Acts 19:4 word order
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 23:13:41 EDT 1999
At 12:55 PM -0700 7/22/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Carl Wrote:
>
>> I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantive
>> clause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EIS
>> phrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; I
>> think that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT' ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)
>> makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-order
>> is somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET' AUTON stuck out ahead
>> of the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.
>
>Carl,
>
>How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is it
>really awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because we
>wouldn't do it that way in English?
No, I think it is awkward for EIS TON ERCONTA MET' AUTON to stand out in
front of the hINA PISTEUSWSIN clause; I would have expected the phrase to
follow upon either hINA or PISTEUSWSIN. And no, this isn't a matter of its
being awkward in English; I think frequently the difference between English
word-order and Greek word-order is confusing, but in this instance I really
think that ordinary Greek word-order is being violated--and as I noted in
my initial response, I really think that the phrase TOUT' ESTIN EIS TON
IHSOUN has been added as an afterthought to clarify the initial EIS + acc.
phrase. Now, it may be argued that it is the writer's intention to
underscore the phrase ERCOMENON MET' AUTON as a phrase recognizable from
the synoptic baptismal traditions (e.g. Mk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEROS MOU
OPISW MOU and parallels)--and I think that is surely true enough, but in
this case it seems to me that the emphasis has resulted in sufficiently
awkward word-order that the writer feels a need to repeat an EIS + acc.
phrase of clarification that does indeed follow upon the verb PISTEUSWSIN
and more clearly depends upon it. I suppose one could convey the force of
the word-order thus in English: "John baptized a baptism of repentance
telling the people that it was in the one coming after him that they should
believe, that is, in Jesus." In fact, I think that TWi LAWi is also awkward
preceding LEGWN, but one can hardly understand TWi LAWi as dative with
EBAPTISEN BAPTISMA. In fact the sentence reads like the kind of sentence I
sometimes write, wherein the phrases fall out in text on the screen before
the whole structure of what I want to say has become clear. I think this
whole sentence is awkward after EIPEN DE PAULOS--intelligible enough, to be
sure, but a far cry from the lucid and unambiguous Greek we like to think
of Luke as ordinarily writing.
Here too I have to say: this is my opinion only; I think, however, that the
difference you allege between Fitzmyer and Barrett indicates that there's a
problem. Let's look a little closer at that, however:
>Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.
>
>Fitzmyer's English translation: "he used to tell the people about the
>one who would come after him"
Does Fitzmyer actually SAY in the commentary that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET'
AUTON ought to be construed with LEGWN? Have you given the whole text of
his English translation? I could conceive of his English translation
reading as you have given it and then continuing thus: "he used to tell the
people about the one who would come after him--that they should believe in
him, i.e. in Jesus." If that is what he has (and I obviously don't have
access where I am at the moment), then I would say he still understands the
EIS TON ERCOMENON MET' AUTON phrase as governed by hINA PISTEUSWSIN, but
that he is attempting to reproduce in English the awkward structure of the
Greek.
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