Re: TOUTON in Acts 13:27

From: clayton stirling bartholomew (
Date: Mon Aug 03 1998 - 01:08:37 EDT

Ben and Carl,

Ben Crick wrote:
> ISTM that the referent of TOUTON in Acts 13:27 is the AUTON of verse 30,
> referring back to the Saviour, TWi ISRAHL SWTHRA IHSOUN, of verse 23.
> Paul's speech at Antioch in Pisidia seems modelled on Stephen's speech
> before his martyrdom in Acts 7:1-53, which made such an impression on
> Saul of Tarsus at that time.


When you say it is "modeled on" what precisely do you mean. Do you mean that
there is a general similarity in the way the argument is constructed, a
historical outline starting from Abraham, etc.? Or do you have something more
detailed in mind? I find Paul's argument here kind of sketchy by comparison
to Steven's but I have not even attempted anything like a serious comparison.

Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> (a) Given the larger context, I would say that the antecedent of TOUTON in
> Acts 13:27 must be the subject of 13:25, namely hOU OUK EIMI AXIOS TO
> hUPODHMA TWN PODWN LUSAI, i.e., the one heralded by John the Baptist.
> (b) Since hO LOGOS in 13:26 is specifically described as hO LOGOS THS
> SWTHRIAS TAUTHS, of which it is predicated that it hHMIN EXAPESTALH, I
> would prefer to understand it specifically as the gospel proclamation.
> (c) NEVERTHELESS, it seems to me that a plausible case could be made for
> Clay's reading of TOUTON as having hO LOGOS of 13:26 as its antecedent; but
> in that case, hO LOGOS must be used in an almost Johannine sense to refer
> to Jesus, the message and the messenger being identical, and that may very
> well be the right way to read it, although I think I prefer (a) + (b).


I would conclude from what both you and Ben have said that TOUTON wants a
personal antecedent. It is strange that the need for a personal antecedent
didn't occur to me. I speculating now on why you both think the antecedent
needs to be personal? I agree that O LOGOS is not used in a Johannine sense
here. But I don't see what it would need to be for it to be the antcedent of TOUTON.

I am not really promoting my suggested reading, but I am curious about why
the antecedent of TOUTON needs to be personal? Is there a syntactical reason
for this?

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

--- B-Greek home page: You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [] To unsubscribe, forward this message to To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:55 EDT