From: Eric Weiss (eweiss@gte.net)
Date: Wed Jan 14 1998 - 22:44:02 EST
While reading Galatians, I noticed that 1:8 reads:
EAN hHMEIS H AGGELOS EX OURANOU EUAGGELIZHTAI [hUMIN] PAR'
hO EUHGGELISAMEQA hUMIN, ANAQEMA ESTW
whereas Galatians 1:9 (same context, same issue) reads:
EI TIS hUMAS EUAGGELIZETAI PAR' hO PARELABETE, ANAQEMA ESTW
I wondered if there was a reason why EUAGGELIZOMAI addresses (if that's
the right term) hUMEIS in the dative in 1:8, but addresses hUMEIS in the
accusative in 1:9 - i.e., if it had anything to do with the subjunctive
vs. the indicative, the word order, etc.
I looked in BAGD which listed both 1:8a (the first EUAGG.) and 1:9 under
the same definition/usage/meaning of EUAGGELIZW (i.e., 2 gamm a - "w.
mention of the one who receives the message" - p. 317).
I then turned to BDF and looked in the index (14th printing, 1988, I
think my copy is). The index for Galatians 1:8, 1:9 does not contain a
reference to this topic, but the Greek index for EUAGGELIZEIN refers to
"constr. w. 152(2)" - "Accusative alternating with or supplanting
classical dative" and references "Gal. 1:9 (dat. 8)."
So I guess the alternation between the dative and the accusative is just
stylistic - is this correct?
N.B. For whoever is taking notes on errors/omissions in BDF (unless this
was corrected in a later printing), the INDEX OF REFERENCES should
therefore also include 152(2) under the references for Galatians 1:8 and
1:9. Also, the INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS for EUAGGELIZEIN
erroneously lists 206(4) in this list of "constr. w." when in actuality
206(4) refers to a usage of the noun EUAGGELION.
-- "Eric S. Weiss" http://home1.gte.net/eweiss/index.htm eweiss@gte.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:56 EDT