From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Feb 07 1998 - 07:45:47 EST
At 6:02 AM -0600 2/6/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>I can find no semantic reason for using FHMI instead of LEGW in Acts 8:36 to
>introduce the request of the Ethiopian eunuch. My research in BAGD, Louw&Nida
>and others indicates that FHMI could be replaced with LEGW here with no
>discernible difference in meaning.
>I assume that there is a stylistic reason for this occasional use of FHMI. I
>am wondering if some one on the list with a sensitive "ear" for stylistic
>nuances might comment on Luke's choice of this word. I could use some
>enlightenment on this and other things (please hold your applause).
The text: hWS DE EPOREUONTO KATA THN hODON, HLQON EPI TI hUDWR, KAI FHSIN
hO EUNOUCOS, 'IDOU hUDWR, TI KWLUEI ME BAPTISQHNAI?'
I haven't done a search for FHMI in the GNT, but I'll say that this is
consistent with classical Attic style's use of FHMI to indicate a direct
quotation; more often than not, I believe, when LEGW is used, the cited
quotation is introduced by an untranslated hOTI. This sort of convention
may seem strange to moderns who have punctuation clearly delineating direct
citations, but it was one way for ancient Greek to indicate the distinction
clearly, and I think that's what we have in this instance.
What I find more surprising in this verse, upon closer examination, is that
the indefinite TI here precedes hUDWR--normally the indefinite pronoun
follows its noun and is enclitic.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT