Date: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:24:52 EST
In the account of Paul's experience on the Damascus Road, we have the
following (Don't jump to conclusions here):
Acts 9:7 - hOI DE ANDRES hOI SUNODEUONTES AUTW EISTHKEISAN ENEOI, AKOUONTES
MEN THS FWNHS MHDENA DE QEWROUNTES.
Acts 22:7 - ...KAI HKOUSA FWNHS LEGOUSHS MOI...
If I understand what people say about the use of the genitive - FWNHS - each
of these verses should be saying the same thing with respect to hOI ANDRES in
Acts 9:7 and Paul in Acts 22:7. Is this true? Does the use of the article -
THS FWNHS - in Acts 9:7 but FWNHS in Acts 22:7 make a difference in what the
two verses are telling the reader?
Then, in Acts 22:9, we have the controversial statement--
...THN DE FWNHN OUK HKOUSAN TOU LALOUNTOS MOI.
The commentaries make much of the use of the accusative - FWNHN - to explain
how Paul can say OUK NKOUSAN without contradicting Acts 9.
In Acts 22, there are some unique differences between v 7 and v 9. Verse 9
has the article where v 7 does not. Also, v 9 has LALOUNTOS where v. 7 has
LEGOUSHS. Do these differences influence how we are to interpret the use of
FWNHN in v 9 and FWNHS in v 7? Are v 9 and v 7 saying two entirely different
things because of these differences or in spite of them?
If the conclusion above is that Acts 22:7 and 9 are saying two different
things, then can we say that Acts 22:9 and Acts 9:7 are also saying two
different things? In other words, is there a stronger argument to explain
the difference between Acts 22:9 and Acts 9:7 than just saying that one verse
uses the genitive of FWNH and the other, the accusative?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:55 EDT