From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 25 1999 - 21:13:17 EDT
Thanks to Mary, Maurice, and Carl for thier comments.
> I'm away from my books so I can't look at the commentaries, but I think
> you're right. One reason for taking the hOTI clause as belonging to the
> narrator and not to hOI DE is the tense: The imperfect EUHGGELIZETO,is
> possible after the present DOKEI, but seems to me less likely than if it
> explains why the Athenians made their comments.
Permit me to be a little dense. I am not sure why the imperfect aspect
would impact this question. I am not arguing with you and Carl agrees
with you but I simply "don't get it." Could you explain in some more
Now for Maurice:
> At 11:01 25/05/99 -0700, Maurice wrote:
> I cannot comment on Barrett, since i don't have his translation to hand,
> but I think you may have misread Fitzmyer; it seems to me that his use of
> quotation marks is to make clear that it is the narrator who is adding his
> own comment.:
>>>Others commented, "He seems to be lobbying for foreign deities," because
> he was preaching about "Jesus" and the "Resurrection"<<
> And his note to this verse makes it even clearer, I feel:
>>> _because he was preaching about "Jesus" and the "Resurrection"_ It is
> not easy to determine the nuance that Luke associates with these words. An
> obvious sense is he one that any Christian reader of Acts would understand
> (about the resurrection of Christ), but that would scarcely have been the
> meaning a pagan Athenian vou]d have comprehended. Perhaps such a person
> would have understood the fem. Creek noun 'anastasis' as the name of a
> consort for the foreign deity, Jesus, 'Jesus and Anastasis." So John
> Chrysostom understood it (Horn. in Acta 38.1; PC 0.267), and many after
> him. <<
> Haenchen's [ in his ET (Blackwell 1971) ] use of a long dash immediately
> between 'deities' and 'because' serves to set it off as a comment coming
> from the narrator.
> Incidentally, he points out in a note that " D gig. have omitted these
> seemingly incomprhensible words"
> There is an amusing little pendant to this in Krodel's commentary in the
> Augsburg series."
>>>........one called Jesus and the other, his female consort, called
> Anastasis. If this were the case, Paul was not even understood. He said one
> thing and his audience in the Agora heard something quite different, a
> situation not unfamiliar to the modern preacher. >>
I must have misread both Fitzmyer and Barrett, however I didn't even
look at Fitzmyer's translation but only read his comments. Barrett
doesn't generally make a translation.
You have however, honed in on the problem. It was Fitzmyer's and
Barrett's comments about ANASTASIS which confused me. They seemed to be
weighing the possibility (and rejecting it) that the Athenians were
personifying ANASTASIS as you mention above. So I assumed that TON
IHSOUN KAI THN ANASTASIN had to be words take from what the Athenians
were saying. One of them also stressed that Paul would never have used
ANASTASIS like this. This also seemed to point to the Athenians as the
speaker of these confused words.
Like I said in my original post, neither Fitzmyer and Barrett explicitly
stated that these words came from the Athenians. But some of thier
argumentation concerning ANASTASIS seemed to indirectly imply this.
Mary and Carl agree that the syntax is aginst this reading and I am
perfectly willing to accept this although it isn't quite clear to me why
this is the case.
Thanks to all of you,
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:28 EDT