Re: TOUTON in Acts 13:27

From: Mary L B Pendergraft (
Date: Mon Aug 03 1998 - 10:58:03 EDT

I have one additional comment in this thread.
When Clay Bartholomew asked about the antecedent of TOUTON, both Ben Crick
and Carl Conrad suggested that it is Jesus, who is named in v. 23.
Clay then asked,
>>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
>>for this?

And Carl responded,

>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.
And I add that I believe TOUTON in v. 27 is the object of KRINANTES as
well, whereas TAS FWNAS TWN PROFHTWN is the object of EPLHRWSAN: "having
judged him they fulfilled the words of the prophets....and demanded that
Pilate....." I'll add gratuitously that I think hEURONTES is concessive:
"although they found...."

As to Clay's question about how to tell what the antecedent is, I think
that he's right--our first course would be to look for the closest
masculine noun. But I think that in this case looking farther back simply
gives the passage a more sensible understanding.


Mary Pendergraft
Associate Professor of Classical Languages
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem NC 27109-7343
336-758-5331 (NOTE: this is a new number)

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