From: Carlton Winbery (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 00:23:27 EST
Roger Hutchinson wrote;
>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?
In older dictionaries there is a suggestion that possibly the use of the
genitive as object of AKOUW in Acts 9:7 to state that those with Paul heard
the voice but did not understand and that the use in Acts 22:9 of the
accusative as object of AKOUW to say that those with Paul did not hear the
voice means that they did not understand the voice, thus any contradiction
is erased. Ray Summers in the first edition of his Essentials of New
Testament Greek states this as fact. It is with good reason that Thomas
Sawyer omitted this from his revision of Summers. The use of AKOUW plus the
genitive in 22:7 disproves the theory. The old Grim-Wilke (I do not have
the work but used it in the Library at seminary) says that AKOUW with the
genitive means to perceive the distinct words of a voice. This would be
different from Summers. More and more it seems to me that the variety in
the NT is a matter of preference and that often there is no distinction in
what each refers to.
Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
Foggleman Professor of Religion
Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off
--- 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 - 15:40:56 EDT