Grammar in 2 Thessalonians 1

Date: Fri Aug 06 1999 - 19:37:22 EDT

I am writing an exegetical paper on 2 Thessalonians 1 and have some questions
I can't answer.

First, should ENDEIGMA in 1:5 be treated as nominative or accusative? My
purpose is to determine its referent in 1:4. At the moment, I am tempted to
take it as an accusative in apposition to hAIS in 1:4. I realize that hAIS is
dative; however, BAGD suggests that the use of hAIS rather than hAS can be
explained on the basis of attraction (to the preceding dative noun). With
nonanimate objects the verb ANECOMAI is supposed to take the accusative case
or a genitive of thing, not the dative.

Second, in the protasis of the 1st-class condition which begins in 1:6 with
EIPER ("if indeed"), am I correct in regarding DIKAION as a predicate
adjective and the infinitive ANTAPODOUNAI as the subject, with the equative
verb understood? This would yield the translation "If indeed to repay . . .
[is] just in the sight of God."

Finally, I am at a loss to explain why the participle DIDONTOS in 1:8 is in
the genitive. My best guesses at this point are genitive absolute or
attraction to the preceding word, FLOGOS, which is in the genitive. I also am
uncertain as to the function of the participle. Based on the categories
identified by Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, I believe that it
is a dependent verbal participle. My two choices in this category are
adverbial (circumstantial) participle of means ("to repay . . . by
inflicting") or what Wallace calls attendant circumstance ("to repay . . .
and inflict"). I tend to reject the latter based on the criteria Wallace
identifies for such participles.

Any help you experts can give would be greatly appreciated!

Shawna Steiner

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 - 15:40:34 EDT