Acts 12:19

Acts 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sat Jul 4 08:32:54 EDT 1998

 

Jn.3:8 PNEUMA, PNEI, FONHN Wisdom of Sirach The most common way to understand the phrase EKELEUSEN APACQHNAI in Acts 12:19is that Herod gave an order for the guards to be executed. I don’t think thelexical evidence or the textual evidence bears this out. The term APACQHNAI (APAGW) is used in legal contexts where it describesleading away to trial, to prison and to execution. This range of use is thefirst clue that APAGW by itself does not provided the information “to what” inany of these contexts. The SENSE of APAGW seems to be simply “lead away” withthe destination either specified or implied. The textual evidence points in a similar direction. Codex Bezae replacesAPACQHNAI with *APOKTANQHNAI. We should accept the reading APACQHNAI as theoriginal reading because it is the habit of Codex Bezae to provided moreexplicit clarification where something is left ambiguous. I am speculatingthat the scribe thought that APACQHNAI left the fate of the guards undecidedand for that reason supplied the word APOKTANQHNAI to make it clear that theguards were put to death. This argument is somewhat circular but theassumptions that it is based on do have the support of major studies in CodexBezae. So based on the usage of APAGW both in classical and koine periods, I aminclined to concluded that the sense of APAGW does not include the semanticcomponent “to what” . The “to what” information is either supplied byadditional information in the context or it is left ambiguous. And in the Acts12:19 it is left ambiguous. I am sure that all kinds of historical and cultural information can be broughtout that points to the conclusion that the guards in Acts 12 were executed butthis kind of information is quite beside the point. The guards probably wereexecuted but the word APACQHNAI does not provide that information. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*For the minutiologists (Edward’s term) the reading in Codex Bezae is AP[O]K[T]ANQHNAI.

 

Jn.3:8 PNEUMA, PNEI, FONHNWisdom of Sirach

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sat Jul 4 08:32:54 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: Jn.3:8 PNEUMA, PNEI, FONHN Wisdom of Sirach The most common way to understand the phrase EKELEUSEN APACQHNAI in Acts 12:19is that Herod gave an order for the guards to be executed. I don’t think thelexical evidence or the textual evidence bears this out. The term APACQHNAI (APAGW) is used in legal contexts where it describesleading away to trial, to prison and to execution. This range of use is thefirst clue that APAGW by itself does not provided the information “to what” inany of these contexts. The SENSE of APAGW seems to be simply “lead away” withthe destination either specified or implied. The textual evidence points in a similar direction. Codex Bezae replacesAPACQHNAI with *APOKTANQHNAI. We should accept the reading APACQHNAI as theoriginal reading because it is the habit of Codex Bezae to provided moreexplicit clarification where something is left ambiguous. I am speculatingthat the scribe thought that APACQHNAI left the fate of the guards undecidedand for that reason supplied the word APOKTANQHNAI to make it clear that theguards were put to death. This argument is somewhat circular but theassumptions that it is based on do have the support of major studies in CodexBezae. So based on the usage of APAGW both in classical and koine periods, I aminclined to concluded that the sense of APAGW does not include the semanticcomponent “to what” . The “to what” information is either supplied byadditional information in the context or it is left ambiguous. And in the Acts12:19 it is left ambiguous. I am sure that all kinds of historical and cultural information can be broughtout that points to the conclusion that the guards in Acts 12 were executed butthis kind of information is quite beside the point. The guards probably wereexecuted but the word APACQHNAI does not provide that information. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*For the minutiologists (Edward’s term) the reading in Codex Bezae is AP[O]K[T]ANQHNAI.

 

Previous message: Jn.3:8 PNEUMA, PNEI, FONHNWisdom of Sirach

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jul 4 18:13:42 EDT 1998

 

Harmony of the Gospels Revisited APAGW in ACTS 12:19 At 12:32 PM 7/4/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> >So based on the usage of APAGW both in classical and koine periods, I am>inclined to concluded that the sense of APAGW does not include the semantic>component “to what” . The “to what” information is either supplied by>additional information in the context or it is left ambiguous. And in theActs>12:19 it is left ambiguous.Of course it is the context that must determine which of the possiblemeanings of APAGW is to be understood. It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAIhas been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. Note ANAKRINAS in the middle of theverse which, being an aorist participle, almost certainly indicates thatthe soldiers were brought to judgement before Herod or his directrepresentative before they were “led away [to death].” Another reason tobelieve that the soldiers were executed is the implication of 12:2 that thesame fate awaited Peter as had befallen James. Soldiers under Romandiscipline – and we should be able to safely assume that was the case withsoldiers serving under Herod – were required to fulfill the sentence of anyprisoner they allowed to escape. (Cf. 16:27 where the guard is about tokill himself because he thinks the prisoners have escaped and 27:42 wherethose charge with guarding the prisoners prefer to kill them than to allowany the chance to escape.) So if Peter was destined for execution, itwould be logical to understand that his guards, after being examined andfound guilty were led away to death.The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Noteespecially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includesLuke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we arediscussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to beexecuted]” here.>I am sure that all kinds of historical and cultural information can bebrought>out that points to the conclusion that the guards in Acts 12 were executedbut>this kind of information is quite beside the point.It’s not at all beside the point. It’s the key to the correctunderstanding of this passage.> The guards probably were>executed but the word APACQHNAI does not provide that information. David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Harmony of the Gospels RevisitedAPAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jul 4 18:13:42 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: Harmony of the Gospels Revisited APAGW in ACTS 12:19 At 12:32 PM 7/4/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:> >So based on the usage of APAGW both in classical and koine periods, I am>inclined to concluded that the sense of APAGW does not include the semantic>component “to what” . The “to what” information is either supplied by>additional information in the context or it is left ambiguous. And in theActs>12:19 it is left ambiguous.Of course it is the context that must determine which of the possiblemeanings of APAGW is to be understood. It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAIhas been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. Note ANAKRINAS in the middle of theverse which, being an aorist participle, almost certainly indicates thatthe soldiers were brought to judgement before Herod or his directrepresentative before they were “led away [to death].” Another reason tobelieve that the soldiers were executed is the implication of 12:2 that thesame fate awaited Peter as had befallen James. Soldiers under Romandiscipline – and we should be able to safely assume that was the case withsoldiers serving under Herod – were required to fulfill the sentence of anyprisoner they allowed to escape. (Cf. 16:27 where the guard is about tokill himself because he thinks the prisoners have escaped and 27:42 wherethose charge with guarding the prisoners prefer to kill them than to allowany the chance to escape.) So if Peter was destined for execution, itwould be logical to understand that his guards, after being examined andfound guilty were led away to death.The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Noteespecially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includesLuke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we arediscussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to beexecuted]” here.>I am sure that all kinds of historical and cultural information can bebrought>out that points to the conclusion that the guards in Acts 12 were executedbut>this kind of information is quite beside the point.It’s not at all beside the point. It’s the key to the correctunderstanding of this passage.> The guards probably were>executed but the word APACQHNAI does not provide that information. David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Previous message: Harmony of the Gospels RevisitedAPAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 5 07:18:11 EDT 1998

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Thank you David,I think that there is certainly merit in your observations. My original postwas kind of confusing because I was really raising several questions ratherthan one. I started out asking a question about how to read Acts 12:19 andended up exploring methodology in lexical semantics. Perhaps I can clarifythings a little now.David L. Moore wrote:>It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAI> has been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. Louw and Nida and F.F. Bruce both consider APAGW ambiguous in this context. L& N list APAGW in Acts 12:19 under two domains, 20:65 “to kill, to execute”and 56:38 “Lead off to punishment”. F.F. Bruce (Acts, 1954 NICNT, p253 n. 17)says that “to be put to death” is a translation of the reading APOKTANQHNAIfrom Codex Bezae. He goes on to point out that APAGW is ambiguous in thiscontext and probably means “led away to punishment.”>>>>> The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Noteespecially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includesLuke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we arediscussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to beexecuted]” here.>>>>>> I have noted these texts. In Luke 23:26 APAGW does not mean execute (IMHO), itis used in a context where execution is about to take place but the SENSE ofAPAGW does not included the semantic component “to what” in this passage anymore than it does in Acts 12:19. The context of Luke 23:26 leaves absolutelyno doubt about where Jesus was being taken. But my argument has to do with theSENSE of APAGW not the interpretation of the whole passage. Let me illustrate this point from an English example. In Truman Capote’s “InCold Blood”, Perry and Dick are on death row in Leavenworth for a long time.In the language of Leavenworth, particularly death row, when a man wasexecuted he had “gone to the corner.” Now if someone were to ask Perry whathad happened to Dick and he said “gone to the corner”. It would be clear thatDick had been executed. But the word “gone” does not contain the semanticcomponent “to where” or “to what”. The word “gone” is used with it’s normalSENSE, but the situational context and the linguistic context both provide theinformation that Dick was executed. This example from “In Cold Blood” is parallel to the use of APAGW in Luke23:26. It is not parallel to the use of APAGW in Acts 12:19 where some realambiguity exists. In both of these contexts there is no reason to add thesemantic component “to what” or “to where” to the SENSE of APAGW.This is an exploration of the application of lexical semantic theory. I amtrying to explore the boundary between the SENSE of a lexeme and the USE ofthe lexeme in a particular context. Since it is an exploration all thestatements made here are quite tentative (even if the tone does not indicatesuch). — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19APAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 5 07:18:11 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19 APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Thank you David,I think that there is certainly merit in your observations. My original postwas kind of confusing because I was really raising several questions ratherthan one. I started out asking a question about how to read Acts 12:19 andended up exploring methodology in lexical semantics. Perhaps I can clarifythings a little now.David L. Moore wrote:>It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAI> has been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. Louw and Nida and F.F. Bruce both consider APAGW ambiguous in this context. L& N list APAGW in Acts 12:19 under two domains, 20:65 “to kill, to execute”and 56:38 “Lead off to punishment”. F.F. Bruce (Acts, 1954 NICNT, p253 n. 17)says that “to be put to death” is a translation of the reading APOKTANQHNAIfrom Codex Bezae. He goes on to point out that APAGW is ambiguous in thiscontext and probably means “led away to punishment.”>>>>> The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Noteespecially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includesLuke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we arediscussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to beexecuted]” here.>>>>>> I have noted these texts. In Luke 23:26 APAGW does not mean execute (IMHO), itis used in a context where execution is about to take place but the SENSE ofAPAGW does not included the semantic component “to what” in this passage anymore than it does in Acts 12:19. The context of Luke 23:26 leaves absolutelyno doubt about where Jesus was being taken. But my argument has to do with theSENSE of APAGW not the interpretation of the whole passage. Let me illustrate this point from an English example. In Truman Capote’s “InCold Blood”, Perry and Dick are on death row in Leavenworth for a long time.In the language of Leavenworth, particularly death row, when a man wasexecuted he had “gone to the corner.” Now if someone were to ask Perry whathad happened to Dick and he said “gone to the corner”. It would be clear thatDick had been executed. But the word “gone” does not contain the semanticcomponent “to where” or “to what”. The word “gone” is used with it’s normalSENSE, but the situational context and the linguistic context both provide theinformation that Dick was executed. This example from “In Cold Blood” is parallel to the use of APAGW in Luke23:26. It is not parallel to the use of APAGW in Acts 12:19 where some realambiguity exists. In both of these contexts there is no reason to add thesemantic component “to what” or “to where” to the SENSE of APAGW.This is an exploration of the application of lexical semantic theory. I amtrying to explore the boundary between the SENSE of a lexeme and the USE ofthe lexeme in a particular context. Since it is an exploration all thestatements made here are quite tentative (even if the tone does not indicatesuch). — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19APAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 5 11:24:08 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Next message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Once again, David Moore’s comments are cogent and well documented. I cannotfault him on his reasoning, but I do disagree with his conclusion. Perhaps it is outlandish, arrogant or merely silly for some one to call intoquestion the conclusions of BAGD, but this is quite necessary if the goal isrethinking how lexical semantics functions. I am applying a principle calledsemantic minimalism, I cannot quote it clearly but it is something like this:”The best explanation of a semantic component is the one which adds the leastinformation to the context.” This has been stated better elsewhere, perhapssome one else would like to quote it. The difference between David Moore’s conclusion and my hypothesis is how wecarve up the semantic pie. I am saying that the APAGW has the SENSE, “leadaway” and that the semantic component “where to?” is provided by the context(linguistic and situational). David is claiming that APAGW in some contextsincludes the semantic component “where to?” I find this hard to accept becauseAPAGW is used with to many different “where to” variables for the APAGW itselfto carry this information. Let’s assume APAGW does contain the semantic component “Where to”, then APAGWin Luke 13:15 would include the semantic component “to water” and in MK 14:53″to the high priest” and in Mk 14:44 “under guard” and in Mat 7:13 “todestruction” and in Mat 7:14 “to life” and on and on and on. It is quiteincomprehensible to me that APAGW could have all of these meanings. I makes alot more sense to apply the principle of semantic minimalism and conclude thatAPAGW has the sense “Lead away” in all of these contexts and that the “whereto” information is supplied by other means. It is also possible that APAGW includes the semantic component “where to” insome contexts and not in others. But unless some one points out to me a clearprinciple by which I can determine that APAGW in Mat. 7:13-14 is lacking thesemantic component “where to” but APAGW in Acts 12:19 includes thiscomponent, then I will assume that this cannot be demonstrated in a convincingmanner. Thanks again to David Moore for his participation in this discussion. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19Next message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 5 11:24:08 EDT 1998

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Once again, David Moore’s comments are cogent and well documented. I cannotfault him on his reasoning, but I do disagree with his conclusion. Perhaps it is outlandish, arrogant or merely silly for some one to call intoquestion the conclusions of BAGD, but this is quite necessary if the goal isrethinking how lexical semantics functions. I am applying a principle calledsemantic minimalism, I cannot quote it clearly but it is something like this:”The best explanation of a semantic component is the one which adds the leastinformation to the context.” This has been stated better elsewhere, perhapssome one else would like to quote it. The difference between David Moore’s conclusion and my hypothesis is how wecarve up the semantic pie. I am saying that the APAGW has the SENSE, “leadaway” and that the semantic component “where to?” is provided by the context(linguistic and situational). David is claiming that APAGW in some contextsincludes the semantic component “where to?” I find this hard to accept becauseAPAGW is used with to many different “where to” variables for the APAGW itselfto carry this information. Let’s assume APAGW does contain the semantic component “Where to”, then APAGWin Luke 13:15 would include the semantic component “to water” and in MK 14:53″to the high priest” and in Mk 14:44 “under guard” and in Mat 7:13 “todestruction” and in Mat 7:14 “to life” and on and on and on. It is quiteincomprehensible to me that APAGW could have all of these meanings. I makes alot more sense to apply the principle of semantic minimalism and conclude thatAPAGW has the sense “Lead away” in all of these contexts and that the “whereto” information is supplied by other means. It is also possible that APAGW includes the semantic component “where to” insome contexts and not in others. But unless some one points out to me a clearprinciple by which I can determine that APAGW in Mat. 7:13-14 is lacking thesemantic component “where to” but APAGW in Acts 12:19 includes thiscomponent, then I will assume that this cannot be demonstrated in a convincingmanner. Thanks again to David Moore for his participation in this discussion. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19APAGW in ACTS 12:19

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Sun Jul 5 17:14:48 EDT 1998

 

Wisdom of Sirach God’s Wrath At 11:18 AM 7/5/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>I think that there is certainly merit in your observations. My original post>was kind of confusing because I was really raising several questions rather>than one. I started out asking a question about how to read Acts 12:19 and>ended up exploring methodology in lexical semantics. Perhaps I can clarify>things a little now.> >David L. Moore wrote:> >>It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAI>> has been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. > >Louw and Nida and F.F. Bruce both consider APAGW ambiguous in this context. L>& N list APAGW in Acts 12:19 under two domains, 20:65 “to kill, to execute”>and 56:38 “Lead off to punishment”. F.F. Bruce (Acts, 1954 NICNT, p253 n.17)>says that “to be put to death” is a translation of the reading APOKTANQHNAI>from Codex Bezae. He goes on to point out that APAGW is ambiguous in this>context and probably means “led away to punishment.”Bruce’s comments which Clayton mentions include the following: “Cod. D(the chief Western witness) says ‘to be put to death’ (APOKTANQHNAI); thisagrees with the idiomatic Attic use of APAGW in the sense of leading off toexecution (cf. Luke 23:26). This meaning is more likely in the presentcontext than the Hellenistic meaning ‘arrest” or “lead off to prison.'” Iwould think that the “This meaning” of the final sentence has taken theclosest referent.Another work by Bruce which concentrates on the Greek text of Acts saysthat APACQHNAI here is probably to be taken “in the Attic sense, ‘to be ledaway to execution,’ as in Lk. xxiii. 26.” Why he uses “sent them off to bepunished” in the text of the NICNT commentary, I don’t understand, since itconflicts with his opinion expressed in the note on the same page and alsoconflicts with his comments in the Greek-text commentary. It looks asthough Lowe and Nida simply waffle on the meaning of APAGW in Acts 12:19,but APAGW *is* unequivocally included as representative of the semanticdomain “to kill, to execute.” So the usage does not seem to be in questionfor them, but the specific instance is.On Bruce’s handling of this word in Acts 12:19 in his Greek-textcomentary: his comments apparently depend on Moulton and Milligan (s.v.)who point out, that the word is found four times in P Oxy. I:33 of onebeing led off to death and state that Lk 23:26 with the Vulgate _duci_ andthe gloss APOKTANQHNAI in D* are probably decisive for the Attic meaning,”led away to death.”>>>>>> > The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Note>especially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includes>Luke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we are>discussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to be>executed]” here.>>>>>>> > >I have noted these texts. In Luke 23:26 APAGW does not mean execute(IMHO), it>is used in a context where execution is about to take place but the SENSE of>APAGW does not included the semantic component “to what” in this passage any>more than it does in Acts 12:19. The context of Luke 23:26 leaves absolutely>no doubt about where Jesus was being taken. But my argument has to do withthe>SENSE of APAGW not the interpretation of the whole passage. > >Let me illustrate this point from an English example. In Truman Capote’s “In>Cold Blood”, Perry and Dick are on death row in Leavenworth for a long time.>In the language of Leavenworth, particularly death row, when a man was>executed he had “gone to the corner.” Now if someone were to ask Perry what>had happened to Dick and he said “gone to the corner”. It would be clear that>Dick had been executed. But the word “gone” does not contain the semantic>component “to where” or “to what”. The word “gone” is used with it’s normal>SENSE, but the situational context and the linguistic context both providethe>information that Dick was executed. But, what I am saying is that “take away to execution” is a legitimatemeaning of this verb when used unaccompanied by any modifiying phrase, asis the case in Acts 12:19.Another reason for understanding “taken away to be executed” here is thatthe other common Koine usage of this verb in the context of authoritative,official action is the meaning “arrest” (Moulton & Milligan, s.v.). Butthis latter meaning does not fit the context, since the guards areobviously already in custody.>This example from “In Cold Blood” is parallel to the use of APAGW in Luke>23:26. It is not parallel to the use of APAGW in Acts 12:19 where some real>ambiguity exists. In both of these contexts there is no reason to add the>semantic component “to what” or “to where” to the SENSE of APAGW.See comment directly above.>This is an exploration of the application of lexical semantic theory. I am>trying to explore the boundary between the SENSE of a lexeme and the USE of>the lexeme in a particular context. Since it is an exploration all the>statements made here are quite tentative (even if the tone does not indicate>such). It seems to me that our basic difference is in whether APAGW by itself maymean “take away to execution.” The lexicons (including Lowe & Nida)indicate that it may. The context of the passage points in that direction,so I see no reason to shy away from translating APAGW in that sense here.Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Wisdom of SirachGod’s Wrath

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Sun Jul 5 17:14:48 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: Wisdom of Sirach Next message: God’s Wrath At 11:18 AM 7/5/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>I think that there is certainly merit in your observations. My original post>was kind of confusing because I was really raising several questions rather>than one. I started out asking a question about how to read Acts 12:19 and>ended up exploring methodology in lexical semantics. Perhaps I can clarify>things a little now.> >David L. Moore wrote:> >>It doesn’t seem, however, APACQHNAI>> has been left ambiguous in Acts 12:19. > >Louw and Nida and F.F. Bruce both consider APAGW ambiguous in this context. L>& N list APAGW in Acts 12:19 under two domains, 20:65 “to kill, to execute”>and 56:38 “Lead off to punishment”. F.F. Bruce (Acts, 1954 NICNT, p253 n.17)>says that “to be put to death” is a translation of the reading APOKTANQHNAI>from Codex Bezae. He goes on to point out that APAGW is ambiguous in this>context and probably means “led away to punishment.”Bruce’s comments which Clayton mentions include the following: “Cod. D(the chief Western witness) says ‘to be put to death’ (APOKTANQHNAI); thisagrees with the idiomatic Attic use of APAGW in the sense of leading off toexecution (cf. Luke 23:26). This meaning is more likely in the presentcontext than the Hellenistic meaning ‘arrest” or “lead off to prison.'” Iwould think that the “This meaning” of the final sentence has taken theclosest referent.Another work by Bruce which concentrates on the Greek text of Acts saysthat APACQHNAI here is probably to be taken “in the Attic sense, ‘to be ledaway to execution,’ as in Lk. xxiii. 26.” Why he uses “sent them off to bepunished” in the text of the NICNT commentary, I don’t understand, since itconflicts with his opinion expressed in the note on the same page and alsoconflicts with his comments in the Greek-text commentary. It looks asthough Lowe and Nida simply waffle on the meaning of APAGW in Acts 12:19,but APAGW *is* unequivocally included as representative of the semanticdomain “to kill, to execute.” So the usage does not seem to be in questionfor them, but the specific instance is.On Bruce’s handling of this word in Acts 12:19 in his Greek-textcomentary: his comments apparently depend on Moulton and Milligan (s.v.)who point out, that the word is found four times in P Oxy. I:33 of onebeing led off to death and state that Lk 23:26 with the Vulgate _duci_ andthe gloss APOKTANQHNAI in D* are probably decisive for the Attic meaning,”led away to death.”>>>>>> > The word is well attested in this sense (see BAGD s.v. APAGW, 2, c). Note>especially the use of the word with no addition, a section which includes>Luke 23:26; Jn. 19:16 (in MS Aleph among others), and the verse we are>discussing. So we shouldn’t be afraid to understand “led away [to be>executed]” here.>>>>>>> > >I have noted these texts. In Luke 23:26 APAGW does not mean execute(IMHO), it>is used in a context where execution is about to take place but the SENSE of>APAGW does not included the semantic component “to what” in this passage any>more than it does in Acts 12:19. The context of Luke 23:26 leaves absolutely>no doubt about where Jesus was being taken. But my argument has to do withthe>SENSE of APAGW not the interpretation of the whole passage. > >Let me illustrate this point from an English example. In Truman Capote’s “In>Cold Blood”, Perry and Dick are on death row in Leavenworth for a long time.>In the language of Leavenworth, particularly death row, when a man was>executed he had “gone to the corner.” Now if someone were to ask Perry what>had happened to Dick and he said “gone to the corner”. It would be clear that>Dick had been executed. But the word “gone” does not contain the semantic>component “to where” or “to what”. The word “gone” is used with it’s normal>SENSE, but the situational context and the linguistic context both providethe>information that Dick was executed. But, what I am saying is that “take away to execution” is a legitimatemeaning of this verb when used unaccompanied by any modifiying phrase, asis the case in Acts 12:19.Another reason for understanding “taken away to be executed” here is thatthe other common Koine usage of this verb in the context of authoritative,official action is the meaning “arrest” (Moulton & Milligan, s.v.). Butthis latter meaning does not fit the context, since the guards areobviously already in custody.>This example from “In Cold Blood” is parallel to the use of APAGW in Luke>23:26. It is not parallel to the use of APAGW in Acts 12:19 where some real>ambiguity exists. In both of these contexts there is no reason to add the>semantic component “to what” or “to where” to the SENSE of APAGW.See comment directly above.>This is an exploration of the application of lexical semantic theory. I am>trying to explore the boundary between the SENSE of a lexeme and the USE of>the lexeme in a particular context. Since it is an exploration all the>statements made here are quite tentative (even if the tone does not indicate>such). It seems to me that our basic difference is in whether APAGW by itself maymean “take away to execution.” The lexicons (including Lowe & Nida)indicate that it may. The context of the passage points in that direction,so I see no reason to shy away from translating APAGW in that sense here.Regards,David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Previous message: Wisdom of SirachNext message: God’s Wrath
APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 6 09:30:10 EDT 1998

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Harmony of the Gospels Revisited One Last comment. On the semantic range of APAGW, I looked at my most recent NT Dictionary,EDNT. EDNT classified APAGW in Acts 12:19 under “a violent leading away.” Thisclassification is somewhat ambiguous but it can be clarified by seeing whichtexts were used as examples. EDNT included a number of texts under theheading “a violent lead away” that show a person being “lead” under coercion.The principle texts cited were Gospel accounts of the arrest and death ofJesus Christ (see, Mk 14:53, Lk 22:66, Mt 27:2, Mk 15:16, Mt 27:31). APAGW isused in these passages to describe Jesus’ being taken to the high priest, intothe Sanhedrin, to Pilate, into the praetorium, and last of all to thecrucifixion. It seems somewhat precarious to single out the final use of APAGW in thepassion narrative and proclaim that this use of APAGW means execution, whereas the other uses of APAGW in the same narrative mean to lead (under coercion)from one place to another. EDNT falls short of stating that APAGW is a term for execution. How short?That is debatable. The wording in English is ambiguous and permits more thanone interpretation. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

APAGW in ACTS 12:19Harmony of the Gospels Revisited

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 6 09:30:10 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19 Next message: Harmony of the Gospels Revisited One Last comment. On the semantic range of APAGW, I looked at my most recent NT Dictionary,EDNT. EDNT classified APAGW in Acts 12:19 under “a violent leading away.” Thisclassification is somewhat ambiguous but it can be clarified by seeing whichtexts were used as examples. EDNT included a number of texts under theheading “a violent lead away” that show a person being “lead” under coercion.The principle texts cited were Gospel accounts of the arrest and death ofJesus Christ (see, Mk 14:53, Lk 22:66, Mt 27:2, Mk 15:16, Mt 27:31). APAGW isused in these passages to describe Jesus’ being taken to the high priest, intothe Sanhedrin, to Pilate, into the praetorium, and last of all to thecrucifixion. It seems somewhat precarious to single out the final use of APAGW in thepassion narrative and proclaim that this use of APAGW means execution, whereas the other uses of APAGW in the same narrative mean to lead (under coercion)from one place to another. EDNT falls short of stating that APAGW is a term for execution. How short?That is debatable. The wording in English is ambiguous and permits more thanone interpretation. — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Previous message: APAGW in ACTS 12:19Next message: Harmony of the Gospels Revisited

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 6 15:33:16 EDT 1998

 

Hebrew Hebrew At 03:24 PM 7/5/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Once again, David Moore’s comments are cogent and well documented. I cannot>fault him on his reasoning, but I do disagree with his conclusion. > >Perhaps it is outlandish, arrogant or merely silly for some one to call into>question the conclusions of BAGD, but this is quite necessary if the goal is>rethinking how lexical semantics functions. I am applying a principle called>semantic minimalism, I cannot quote it clearly but it is something like this:>“The best explanation of a semantic component is the one which adds the least>information to the context.” This has been stated better elsewhere, perhaps>some one else would like to quote it. Well, that explains how we came to different conclusions; Clayton’s goalwas rethinking how lexical semantics functions, and mine was to clarify themeaning of this passage of the NT. On minimalist approaches en general: wehad a discussion some time ago on that dealt with a proposedminimalist or reductionist approach to grammatical taxonomy. I think theconsensus we finally reached was that, although simplification isdesireable when possible, it is better to remain with a more complex systemthat can account adequately for all the phenomena than to pursuesimplification beyond that point.>The difference between David Moore’s conclusion and my hypothesis is how we>carve up the semantic pie. I am saying that the APAGW has the SENSE, “lead>away” and that the semantic component “where to?” is provided by the context>(linguistic and situational). David is claiming that APAGW in some contexts>includes the semantic component “where to?” I find this hard to acceptbecause>APAGW is used with to many different “where to” variables for the APAGWitself>to carry this information. > >Let’s assume APAGW does contain the semantic component “Where to”, thenAPAGW>in Luke 13:15 would include the semantic component “to water” and in MK 14:53>“to the high priest” and in Mk 14:44 “under guard” and in Mat 7:13 “to>destruction” and in Mat 7:14 “to life” and on and on and on. It is quite>incomprehensible to me that APAGW could have all of these meanings. I makes a>lot more sense to apply the principle of semantic minimalism and concludethat>APAGW has the sense “Lead away” in all of these contexts and that the “where>to” information is supplied by other means. > >It is also possible that APAGW includes the semantic component “where to” in>some contexts and not in others. But unless some one points out to me a clear>principle by which I can determine that APAGW in Mat. 7:13-14 is lacking the>semantic component “where to” but APAGW in Acts 12:19 includes this>component, then I will assume that this cannot be demonstrated in aconvincing>manner. Part of the matter is how words and concepts translate from one languageto another. If, for the Greek-speaking man on the street, APAGW, in thecontexts of Acts 12:19 and Luke 23:26 and the several passages from othersources where APAGW is found unaccompanied and in this sense, included theimplication of being led away to execution, our translation must includethat implication. It seems to me that producing a translation that is notmisleading is of an order of importance above that of its being nice andneat according to the rules of lexical semantics. To my mind, the realquestion here is that if lexical semantics’s purpose is the clarificationof meaning, why should we be at cross purposes. But that’s not really aquestion for , is it.Regards, David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

HebrewHebrew

APAGW in ACTS 12:19 David L. Moore dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 6 15:33:16 EDT 1998

 

Previous message: Hebrew Next message: Hebrew At 03:24 PM 7/5/98 +0000, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Once again, David Moore’s comments are cogent and well documented. I cannot>fault him on his reasoning, but I do disagree with his conclusion. > >Perhaps it is outlandish, arrogant or merely silly for some one to call into>question the conclusions of BAGD, but this is quite necessary if the goal is>rethinking how lexical semantics functions. I am applying a principle called>semantic minimalism, I cannot quote it clearly but it is something like this:>“The best explanation of a semantic component is the one which adds the least>information to the context.” This has been stated better elsewhere, perhaps>some one else would like to quote it. Well, that explains how we came to different conclusions; Clayton’s goalwas rethinking how lexical semantics functions, and mine was to clarify themeaning of this passage of the NT. On minimalist approaches en general: wehad a discussion some time ago on that dealt with a proposedminimalist or reductionist approach to grammatical taxonomy. I think theconsensus we finally reached was that, although simplification isdesireable when possible, it is better to remain with a more complex systemthat can account adequately for all the phenomena than to pursuesimplification beyond that point.>The difference between David Moore’s conclusion and my hypothesis is how we>carve up the semantic pie. I am saying that the APAGW has the SENSE, “lead>away” and that the semantic component “where to?” is provided by the context>(linguistic and situational). David is claiming that APAGW in some contexts>includes the semantic component “where to?” I find this hard to acceptbecause>APAGW is used with to many different “where to” variables for the APAGWitself>to carry this information. > >Let’s assume APAGW does contain the semantic component “Where to”, thenAPAGW>in Luke 13:15 would include the semantic component “to water” and in MK 14:53>“to the high priest” and in Mk 14:44 “under guard” and in Mat 7:13 “to>destruction” and in Mat 7:14 “to life” and on and on and on. It is quite>incomprehensible to me that APAGW could have all of these meanings. I makes a>lot more sense to apply the principle of semantic minimalism and concludethat>APAGW has the sense “Lead away” in all of these contexts and that the “where>to” information is supplied by other means. > >It is also possible that APAGW includes the semantic component “where to” in>some contexts and not in others. But unless some one points out to me a clear>principle by which I can determine that APAGW in Mat. 7:13-14 is lacking the>semantic component “where to” but APAGW in Acts 12:19 includes this>component, then I will assume that this cannot be demonstrated in aconvincing>manner. Part of the matter is how words and concepts translate from one languageto another. If, for the Greek-speaking man on the street, APAGW, in thecontexts of Acts 12:19 and Luke 23:26 and the several passages from othersources where APAGW is found unaccompanied and in this sense, included theimplication of being led away to execution, our translation must includethat implication. It seems to me that producing a translation that is notmisleading is of an order of importance above that of its being nice andneat according to the rules of lexical semantics. To my mind, the realquestion here is that if lexical semantics’s purpose is the clarificationof meaning, why should we be at cross purposes. But that’s not really aquestion for , is it.Regards, David MooreDavid L. MooreMiami, Florida, USAE-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.comHome Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore

 

Previous message: HebrewNext message: Hebrew

Leave a Reply

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