[B-Greek] Accusative of retained object

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon May 21 22:54:53 EDT 2007


On May 21, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Bert de Haan wrote:

> Is Smyth 1748 an example of what happened in Rom.3:2?
> Bert de Haan.


Yes, with a few qualifications.

ROM. 3:1 TI OUN TO PERISSON TOU IOUDAIOU H TIS hH WFELEIA THS
PERITOMHS;  2 POLU KATA PANTA TROPON. PRWTON MEN [GAR] hOTI
EPISTEUQHSAN TA LOGIA TOU QEOU

The active form of EPISTEUQHSAN TA LOGIA TOU QEOU might be expressed as:

EPISTEUSEN hO QEOS TA LOGIA AUTOU TOIS IOUDAIOIS

Note, however, that these are not really equivalent statements.
This is the active pattern Smyth points out in #1748 with all the  
functional slots filled (explicit, not implicit). In Rom 3:2b the  
agent hO QEOS is suppressed and the subject hOI IOUDAIOI (patient) is  
implicit.

The suppression of the agent has discourse (pragmatic) implications.  
The focus is on TOIS IOUDAIOIS as the recipients of TA LOGIA TOU  
QEOU. The agent is so obvious it requires no comment. How do we know  
what the focus is? Look at the question TI OUN TO PERISSON TOU IOUDAIOU.

That's enough for now.

A good question, by the way.

Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list