to see the development from one of the many Jewish BAPTISMOI to the new Christian BAPTISMA.In John 1:25 The Baptist is challenged as to why he is performing baptisms. Was he the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet?It seems clear that if someone was baptized by such a leader, one would become a disciple of that leader. It appears to be a one-time initiation rite, not a routine miqvah cleansing. Rabbis did not baptize their disciples, did they? It would have to be someone very special.In Acts 19:4, some disciples are asked EIS TI OUN EBAPTISQHTE?Again, this cannot refer to a common miqvah cleansing, but must be a discipleship initiation. Paul was expecting them to have been baptized into the name of Jesus, but they responded by saying that their baptism was TO IWANNOU BAPTISMA.Paul then explained that John’s baptism was a preliminary initiation rite that dealt with repentance from sins, so in some ways it was similar to a miqvah cleansing, but it may also have had an element of discipleship. Paul goes on to explain that John the Baptist had not wanted his disciples to be his disciples forever, but they should come to faith in Jesus Christ and follow him. All who decided to be disciples of Jesus were to be baptized into the name of Jesus (and the Father and the Holy Spirit) as a sign of their allegiance to him. That was not a daily or repeated occurrence, but a once and for all initiation rite, and therefore quite different in meaning and function from a miqvah cleansing.Those disciples of John were then baptized into the name of Jesus to show that they were now his disciples.It may be helpful to read Hebrews again and hear what the Holy Spirit is saying, especially chapters 6-9.Heb 9:8-10 has an important comment on these Jewish cleansing ceremonies:”The Holy Spirit is making clear that the way into the holy place had not yet appeared as long as the old tabernacle was standing. 9 This was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings (BAPTISMOI); they are external regulations – DIKAIWMATA SARKOS – imposed until the new order came.” (NET)Since there is a paradigm shift from Jewish cleansings to Christian baptism, one should be careful not to read into the NT a traditional Jewish order that has been replaced by a new order.Iver Larsen

 

[] Clarification re voice form: Acts 10:48[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Sun Apr 23 08:22:25 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) > [Buth]:> > This may illustrate one of Carl’s points on voice. It also illustrates> > that texts need to be read from within the culture or shared framework> > of author and audience.> [Iver EGRAPSEN]> Looking at the 77 instances of BAPTIZW in the GNT, at the most 3 are middle in sense, the rest are active or passive.> > > A person should ask how a first century Judean might read the passage.> > Baptism/tevila, after all, was a common Jewish practice, for some a> > daily practice, for others an occasionally ritual cleansing, and also> > practiced with prosolytes. Archaeologically, we have miqvaot (baptism> > pools) all over the Land. Not just the massive installations around> > the temple, but at Qumran, and next to an olive press at Gamla in the> > Golan (showing 1st century halachic practice), and in such Hellenistic> > cities as Tsipori, to illustrate the cultural spread.> > I think we should first and foremost ask how the word is used in the NT, rather than trying to squeeze the text into a> Jewish mold, where it does not fit.> The normal word in the NT for the common Jewish miqvah cleansing is hAGNIZW (John 11:55, Acts 21:24, etc.)> Only two times is the verb BAPTIZW used in a sense that corresponds to this common Jewish practice.> One is Mark 7:4 where the aorist middle is used: BAPTISWNTAI. Here there is no indication of any agent, and it is> implied that the people themselves perform the cleansing. (The noun BAPTISMOS is also used in this verse for Jewish> ritual cleansing, although the reference is to cleansing of things, not people. There are different BAPTISMOI – Heb> 9:10, but only one BAPTISMA – Eph 4:5).> The other is Luke 11:38. Here the word is passive in form, but probably middle in sense. It is not clear to me from this> text whether the cleansing was only for the hands or whether the intention was a complete immersion in a miqvah.> > >> > Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a> > witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not dunk> > or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with their> > own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on> > the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water itself,> > but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with the cultural> > pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH> > experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.> >> > As far as I can see these claims are not supported by the texts we have in the NT.> If you can tell us more about the use of baptism with proselytes, that may help us to see the development from one of> the many Jewish BAPTISMOI to the new Christian BAPTISMA.> > In John 1:25 The Baptist is challenged as to why he is performing baptisms. Was he the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet?> It seems clear that if someone was baptized by such a leader, one would become a disciple of that leader. It appears to> be a one-time initiation rite, not a routine miqvah cleansing. Rabbis did not baptize their disciples, did they? It> would have to be someone very special.> > In Acts 19:4, some disciples are asked EIS TI OUN EBAPTISQHTE?> Again, this cannot refer to a common miqvah cleansing, but must be a discipleship initiation. Paul was expecting them to> have been baptized into the name of Jesus, but they responded by saying that their baptism was TO IWANNOU BAPTISMA.> Paul then explained that John’s baptism was a preliminary initiation rite that dealt with repentance from sins, so in> some ways it was similar to a miqvah cleansing, but it may also have had an element of discipleship. Paul goes on to> explain that John the Baptist had not wanted his disciples to be his disciples forever, but they should come to faith in> Jesus Christ and follow him. All who decided to be disciples of Jesus were to be baptized into the name of Jesus (and> the Father and the Holy Spirit) as a sign of their allegiance to him. That was not a daily or repeated occurrence, but a> once and for all initiation rite, and therefore quite different in meaning and function from a miqvah cleansing.> Those disciples of John were then baptized into the name of Jesus to show that they were now his disciples.> > It may be helpful to read Hebrews again and hear what the Holy Spirit is saying, especially chapters 6-9.> Heb 9:8-10 has an important comment on these Jewish cleansing ceremonies:> “The Holy Spirit is making clear that the way into the holy place had not yet appeared as long as the old tabernacle was> standing. 9 This was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect> the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings (BAPTISMOI);> they are external regulations – DIKAIWMATA SARKOS – imposed until the new order came.” (NET)> > Since there is a paradigm shift from Jewish cleansings to Christian baptism, one should be careful not to read into the> NT a traditional Jewish order that has been replaced by a new order.> > Iver LarsenYes, one needs to take account of things that move from one paradigmto another. The fun part of this, should people enjoy these kinds ofdiscussions, is that much of this is not as clear as people assume.>I think we should first and foremost ask how the word is used in the NT, >I appreciate this, as long as one remembers the accidental/randomnature of such a procedure. It is the equivalent of asking what isN.I.V.-NT English? I speak English, but I really don’t know whatN.I.V.-NT English is and would need a concordance to check. Nor wouldI consider the resulting “language” either self-defining or complete.One of the implications of relevance theory is that the meaning of acode and language is invariably tied to the culture and perspectivesof those using it. I expect that we are agreed on this point.You [Iver] listed Acts 21:24 AGNIZEIN as referring to amiqve-immersion while I read the context as referring to animalsacrifices for purification. A miqve immersion could be done anywhere,even the ocean, while in Acts21 the specific Temple locus,head-shaving, vows, and payment, means that the animal sacrifices forpurity are being referred to. Of course, they would incidently haveimmersed in a miqve, too.>Since there is a paradigm shift from Jewish cleansings to Christian baptism,>Agreed. However, this shift took place over a seventy year trajectory,from the time of two Jewish prophets preaching and practising a TVILAin the bush EN TH ERHMW (say circa 30 CE) to the time of the DIDAXH(c. 100CE). Baptism is discussed in this last document TH DIDAXH inthe non-Jewish section (the first 6.2 chapters are usually seen as are-editing of a Jewish two-ways catechism.) Just what kinds ofpractices were those tens-of-thousands following, all of the Judeanbelievers, seeing that they were still attending the temple?(tens-of-thousands MURIADES corrects most English translations)Incidently, I read the title of PROS TOUS EBRAIOUS as a late additionto an anonymous, unaddressed text probably written PROS TOUSIOUDAIZOMENOUS [TOUS EKS EQNWN IOUDAIZONTAS]. the foreign food laws of13:7 point to a non-Jewish audience. And a literal application ofchapters 6-9 to the Jewish church in Jerusalem would appear todisenfranchise the whole mother-church being described virtuallysimultaneously by Acts 21. Not a likely senario, in my eyes, thoughprobably so-read from the second century on.While archaeologically the stairs and some dividers in a MIQVE pointto single-person activities, and the miqvaot around the Temple wouldhave been the natural locus for the baptisms on Pentecost in Acts 2;and while culturally people immerse themselves, that does not meanthat lack of contact with another person was absolute. Mishna Miqvaot8.5 mentions “someone who holds on to a man or vessel while immersingthem–the person or things are unclean”. That is, the tvila isinvalid. the physical contact of the outside person renders theimmersion invalid. However, the same mishna continues: “if one [thebaptiser] had rinsed his hands in the water, the person or vessel isclean. Rabbi Shim`on says, ‘If he lets go.” So there were occasionswhen some kind of contact took place. I am ignorant about what thiswas, though I could make guesses. The principle, of course, was forcomplete purifying contact with the water. Nothing between the personbeing immersed and the water. Absolutely nothing, practicallyspeaking.Which raises other natural questions. What kind of clothes were worn,or not, as the case may be? What about public places and privacy?I assume that by the time of the DIDAXH new questions and practiceshad arisen for a multiethnic and multicultural community, which stillleaves a 70 year trajectory to deal with. It took another fewcenturies for ecclesiastical practices to develop and fix. Incidently,there are pictures in a Callistus catacomb Rome from c175CE in one ofwhich John is dressed and on a bank and Jesus comes out of the wateralone, neked (Texas dialect, at least when Willie Nelson sings), witha dove in upper left corner. See Jerusalem Perspectivewww.jerusalemperspective.com search ‘baptism’, or Flusser, Jesus,Magnus, 1997: p41.Anyway, that is a different picture of baptism from what I am used toseeing in various churches. And for , the main point is notwhether or not we read the same way, but that the vocabulary, formsand syntax need to be read within the ancient cultural perspectives tothe degree that we are able to reconstruct them. there is also a kindof spiralization, not exactly circularity to all of this, because weneed to use texts and random preservations to build the framework forinterpreting the texts.braxot le-Haggim smeHimRandall–Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgybitan at mscc.huji.ac.ilrandallbuth at gmail.com

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

[] Clarification re voice form: Acts 10:48 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 23 09:39:12 EDT 2006

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) [] Acts 10:48 (Was Question) In view of the ongoing thread on the question of BAPTIZW/BAPTIZOMAI in the GNT the past few days, I think that I need to revise and also to explain a couple of the points I have argued.1. I would agree with most of what Iver has most recently stated on this matter: that the baptism discussed by Paul in Rom 6:4 and interpreted along the same lines in a Jesus-saying in Mk 10:38-39 is different from the Hebrew baptisms described elsewhere, different in that it is a ritual act associated with the death (and resurrection) of Jesus.2. It is true that Acts 8:38 (KATEBHSAN AMFOTEROI EIS TO hUDWR, hO TE FILIPPOS KAI hO EUNOUCOS, KAI EBAPTISEN AUTON) indicates the descent of both BAPTIZWN and BAPTIZOMENOS into the water, but it does not tell us exactly what the BAPTIZWN actually did to the BAPTIZOMENOS — does not indicate the HOW of the BAPTISMA. It may be that the BAPTIZWN laid hands upon the BAPTIZOMENOS, either before or after the entry into the water. There is certainly no doubt that the use of the active BAPTIZW here and elsewhere in the GNT with a personal direct object indicates that the BAPTIZWN acted somehow efficaciously upon the BAPTIZOMENOS. I don’t dispute that and I do not consent to the proposition that I seemed to be endorsing on Friday (Apr 21) that the BAPTIZOMENOI “performed the acts UPON themselves.” What I did write was misleading: what I really intended to say, and should have said, is that the BAPTIZOMENOI underwent the BAPTISMA of their own accord, regardless of the fact that another person was involved as agent in the process.3. Regarding voice-terminology: I regret having said that BAPTISQHNAI is aorist middle; I ought to have said that it is aorist middle- passive; I would prefer the term middle-passive be applied to every MAI/SAI/TAI/MHN/SO/TO aorist and future form and to every -QH- aorist and future form. I won’t speak for Randall; I would like to think that by PAQHTIKH he is referring to the -QH- morphoparadigm; he seems, however, to be interpreting the form BAPTISQHNAI in Acts 10:48 as distinctly “middle” semantically: “they acted for themselves” — i.e. without dependence upon the action of an agent. I think I would rather underscore the functional ambivalence of the middle-passive form: it indicates that the subject is engaged in a process, whether of one’s own volition or involuntarily, whether self-actuated or actualized by an external force or agent.4. The conviction I have gradually come to regarding the middle- passives of BOTH types (MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO and -QH-) is that these forms are inherently multivalent: not simply ambiguous as meaning EITHER middle OR passive but rather meaning simply that the subject is engaged in a process or experience which may be involuntary, self- initiated, initiated and carried out by an external force or agent, OR several of these possible actualizations simultaneously. What the verb form (which is essentially intransitive) actually means is that the subject enters into a state indicated by the particular verb in question. In many languages this notion is expressed by reflexive verb forms, in Hebrew (I think) by Niphal, Pual, and Hithpael forms, in Greek by the middle-passive. In English the most convenient way of expressing the middle-passive of Greek is with “get” + participle: “get drunk,” “get sleep,” “get killed,” “get baptized.” The convenience of the use of “get” with the participle as a verb form is that it is non-specific regarding the degree of participation of the subject or of some force or agent in the process of entering into the state in question.5. That is the conviction to which I have gradually come. I think it is a more nuanced view of middle-passive voice function than what I was asserting when I first began exploring the implications of the word HGERQH in GNT usage several years ago. At that time I would have insisted that HGERQH is middle simply because it represented the aorist of the present-tense form EGEIRETAI, “he/she wakes up.” I now think it is more appropriate to understand HGERQH as meaning “he/she entered into a waking state.” Is that middle or is it passive? It’s really intransitive and unqualified with regard to indicators of HOW the subject comes to be awake, whether with or without the assistance of some external force or agent such as a rooster crowing, an earthquake, or divine agency operant directly upon the sleeper.6. There are two or maybe three important points here, in my perspective.(a) In terms of morphology both the MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO forms and the -QH- forms are middle-passive in essential meaning. In the course of the development of ancient Greek the -QH- forms gradually became more standardized in the aorist and future tenses for indicating middle-passive functionality;(b) Whether or not a particular verb-form should be understood as middle or passive in semantic force has much to do with the idiosyncracies or the Aktionsarat of the verb in question: some verbs are clearly transitive and will involve a primary antithesis of active and passive, while others, especially those traditionally termed “deponents” are essentially verbs of process with lemmas in – MAI/MHN/QHN — and if these verbs have active forms (e.g. EGEIRW) they are really causative forms of what is essentially an “ergative” or middle-voice form;(c) I think it is a mistake to insist in the case of every middle- passive verb (whether MAI/SAI/TAI,MHN/SO/TO type or -QH- type) that it should be interpreted as EITHER middle OR passive. According to their Aktionsart that may be appropriate for several verbs, but for several others it is NOT appropriate — precisely because an action indicated by the verb may be voluntary and deliberate while at the same time it is performed by another person; that’s the case with KEIRETAI, “he gets his hair cut” and I think it is also the case with BAPTIZETAI, “he gets baptized.”Further to (c): I have often in this forum complained about the insistence on EITHER/OR interpretation of adnominal genitives qualifying verbal nouns as being necessarily EITHER subjective OR objective genitives when the morphological linkage of two words does no more than indicate association; Wallace’s category of “plenary genitive” as a term indicating deliberate multivalent usage of an adnominal genitive with a verbal noun at least acknowledges the multivalency of these genitives. Sometimes we can clearly discern “subjective” or “objective” semantic force in one of these genitives, but often enough we can’t, however much we may imagine that it MUST be either one or the other. These adnominal genitives are inherently multivalent, and our determination to categorize them instance-by- instance has more to do with how we interpret and convey such phrases into a target language than with how the Greek text itself works. Middle-passive forms are similar to such adnominal genitives in that they are inherently multivalent; while the Aktionsart of some verbs will enable the reader to discern unmistakably a middle or passive semantic force, others are not so readily forced into a middle or passive interpretation. Some may recall our lengthy thread last year on GENHQH- forms in the GNT and the dubious endeavor there to show that all such forms must be “passive.” Ambivalence and multivalence are hard things to cope with generally in life; it’s no wonder that we find it difficult to cope with in language.On Apr 21, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> >> Dear Randall,>> >>> Culturally, the person “baptising someone else” is functioning as a>>> witness and a teacher. Contrary to endless debates, they did not >>> dunk>>> or pour (or sprinkle). The person being baptised went down with >>> their>>> own motor skills while the teacher was a witness. Now many people on>>> the list will read Acts 8:35ff as putting Phillip in the water>>> itself, but that is not a necessary reading if one starts with >>> the cultural>>> pictures just described. As for the Greek here, the PAQHTIKH>>> experiencer/passive would be naturally read as MESH middle.>> >> HH: Do I assume correctly that this implies an idea like: “And he>> ordered them to get baptized . . . “?> > Better: “get themselves baptized” (text: PROSETAXEN DE AUTOUS EN TWi> ONOMATI IHSOU CRISTOU BAPTISQHNAI), understanding BAPTISQHNAI in an> aorist MIDDLE sense. That is, as Randall explained it, they were to> perform the acts for themselves.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)[] Acts 10:48 (Was Question)

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>