Acts 19:4

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 22 14:16:51 EDT 1999

 

OCR Acts 19:4 word order Acts 19:4 brought me up short, particularly the second half of the verse. Apparently I am not alone here, since the commentators are not inagreement about how this ought to be unscrambled.On issue which intrigued me is where to connect (syntactically):EIS TON ERXOMENON MET’ AUTONBarrett (Acts:ICC) makes it limit the verb PISTEUSWOSIN. This makes anice smooth reading in English but the position of hINA makes meskeptical of this solution.Barrett’s English translation: “. . . telling the people that theyshould believe in the one who was coming after him . . .”Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about theone who would come after him”My question is about Barrett’s solution. Is it feasible, given theposition of hINA?–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

OCRActs 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 15:22:34 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Hendiadys revisited At 11:16 AM -0700 7/22/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Acts 19:4 brought me up short, particularly the second half of the>verse. Apparently I am not alone here, since the commentators are not in>agreement about how this ought to be unscrambled.> >On issue which intrigued me is where to connect (syntactically):> >EIS TON ERXOMENON MET’ AUTON> >Barrett (Acts:ICC) makes it limit the verb PISTEUSWSIN. This makes a>nice smooth reading in English but the position of hINA makes me>skeptical of this solution.> >Barrett’s English translation: “. . . telling the people that they>should believe in the one who was coming after him . . .”> >Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.> >Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>one who would come after him”> >My question is about Barrett’s solution. Is it feasible, given the>position of hINA?I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantiveclause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EISphrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; Ithink that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-orderis somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out aheadof the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Acts 19:4 word orderHendiadys revisited

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 22 14:16:51 EDT 1999

 

OCR Acts 19:4 word order Acts 19:4 brought me up short, particularly the second half of the verse. Apparently I am not alone here, since the commentators are not inagreement about how this ought to be unscrambled.On issue which intrigued me is where to connect (syntactically):EIS TON ERXOMENON MET’ AUTONBarrett (Acts:ICC) makes it limit the verb PISTEUSWOSIN. This makes anice smooth reading in English but the position of hINA makes meskeptical of this solution.Barrett’s English translation: “. . . telling the people that theyshould believe in the one who was coming after him . . .”Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about theone who would come after him”My question is about Barrett’s solution. Is it feasible, given theposition of hINA?–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

OCRActs 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 15:22:34 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Hendiadys revisited At 11:16 AM -0700 7/22/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Acts 19:4 brought me up short, particularly the second half of the>verse. Apparently I am not alone here, since the commentators are not in>agreement about how this ought to be unscrambled.> >On issue which intrigued me is where to connect (syntactically):> >EIS TON ERXOMENON MET’ AUTON> >Barrett (Acts:ICC) makes it limit the verb PISTEUSWSIN. This makes a>nice smooth reading in English but the position of hINA makes me>skeptical of this solution.> >Barrett’s English translation: “. . . telling the people that they>should believe in the one who was coming after him . . .”> >Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.> >Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>one who would come after him”> >My question is about Barrett’s solution. Is it feasible, given the>position of hINA?I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantiveclause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EISphrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; Ithink that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-orderis somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out aheadof the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Acts 19:4 word orderHendiadys revisited

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 22 15:55:42 EDT 1999

 

Hendiadys revisited Participle in Matt 17:25 Carl Wrote:> I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantive> clause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EIS> phrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; I> think that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)> makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-order> is somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out ahead> of the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.Carl,How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is itreally awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because wewouldn’t do it that way in English?Thanks for your help with this.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Hendiadys revisitedParticiple in Matt 17:25

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 22 15:55:42 EDT 1999

 

Hendiadys revisited Participle in Matt 17:25 Carl Wrote:> I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantive> clause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EIS> phrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; I> think that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)> makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-order> is somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out ahead> of the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.Carl,How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is itreally awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because wewouldn’t do it that way in English?Thanks for your help with this.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Hendiadys revisitedParticiple in Matt 17:25

Acts 19:4 word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 23:13:41 EDT 1999

 

Participle in Matt 17:25 Acts 19:4 word order At 12:55 PM -0700 7/22/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Carl Wrote:> >> I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantive>> clause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EIS>> phrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; I>> think that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)>> makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-order>> is somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out ahead>> of the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.> >Carl,> >How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is it>really awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because we>wouldn’t do it that way in English?No, I think it is awkward for EIS TON ERCONTA MET’ AUTON to stand out infront of the hINA PISTEUSWSIN clause; I would have expected the phrase tofollow upon either hINA or PISTEUSWSIN. And no, this isn’t a matter of itsbeing awkward in English; I think frequently the difference between Englishword-order and Greek word-order is confusing, but in this instance I reallythink that ordinary Greek word-order is being violated–and as I noted inmy initial response, I really think that the phrase TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TONIHSOUN has been added as an afterthought to clarify the initial EIS + acc.phrase. Now, it may be argued that it is the writer’s intention tounderscore the phrase ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON as a phrase recognizable fromthe synoptic baptismal traditions (e.g. Mk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEROS MOUOPISW MOU and parallels)–and I think that is surely true enough, but inthis case it seems to me that the emphasis has resulted in sufficientlyawkward word-order that the writer feels a need to repeat an EIS + acc.phrase of clarification that does indeed follow upon the verb PISTEUSWSINand more clearly depends upon it. I suppose one could convey the force ofthe word-order thus in English: “John baptized a baptism of repentancetelling the people that it was in the one coming after him that they shouldbelieve, that is, in Jesus.” In fact, I think that TWi LAWi is also awkwardpreceding LEGWN, but one can hardly understand TWi LAWi as dative withEBAPTISEN BAPTISMA. In fact the sentence reads like the kind of sentence Isometimes write, wherein the phrases fall out in text on the screen beforethe whole structure of what I want to say has become clear. I think thiswhole sentence is awkward after EIPEN DE PAULOS–intelligible enough, to besure, but a far cry from the lucid and unambiguous Greek we like to thinkof Luke as ordinarily writing.Here too I have to say: this is my opinion only; I think, however, that thedifference you allege between Fitzmyer and Barrett indicates that there’s aproblem. Let’s look a little closer at that, however:>Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.> >Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>one who would come after him”Does Fitzmyer actually SAY in the commentary that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’AUTON ought to be construed with LEGWN? Have you given the whole text ofhis English translation? I could conceive of his English translationreading as you have given it and then continuing thus: “he used to tell thepeople about the one who would come after him–that they should believe inhim, i.e. in Jesus.” If that is what he has (and I obviously don’t haveaccess where I am at the moment), then I would say he still understands theEIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON phrase as governed by hINA PISTEUSWSIN, butthat he is attempting to reproduce in English the awkward structure of theGreek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Participle in Matt 17:25Acts 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 23:13:41 EDT 1999

 

Participle in Matt 17:25 Acts 19:4 word order At 12:55 PM -0700 7/22/99, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:>Carl Wrote:> >> I think Barrett is right; in this instance the hINA clause is a substantive>> clause that is the object of LEGWN (in the sense of KELEUWN), while the EIS>> phrase really must go with PISTEUWSIN despite the awkward word-order; I>> think that the parenthetical clarification (TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON IHSOUN)>> makes this clear and may have been added precisely because the word-order>> is somewhat awkward with that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON stuck out ahead>> of the hINA clause itself. My 2c worth.> >Carl,> >How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is it>really awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because we>wouldn’t do it that way in English?No, I think it is awkward for EIS TON ERCONTA MET’ AUTON to stand out infront of the hINA PISTEUSWSIN clause; I would have expected the phrase tofollow upon either hINA or PISTEUSWSIN. And no, this isn’t a matter of itsbeing awkward in English; I think frequently the difference between Englishword-order and Greek word-order is confusing, but in this instance I reallythink that ordinary Greek word-order is being violated–and as I noted inmy initial response, I really think that the phrase TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TONIHSOUN has been added as an afterthought to clarify the initial EIS + acc.phrase. Now, it may be argued that it is the writer’s intention tounderscore the phrase ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON as a phrase recognizable fromthe synoptic baptismal traditions (e.g. Mk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEROS MOUOPISW MOU and parallels)–and I think that is surely true enough, but inthis case it seems to me that the emphasis has resulted in sufficientlyawkward word-order that the writer feels a need to repeat an EIS + acc.phrase of clarification that does indeed follow upon the verb PISTEUSWSINand more clearly depends upon it. I suppose one could convey the force ofthe word-order thus in English: “John baptized a baptism of repentancetelling the people that it was in the one coming after him that they shouldbelieve, that is, in Jesus.” In fact, I think that TWi LAWi is also awkwardpreceding LEGWN, but one can hardly understand TWi LAWi as dative withEBAPTISEN BAPTISMA. In fact the sentence reads like the kind of sentence Isometimes write, wherein the phrases fall out in text on the screen beforethe whole structure of what I want to say has become clear. I think thiswhole sentence is awkward after EIPEN DE PAULOS–intelligible enough, to besure, but a far cry from the lucid and unambiguous Greek we like to thinkof Luke as ordinarily writing.Here too I have to say: this is my opinion only; I think, however, that thedifference you allege between Fitzmyer and Barrett indicates that there’s aproblem. Let’s look a little closer at that, however:>Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.> >Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>one who would come after him”Does Fitzmyer actually SAY in the commentary that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’AUTON ought to be construed with LEGWN? Have you given the whole text ofhis English translation? I could conceive of his English translationreading as you have given it and then continuing thus: “he used to tell thepeople about the one who would come after him–that they should believe inhim, i.e. in Jesus.” If that is what he has (and I obviously don’t haveaccess where I am at the moment), then I would say he still understands theEIS TON ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON phrase as governed by hINA PISTEUSWSIN, butthat he is attempting to reproduce in English the awkward structure of theGreek.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Participle in Matt 17:25Acts 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 00:22:59 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Acts 19:4 word order >>Carl,>> >>How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is it>>really awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because we>>wouldn’t do it that way in English?Carl Wrote> > No, I think it is awkward for EIS TON ERCONTA MET’ AUTON to stand out in> front of the hINA PISTEUSWSIN clause; I would have expected the phrase to> follow upon either hINA or PISTEUSWSIN. And no, this isn’t a matter of its> being awkward in English; I think frequently the difference between English> word-order and Greek word-order is confusing, but in this instance I really> think that ordinary Greek word-order is being violated–and as I noted in> my initial response, I really think that the phrase TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON> IHSOUN has been added as an afterthought to clarify the initial EIS + acc.> phrase. Now, it may be argued that it is the writer’s intention to> underscore the phrase ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON as a phrase recognizable from> the synoptic baptismal traditions (e.g. Mk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEROS MOU> OPISW MOU and parallels)–and I think that is surely true enough, but in> this case it seems to me that the emphasis has resulted in sufficiently> awkward word-order that the writer feels a need to repeat an EIS + acc.> phrase of clarification that does indeed follow upon the verb PISTEUSWSIN> and more clearly depends upon it. I suppose one could convey the force of> the word-order thus in English: “John baptized a baptism of repentance> telling the people that it was in the one coming after him that they should> believe, that is, in Jesus.” In fact, I think that TWi LAWi is also awkward> preceding LEGWN, but one can hardly understand TWi LAWi as dative with> EBAPTISEN BAPTISMA. In fact the sentence reads like the kind of sentence I> sometimes write, wherein the phrases fall out in text on the screen before> the whole structure of what I want to say has become clear. I think this> whole sentence is awkward after EIPEN DE PAULOS–intelligible enough, to be> sure, but a far cry from the lucid and unambiguous Greek we like to think> of Luke as ordinarily writing.> > Here too I have to say: this is my opinion only;Carl,Henry Alford thinks it is really awkward. He suggests that Luke isgiving us a little raw Pauline syntax here. In other words he blames theproblem on Paul but he understands the passage the same way Barrett andyou do.>I think, however, that the> difference you allege between Fitzmyer and Barrett indicates that there’s a> problem. Let’s look a little closer at that, however:> >>Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.>> >>Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>>one who would come after him”> > Does Fitzmyer actually SAY in the commentary that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’> AUTON ought to be construed with LEGWN? Fitzmeyr’s translation of the whole verse is:*********Acts 19:4So Paul explained, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance; he usedto tell the people about the one who would come after him, in whom theywere to believe, that is, in Jesus.”********Its late and I am tired. But it seems that this English renderingrepresents a different analysis of the syntax than what you havesuggested. I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “inwhom . . .” as limiting “him.” If my analysis of the English is correctthen Fitzmyer isn’t reading the Greek syntax the same way as Barrett.You know this is why I don’t like working with English translations. TheEnglish just adds a new layer of obfuscation to the problem. Fitzmyer’stranslation is probably too dynamic for trying to read his analysis ofthe underlying Greek syntax and he does not comment on the syntaxexplicitly.Thanks Carl for your analysis and comments; profound as usual.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 19:4 word orderActs 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 00:47:00 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Sorting alphabetically? I made an obvious error here along with all the subtle errors. > I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “in> whom . . .” as limiting “him.”In whom clearly does not limit “him” rather it limits “the one”. I letsomeone else find the other errors.Clay> Fitzmeyr’s translation of the whole verse is:> *********> Acts 19:4> > So Paul explained, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance; he used> to tell the people about the one who would come after him, in whom they> were to believe, that is, in Jesus.”> ********> > Its late and I am tired. But it seems that this English rendering> represents a different analysis of the syntax than what you have> suggested. I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “in> whom . . .” as limiting “him.” If my analysis of the English is correct> then Fitzmyer isn’t reading the Greek syntax the same way as Barrett.> You know this is why I don’t like working with English translations. The> English just adds a new layer of obfuscation to the problem. Fitzmyer’s> translation is probably too dynamic for trying to read his analysis of> the underlying Greek syntax and he does not comment on the syntax> explicitly.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 19:4 word orderSorting alphabetically?

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 00:22:59 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Acts 19:4 word order >>Carl,>> >>How awkward is this word order? (This kind of a fuzzy question.) Is it>>really awkward in terms of NT Greek or is it only awkward because we>>wouldn’t do it that way in English?Carl Wrote> > No, I think it is awkward for EIS TON ERCONTA MET’ AUTON to stand out in> front of the hINA PISTEUSWSIN clause; I would have expected the phrase to> follow upon either hINA or PISTEUSWSIN. And no, this isn’t a matter of its> being awkward in English; I think frequently the difference between English> word-order and Greek word-order is confusing, but in this instance I really> think that ordinary Greek word-order is being violated–and as I noted in> my initial response, I really think that the phrase TOUT’ ESTIN EIS TON> IHSOUN has been added as an afterthought to clarify the initial EIS + acc.> phrase. Now, it may be argued that it is the writer’s intention to> underscore the phrase ERCOMENON MET’ AUTON as a phrase recognizable from> the synoptic baptismal traditions (e.g. Mk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEROS MOU> OPISW MOU and parallels)–and I think that is surely true enough, but in> this case it seems to me that the emphasis has resulted in sufficiently> awkward word-order that the writer feels a need to repeat an EIS + acc.> phrase of clarification that does indeed follow upon the verb PISTEUSWSIN> and more clearly depends upon it. I suppose one could convey the force of> the word-order thus in English: “John baptized a baptism of repentance> telling the people that it was in the one coming after him that they should> believe, that is, in Jesus.” In fact, I think that TWi LAWi is also awkward> preceding LEGWN, but one can hardly understand TWi LAWi as dative with> EBAPTISEN BAPTISMA. In fact the sentence reads like the kind of sentence I> sometimes write, wherein the phrases fall out in text on the screen before> the whole structure of what I want to say has become clear. I think this> whole sentence is awkward after EIPEN DE PAULOS–intelligible enough, to be> sure, but a far cry from the lucid and unambiguous Greek we like to think> of Luke as ordinarily writing.> > Here too I have to say: this is my opinion only;Carl,Henry Alford thinks it is really awkward. He suggests that Luke isgiving us a little raw Pauline syntax here. In other words he blames theproblem on Paul but he understands the passage the same way Barrett andyou do.>I think, however, that the> difference you allege between Fitzmyer and Barrett indicates that there’s a> problem. Let’s look a little closer at that, however:> >>Fitzmyer (Acts:AB) makes it limit LEGWN.>> >>Fitzmyer’s English translation: “he used to tell the people about the>>one who would come after him”> > Does Fitzmyer actually SAY in the commentary that EIS TON ERCOMENON MET’> AUTON ought to be construed with LEGWN? Fitzmeyr’s translation of the whole verse is:*********Acts 19:4So Paul explained, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance; he usedto tell the people about the one who would come after him, in whom theywere to believe, that is, in Jesus.”********Its late and I am tired. But it seems that this English renderingrepresents a different analysis of the syntax than what you havesuggested. I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “inwhom . . .” as limiting “him.” If my analysis of the English is correctthen Fitzmyer isn’t reading the Greek syntax the same way as Barrett.You know this is why I don’t like working with English translations. TheEnglish just adds a new layer of obfuscation to the problem. Fitzmyer’stranslation is probably too dynamic for trying to read his analysis ofthe underlying Greek syntax and he does not comment on the syntaxexplicitly.Thanks Carl for your analysis and comments; profound as usual.Clay–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 19:4 word orderActs 19:4 word order

Acts 19:4 word order clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jul 23 00:47:00 EDT 1999

 

Acts 19:4 word order Sorting alphabetically? I made an obvious error here along with all the subtle errors. > I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “in> whom . . .” as limiting “him.”In whom clearly does not limit “him” rather it limits “the one”. I letsomeone else find the other errors.Clay> Fitzmeyr’s translation of the whole verse is:> *********> Acts 19:4> > So Paul explained, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance; he used> to tell the people about the one who would come after him, in whom they> were to believe, that is, in Jesus.”> ********> > Its late and I am tired. But it seems that this English rendering> represents a different analysis of the syntax than what you have> suggested. I see “about . . . him” as the complement of “tell” and “in> whom . . .” as limiting “him.” If my analysis of the English is correct> then Fitzmyer isn’t reading the Greek syntax the same way as Barrett.> You know this is why I don’t like working with English translations. The> English just adds a new layer of obfuscation to the problem. Fitzmyer’s> translation is probably too dynamic for trying to read his analysis of> the underlying Greek syntax and he does not comment on the syntax> explicitly.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

Acts 19:4 word orderSorting alphabetically?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]