From: FRED HALTOM (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 1997 - 16:50:15 EST
Randy Leedy wrote:
As long as we're on the "other-than-genitive absolute" topic, I'll put
up another idea to be shot down, which is that there is such a thing
as a dative absolute. I see a good many constructions that look for
all the world like absolutes to me, except that they're not in the
genitive. Since the nominative and the accusative are being shot down,
perhaps this dative can be shot down as well. Matt 8:23--KAI EMBANTI
AUTWi EIS TO PLOION, HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU. I assume
that the response will be that this is not a dative absolute since
Jesus is already in the governing clause in the dative. But my answer
would be that the repetition of AUTWi invalidates this claim; the
first one is unnecessary if the construction is not an absolute (cf.
Mt. 21:23, where DIDASKONTI is a simple circumstantial ptcp modifying
AUTWi in the governing clause).
If this construction can be rejected on that basis as an example of
the dative absolute, then what do we do with Matt. 5:1? Do we say that
KAQISANTOS AUTOU is not a genitive absolute because AUTOU (separate
word) is in the main clause? If we're going to maintain that Matt. 5:1
is a genitive absolute, then I can't see how we'll avoid calling 8:23,
a precise parallel other than the case, a dative absolute.
AB Bruce, The Expositor's Greek Testament supports your view that
Matt 8:23 KAI EMBANTI AUTWi EIS TO PLOION HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi hOI
MAQHTAI AUTOU is an instance of a dative absolute. If this is not
one, the AUTWi appears unnecessary.
Note on Eph 1:18. Vaughen & Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament page 67 gives PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS as an
accusative absolute. As I noted on a previous list, I disagree.
Associate Prof of Christian Ministries
Central Bible College
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:02 EDT