[B-Greek] Acts 2:23

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Aug 24 09:37:27 EDT 2009


On Aug 24, 2009, at 7:51 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:

> Acts 2:23 reads--
>
> TOUTON THi hWRISMENHi? BOULHi KAI PROGNWSEI TOU QEOU EKDOTON DIA  
> CEIROS ANDRWN PROSPHXANTES ANEILATE (emended)
>
> In a discussion on this verse, a comment was made--
>
> "Again, the passage explicitly lists God's determinative counsel and  
> foreknowledge (progneois)
> as the instrumental means by which Christ was delivered to the forces
> you mention above. ...God's determinative counsel and foreknowledge  
> are still in the dative
> case and thus are the instrumental means of Christ being delivered to
> the forces you mention. As the passage says, "Him, being delivered  
> by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God".  This is  
> simply what the passage says in both English and Greek."
>
> By instrumental means, I take the person to mean "cause" so that the  
> the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God caused (or brought  
> about) the end result (the crucifixion).
>
> Is this what the speaker in the passage in Acts meant by using the  
> dative or is it an exegetical extrapolation by the commenter from  
> that text?

I would hope that we (those who respond to this query, that is) can  
withhold our own theological presuppositions in any discussion of this  
query and focus on the syntax as it bears upon the question raised.

In response, I would note first of all that "the speaker in the  
passage in Acts" (Peter, is it not?) is stating by use of an aorist 2  
pl. verb and a plural aorist nominative participle that the persons  
who he is addressing are responsible for the execution (of Jesus); the  
dative phrase in question (THi hWRISMENHi? BOULHi KAI PROGNWSEI TOU  
QEOU) has a bearing only upon the adjective EKDOTON. Of course, that  
is exactly what the quoted text indicates, but I think it's important  
to be clear what the focus of the question is.

The dative phrase in question is unquestionably instrumental, but that  
doesn't mean that it must be a dative of means; I would expect a  
dative of means to point to a tool whereby a task is performed. In my  
judgment, this dative is one more common termed "Dative of manner" or  
"Dative of Attendant Circumstances" -- what Wallace calls (p. 161)  
"Dative of Manner (or Adverbial Dative)  [with, in (answering  
“How?”)]." Is this a quibble? Is it comparable to the multiplying  
subcategories of the adnominal genitive? I don't know, but I'm  
troubled by the idea of calling this dative usage "Cause." The very  
word calls to mind the distinctions Aristotle makes between the four  
AITIAI -- material, efficient, formal, final; "cause" is a slippery  
word.


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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list