Re: Grammar in 2 Thessalonians 1

From: Carlton Winbery (
Date: Fri Aug 06 1999 - 21:33:36 EDT

>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.

I would take ENDEIGMA as nom. neut. sg. with hO ESTIN understood . .
."which is an indication" Paul often sums up general ideas by using the
neut. relative pronoun. The understood hO refers to the general conditions
of persecution and tribulation.

>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."

I would translate EIPER as "since" and the rest as indeed you seem want to
do. "To repay those who are causing you tribulation is right with God" (in
God's eyes).

>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.
I would say that DIDONTOS is in the genitive because of its agreement with
KURIOU IESOU. He will come "giving just punishment to . . ." This could be
what Wallace calls attendent circumstance. Keep in mind that the noun that
such a participle agrees with is the subject of the action of the

Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
Foggleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off

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