From: Clayton Bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 01 1997 - 04:32:58 EDT
In my first posting of this question I passed over an important element
in the construction under consideration. Max Zerwick (#389) helped me
out by discussing a construction which is common to both Luke and Acts:
egeneto -> verb + noun(subject)
The difference between Acts and Luke, according to Zerwick, is that Acts
prefers the construction with the infinitive and the accusative, but
Luke prefers to use the finite verb with the nominative.
Now let's visit the textual question again: Looking at Acts 4:5 in
Codex Bezae we see a change of the main verb from an infinitive to a
finite verb and corresponding change of case in the triple subject from
accusative to the nominative.
Bezae: egeneto -> verb(finite) -> noun(nom) noun(nom) noun(nom)
NA27: egeneto -> verb(infinitive) -> noun(acc) noun(acc) noun(acc)
Now if Blass were correct and Bezae was the original from which the
other tradition was a polished final draft, would this transformation
support his theory?
What I am asking is, would an editor trying to clean up a first draft
change egeneto followed by a finite verb with a triple subject
(nominative) to egeneto followed by an infinitive with a triple subject
(accusative)? Which construction would have been more acceptable to the
original reading audience? Or would it have mattered at all which
construction was used?
Having looked at Zerwick and Blass/Debrunner/Funk, I am inclined say
this is problematic. Both are acceptable constructions. One is more
common in Luke the other in Acts. Perhaps this is not the kind of
evidence which can help one determine the directional arrow on the
I would be pleased to hear your comments on any or all of this.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT