Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα
Robert Emil Berge wrote: The participle doesn't need to indicate another causality, and if it did it would be strange, and at least there should have been a hint at what that was.
The addition of the ταῦτα suggests that meaning may be bigger than the grammatical structures or to say that another way there is a certain ungrammaticalness about the sentence. If ταῦτα refers to the Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον (a summary (or topicalising restatement) of all that went on before in the previous few verses), then the verb - in an implied form is in καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα would need to be in the second half too.Barry Hofstetter wrote: Why would the participle indicate a different causality?
For the second half of the sentence, conversion to a passive makes sense. The unbelieving Jews aggitated the crowd - they are the first causality and the result is the crowd's aggitation, then upon hearing about these things, the rulers were upset too - the first cause and result is the second causality. That has been harmonised into a string of accusatives following Ἐτάραξαν, rather than re-stating the verb again in another form (perhaps ἐταράχθησαν). The sense of the text moves on to the city-rulers with the λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς. It seems that that picks up on the implied passive construction. This seems to be a convoluted form of verb ommission involving syntactic rearrangement, without loss of the change of the flow of the sense. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 9th, 2016, 9:01 pmBarry Hofstetter wrote: what they were hearing was the actual cause for their being upset (if we were convert this to some kind of passive construction)
Why would the participle indicate a different causality? It simply describes what the crowd and the politarchs were doing. It is adverbial, and essentially shows that what they were hearing was the actual cause for their being upset (if we were convert this to some kind of passive construction). As for λαβόντες, it would naturally be read of the politarchs. In context, who else could it refer to, who would have the authority to exact a bond? Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 9th, 2016, 8:15 amStephen Hughes wrote: Yes. The finite verb states directly that they troubled them, but then the participle suggests a different causality for them being upset, or perhaps that only some of them were upset. Another thing:Who do these verbs refer to then? Logically it would be the οἱ πολιτάρχαι. Is there anything in the Greek that strongly suggests otherwise?λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.
The participle doesn't need to indicate another causality, and if it did it would be strange, and at least there should have been a hint at what that was. The imperfect participle describes something happening along with the main action, so it says that while they (the crowd and the city rulers) were listening, they (the unbelieving Jews) upset them. The particilple does not have to be limited to the city rulers here, I think it would be expressed in another way if there was a point that the city rulers were listening, but not the crowd. It is clear that both the crowd and the city rulers were being upset. In English: They upset the crowd and the city rulers as they were listening. Here you have the same ambiguity, but nobody would think it is significant if the last they includes the crowd or not, especially since what they were listening to was shouted. Since there is nothing to indicate a change of subject, it is reasonable to think that the next senctence has the same subject, and therefore that it is the unbelieing Jews who had taken Jason and a some brothers, who then released them, after taking some security, which is not mentioned, I think. It is not impossible that the subject of the last sentence is either "the unbelieving Jews, the crowd and the city rulers", "the city rulers" or as I think is most plausible from the context, "the unbelieving Jews". Statistics: Posted by Robert Emil Berge — September 8th, 2016, 3:01 pm
Yes. The finite verb states directly that they troubled them, but then the participle suggests a different causality for them being upset, or perhaps that only some of them were upset. Another thing:
Who do these verbs refer to then? Logically it would be the οἱ πολιτάρχαι. Is there anything in the Greek that strongly suggests otherwise? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 8th, 2016, 12:22 pmλαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.
The subject of ἑτάραξαν is "the jealous, unbelieving Jews" I think, since the "company of wretched common people" must be part of the ὄχλος. "τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα" is simply the direct object with a participle, which is tricky to translate, but quite clear in Greek. "They upset the crowd and the city rulers who listened to what they said", perhaps. Statistics: Posted by Robert Emil Berge — September 8th, 2016, 7:18 am
I find it difficult to follow the pronominal references here. Is the phrase τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα some sort of accusative of respect or explication? Is the subject of Ἐτάραξαν the Jews and wicked men of verse 5? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 8th, 2016, 4:03 amActs 17:8,9 wrote: Ἐτάραξαν δὲ τὸν ὄχλον καὶ τοὺς πολιτάρχας ἀκούοντας ταῦτα.9 Καὶ λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανὸν παρὰ τοῦ Ἰάσονος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.