Re: ACTS 10:40

Date: Wed Feb 26 1997 - 12:45:17 EST

In a message dated 97-02-26 07:21:22 EST, you write:

<< If you have
 middle endings and you don't have a clear indication that the verb in
 question is being used in a passive sense (which most simply means it
 doesn't have the hUPO + genitive agent construction, although there
 certainly are passives without a clear expression of agent), then you
 ought to assume it is middle and assign it the meaning standard for the
 middle of that verb. >>
I wanted to ask you personally to give me your insight on the how this may
relate to the PROTOTOKOS discussion. If you wish to place it on the list,
it's OK by me, but it seems as if the discussion is winding down, and I'm
willing to let it die a natural death. But for my own understanding, in Col.
1:16: hOTI EN AUTW EKTISQH TA PANTA, is this construction EN + dative agent?
 Meaning, doesn't this specify AUTW as the actor in the passive EKTISQH in
the same sense that you described above?

I ask because you specified a construction with hUPO and the genetive, but
would that be equally true for other constructions of instrument and agency?

Someone in the last two days said something (which I deleted) about the EN
AUTW precluding the interpretation that "all things were created by (Jesus
Christ)." That, in fact, AUTW could not be considered as the actor with the
passive EKTISQH.

I thought (really assumed) that this was clearly a biased and uninformed
statement, but was hoping to see your expertise applied.

You know, even though I'm relatively new to the list, and lack the classical
perspective, somehow I knew that "deponant" would be a red flag with you. I
certainly was not about to bring it up!

Thank you for all that I am learning from your comments.

Cindy Westfall

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT