From: Steven Lo Vullo (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 01:37:34 EST
on 3/3/02 10:32 PM, Kevin Cauley at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> In Acts 2:38 we have . . . .
> PETROS DE EFH PROS AUTOUS METANOHSATE KAI BAPTISQHTW EKASTOS hUMWN EPI TW
> ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI LHYESQE THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU
> Here is my question: Must the second part of this verse, KAI LHYESQE THN
> DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS be grammatically equal (in its relationship to
> the verbs METANOHSATE and BAPTISQHTW) with the prepositional phrase EIS
> AFESIN AMARTIWN. I.E. if one gets AFESIN AMARTIWN does it necessarily
> follow from the grammar that one must get THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS as
> well. Or is it possible that these could be two separately obtainable
> things the second being unrelated to the verbs of the first?
> It seems to me that KAI LEGESQE THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS is an
> independent clause that stands alone and that if THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU
> PNEUMATOS had been intended to follow from the verbs (METANOHSATE and
> BAPTISQHTW) in the first clause then it would have been as follows: . . .
> BAPTISQHTW . . . EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS.
> But instead we have BAPTISQHTW . . . EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN KAI **LHYESQE** THN
> DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS. So, if both EIS AFESIN AMARTIWN and THN DOREAN
> TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS are results of the METANOHSATE KAI BAPTISQHTW, then why
> the LHYESQE?
KAI LHMYESQE THN DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS is an INDEPENDENT clause in a
compound sentence, and is thus coordinate to and GRAMMATICALLY equal to the
preceding clauses which have METANOHSATE and BAPTISQHTW as their verbs. (An
independent clause is simply a clause that is not subordinate to another
clause.) It is NOT, however, grammatically equal to the prepositional phrase
EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN, since the prepositional phrase is DEPENDENT on the
I emphasized the word "grammatically" in "grammatically equal" in the above
paragraph because a clause may be GRAMMATICALLY equal to another clause or
clauses, but be SEMANTICALLY dependent on the other clause or clauses. In
this case KAI must introduce a result, since, SEMANTICALLY, LHMYESQE THN
DOREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS cannot stand on its own. If it could, LHMYESQE,
as a predictive future, would indicate that everyone listening to Peter at
the time would receive the Holy Spirit regardless of whether they repented,
were baptized, or anything else. This would leave LHMYESQE ("you shall
receive") as an absolute promise to everyone there--those who would respond
to the message as well as those who would not. So in a semantic sense, this
clause is subordinate to and dependent on the preceding clauses.
I must also say that I think it is exceedingly harmful to grammatical,
lexical, and semantic understanding to say things like, "If he had meant to
say such and such, he would have said so and so." There are more ways than
one to express a thought, and we should focus on the meaning of what is
actually there, without importing what we think someone would have said if
that person had wanted to express a certain idea. For example, I have seen
purpose or result expressed in the same sentence two different ways.
Language is flexible like that.
Steven Lo Vullo
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:37:19 EDT