# ἄφιξις



## Alexander2

Can someone explain how the word ἄφιξις has two diametrically opposed meanings: “departure” and “arrival”?

If the context where this word is used is not sufficient enough, is it impossible, based on the word’s etymology alone, to determine what it means in that context?


----------



## bearded

Hello
The word - the way you wrote it - is Ancient Greek. In Modern Greek it's άφιξη, and as far as I know it only means 'arrival'.
Departure is αποχώρηση.


----------



## Perseas

bearded said:


> Departure is αποχώρηση.


Or αναχώρηση.


----------



## bearded

However,I found this:


> Original Word: _ἄφιξις_, εως, ἡ. Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: aphixis. Phonetic Spelling: (af'-ix-is) Definition: arrival, by implication departure


Cf. Strong's Greek: 867. ἄφιξις (aphixis) -- arrival, i.e. by impl. departure
Apparently, the ancient word could indeed  also mean 'departure' on occasions.  But I'm not enough of an expert… so I hope that someone more erudite will explain that.


----------



## Perseas

bearded said:


> Apparently, the ancient word could indeed  also mean 'deprture' on occasions.


In the "Acts of the Apostles" (20.29) it means "departure", according to Liddell-Scott.


----------



## Alexander2

How can the word have two meanings which are exact opposites?


----------



## bearded

Alexander2 said:


> How can the word have two meanings which are exact opposites?


Perhaps (in some cases) thinking of a departure from a far-away place in order to come back home…? Just a surmise.


----------



## Perseas

If we are talking about 3-4 points in the whole Ancient Greek literature where "arrival" means "departure", this is a drop in the ocean.
Also, I am not sure that in Herodotus 9,17 this is the case.
Having in mind phrases like "departure for Athens" and "arrival in Athens", where the meaning is different but the destination is the same, may I assume that sort of emphasis is put on the destination?


----------



## ioanell

Alexander2 said:


> Can someone explain how the word ἄφιξις has two diametrically opposed meanings: “departure” and “arrival”?



Despite the good point made by *bearded*, you didn’t specify whether you refer to the Ancient Greek or the Modern Greek Language. In Modern Greek the word exclusively means “arrival” and nothing else.



Alexander2 said:


> If the context where this word is used is not sufficient enough, is it impossible, based on the word’s etymology alone, to determine what it means in that context?



I presume if you cited the Ancient Greek (con)text where you found the word, perhaps one could offer a satisfactory answer to your question, although, as correctly *Perseas *referred to Liddell-Scott in #5 above, the only occasion where the word *ἄφιξις* means "departure” is in the "Acts of the Apostles" (20.29), written not in classical Greek, but in the Hellenistic (Greek) Koine. Unexplainable why Evangelist Luke, who wrote the “Acts”, used the word with the meaning of “departure”. [_The other occasion mentioned by Liddell-Scott as meaning “departure” is disputable and rebuttable, as in that case the word is rather translated as μετακίνηση/μετακόμιση (=moving/removal)_]. Anyway, based on its etymology alone, the word means nothing else but “arrival” [(ἀπό>) ἀφ + (ἱκ-νέ-ομαι>) ἱκνοῦμαι = ἀφικνοῦμαι (=φθάνω{arrive}) > ἄφ-ικ+σις>ἄφιξις].


----------



## Alexander2

The word is from the ancient Greek texts rather than from the modern language. The BDAG lexicon may shed some light on why the word is used with the meaning “departure” at Ac 20:29 and perhaps some other texts:

"ἄφιξις, εως, ἡ (s. ἀφικνέομαι, hence usu. of ‘arrival’: Hdt. et al.; so also Lysimachus [200 BC]: 382 fgm. 6 Jac.; Diod. S. 8, 19, 2; pap; 3 Macc 7:18; EpArist 173; Jos., Ant. 20, 51, Vi. 104; Tat.) in our lit. the point from which one moves is emphasized _departure _(cp. Demosth., Ep. 1, 2; 3, 39 ἄ. οἴκαδε; Ael. Aristid. 48, 7 K.=24 p. 467 D.; Jos., Ant. 2, 18; 4, 315; 7, 247; PMich 497, 12; other pass. in Gk. lit. may appear to be ambiguous to the modern reader, but not be, because *the ancient writer views the departure in terms of movement toward a destination*) Ac 20:29."


----------



## sotos

Maybe some scribers or transcribers understood it as the opposite of ήκω (arrive) (compare "ήξεις αφήξεις ..."), and mispelled the H at the same time. Some versions of the Gospel I have, do not have the word "άφιξις" but "αναχώρησις".


----------



## Αγγελος

I was astonished to read that άφιξις could also mean 'arrival' in ancient Greek, and promptly looked up the NT quotation ( ἐγὼ γὰρ οἶδα τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰσελεύσονται μετὰ τὴν ἄφιξίν μου λύκοι βαρεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου, Acts 20:29). I had read it before but had never stumbled on that word, unconsciously assuming that St. Paul meant "after my visit here, after my stay with you", i.e. "when I am gone".
In any case, I, too, confirm that in modern Greek the word only means 'arrival'.


----------



## dmtrs

Maybe the whole thing is explained by a difference that seems to exist between ancient and modern Greeks in the way they understood/understand the act of moving, the differentiation between _come _and _go_. In ancient Greek both verbs _είμι _and _έρχομαι_ meant either _come _or _go -t_he meaning depended on the rest of the phrase. I've been puzzled by this fact ever since I realized it.


----------



## Alexander2

dmtrs said:


> In ancient Greek both verbs _είμι _and _έρχομαι_ meant either _come _or _go_



Did you mean the verb ε*ἶ*μι or ε*ἰ*μί? (These are viewed as two different verbs. Note the difference between the diacritic marks. The verb ε*ἶ*μι is defined in the LSJ lexicon as "go," whereas the verb ε*ἰ*μί as "be; exist.")

If you meant the verb είμι rather than εἶμι, does the verb είμι have the meaning "come; go" besides "be; exist"? If this is the case, can the related noun ουσία mean "coming; going" besides "presence"?


----------



## dmtrs

I mean the verb  ε*ἶ*μι. Sorry for not using polytonic writing -I wrote in a hurry and I thought the stress mark would be sufficient.


----------



## Αγγελος

I was astonished to read that άφιξις could also mean 'departure’ in ancient Greek, and promptly looked up the NT quotation ( ἐγὼ γὰρ οἶδα τοῦτο, ὅτι εἰσελεύσονται μετὰ τὴν ἄφιξίν μου λύκοι βαρεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου, Acts 20:29). I had read it before but had never stumbled on that word, unconsciously assuming that St. Paul meant "after my visit here, after my stay with you", i.e. "when I am gone". I am still inclined to think so.
In any case, I, too, confirm that in modern Greek the word only means 'arrival’.


----------



## Alexander2

Αγγελος said:


> I had read it before but had never stumbled on that word, unconsciously assuming that St. Paul meant "after my visit here, after my stay with you", i.e. "when I am gone". I am still inclined to think so.


The author of the Latin _Vulgate_ rendered the word Greek _aphixis_ with the Latin word _discessio_ (“withdrawal; departure”): “Ego scio quoniam intrabunt post *discessionem* meam lupi graves in vos non parcentes gregi.”

Therefore, it seems that since ancient times, the word _aphixis_ has been used with the meaning “departure” in some contexts, although in many other instances, it is used with the meaning “arrival.” Certain words have different meanings in different contexts.

The BDAG lexicon states in its comment on the word _aphixis:_ “The ancient writer views the departure in terms of movement toward a destination.”

The modern Greek Bible translation by Sotiropoulos uses the word _erkhomos_ (“coming; arrival”) at Acts 20:29.

However, I have not found any English translation which renders the word _aphixis_ at Acts 20:29 as “visit,” “stay,” or similar words.

The following are the renderings of Ac 20:29 in various English Bible versions:


----------

