which does not project

προσστέλλω,

A bring close to,

καρχησίῳ τὸ κέρας Luc.Am.6

:—[voice] Med., keep close to, τοῖς ὀρεινοῖς, of a general, Plu.Sull.19.

2 tuck in, τοὺς μηρούς prob. in Arist.IA 713a22.

II [voice] Pass., to be tight-drawn, close tucked in, προσεσταλμένος, of an abscess which does not project, Hp.Prog.7;

προσστέλλεται τῷ χρωτὶ τὸ δέρμα Gal.18(2).599

; ἰσχία ἔνδοθεν προσεσταλμένα loins drawn or tucked up, of dogs, X.Cyn.4.1, cf. Poll.5.58; κοιλία πλατεῖα καὶ π., ἰσχίον π., Arist.Phgn. 807a34, 37; ἡ [τοῦ βονάσου] θρὶξ τῆς τοῦ ἵππου.. προσεσταλμένη μᾶλλον lying closer to the skin, Id.HA 630a25; αἱ σάρκες αὐτοῖς ὀστέοις π. Luc.Am.14; αἰδοῖον, τιτθοὶ π., Gal.8.451,452;

φύλλα Dsc.4.88

; προστείλας (leg. προσστ-) τὰ ἄρθρα reducing swellings in the joints, Philagr. ap. Aët. 12.49.

2 metaph., to be orderly, modest,

ἐπιστήμη προσεσταλμένη καὶ κοσμία Pl.Grg. 511d

.

III v. προστέλλω.

① maker of stage properties (acc. to Pollux 7, 189 the Old Comedy used the word as a synonym for μηχανοποιός=either a ‘stagehand’ who moved stage properties [as Aristoph., Pax 174] or a ‘manufacturer of stage properties’. Associated terms include σκηνογράφος Diog. L. 2, 125 and σκηνογραφία Arist., Poet. 1449a and Polyb. 12, 28a, 1, in ref. to painting of stage scenery) Ac 18:3. But if one understands σκηνή not as ‘scene’ but as ‘tent’ and considers it improbable that Prisca, Aquila, and Paul would have practiced such a trade in the face of alleged religious objections (s. Schürer II 54–55 on Jewish attitudes towards theatrical productions), one would follow the traditional rendering

② tentmaker. This interpretation has long enjoyed favor (s. Lampe s.v.; REB, NRSV; Hemer, Acts 119, 233), but several considerations militate against it. The term σκηνοποιός is not used outside the Bible (and its influence), except for Pollux (above) and Herm. Wr. 516, 10f=Stob. I, 463, 7ff. There it appears as an adj. and in a figurative sense concerning production of a dwelling appropriate for the soul. The context therefore clearly indicates a structure as the primary component, but in the absence of such a qualifier in Ac 18:3 it is necessary to take account of words and expressions that similarly contain the terms σκηνή and ποιεῖν. A survey of usage indicates that σκηνή appears freq. as the obj. of ποιέω in the sense ‘pitch’ or ‘erect a tent’ (s. ποιέω 1a; act. σκηνοποιέω Is 13:20 Sym. οὐδὲ σκηνοποιήσει ἐκεῖ ῎ Αραψ; 22:15 Sym.; mid. σκηνοποιέομαι Aristot., Meteor. 348b, 35; Clearch., Fgm. 48 W.; Polyb. 14, 1, 7; Diod S 3, 27, 4; Ps.-Callisth. 2, 9, 8.—Cp. σκηνοποιί̈α Aeneas Tact. 8, 3; Polyb. 6, 28, 3; ins, RevArch 3, ’34, 40; and acc. to the text. trad. of Dt 31:10 as an alternate expr. for σκηνοπηγία.—Ex 26:1, it is granted, offers clear evidence of use of the non-compounded σκηνή + ποιέω in the sense ‘produce’ or ‘manufacture [not pitch] a tent’, but the context makes the meaning unmistakable; cp. Herodian 7, 2, 4 on the building of rude housing). Analogously σκηνοποιός would mean ‘one who pitches or erects tents’, linguistically a more probable option than that of ‘tentmaker’, but in the passages cited for σκηνοποιέω and σκηνοποιί̈α components in the context (cp. the case for provision of housing in the Hermetic pass.) clearly point to the denotation ‘pitching of tents’, whereas Ac 18:3 lacks such a clear qualifier. Moreover, it is questionable whether residents of nomadic areas would depend on specialists to assist in such a common task (s. Mt 17:4 par. where a related kind of independent enterprise is mentioned).—That Prisca, Aquila, and Paul might have been engaged in the preparation of parts for the production of a tent is also improbable, since such tasks would have been left to their hired help. That they might have been responsible for putting a tent together out of various pieces is ruled out by the availability of the term σκηνορράφος (Ael., VH 2, 1 et al.; Bull. Inst. Arch. Bulg. 8, 69) in the sense of stitching together (the verb ἐπιτελεῖν Hb 8:5 does not support such a view, for it is not an alternate expr. for ‘production’ of a tent but denotes ‘completion’ of a project, connoting a strong sense of religious commitment; see ἐπιτελέω 2) in which the component ῥαφ-provides an unmistakable qualifier.—In modern times more consideration has been given to identification of Paul’s trade as ‘leather-worker’, an interpretation favored by numerous versions and patristic writings (s. Zahn, AG, ad loc.; L-S-J-M Suppl., s.v., as replacement for their earlier ‘tentmaker’; Haenchen, ad loc., after JJeremias, ZNW 30, ’31; Hock, s. below). As such he would make tents and other products from leather (Hock [s. below] 21). But this and other efforts at more precise definition, such as weaver of tent-cloth (a view no longer in fashion) may transmit reflections of awareness of local practice in lieu of semantic precision.—In the absence of any use of the term σκηνοποιός, beyond the pass. in Pollux and the Herm. Wr., and the lack of specific qualifiers in the text of Ac 18:3, one is left with the strong probability that Luke’s publics in urban areas, where theatrical productions were in abundance, would think of σκηνοποιός in ref. to matters theatrical (s. 1). In addition, Ac 20:34; 1 Cor 4:12; 1 Th 2:9; 2 Th 3:8 indicate that Paul’s work was of a technical nature and was carried out in metropolitan areas, where there would be large demand for such kind of work. What publics in other areas might understand is subject to greater question, for the evidence is primarily anecdotal.—JWeiss, Das Urchristentum 1917, 135; FGrosheide, Παῦλος σκηνοποιός: TSt 35, 1917, 241f; Zahn, AG II 632, 10; 634; Billerb. II 745–47; Beginn. IV, 223; PLampe, BZ 31, ’87, 211–21; RHock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship ’80.—M-M. TW.