From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 09 1998 - 17:14:03 EST
Surely the hH OUSA in Acts 5:17 is the equivalent of our _i.e._, or
_viz._. "The high priest and all those with him, i.e. the Sadducee
party . . . "
See Edwin Mayser's _Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus Ptolema"er Zeit_
Vol. 2, part 1, 347f., discussing use of hO WN as "officialese" for
"namely". Why this interesting usage didn't get into Bauer, I don't
know; but a great deal in Mayser lies untouched by most NT Greek readers.
I was beating the drums for Mayser a few years ago on this List, but it is
a pretty scarce item, I gather.
I loved Carl Conrad's suggestion ("the then-existing" or such); but not
only is the issue of the dating (whether real or author-implied) a
possible difficulty, but why would the same author--Luke--refer to the
Sadducees in his Gospel without this caveat?
Luke 20:27 takes care to explain that the Sadducees
didn't believe in resurrection, an explanation he takes over from Mark,
and which becomes an issue in Acts. But that they no longer existed?...
Edward Hobbs
--------------------------------------------------------
David Mills wrote:--------->>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a little puzzled by the phrase in Acts 5:17 that includes the participle
of EIMI: ANASTAS DE hO ARCIEREUS KAI PANTES hOI SUN AUTWi, hH OUSA hAIRESIS
TWN SADDOUKAIWN, EPLHSQHSAN ZHLOU. At first, I thought hH ought to be a
relative pronoun, but it has no accent and it is not plural. So my question
is, how is this phrase connected to the main clause? If the phrase is like a
parenthetical statement, why isn't there a finite verb instead of a
participle?
David R. Mills
ESL instructor
Creighton University
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:52 EDT