From: Raziel 613 (Raziel613@aol.com)
Date: Wed Jan 07 1998 - 22:23:41 EST
Dear Fellow B-greekers,
Can someone help me with this verse. The verse in question (Acts 2:38) is
as follows (please excuse any transliteration errors):
PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS, METANOHSATE (FHSIN) KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI
TW ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTWN hUMWN KAI LHMPSESQE THN
DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.
My primary question is whether EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTWN hUMWN can modify
BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN or whether it can only modify METANOHSATE. I have
been told that since BAPTISQHTW is a third person SINGULAR imperative aorist
passive it cannot be modified by EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTWN hUMWN because
BAPTISQHTW doesn't agree with the phrase in person and number. I can
understand the argument, but this approach seems to me to be a bit too
pedantic and narrow. I am told that METANOHSATE, being a second person PLURAL
imperative aorist, can only be modified by EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTWN hUMWN
because the latter is also in the plural and therefor in agreement.
Since I am still a little (one semester so far) Greek I would appreciate any
direction you could give me regarding this verse.
Most of the English translations of this verse that I have looked at seem to
allow for EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTWN hUMWN modifying both METANOHSATE and
BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN. Luke's use of BAPTISQHTW as a singular imperative
aorist passive seems to me to be an emphasis on every one (hEKASTOS)
receiving baptism and that with hUMWN being a plural genitive following it may
still be in agreement (arguably) with the modifying phrase.
Thanks for your anticipated assistance.
James Maeser
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT