From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 01 1997 - 07:21:36 EDT
I've spent some time mulling over the second half of Acts 7:19
and find the syntax intriguing. I looked into Zerwick 392 and BDF
400(8) and Wallace pps.195, 592.
There are a number of things about this passage that could be
discussed but I will focus on just one issue. What is the
relationship between the infinitive TOU POIEIN and the following
noun and adjective?
Wallace has this reference listed under *unambiguous
constructions with one accusative substantive* (194-195). This
is a subheading under *accusative subject of the infinitive*.
I wonder about this. Is TOU POIEIN TA BREFH EKQETA really an
example of an accusative subject of the infinitive? I have a hard
time with reading TA BREFH as the subject of this infinitive. If I
am reading BDF 400(8) correctly, the subject of TOU POIEIN is
Pharaoh and is unstated in this context.
A second question, what function does the adjective EKQETA have
here. My guess is that it is a second accusative object of the
infinitive and that TA BREFH is the first accusative object of the
infinitive. I considered for a while reading BREFH as a predicate
adjective but abandoned this notion.
I would be glad to entertain other solutions to this problem, so
let's hear some.
Three Tree Point
Just to keep the beagles from barking, I should add that I may be
misreading Wallace's intentions on pages 194-195. The structure
of Wallace's grammar makes it hard to leap to page 195 from the
index and figure out what he is talking about. He is not alone in
this, A.T. Robertson is much more difficult in this respect, and for
that reason A.T. Robertson spends most of his time holding down
the bottom shelf of my book case. Robertson is also useful for
hitting burglars over the head, although I keep a 12 gauge handy
which is more effective.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT