IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 13 17:44:29 EDT 1998


At 12:00 PM -0700 7/13/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have been
>performing a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Paul
>and Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle this
>issue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON in
>Luke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI is
>modified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of  hUPHRETHS.
>
>Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that then
>semantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitive
>modifier of X, simply by finding  pattern XY in a relevant text. This is a
>common fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding the
>pattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.
>
>In Acts 13:5  hUPHRETHN cannot be read as  hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just because
>this pattern exists in  Luke 1:2.

I don't understand what the basis of your negative argument is. Has
somebody actually suggested that hUPHRETHS in Acts 13:5 means the same as
hUPHERTHS TOU LOGOU in Luke 1:2? Surely that's not what Bruce is
suggesting, is it? It strikes me as a strange suggestion for anyone to
make. So: Mark NOT = Gunga Din?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list