FWNHS vs FWNHN

RHutchin at aol.com RHutchin at aol.com
Mon Jan 31 21:24:52 EST 2000



In the account of Paul's experience on the Damascus Road, we have the 
following (Don't jump to conclusions here):

Acts 9:7 - hOI DE ANDRES hOI SUNODEUONTES AUTW EISTHKEISAN ENEOI, AKOUONTES 
MEN THS FWNHS MHDENA DE QEWROUNTES.

Acts 22:7 - ...KAI HKOUSA FWNHS LEGOUSHS MOI...

If I understand what people say about the use of the genitive - FWNHS - each 
of these verses should be saying the same thing with respect to hOI ANDRES in 
Acts 9:7 and Paul in Acts 22:7.  Is this true?  Does the use of the article - 
THS FWNHS - in Acts 9:7 but FWNHS in Acts 22:7 make a difference in what the 
two verses are telling the reader?

Then, in Acts 22:9, we have the controversial statement--

...THN DE FWNHN OUK HKOUSAN TOU LALOUNTOS MOI.

The commentaries make much of the use of the accusative - FWNHN - to explain 
how Paul can say OUK NKOUSAN without contradicting Acts 9.

In Acts 22, there are some unique differences between v 7 and v 9.  Verse 9 
has the article where v 7 does not.  Also, v 9 has LALOUNTOS where v. 7 has 
LEGOUSHS.  Do these differences influence how we are to interpret the use of 
FWNHN in v 9 and FWNHS in v 7?  Are v 9 and v 7 saying two entirely different 
things because of these differences or in spite of them?

If the conclusion above is that Acts 22:7 and 9 are saying two different 
things, then can we say that Acts 22:9 and Acts 9:7 are also saying two 
different things?  In other words, is there a stronger argument to explain 
the difference between Acts 22:9 and Acts 9:7 than just saying that one verse 
uses the genitive of FWNH and the other, the accusative?

Roger Hutchinson
RHutchin at AOL.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list