Accusative absolute

Randy Leedy (
Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:32:15 -0500

Why am I always on the wrong side of these questions? Both Carl and
Carlton apparently take Eph. 1:18 (PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS) as
something other than an accusative absolute. How else can it be

Perhaps it works to take the pctp as circumstantial to the following
EIDENAI and therefore its understood subject to be the accusative of
general reference UMAS, with OFQALMOUS an accusative of reference
(i.e. "you having been enlightened in the eyes of your heart"). But
it sure looks a lot easier to me to take the construction as
accusative absolute ("the eyes of your heart having been
enlightened"). I'd like to hear the reasons for doing otherwise.

It seems to me that if the ptcp. were to be taken as circumstantial
to EIDENAI, it should follow the EIS TO rather than precede it. While
I'm at it, I take Carlton's example from Acts as another clear
instance; he described it as "the nearest thing," and I'd like to
know what keeps it from being "the real thing" in his view.

In Love to God and Neighbor,
Randy Leedy
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC