[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #661
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 11 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 661
In this issue:
Acts 19:1
MYSTERY
Memorisation of Principal Parts
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
Re: Phil. 1:3
Redeemer in NT
Re: Phil. 1:3
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Re: Palm Sunday reflections
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Acts 19:1
Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Canon -- The Rev. William Raines
Acts 19:3
Re: Acts 19:3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 22:04:29 PDT
Subject: Acts 19:1
Okay, now that I have tried in vain to answser this question through the
grammars I have, I'll ask the group for help please. Acts 19:1
gegins with )Egeneto, which contains the implied subject: it came to pass.
This is followed by an infinitive expressing time: en to einai, while
Apollos was.... Then comes Paulon and a 2 Aor. act part: having gone through.
Now comes the problem. katelthein and (eurein are both Aorist infinitives.
They have no article. They are not followed by an accusative noun or pronoun to
serve as their subject(s). They seem to be acting like finite verbs, but I
can't find anything to explain that usage. Th nearest accusative noun is
part of a participial clause. Are we to supply Paulon after these infinitives
to provide a subject to make these infinitives serve as finite verbs? Can
someone point me to what I'm missing? Naturally BDF does not list this
verse in the index and D&M use it to illustrate a completely different
grammatical point. Thanks in advance.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
P.S>,
One other thing on this verse please. Is there any reason for choosing
the infinitive in preference to a finite verb? Does that have some significance
for the meaning or is it simply a more literary way of wording this sentence?
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 22:55:23 MST
Subject: MYSTERY
I would like to thank all those who responded to my question regarding Paul's
use of musterion. I will attempt to get a hold of the works cited on the
subject. In addition, I enjoyed some of the comments which the respondants
wrote such as "turning the world upside-down" etc. Indeed, history bears
that fact out...
It is curious that we don't know very much of the mystery religions, but I
would suppose that at the time this MYSTERY had such a profound effect as
to eclipse the teachings of these other teachings- that is to say it didn't
cause them to disappear but greatly diminished their appeal due to the fact
that the "Pauline mystery" was truly accessible to all for FREE and the sky
was the limit-pun intended-as far as the possibility of growth and understanding.
I would even submit(here's where I get into trouble)that the MYSTERY is still
a secret today. Though Christians today will affirm that they are saved by
grace-CHARIS-i.e. undeserved favour, we are still fairly carnel-minded as
pertains to religious/ritual practices and some sort of performance-oriented
appraisal depending on the denomination.
Please don't misunderstand my intentions out there. I've been studying Paul's
writings for many years as well as "current theolgies" and there seems to be
many things that don't add up. For example, the recent thread on baptism is
a good example. Not one person questioned the need for water baptism as this
has been firmly entrenched in Christian theolgy. However, a careful examinaton
of Paul's use of the term would make this ritual moot. For instance, in Eph.
4:3 ...being-diligent-ones to-be-observing(or guarding)the unity of the spirit
in the joint-bond of the peace:
one body and one spirit, just as also ye were called in one
hope of the calling of ye, one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM,
one God and Father of all, the(One)over(upon)all and through
all and amoung all...
I won't cite all of Paul's use of the term baptism as that would take awhile.
However, if anyone out there would like to discuss any of Paul's theology as
opposed to modern-day practice(actually, we could go back a couple of thousand
years on that)feel free.
Again, it is not argument I seek but honest discussion as pertains to all of
scripture in light of the revelation of the mystery given to the Apostle Paul
for the gentiles/nations...thanks again to all who responded, I've greatly
enjoyed the discussions on this list and have learned or been exposed to
many things that are interesting and edifying...
Seated-together in the heavenlies
in Christ Jesus(with all of you)...
(Eph 2:6,7)
Pete Cepuch
------------------------------
From: David Cashmore <atlantis.actrix.gen.nz@actrix.gen.nz>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 21:34:09 +0000
Subject: Memorisation of Principal Parts
I am in an NT Greek class and we are up to chapter 22 of Bill
Mounce's book. We are now starting to learn aorists after learning
the present, imperfect and future. It is just starting to dawn on me
that for a lot of verbs you have to learn all the principal parts
(Bill Mounce doesn't like the term, but that's what we called them
when I learnt Latin almost 25 years ago). I have enough trouble
remembering the names of our children and divers pets. Has anyone
any suggestions, hints, cheat notes, etc on easier ways to learn
verbal forms?
regards David
David Cashmore cashmore@actrix.gen.nz
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 06:00:25 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
EGENETO DE EN TWI TON APOLLW EINAI EN KORINQWI PAULON DIELQONTA TA
ANWTERIKA MERH [KAT]ELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI HEUREIN TINAS MAQHTAS.
I think, Ken, that your problem lay in assuming at the outset that "the
subject is included" in EGENETO. Actually the syntax of this sentence
must understand PAULON KATELQEIN KAI HEUREIN as the real subject of
EGENETO; DIELQONTA TA ANWTERIKA MERH is simply a participial phrase
functioning as would an adverbial clause telling WHEN "Paul arrived and
found", i.e. AFTER passing through the upper regions.
In this sentence the infinitives are NOT (apart from the prepositional
phrase EN TWI EINAI, which is subordinate to the main construction)
articular but rather the regular kind of predicate used with accusative
subject. So that to oversimplify the construction we may re-phrase it as
follows: "The fact that Paul arrived and found ..., after having passed
through ..., happened in the time of Apollos being at Corinth." There is
nothing exceptional about the Greek syntax here; I would only say,
regarding perceived difficulties of the construction, that students DO
have a very difficult time coming to terms with (a) the fact that
subjects can come long after the verb with which they are construed, and
also with (b) the manifold ways in which the short-hand subject-predicate
consisting of accusative noun/pronoun and infinitive can function in a
larger syntactic relationship.
I hope this helps, but if you still have questions, Ken, you might post
them to me off the list.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 06:14:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Memorisation of Principal Parts
There is, alas, no royal rule. You have to memorize. I'd say that there
are about 60 verbs that one must know the pp's of in Attic Greek;
probably fewer in Koine', inasmuch as several of the irregular -MI verbs
of Attic have become standard -W verbs in Koine'. There are, however, a
couple points worth noting:
(1) Very few irregular verbs are irregular in all six forms; one whole
category is made up of those verbs that have liquid futures and aorists:
verbs with stems in LRMN such as menw, fqeirw, stellw. For these just
learn the future and aorist stems (better yet, learn the principle that
the futures are formed by adding -es- to the stem, that the -s- between
vowels evanesces, and that these forms therefore are epsilon-contracts in
the future; similarly that the aorists are formed by adding -sa- to the
stem, but that here sigma between LRMN and the vowel A evanesces, after
which the vowel in the preceding syllable undergoes compensatory
lengethening). Now, if learning the underlying principles of these
morphological alterations, most of which are really phonological in
nature, is too much trouble, the only thing left to do is MEMORIZE,
MEMORIZE. My own pet pedagogy, however, is to teach at the outset how
phonology impacts morphology and spelling; it is then not too difficult
to show that most of what appears to be irregular is not irregular at all.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 08:29:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Phil. 1:3
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> I would like to ask about another significant subjective/objective genitive
> in addition to the one discussed earlier--Philippians 1:3. Moffatt treats
> the HUMWN as a subjective genitive in the phrase EPI PASHI THI MNEIA HUMWN ,
> "at" or perhaps "because of your every remembrance." BAGD has no provision
> for MNEIA with the meaning of gift. In Phil. 4:10 when Paul clearly refers
> to the gift, he uses the term thinking (FRONEIN). If he could use the word
> think as a way of refering to the gift, it is not a big jump to using the
> image of remembering to refer to the same thing. I can find no reference in
> Moulton and Milligan that could be translated as a gift either. An indicator
> in the text of the introductory prayer of Phil. that suggest that the
> subjective genitive is intended is verse 5. Verse 4 is a parenthetical
> statement and so verse 5 indicates further the cause of Paul's thanksgiving.
> EPI THI KOINWNIAI HUMWN EIS TO EUAGGELION, "because of your (subjective)
> sharing in the gospel." The two prepositional phrases beginning with EPI
> would indicate two causes for thanksgiving, "because of your remembrance" and
> "because of your sharing." Could the ERGON AGATHON of verse 6 also refer to
> the gift? Verse 7 also indicates that they had been "partners" with him of
> the grace (his ministry?). This would mean that (if Philippians is one
> letter) Paul did not wait until the end to refer to the gift.
>
> Do any of our clasical scholars know of a place where MNEIA or one of the
> words of this root is used to refer to a tangible gift?
I have not done a word-search of the TLG, but I have scanned the
unabridged L&S and can find no hint of the sense "remembrance" as used in
the English expressions such as "These gifts are just a remembrance of
your kindness." Rather the two fundamental senses are "recollection"
(with objective genitive) and "mention" (with objective genitive),
particularly in the idiom, MNEIAN POIOUMAI TINOS: "I mention something",
i.e. aloud in speaking. Quite frankly, it appears to me that the context
of Phil 1.3 points, in my opinion, quite strongly to this usage: "I thank
God every time I recall you [every time I think about you] ..." To be
sure, MNEIA is not here in the MNEIAN POIOUMAI construction, but inasmuch
as he launches immediately into the thought of what he has in mind when
he prays, it would seem to me that he's talking about his own memory of
the Philippians rather than vice versa.
It seems to me also that the force of the analogy drawn between the two
phrases, EPI THI MNEIAI HUMWN and EPI THI KOINWNIAI HUMWN EIS TO
EUAGGELION is somewhat blunted by the addition of PASHI in the first
phrase; if MNEIA meant "remembrance" in the sense of a gift, there would
have to be several gifts, I think, for Paul to use the PASHI.
Another factor that probably weighs less in your considerations because
it assumes the answer to your question, is the hypothesis that
Philippians consists of three distinct letter-fragments, 1:1-3:1+ 4:21-23;
3:2-4:9; and 4:10-20. On that hypothesis, the gift would not be a subject
in the same letter; but, of course, if you could successfully argue that
MNEIAI in 1:3 DOES refer to the same gift as does 4:10-20, you'd have an
argument against partitioning the text. Unfortunately you can neither
assume the validity of the hypothesis or assume its falsity to resolve
the question about MNEIAI. Personally, however, I think the sense
"remembrance" = "gift" is very dubious.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 06:54:57 -0700
Subject: Redeemer in NT
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> Now to the NT. I was hard pressed to find anywhere in the NT where
>kinsman and redeemer had a connection. There were two passages that I
>thought were close.
>
> 1 Tim 2:5,6 reads "there is also one mediator [MESITHS] between God
and
>human being, the human being Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom
[ANTILU
>TRON] for all".
> This is the only occurance of ANTILUTRON in the NT. I cite it
because
>Christ is mentioned as a "mediator" who is a "human being", ie related
to us.
> Christ is the GO' EL as well as the KePHER (GR: LUTRON).
> It is believed that the [Dt-]Pauline author patterned this verse
(a
>hymn?) on Mk 10:45 "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve
and to
>give his life a ransom [LUTRON] for many", where "Son of man" is
emphasized
>by 1 Timothy as Christ Jesus' relationship to us as a human being.
>
> John 8:36 states "Then if the Son sets you free [ELEUTHERWSH], you
shall
>be free [ELEUTHEROI] indeed."
> Here we have a _son_ setting free those who are "children of
Abraham", a
>redeeming by a relative? However, ELEUTHEROW (to set free) and LUTROW
(to
>free by ransom) may be close in meaning, but they are not exactly the
same.
>
Another possible reference to the redeemer motif is Romans 7:14
ff. We are sold into bondage to sin through a carnal nature that cannot
submit itself to the Law of God. But we are redeemed from that bondage
through Jesus Christ who redeems us from the power of the flesh (in the
Pauline sense) so that we may be freed from sin and live for- and in
relationship to God (vv. 24, 25a).
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:08:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Phil. 1:3
Re. your question on Phil 1.3, Carlton, I suggest you turn to an
excellent discussion of the matter in my work. (:-) Well, humor
aside, I think I do have at least a couple of things to contribute to
your investigation. You will find them in the discussion of the
Philippian _exordium_ in my _The Function of Suffering in
Philippians_, JSNTS Supplement Series, 78 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993).
I first of all examined the verses you are interested in in terms of
their epistolary function. You will find this discussion on pp. 104-
105. I suggested here that epistolary conventions lead us to
suggest that 1.3- 4 must be viewed as a structural whole. The
expression you point to (EPI PASHI THI MNEIAI UMWN) is in fact
formulaic (cf. Rom 1.9; 1 Thess 1.2; Phm 4) and modifies the main
verb (EUXARISTW). The close connection of this formula with the
following formulaic expression (PANTOTE EN PASHI DEHSEI MOU HUPER
PANTWN UMWN...POIOUMENOS) in 1.4, as is also the case in Rom 1.9-
10; 1 Thess 1.2; Phm 4, would suggest that the two formulae must be
taken together.
I then go on to note, however, that one must then examine the text
in terms of rhetorical units, as opposed to philologically
interesting portions. In this section of my work (pp. 121-123), I
determined 1.3-6 to be the complete rhetorical unit (1.3-4 + 1.5-6 as
the dependent on 1.3-4) in which Paul refers to his own goodwill vis-
a- vis the Philippians, in which he reaffirms his good relations with
the Philippians, thanking them for the participation in his ministry
- - - a participation that involves but also transcends their financial
support. (Since I view Philippians as unitary, I have no problem in
seeing Paul's words here as an allusion to the gift, later discussed
in 4.10-20. See my p.122.) Phil 1.7-11 provide various restatements
of the material introduced as formulae in 1.3-6.
I conclude my discussion of the _exordium_ by pointing to a close
parallel with the _exordium_ in 1 Thessalonians, which, you will
note, uses very similar language and terms to those you have noted.
You will find references to works up to 1990 in the footnotes.
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
EMAIL: gbloomquist@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
gbloomq@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
VOICE: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
FAX: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
I think it unlikely that the lost sheep refer [exclusively] to Jews in the
Diaspora in Mt 10 because of the immediate context of Mt 9:36--
IDWN DE TOUS OXLOUS ESPLAGXVISQH PERI AUTWN,
HOTI HSAN ESKULMENOI KAI ERRIMMENOI
WSEI PROBATA MH EXONTA POIMENA.
It seems to me that in the context of Matthew, a strong jab is being taken
at the leadership whose opposition to Jesus is growing (in the narrative).
The force of the stinging criticism is the charge that the sheep of these
supposed shepherds are described as having no shepherd--they are lost
sheep. Jesus is sending his followers (the leaders of Mt's church?) to
shepherd these sheep, or at least to bring them to the true Shepherd of
the Sheep. I see this as part of a polemic which seeks to show that Jesus
(and his followers/Mt's church) are the true leaders of Israel, and that
the predominantly recognized leaders (Pharisees [= post-70 rabbis?]) have
failed in their leadership. I think that this is a slightly more veiled
version of the point made in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Mt 21.
Of course, this interpretation does not solve the problem of 10:23.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Palm Sunday reflections
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> My original question was in terms of what Matthew believed he was saying
> in verse 7. But now, it seems to me, IF we account for Matthew's two
> animals by saying that he got them the text of Zech 9:9, does that not
> imply that Matthew is conforming his account of what happened to the
> prophetic text in order to confirm explicitly that scripture was
> fulfilled in this event? I would think this a question of considerable
> concern to those who hold in the historical veracity of the evangelist.
Whether Mt got this from Zech or not, it is clear to me (for what that's
worth) that Mt is not just telling a story because he wants to remember
what happened. The whole gospel is a polemic, and Mt is trying to tell
the story in such a way as to score points.
> Is there a
> consensus on the form of Matthew's OT citations where they differ from
> our LXX readings?
I think Stendahl's conclusions still stand that where Mt differ's from
the LXX, they do not conform consistently to any other known text, but
show influence of readings from many others. This is the heart of
Stendahl's thesis that there was a "School of St. Matthew." I suppose
this means that we really have no idea where this particular rendering of
Zech comes from, whether from Mt's "school" shaping the text, or from
another text (from among many) that they were reading.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:00:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Most NTlers today emphasize that Matt 10 has to be approached *first* as
Matthew, i.e., asking how the material functioned for the author and the
intended readers. From the immediate context (e.g., 10:17-18) and from
wider context in Matthew (e.g., 28:16-20), it's pretty clear that Matt.
affirms a mission throughout his known world, involving Jews everywhere
and non-Jews as well. Before the end, the "gospel of the kingdom must be
preached in the whole world [oikoumene] for a tesitmoney to all nations"
(24:14). So, given this, 10:23 in its Matthew setting had to have been
read as something other than a quickie mission to Palest. Jews.
For recent valuable (but somewhat conflicting) treatments of
Matt., see G. N. Stanton, _A Gospel for a New People: Studies in
Matthew_ (T & T Clark, 1992); A. N. Overman, _Matthew's Gospel and
Formative Judaism_ (Fortress, 1990); and A. Saldarini's new book (which I
haven't seen yet).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 10:07:44 CST
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
On Tue, 11 Apr 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>EGENETO DE EN TWI TON APOLLW EINAI EN KORINQWI PAULON DIELQONTA TA
>ANWTERIKA MERH [KAT]ELQEIN EIS EFESON KAI HEUREIN TINAS MAQHTAS.
>
>I think, Ken, that your problem lay in assuming at the outset that "the
>subject is included" in EGENETO. Actually the syntax of this sentence
>must understand PAULON KATELQEIN KAI HEUREIN as the real subject of
>EGENETO;
Thanks for the explanation, Carl. In previous reading I had quick translated
to English syntax and failed to note the non-English construction used here.
A check back shows that this is a regular construction in Acts, being used in
14:1 and 16:16 among others.
>I hope this helps, but if you still have questions, Ken, you might post
>them to me off the list.
No, these kinds of questions and any clarification of them ought to be posted
on the list.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 09:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
Carl, you wrote:
> I hope this helps, but if you still have questions, Ken, you might post
> them to me off the list.
I would like to see just the opposite. Some of us of late, myself
included and perhaps chief instigator, have carried on conversations
dealing with other matters which while interesting only have to do with
b-greek because of the citation of some texts. Ken's questions here are
the meat and potatoes of this list, and if there are additional questions
I would like to see dealt with online, so all of us may learn.
And by the way, I liked your answer, while mine would have said the same
thing, you have a comprehendable way of explaining grammar. Thanks.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 09:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mt 10:6/10:23
Of course, Philip's suggestion and Carl's suggestion are not mutually
exclusive, but rather inform one another, although I do agree with Philip
that it is not exclusively to the Diaspora, nor is is exclusively to
those in Eretz Israel.
I am also toying with Isaiah 60 as part of the background, although this
is thinking out loud. v. 4 of that chapter talks about the children of
Israel being gathered and the great blessings of that day. A few verses
later the text talks about the coming of the nations to Israel. I see
this in this chapter and also as a link between this "mission" and the
"mission" of Mt 28.19-20. I do think that we need to read Mt 28 in light
of the whole of the gospel, particularly chapter 10. Matthew has
multiple pairings like this.
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 10:04:34 PDT
Subject: Canon -- The Rev. William Raines
Bill,
Thanks for your continuing notes on canon. Very interesting. You have an
agenda which interrupts inquiry this side of inclusion. I am addressing
that agenda in another context, not this one.
All the best,
David
- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 12:32:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Acts 19:3
In response to requests from Bruce Terry and Larry Swain, and taking for
granted Ken's approval (forgive me if you didn't want this published,
Ken), I'll forward Ken's response to me and my response in return.
- --------------------------
>From kenneth@sybase.comTue Apr 11 12:28:17 1995
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 95 08:42:30 PDT
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
To: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
Subject: Re: Acts 19:1
Dear Carl,
Thjanks for your reply. My only question would be about linking PAULON
with the infinitives this way. I was taught from Machen that the
accusative subject FOLLOWED the infinitive. Here, PAULON not only
doesn't follow the infinitives, it's not even in the same
neighborhood, but looks like it is the subject for the 2 Aor participle.
That is what has me confused. If I understand you correctly, the
sentence could be translated as "After having gone through various
parts, it happened that Paul entered Ephesus and found some disciples
while Apollos was in Corinth". This seems to make the particple act
like a genitive absolute, even though there is apparently nothing to go
with it. Are there accusative absolutes which function similarly?
Is this good Greek syntax or awkward Greek syntax? Thanks for your
help.
Ken