My summary of Riley's argument from the article (there are other comments
re. Riley scattered throughout the article as well):
Riley's position is similar [to Turner and Kilpatrick] in that it proposes
an objective rule that, if followed, results in the majority of the
occurrences of EUTHUS being classified as conjunctive (25 of 41). His
dictum is that EUTHUS is adverbial only when it is represented by an
equivalent word in either Matthew or Luke. Of the 16 instances that
Riley's rule would classify as adverbial, this writer would argue that
1:10, 18; and 2:12* should be taken in a conjunctive sense. More
significantly, of the 25 that Riley would see as conjunctive, the following
should be taken instead as adverbial: 1:28, 43; 2:8*; 3:6; 4:15; 5:2; 6:54;
7:25; 9:20. Riley's rule also leaves 1:29; 4:29*; 5:30; 6:25*; 9:15, 24*
unresolved because neither Matthew or Luke include the equivalent verse or
phrase. This illustrates a weakness in the rule in that it does not cover
all instances.
[* = passages marked with an asterisk* are discussed in the article]
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker, Asst. Prof./NT Baptist Bible Seminary
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit, PA
_________________________________________________________________