Re: TOUTON in Acts 13:27

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Aug 03 1998 - 07:17:50 EDT

At 10:08 PM -0700 8/02/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>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
>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?

Clay, this is just my sense of the emphatic nature of this masculine
accusative demonstrative, coupled with the fact that the preceding verses
have clearly referred to Jesus even without naming him. And although the
immediate verb governing the TOUTON is AGNOHSANTES, which might refer to
ignorance of a fact but just as likely in this context means
non-recognition of an identity, the succeeding verse 28 indicates the
request to Pilate ANAIREQHNAI AUTON: I rather think that this AUTON must
have the same antecedent as the TOUTON in verse 27, i.e. Jesus.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243

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