From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 1997 - 03:55:10 EST
Edward wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You'll kick yourself on this one, I'm sure. It refers to Moses, subject of
the whole section; introduced last by name in v. 37, and referred to by
hOUTOS in v 38. V. 39 is parallel to v. 35 -- Israel rejected Moses, over
and over. The direct antecedent is hOUTOS, v. 38.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think I shall refrain from kicking myself at this point due to certain
muscle and ligament injuries which are an indirect result of some recent
dabbling in winter mountaineering.
Yes, it looks quite obvious that Wi refers to Moses. Perhaps I became lulled
into a stupor by all the demonstrative pronouns used in the previous context
to refer to him. Also, there is a logical reason why LOGIA cannot be the
antecedent. The rebellion which Stephen is stressing here took place before
the LOGIA had been brought down from the mountain. So the logia cannot be the
target of the immediate rebellion although it does become the target of later
rebellions.
On the subject of Stephen's speech. Has anyone seen a study comparing the
syntax of Stephen's speech to the rest of Luke/Acts? This idea intrigues me.
It may be that such a study would not produce any results, but I am wondering
if some of Stephen's style of speaking has been preserved in Luke's account so
that we could compare it to the syntax of Luke/Acts and find distinctions.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:38 EDT