Here's the snippet rom my original response to that item in Carlton's reply
on the 1 Peter passage:
>>No, no. Its in apposition to the pronoun hON. The closest thing to an
>>accusative absolute in the NT would be maybe Acts 26:3 GNWSTHN ONTA, "sinc=
>>you are an expert about . . ."
>I agree that this is closer and I agree with Carlton about what it must
>mean, but regarding its structural linkage to the rest of the sentence, I
>think I would make it dependent upon hHGHMAI in vs. 2 and parallel to the
>first object of hHGHMAI, EMAUTON MAKARION--"I deem myself fortunate
>..."--and then, "(because I deem) you especially knowledgeable about ... "
At 6:54 AM -0600 1/18/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>What IS an accusative absolute--at least in origin--is to be found once in
>the NT as 1 Cor 16:6: PROS hUMAS DE TUCON PARAMENW H KAI PARAXEIMASW ...
>"I'll take up residence with you, should the contingency arise, or even
>pass the winter with you..." Here we actually have the neuter accusative
>aorist participle of TUGCANW used impersonally functioning independently of
>these two 1 sg. future tense main verbs; probably, although I don't have an
>LSJ at home with me to be able to tell whether it's so, this TUCON has
>become another adverbial expression meaning "maybe." But it originated as
>an accusative absolute of the sort seen in classical Attic, translatable in
>very crudely literal English as "it chancing."
Apart from this TUCON, which probably ought really to be understood as an
adverb in this instance, I don't see anything in the NT that may
legitimately be called an accusative absolute.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org