[B-Greek] AGGELOS in Acts 27:23: suspenseful hyperbaton?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Mar 1 05:16:02 EST 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>
> On Feb 28, 2007, at 4:39 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> Acts 27:23 PARESTH GAR MOI TAUTHi THi NUKTI TOU QEOU, hOU EIMI [EGW] hWi
> KAI LATREUW, AGGELOS.
>
>> One may, of course, claim that TOU QEOU, hOU EIMI [EGW] hWi KAI
>> LATREUW is the prominent element in this formulation; I wouldn't
>> dispute that myself -- BUT -- I do think that AGGELOS has a climactic
>> impact of its own when it is heard at last following those other
>> words, ...
>
> Carl,
>
> I am somewhat mystified by the comment of Parsons/Culy (Acts Handbook
> p520-21) saying that TOU QEOU is "fronted". First off fronting
> (clause level) normally implies a location prior to the main verb.
> Secondly, it looks to me like AGGELOS was postponed for some reason.
> If TOU QEOU was "fronted" then one would expect the following word
> order to be perfectly lucid:
>
> PARESTH GAR MOI TAUTHi THi NUKTI hOU EIMI [EGW] hWi
> KAI LATREUW TOU QEOU AGGELOS.
>
> but placing TOU QEOU after the relative clause isn't the best way to
> do things.
>
> Elizabeth Kline

I would agree with Parsons/Culy that TOU QEOU is fronted in order to give it relative prominence. 
But it is fronting within the complex noun phrase, not at clause level, so the position of the verb 
is irrelevant.

In the clause above we have the verb first, followed by a simple noun phrase MOI as indirect object, 
followed by a dative time noun phrase TAUTHi THi NUKTI, followed by a complex noun phrase 
functioning as subject.

Within the noun phrase TAUTHi THi NUKTI, the demonstrative is fronted in order to focus on THIS very 
night as opposed to another night. There is no focus on the fact that it was during the night.

The complex noun phrase

TOU QEOU, hOU EIMI EGW, hWi KAI LATREUW, AGGELOS

consists of the head noun AGGELOS, the genitive modifier TOU QEOU, and two relative clauses that 
modify QEOU. (A relative clause is a rank-shifted - clause within a phrase - constituent of a noun 
phrase and functions as a modifier just like adjectives, numerals, genitives, etc.)

The unmarked order would have been
AGGELOS TOU QEOU, hOU EIMI EGW, hWi KAI LATREUW.

However, by fronting TOU QEOU, Paul gives a testimony to the people on the ship, and the two 
relative clauses are so tightly dependent on QEOU that they have to follow along in the fronting. I 
don't think it is AGGELOS that is moved back or suspended, but simply the rest that is moved 
forward.

As far as translation goes, I would suggest:
For there came to me this very night an angel from the God, whom I belong to and whom I also serve.

To keep the Greek word order in English would not convey the same meaning, since English regularly 
and unlike Greek has emphasis on the last elements of the clause. (This is the point where Carl and 
I have not yet come to full agreement.)

Another way of showing the focus on the testimony about God as the source of this supernatural 
intervention is to do as the CEV did:
" I belong to God, and I worship him. Last night he sent an angel to tell me.."

Iver Larsen



More information about the B-Greek mailing list