[B-Greek] Acts 5:3 PSEUDOMAI/YEUDOMAI + Acc.

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Mar 3 07:14:23 EST 2008


On Mar 2, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Tom Moore wrote:

> If YSEUDOMAI is analogous to PISTEUW (acc=thing believed; dat=person  
> saying the thing that is believed) and to AKOUW (acc=what is spoken  
> and heard; gen=person doing the speaking), wouldn't that support the  
> idea that the accusative of YSEUDOMAI is the lie itself and the  
> dative is the recipient of the lie?
>
> (In 2 Thes 1:10, MARTURION [neu] is nominative, no? Nevertheless, an  
> example of PISTEUW + accusative is found in 1 Cor 13:5: PANTA  
> PISTEUEI.)

I really don't see why the usage of YEUDOMAI should be assumed to be  
analogous to that of PISTEUW, inasmuch as PISTEUW is more directly  
concerned with trust relationships than with truth/falsehood.

On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Tom Moore wrote:

> Correction: ...my understanding of THE DATIVE IN Acts 5:4...
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Acts 5:3 PSEUDOMAI/YEUDOMAI + Acc.
> Sent: Mar 03 '08 05:14
>
> I think BDAG's explanation doesn't agree with me on this, though I  
> think most translations do, but my understanding of Acts 5:3-4 is  
> that the recipient of Anaias' lie was Peter, and Peter said, "Look,  
> it's not me (or men) you're lying to, but God" [not a literal  
> translation].
>
> But if I understand BDAG's distinction correctly (between the  
> accusative and the dative), the recipient of a lie goes in the  
> accusative, while the one being harmed by a lie goes in the dative.
>
> Therefore, is it correct to say that, according to BDAG, in Acts 5:4  
> Ananais lied neither to men nor to God; rather, the recipient of his  
> lie was the holy spirit, and Peter's response was, "Look, your lie  
> to the holy spirit doesn't/didn't harm men; it harms/harmed God"?
>
> If I'm misunderstanding, what distinction is BDAG drawing? (And am I  
> wrong to assume that the writer of Acts must intend a distinction by  
> choosing one and then the other?)
>
> But if I'm not misunderstanding, is BDAG the final word on this? (Is  
> this an impertinant question?) Because then I don't understand the  
> meaning of the verse.
>
> I attempted--unsuccessfully--to google the "Appianus, Liby."  
> reference. Is it possible, within its context, that this quote also  
> could be alternatively understood as lying *about* the gods instead  
> of *to* the gods?


I don't think that BDAG is indicating any distinction in meaning so  
much as a distinction of usage. Well, maybe there is a distinction of  
meaning: with an accusative YEUDOMAI seems to be transitive and mean  
"cheat, play (someone) false," while with the dative it seems to be  
intransitive and mean "act/speak falsely (to someone).

BDAG is certainly not the last word on a question, but if it shows  
instances wherein YEUDOMAI is construed with a dative and others  
wherein YEUDOMAI is construed with an accusative, those instances do  
need to be explained -- somehow.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)






More information about the B-Greek mailing list