>AUTOS DIDOUS in Acts 17:25 looks like a sure enough nominative
>absolute; just like the genitive absolute except in the nominative
>case. The only difference I can see between this and an unquestioned
>absolute construction is that the subject of the absolute participle
>does not usually appear in the governing clause (see Blass &
>DeBrunner, #423); here AUTOS refers to and agrees with hO QEOS in v.
>24, the subject of the governing clause. However, in Matt. 12:46,
>nobody questions that AUTOU LALOUNTOS is a genitive absolute, even
>though Jesus also appears in the genitive in the governing clause (hH
>MHTHR KAI hOI ADELFOI AUTOU). So I don't see any reason not to take
>AUTOS DIDOUS in Acts 17:25 as a true nominative absolute.
>
>None of the grammars on my shelf (Blass & DeBrunner, Robertson,
>Turner, Dana & Mantey, Burton, and Wallace) or a friend's (Young)
>mention a genitive-absolute-like construction in the nominative (in
>Wallace and Robertson the Nominative Absolute participle is
>substantival rather than circumstantial).
>
>Have the grammars missed something?
I would say that AUTOS is refering to hO QEOS in vs 24 and that the ptc
DIDOUS modifies it. "He who gives to all . . ." Its function here would
be attributive modifying AUTOS. The same function applies to PROSDEOMENOS,
"He who needs something . . ."
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
Fax (318) 442-4996
Phone (318) 487-7241