From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Sep 30 1998 - 13:44:10 EDT
Carl Wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
I do think that
Meyer is right--that the ADELFOI of 15:1 is implicitly the plural subject
of ETAXAN, and I see this more or less conclusively indicated in the phrase
in 15:3 PROPEMFQENTES hUPO THS EKKLHSIAS; I think the EKKLHSIA here
referred to must be the congregation in Antioch, and I think that this
EKKLHSIA must be constituted precisely of the ADELFOI who have been told by
the Jerusalem people that salvation requires circumcision. So, although the
subject of ETAXAN is not explicitly stated, it seems to me that the context
points to this action being taken collectively by the ADELFOI of verse 1,
i.e. those who constitute the EKKLHSIA that PROEPEMYEN Paul and Barnabas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Trevor M Peterson wrote:
{snip}
>
> DE DIETRIBON CRONON OUK OLIGON SUN TOIS MAQHTAIS.
> KAI TINES . . . EDIDASKON TOUS ADELFOUS
> ETAXAN ANABAINEIN PAULON KAI BARNABAN KAI . . .
>
> If TOIS MAQHTAIS and TOUS ADELFOUS do in fact refer to the same group,
> then we have more references to them in the major clauses of this
> context. Admittedly, I do have one significant reservation about taking
> TOUS ADELFOUS as the subject, namely, that this group has not appeared as
> a subject elsewhere. Still, I think their presence is well established
> in the context, and it does make better sense logically that they would
> be the antecedent.
Thanks to Trevor and Carl for good thorough answers.
I have a lingering question. Let's suppose that TOIS MAQHTAIS and/or TOUS
ADELFOUS provide clues to the subject of ETAXAN. Lets suppose as well that
PROPEMFQENTES hUPO THS EKKLHSIAS provide us further clues.
All of these terms, MAQHTAIS, EKKLHSIAS, ADELFOUS are rather inclusive in this
context. This debate was within the EKKLHSIA. Now my question is who appointed
Paul and Baranabus? Was it the "Judiasers" represented in this context by
TINES, was it the leadership of the EKKLHSIA? TINES and ADELFOUS obviously
cannot be the same folks in the same clause where one is the agent and the
other is the recipient of the action. However, if we accept PROPEMFQENTES hUPO
THS EKKLHSIAS as the most straight forward indicator of the subject of ETAXAN,
we still have an open question. Because TINES a subset of EKKLHSIA (unless you
take EKKLHSIA to be a term for a single local group).
It is conceivable to me that it was those who disagreed with Paul and Barnabas
that appointed them to go up to Jerusalem. I am only saying it is conceivable.
I am not saying it is probable. I do think we have at least a shadow of doubt
on this issue in this context. There are other contexts in Galatians which
might clear this up but just looking at the grammar of this passage I think
there is a shadow of doubt.
One could argue based on Paul's argument in Galatians that TINES are NOT a
subset of EKKLHSIA. But that is Galatians and this is Acts.
Second Thoughts:
I must admit, the more I look at this question the more this shadow of doubt
seems to fade into nonexistence. This may have been an exercise in extreme nit
picking, but that what we do on this list, is it not?
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:02 EDT