Acts 22:17

An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 22:17-18A: Syntactic Structure and Thematic Implications

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Acts 22:17-18A: Syntactic Structure and Thematic Implications is based on a b-greek discussion from April 8, 2004. The initial query focused on the identification of the grammatical subject within the complex sentence of Acts 22:17-18A, specifically noting that the phrase προσευξομενου μου is identified as a Genitive Absolute due to its subject being grammatically distinct from that of the main clause. The discussion sought clarification on what constitutes the subject of this main clause.

The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise syntactic parsing of Acts 22:17-18A, particularly the structure involving the verb ἐγένετο with a dative of interest (μοι) and a subsequent infinitive phrase functioning as its grammatical subject. While the experiential subject (Paul) remains consistent throughout the narrative, the grammatical distinction between the subject of the genitive absolute and the subject of the main clause is crucial for accurate interpretation. Furthermore, the discussion touches upon the potential influence of Hebraic narrative idiom, common in the Septuagint (LXX) and Lukan writings, on this specific Greek construction, thus raising questions about its classification as a Hebraism in Koine Greek.

Ἐγένετο δέ μοι ὑποστρέψαντι εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ προσευχομένου μου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει, καὶ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν λέγοντά μοι, Σπεῦσον καὶ ἔξελθε ἐν τάχει ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The Greek text of Acts 22:17-18A in SBLGNT (2010) is identical to the Nestle 1904 text provided above, indicating a stable textual tradition for this passage among critical editions. Minor orthographic variations, such as the capitalization and breathing of proper nouns like Ἱερουσαλὴμ vs. Ἰερουσαλὴμ, are common but do not impact the meaning.

Textual Criticism (NA28): The text of Acts 22:17-18A presents no significant textual variants in the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28). This stability reinforces confidence in the Greek text’s originality and integrity for this passage.

Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

• ἐγένετο (from γίνομαι): A common verb meaning “to become, happen, come into being.” In this construction (ἐγένετο δέ μοι), it functions impersonally, conveying “it happened to me.” BDAG notes its frequent use in Luke-Acts to introduce narrative events, often reflecting Septuagintal influence.
• ὑποστρέψαντι (from ὑποστρέφω): Aorist active participle, dative singular. Means “having returned.” It agrees in case, number, and gender with the dative pronoun μοι, indicating the circumstances concurrent with the main event.
• Ἱερουσαλὴμ: Jerusalem. A proper noun, here in the accusative case following the preposition εἰς (into) and the ablative with ἐξ (out of).
• προσευχομένου (from προσεύχομαι): Present middle participle, genitive singular. Means “praying.” Part of the genitive absolute construction προσευχομένου μου, which provides background or circumstantial information for the main event. KITTEL highlights the intensive aspect of προσ-, suggesting a devoted or earnest prayer.
• ἱερῷ (from τὸ ἱερόν): Dative singular of “temple.” Refers to the sacred precinct in Jerusalem.
• γενέσθαι (from γίνομαι): Aorist infinitive, serving as part of the substantive subject of ἐγένετο. Means “to come to be, to enter.”
• με: Accusative singular pronoun, “me.” Functions as the subject of the infinitive γενέσθαι.
• ἐκστάσει (from ἔκστασις): Dative singular of “trance, ecstasy, astonishment.” BDAG defines it as “a state in which the mind is so overwhelmed by an experience that normal functions are suspended.”
• ἰδεῖν (from ὁράω): Aorist infinitive, “to see.” Coordinated with γενέσθαι, forming the compound subject of ἐγένετο.
• αὐτὸν: Accusative singular pronoun, “him.” Refers to Jesus, as the context of Acts 22 makes clear. Subject of the infinitive ἰδεῖν.
• λέγοντα (from λέγω): Present active participle, accusative singular. Means “saying.” Modifies αὐτὸν.
• Σπεῦσον (from σπεύδω): Aorist imperative, “Hurry!”
• ἔξελθε (from ἐξέρχομαι): Aorist imperative, “Go out, leave!”
• ἐν τάχει: An idiomatic prepositional phrase meaning “quickly, swiftly, speedily.”

Translation Variants

The grammatical analysis of Acts 22:17-18A centers on the construction ἐγένετο δέ μοι […] γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει, καὶ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν λέγοντά μοι. Here, ἐγένετο is an impersonal verb (“it happened”) and takes a dative of interest, μοι (“to me”). The actual grammatical subject of ἐγένετο is the compound infinitive phrase: γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει καὶ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν λέγοντά μοι, meaning “my coming to be in a trance and seeing him speaking to me.” This structure, where an infinitive clause functions as a substantive subject, is well-attested in Greek. While the *experiential* subject of the entire event is Paul, the *grammatical* subject of the main verb ἐγένετο is the infinitive clause. The dative participle ὑποστρέψαντι (“having returned”) agrees with μοι, providing a temporal circumstance for the main event.

The phrase προσευχομένου μου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ is a Genitive Absolute, where μου (“my”) is the subject of the participle προσευχομένου (“praying”). The genitive absolute typically has a subject distinct from the main clause. In this case, while the ‘experiencer’ of both the genitive absolute (Paul praying) and the main clause (Paul entering a trance and seeing) is indeed Paul, the *grammatical* subject of the main clause is the infinitive phrase (the *event* itself), not Paul directly. This grammatical distinction justifies its classification as a genitive absolute, as its subject is not directly the nominative subject of a finite main verb.

Furthermore, the repetitive use of ἐγένετο δέ to advance a narrative, particularly with a dative and an infinitive, is often identified as a Hebraism. This construction mirrors the Hebrew `וַיְהִי` (wa-yehi, “and it happened”) followed by an infinitive, a common feature in the Septuagint and subsequently influential on the Greek of Luke-Acts. This stylistic choice, rather than a more classically Attic construction using dative participles, reflects the broader linguistic and rhetorical environment of Koine Greek, which was shaped by its interaction with Semitic languages. Rhetorically, Paul’s recounting of this trance-vision serves to underscore the divine mandate for his mission, providing a theological justification for his departure from Jerusalem. The indirect nature of the initial vision, recounted through impersonal and infinitive constructions, emphasizes the overwhelming nature of the divine encounter and Paul’s passive reception of God’s command.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical structure of Acts 22:17-18A, featuring the impersonal ἐγένετο with a dative of interest and a compound infinitive phrase as its subject, alongside a genitive absolute, is characteristic of Lukan Greek. This construction highlights both the event’s occurrence and the identity of the affected party (Paul) while underscoring the divine initiative. The potential Hebraism further connects Luke’s narrative style to the broader biblical tradition, emphasizing the continuity of divine revelation.

1. When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, it happened to me that I entered a trance and saw Him saying to me, “Hurry and depart quickly from Jerusalem!”
   
   This translation prioritizes a more literal rendering of the impersonal “it happened” with the infinitive phrase as its subject, while clarifying the temporal relationship of the introductory participles.
2. And it came to pass that when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I entered a trance and saw Him saying to me, “Hurry and leave Jerusalem at once!”
   
   This option maintains a slightly more archaic “it came to pass” to reflect the Septuagintal flavor, while creating a more direct connection between Paul and the events of the trance.
3. After returning to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Him, and He said to me, “Be quick and get out of Jerusalem immediately!”
   
   This more dynamic equivalent translates the complex Greek structure into natural English, prioritizing clarity and flow by making Paul the direct subject of “fell into a trance and saw Him,” and treating the subsequent speech as a direct utterance from Him.