From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Fri Feb 02 1996 - 07:40:19 EST
>I don't know whether Tim meant for this to go to the list, but I'll assume
>so and forward it with my own response, now that I see Carlton has had some
>input into it as well.
>
>Let me add another question to Carlton: would you explain the sentence from
>Acts that I've cited below any differently from the way you'd explain the 1
>Pet 2:5 construction? It seems to me that the construction is the same
>whether we take OIKODOMEISQE to be indicative or imperative.
omission
>>I frankly think it hasn't been commented on because it's not really
>>exceptional (I say this while very well aware that the commentaries always
>>answer the questions that it occurs to the commentators to ask and all too
>>rarely answer the question that I ask!); I was looking for an example of a
>>comparable construction in the NT. Here's one:
>>
>> Acts 1:23 KAI ESTHSAN DUO, IWSHF TON KALOUMENON BARSABBAN, hOS
>> EPEKLHQH IOUSTOS ...
>>
>>I think that the last clause is a reasonable parallel to your passage; and
>>I think that there are actually several other verbs like KALEW that could
>>be used in a passive with a predicate nominative readily.
>>
Carl is really good at finding structures that are very close. I think
that Jim Brooks and I would have dealt with the above example in our
category "nominative of appelation." Another example would be Luke 2:21
EKLHQH TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUS, "His name was called Jesus."
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:37 EDT