[B-Greek] Acts 22:17 Septuagintal?

Dirk Jongkind dj214 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Jan 25 05:36:20 EST 2006


A couple of random thoughts on the discussion

1) EGENETO + dative [+ infinitive] in the sense of 'it happened to X 
[that] ...' occurs more often in Acts (though this was never an issue, 
but is interesting). I haven't had the benefit of reading Randall's 
article but I agree that Luke's constructions with GINOMAI (also as a 
Genitive Absolute) are a feast of variation. ["Temple Authorities and 
Tithe Evasion: The Linguistic Background to the Parable of the Vineyard, 
Tenants, and Son" - remarkable title for an article dealing with this 
sort of stuff!?]

2) I have great problems with the designation superfluous/clumsy to 
describe a construction where a Genitive Absolute is used with a 
resumptive pronoun later in the sentence (by the way, this pronoun can 
be in any case). It may be clumsy according to Atticist standards, but 
it is quite likely perfectly acceptable for first-century Koine. And 
since when is language 'economical' (as suggested by 'superfluous')?

3) Acts 22:17. I don't think anyone has mentioned the parallel of some 
sort in 22:6, though there without a Genitive Absolute: EGENETO DE MOI 
POREUOMENWi KAI EGGIZONTI ... PERIASTRAYAI FWS ... PERI EME. 
Incidentally, this is in the very same speech as 22:17 and may be 
indicative of the language 'colouring' that is going on in the various 
speeches in Acts.

4) On Acts 22:17 the use of KAI.
 I tend to agree with Iver on this one, but I am wondering whether the 
KAI has something to do with the following infinitive: EGENETO MOI ... 
KAI ...(gen. abs.) ... GENESQAI ... KAI IDEIN ...  I would never bring 
this up unless I found something equally problematic in Acts 11:26 
where, in similar vain, I don't know what to do with the first KAI:
EGENETO DE AUTOIS KAI ENIAUTON OLON SUNACQHNAI EN THi EKKLHSIAi KAI 
DIDAXAI OCLON IKANON.
I will be more than happy if someone can point out that this example is 
irrelevant.


Regards,
Dirk Jongkind


bitan buth wrote:

>Of
>course, when the virtual subject of the infinitive clause turns out to be
>the same as that of the genitive absolute, the genitive absolute structure
>becomes superfluous/clumsy. 
>
>What is interesting about Acts 22:17 is that it shows the "real Luke" when
>trying to sound somewhat Septuagintal. 
>
-- 

Dirk Jongkind, PhD
John W. Laing Fellow, Tyndale House and St. Edmund's College
Tyndale House
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge, CB3 9BA		Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
United Kingdom			Fax:  (UK) 01223 566608





More information about the B-Greek mailing list