An Exegetical Study of Acts 21:5: The Nuance of σὺν in Contexts of Association and Inclusion
This exegetical study of ‘An Exegetical Study of Acts 21:5: The Nuance of σὺν in Contexts of Association and Inclusion’ is based on a recent b-greek discussion. The initial inquiry highlighted a perceived shift in the English translation of the Greek preposition σύν in Acts 21:5 from a simple “and” to a more specific “including,” noting that these meanings, while related, can have distinct implications in English. An preliminary examination of the lexical range of σύν, particularly referencing classical Greek usage through resources like the Perseus Digital Library’s lexicon, confirmed that the preposition does indeed encompass a spectrum of meanings, ranging from simple accompaniment to explicit inclusion within a larger group or enumeration.
The central exegetical issue under investigation is to determine the precise semantic force of σύν in Acts 21:5, specifically within the phrase “προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις” (sending us off, all with wives and children). The core question is whether σύν here merely indicates the passive presence of wives and children alongside “all” others, or if it conveys a more active sense of integration, suggesting that the wives and children are to be understood as constituent, enumerated elements of the larger group participating in the farewell. This distinction is crucial for accurately portraying the social dynamics and the level of communal involvement described by the author of Acts in this emotionally charged departure scene.
καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτίσαι τὰς ἡμέρας, ἐξελθόντες ἐπορευόμεθα, προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις ἕως ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ θέντες τὰ γόνατα ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν προσευξάμενοι ἀπησπασάμεθα ἀλλήλους.
— Acts 21:5 (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The Greek text of Acts 21:5 in Nestle 1904 is identical to that found in SBLGNT (2010), indicating no textual variants relevant to the phrase “σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις.”
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
The critical apparatus of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) for Acts 21:5 reveals no significant textual variants pertaining to the preposition σύν or its immediate context, “σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις.” This indicates a stable and universally accepted reading across the New Testament manuscript tradition. Lexically, the preposition σύν, always taking the dative case, possesses a flexible semantic range in Koine Greek. According to the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), its principal uses include:
- Marker of accompaniment or association, signifying with, in company with, together with (e.g., Mark 1:29; Luke 7:6; John 12:2).
- Marker of close connection or union, as in with, together with (e.g., 2 Corinthians 12:18; 1 Peter 3:15).
- Marker of participation, denoting with, together with in a shared action (e.g., Luke 14:31; Acts 24:10).
- Crucially for this exegesis, σύν can function as a marker of combination, implying including, along with, in addition to. This specific nuance is evidenced in various Greek texts, where items introduced by σύν are understood as component parts of a larger whole or as items combined to form a set.
This fourth sense of “including” is particularly relevant to the present exegetical challenge. It suggests that wives and children in Acts 21:5 are not merely present alongside a general group of “all” but are explicitly enumerated as integral components comprising that collective participating in the farewell.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The interpretation of σύν in Acts 21:5 is pivotal in determining whether the preposition primarily signifies simple accompaniment or a more integrated form of inclusion. The phrase “προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις” (sending us off, all with wives and children) invites a careful consideration of the preposition’s precise semantic contribution. Is σύν best translated as “with,” implying mere co-presence, or as “including,” suggesting an enumerated component of the group “all”?
Grammatically, σύν followed by the dative case commonly indicates accompaniment. However, evidence from classical Greek literature, as highlighted in the initial discussion, illustrates its broader semantic potential. In these instances, the entities introduced by σύν are understood as integral or specified parts of a preceding whole or quantity:
- In Isaeus 6:33, “he sold some goats σύν their goat-herd,” the goat-herd is not simply present but is included as an item of the sale, an integral part of the transaction involving the goats.
- Isaeus 8:8 provides another example: “giving her a dowry of twenty-five minae σύν raiment and jewelry.” Here, the raiment and jewelry are not merely accompanying items but constitute specific components that are *included* within the total value of the dowry.
- Similarly, Isaeus 8:35 states, “the fittings of his private residence, worth, σύν the slaves, about thirteen minae.” The slaves are explicitly factored into the total valuation of the residence’s fittings, thus being *included* in the assessed worth.
Rhetorically, rendering σύν as “including” in Acts 21:5 (“all, including wives and children”) significantly enhances the emphasis on the comprehensive nature of the send-off. It underscores that every segment of the community, even those not typically at the forefront of public ceremonies, actively participated. This suggests a more profound and broad communal involvement than a simple “with” might convey. If “all” were understood primarily as adult males, then “with wives and children” would be an appended detail of their presence. However, if “all” is intended as a collective quantifier encompassing the entire community, then “including wives and children” clarifies the specific composition of this “all,” highlighting their collective and perhaps unprecedented participation. Luke’s specific mention of wives and children, rather than a more generic term for “families,” implies a deliberate narrative choice to portray the full breadth of communal engagement in this poignant farewell.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the documented lexical range of σύν and its contextual application in both biblical and classical Greek, the preposition in Acts 21:5 carries a nuance beyond simple accompaniment. It serves to delineate the diverse composition of the farewell party, emphasizing the inclusion of women and children as distinct, yet integral, participants or notably present members of the larger collective. The choice between “with” and “including” hinges on whether wives and children are merely co-present with “all” or are constituent elements explicitly comprising “all.” Given the robust evidence for σύν denoting components of a whole, an “inclusive” translation appears to capture the grammatical and rhetorical force most accurately.
-
When our time was completed, we departed, and everyone, including wives and children, accompanied us out of the city; then, kneeling on the beach, we prayed and bid each other farewell.
This translation emphasizes the comprehensive nature of the send-off, clearly stating that wives and children were constituent members of the group of “everyone” who accompanied them, thereby highlighting their active participation.
-
And when we had completed the days, we departed, all of them, together with their wives and children, accompanying us until we were outside the city; and kneeling on the shore, we prayed and said goodbye to one another.
This rendering retains the more traditional “together with” but uses a slightly more explicit phrasing (“all of them, together with their wives and children”) to subtly hint at the distinct components of the group without using the explicit “including.”
-
Upon concluding our stay, we set out, and the entire community, comprising men, women, and children, escorted us out of the city; then, kneeling by the sea, we prayed and exchanged farewells.
This translation offers a more interpretive paraphrase, making explicit the constituent elements of “the entire community” that Luke implies, reflecting the “including” sense with greater clarity and impact for a modern audience.
Your example doen’t really mean “excluding.” It is “six men with me for a seventh”
τοαῦτʼ ἐπεύχου μὴ φιλοστόνως θεοῖς, μηδʼ ἑν ματαίοις κʼγρίοις ποιφύγμασιν: οὐ γάρ τι μᾶλλον μὴ φύτης τὸ μόρσιμον. ἐγὼ δέ γʼ ἀνδρας ἕξ ἐμοὶ συν ἑβδόμῳ ἀντηρέτας ἐχθροίσι τὸν μέταν τρόπον εἰς ἐπτατειχεῖς ἐξόδους τάξω μολών, πρὶν ἀγγέλους σπερξνούς τε καὶ ταχυρρόθους λόγους ἱκέσθαι καὶ φλέγειν χρείας ὕπο. TOAUT’ EPEUXOU MH FO;PSTPMWS QEOIS, MHD’ EN MATAIOIS K’GRIOIS POIFUGMASIN: OU GAR TI MALLON MH FUTHS TO MORSIMON. EGW DE G’ ANDRAS hEC EMOI SUN hEBDOMWi ANTHRETAS EXQROISI TON MEGAN TROPON EIS EPTATEIXEIS ECODOUS TACW MOLWN, PRIN AGGELOUS SPERXNOUS TE KAI TAXURROQOUS LOGOUS hIKESQAI KAI FLEGEIN XREIAS hUPO.
I must confess that I have a little problem with some of this. I suppose I need to read some more Aeschylus.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 8:16:52 PM
προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις ἕω PROPEMTONTWN hHMAS TANTWN SUN GUNAIXIn KAI TEKNOIS –Acts 21:5
I recently noticed a switch in translating SUN in Acts 21:35 from “and” to “including.” Since these are mutually exclusive meanings in English, I checked Perseus to see if Greek was any different. Sure enough:
8. including, “–” IG12.329.5, cf. 22.1388.85, 1407.12, al.; “–” Th.2.13, cf. 4.124, 5.26, 74, 7.42, 8.90, 95; “–” Ar.Fr.100; “–” Lys.21.4, cf. 2; “–” Is.6.33, cf. 8.8,35, 11.42,46, Aeschin. 2.162, D.19.155, 27.23,al., Arist.HA525b15,17, Ath.19.6, Hipparch. 1.1.9, al., PSI10.1124.14 (ii A.D.).
9. excluding, apart from, plus, “–” six with (but not including) me the seventh, A. Th.283; “–” Arist.HA 490a32; “–” D. 27.61; “–” together with . . , PEnteux.32.7, cf. 89.9 (iii B.C.); “–” Ev.Luc.20.1, cf. Ep.Gal.5.24.
(I deleted all the Greek text, but it can be read online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sun&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=su/n-contents)
My question is, what are the contextual clues that indicate whether SUN means “including” or “excluding?”
one of the examples for #8: Isaeus 6:33 “he sold some goats with their goat-herd” (indistinguishable) 8: 8 “giving her a dowry of twenty-five minae including raiment and jewelry” (whole, including parts) 8: 35 “the fittings of his private residence, worth, including the slaves, about
thirteen minae” (whole, including parts)
Daniel Buck
So, the consensus seem to be that LSJM is wrong in listing a definition for SUN as “excluding, apart from” supported by the examples given.
Looking at this definition’s NT examples:
1) Luke 20:1 “Came to him the chief priests and the scribes σὺν the elders” The elders were excluded from the sets of chief priests and scribes, but included with those sets in the set of those who came to Jesus; joining things which can be separated. It is possible to crucify all the elders without crucifying any chief priests and scribes. Or, is it possible that the set of elders intersected with the other two sets and Luke was specifying that the set of those who came to Jesus included members of all three sets, beyond any intersections of the sets?
2) Galatians 5:24 “Christ’s have crucified the flesh σὺν the passions and the lusts (thereof)” The passions and lusts are not exclusive of the flesh itself, which, like them, is intangible; joining things which cannot really be separated. It is not possible to crucify the flesh without crucifying its passions and lusts. Or is (thereof) exegetical, pinning down this meaning of SUN without the grammar requiring it?
It seems as if one first has to come to an independent conclusion about the possible intersections of the groups being joined by SUN before one can conclude whether SUN is joining intersecting or non-intersecting sets. Therefore, one’s translation of SUN must be predicated on one’s exegesis of the interrelationship(s) between the parties thus joined.
Daniel Buck
________________________________
means “including” or “excluding?”>
The problem is looking too much at the English text and not enough at the Greek. The first contextual clue is SYN. It groups “with” and includes and does not mean ‘excludes’. The SYN would need to group something with the ‘outgroup’ in order to “exclude”.
See Luk 20.1 and Gal 5.24, the examples that LSJM give.
Randall Buth
Your example doen’t really mean “excluding.” It is “six men with me for a seventh”
ἐγὼ δέ γʼ ἀνδρας ἕξ ἐμοὶ συν ἑβδόμῳ
EGW DE G’ ANDRAS hEC EMOI SUN hEBDOMWi
I must confess that I have a little problem with some of this. I suppose I need to read some more Aeschylus.
george
________________________________ LSJM
9. excluding, apart from, plus, “–” six with (but not including) me the seventh, A. Th.283; “–” Arist.HA 490a32; “–” D. 27.61; “–” together with . . , PEnteux.32.7, cf. 89.9 (iii B.C.); “–” Ev.Luc.20.1, cf. Ep.Gal.5.24
Your example doen’t really mean “excluding.” It is “six men with me for a seventh”
τοαῦτʼ ἐπεύχου μὴ φιλοστόνως θεοῖς, μηδʼ ἑν ματαίοις κʼγρίοις ποιφύγμασιν: οὐ γάρ τι μᾶλλον μὴ φύτης τὸ μόρσιμον. ἐγὼ δέ γʼ ἀνδρας ἕξ ἐμοὶ συν ἑβδόμῳ ἀντηρέτας ἐχθροίσι τὸν μέταν τρόπον εἰς ἐπτατειχεῖς ἐξόδους τάξω μολών, πρὶν ἀγγέλους σπερξνούς τε καὶ ταχυρρόθους λόγους ἱκέσθαι καὶ φλέγειν χρείας ὕπο. TOAUT’ EPEUXOU MH FO;PSTPMWS QEOIS, MHD’ EN MATAIOIS K’GRIOIS POIFUGMASIN: OU GAR TI MALLON MH FUTHS TO MORSIMON. EGW DE G’ ANDRAS hEC EMOI SUN hEBDOMWi ANTHRETAS EXQROISI TON MEGAN TROPON EIS EPTATEIXEIS ECODOUS TACW MOLWN, PRIN AGGELOUS SPERXNOUS TE KAI TAXURROQOUS LOGOUS hIKESQAI KAI FLEGEIN XREIAS hUPO.
I must confess that I have a little problem with some of this. I suppose I need to read some more Aeschylus.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 8:16:52 PM
προπεμπόντων ἡμᾶς πάντων σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ τέκνοις ἕω PROPEMTONTWN hHMAS TANTWN SUN GUNAIXIn KAI TEKNOIS –Acts 21:5
I recently noticed a switch in translating SUN in Acts 21:35 from “and” to “including.” Since these are mutually exclusive meanings in English, I checked Perseus to see if Greek was any different. Sure enough:
8. including, “–” IG12.329.5, cf. 22.1388.85, 1407.12, al.; “–” Th.2.13, cf. 4.124, 5.26, 74, 7.42, 8.90, 95; “–” Ar.Fr.100; “–” Lys.21.4, cf. 2; “–” Is.6.33, cf. 8.8,35, 11.42,46, Aeschin. 2.162, D.19.155, 27.23,al., Arist.HA525b15,17, Ath.19.6, Hipparch. 1.1.9, al., PSI10.1124.14 (ii A.D.).
9. excluding, apart from, plus, “–” six with (but not including) me the seventh, A. Th.283; “–” Arist.HA 490a32; “–” D. 27.61; “–” together with . . , PEnteux.32.7, cf. 89.9 (iii B.C.); “–” Ev.Luc.20.1, cf. Ep.Gal.5.24.
(I deleted all the Greek text, but it can be read online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sun&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=su/n-contents)
My question is, what are the contextual clues that indicate whether SUN means “including” or “excluding?”
one of the examples for #8: Isaeus 6:33 “he sold some goats with their goat-herd” (indistinguishable) 8: 8 “giving her a dowry of twenty-five minae including raiment and jewelry” (whole, including parts) 8: 35 “the fittings of his private residence, worth, including the slaves, about
thirteen minae” (whole, including parts)
Daniel Buck
So, the consensus seem to be that LSJM is wrong in listing a definition for SUN as “excluding, apart from” supported by the examples given.
Looking at this definition’s NT examples:
1) Luke 20:1 “Came to him the chief priests and the scribes σὺν the elders” The elders were excluded from the sets of chief priests and scribes, but included with those sets in the set of those who came to Jesus; joining things which can be separated. It is possible to crucify all the elders without crucifying any chief priests and scribes. Or, is it possible that the set of elders intersected with the other two sets and Luke was specifying that the set of those who came to Jesus included members of all three sets, beyond any intersections of the sets?
2) Galatians 5:24 “Christ’s have crucified the flesh σὺν the passions and the lusts (thereof)” The passions and lusts are not exclusive of the flesh itself, which, like them, is intangible; joining things which cannot really be separated. It is not possible to crucify the flesh without crucifying its passions and lusts. Or is (thereof) exegetical, pinning down this meaning of SUN without the grammar requiring it?
It seems as if one first has to come to an independent conclusion about the possible intersections of the groups being joined by SUN before one can conclude whether SUN is joining intersecting or non-intersecting sets. Therefore, one’s translation of SUN must be predicated on one’s exegesis of the interrelationship(s) between the parties thus joined.
Daniel Buck
________________________________
means “including” or “excluding?”>
The problem is looking too much at the English text and not enough at the Greek. The first contextual clue is SYN. It groups “with” and includes and does not mean ‘excludes’. The SYN would need to group something with the ‘outgroup’ in order to “exclude”.
See Luk 20.1 and Gal 5.24, the examples that LSJM give.
Randall Buth
Your example doen’t really mean “excluding.” It is “six men with me for a seventh”
ἐγὼ δέ γʼ ἀνδρας ἕξ ἐμοὶ συν ἑβδόμῳ
EGW DE G’ ANDRAS hEC EMOI SUN hEBDOMWi
I must confess that I have a little problem with some of this. I suppose I need to read some more Aeschylus.
george
________________________________ LSJM
9. excluding, apart from, plus, “–” six with (but not including) me the seventh, A. Th.283; “–” Arist.HA 490a32; “–” D. 27.61; “–” together with . . , PEnteux.32.7, cf. 89.9 (iii B.C.); “–” Ev.Luc.20.1, cf. Ep.Gal.5.24