[B-Greek] Acts 26:16 hWN TE EIDES ME and hWN TE OFQHSOMAI SOI

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Oct 21 09:44:10 EDT 2010


On Oct 21, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
> 
> In his "Word Pictures," Robertson has the following comment on hWN TE EIDES ME: 
> 
> "The reading [ME] (not in all MSS.) makes it the object of [EIDES] (didst see) and [hWN] is genitive of [hA] (accusative of general reference) attacted to the case of the unexpressed antecedent [TOUTWN]."
> 
> If I understand Robertson correctly, hWN TE EIDES ME represents in full TOUTWN hA TE EIDES ME, which when substituted in the verse we have "(to appoint you a minister and a witness) of these things with respect to which (or wherein) you have seen me." But TOUTWN is unexpressed and the relative pronoun gets attracted to the unexpressed TOUTWN, resulting in hWN. 
> 
> His comment on hWN TE OFQHSOMAI SOI is "Here again [hWN] is genitive of the accusative (general reference) relative [hA] attracted to the case of the antecedent [TOUTWN] or [EKEINWN] as before." 
> 
> That is, hWN TE OFQHSOMAI SOI is in full TOUTWN (or EKEINWN) hA TE OFQHSOMAI SOI, which becomes hWN TE OFQHSOMAI SOI in the same way as before. 
> 
> I would like to know (a) whether I have understood Robertson correctly; and (b) if so, the comments of others on the above.

I think you have understood ATR (Robertson, that is) accurately. I personally don't find convincing this understanding of [TOUTWN] hWN in both instances as "accusative of general reference." 

ATR also says in this discussion ("Word Pictures"): 

"But οφθησομα is first future passive of οραω and cannot be treated as active or middle. Page takes it to mean "the visions in which I shall be seen by you," the passive form bringing out the agency of God. "

That is to say, he thinks that or approves Page's notion that OFQHSOMAI is a "divine passive." In view of the fact that OFQHNAI TINI is a standard usage, I really don't see why this future "passive" usage in Acts 26:16 should be different from others. In my judgment, OFQHNAI TINI is an intransitive middle with the sense "become visible (to someone)", i.e. "appear (to someone)." I had suggested in my first response in this thread (October 18, 2010 5:37:47 PM EDT) that OFQHSOMAI might be understood as transitive causative with hWN = hA as the direct object in the sense "of the things which I shall reveal to you." Later (October 19, 2010 12:48:14 PM EDT)I retracted that notion and said I think it's better to see this as simply a future-tense form of the standard OFQHNAI TINI. My conclusion then is one I still hold to, despite John Sanders' alternative view of the construction of this text. I think all the explanations I've seen are unconvincing, since I really doubt the interpretation of hWN = HA as an accusative of respect with EIDES [ME] and OFQHSOMAI SOI. I doubt that the text we have is authentic but I do not now see any credible alternative way of reading it.

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






More information about the B-Greek mailing list