Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 00:29:58 EST
In a message dated 3/3/2002 11:36:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>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?
>Please feel free to throttle me for adding this right after my series of
>questions on Matthew 28:18-20. :)
Consider yourself throttled :-)
BTW: You should be more careful in your transcription of the text. The word
is LHMYESQE - you omitted the M.
It appears that we have a breakdown something like this
I. Twofold instruction
A. Instruction proper
1. First - "repent"
2. Second - "be baptised"
B. Basis and Goal
1. Basis - "in the name . . ."
2. Goal - "for the forgiveness of sins"
II. Consequence - "You shall receive . . ."
This is indicated by the grammatical and syntactical composition. The
instructions are finite verbs in the imperative mood. The basis is introduce
by the prepostition EPI and the goal is introduced by the preposition EIS.
The consequence is stated by another finite verb - this time in the future
indicative. This strikes me as being somewhat Semitic in structure in that
the consequence is joined to the rest paratactically. This would be in
keeping with the use of the VAV in this fashion in Hebrew.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:37:20 EDT