Acts 22:16

Maurice A. O'Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Jul 13 11:44:46 EDT 2000


At 13:01 13/07/00, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I would say that
>EPIKALESAMENOS agrees with the implicit subject of the 2d sg. aorist middle
>imperatives. BAPTISAI and APOLOUSAI and is to be understood as indicating
>coincident rather than prior action, and as showing HOW one is to get
>baptized and have one's sins washed away.

N/A ( and Swanson ) record one source -- P74 -- as reading EPIKALOUMENOS.
So it looks as if one scribe and/or his community back in the 7th, century 
had decided
  to clear up any ambiguity about this question': or perhaps it had been 
raised long before that and was firmly part of their tradtion?

However, Swanson has one variant reading --- in 33  -- of APOLUSE.
Can I take this to be an unaugmented aorist?
And how common was this in mss. of that period, I wonder?

Regards

Maurice



Maurice A. O'Sullivan  [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros at iol.ie






More information about the B-Greek mailing list