Acts 19:40

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Sun Nov 18 22:37:57 EST 2007

 

[] words often mistaken for other words [] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 KAI TAUTA EIPWN APELUSEN THN EKKLHSIAN (Acts 19:40) On first reading this said to me, “And with those words he dismissed the meeting.” But nobody seems to agree with me. People generally render it, “After saying these things he dismissed the meeting.” Is there anything in terms of grammar that tells us clearly that the sayingof those words and the dismissing are two different actions that happen insuccession? Or is it just that those words seem like inappropriate words touse to close a meeting? Webb Mealy

 

[] words often mistaken for other words[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 19 00:18:47 EST 2007

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 [] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 The participle in this clause modifies the verb as I think you agree. 434. The Adverbial Participle logically modifies some other verb of the sentence in which it stands, being equivalent to an adverbial phrase or clause denoting time, condition, concession, cause, purpose, means, manner, or attendant circumstance. HA. 969; G. 1563. Thus we find:Burton, E. D. W. (1898). Syntax of the moods and tenses in New Testament Greek (3rd ed.) (169). Edinburg: T. & T. Clark.So the question is “what is it that the participle denotes among those possibilities?” since there is nothing in the participle itself which designates precisely how it is to be used and therefore any of these uses is possible.You seem to favor means or manner when you say “with these words.” Is it “by means of these words”? There seems to be nothing in the words themselves which indicates that they serve to dismiss the assembly so I would be inclined to reject that usage. Purpose seems quite evidently excluded. It could also be cause “because he said these words”, but the words are not the reason for the dismissal of the assembly but the danger of which they warn. It would seem to me that the temporal usage is more likely “after he spoke these words …” georgegfsomsel Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death. – Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Webb Mealy <webb at selftest.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:37:57 PMSubject: [] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40KAI TAUTA EIPWN APELUSEN THN EKKLHSIAN (Acts 19:40)On first reading this said to me,”And with those words he dismissed the meeting.”But nobody seems to agree with me. People generally render it, “After saying these things he dismissed the meeting.”Is there anything in terms of grammar that tells us clearly that the sayingof those words and the dismissing are two different actions that happen insuccession? Or is it just that those words seem like inappropriate words touse to close a meeting?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ____________________________________________________________________________________Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 Webb Mealy webb at selftest.net
Mon Nov 19 01:25:52 EST 2007

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 [] Steps toward UBS5 of GNT I’m slightly embarrassed to admit it, but I think it is the -WN ending ofthe second aorist participle EIPWN that is subtly influencing my brain totreat it as though it were LEGWN. Thanks for the cross-ref to Lk 11:45. Webb Mealy —–Original Message—–From: Mark Lightman [mailto:lightmanmark at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:28 PMTo: Webb Mealy; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 The GENERAL rule is that aorist participles referto actions occuring before the main verb whereaspresent/progressive participles refer to actions occuringat the same time as the main verb. But there are many exceptions to this rule. There is nothing impossible about your interpretation. But just glancing at a Greek concordance, I noticed thatin Acts 20:26 the same construction, KAI TAUTA EIPWN,and in Acts 27:35 a very similar construction (EIPAS DETAUTA) occur where clearly the actions follow and are separate from the speeches. On the other hand, Luke uses the present TAUTA LEGWN in just such a construction as yousuggest in Lk 11:45 (“by saying these things you also insult us.”)So I think if Luke meant to say that the words dismissed the assembly he would have used the present or maybe something like EV TAUTOISLOGOIS. But again, your translation is possible and if the text said this to you, go for it! Mark L. Webb Mealy <webb at selftest.net> wrote:KAI TAUTA EIPWN APELUSEN THN EKKLHSIAN (Acts 19:40)On first reading this said to me,”And with those words he dismissed the meeting.”But nobody seems to agree with me. People generally render it, “After saying these things he dismissed the meeting.”Is there anything in terms of grammar that tells us clearly that the sayingof those words and the dismissing are two different actions that happen insuccession? Or is it just that those words seem like inappropriate words touse to close a meeting?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _____ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51732/*http:/overview.mail.yahoo.com/> how.

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40[] Steps toward UBS5 of GNT

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 19 00:28:13 EST 2007

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 [] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40 The GENERAL rule is that aorist participles refer to actions occuring before the main verb whereas present/progressive participles refer to actions occuring at the same time as the main verb. But there are many exceptions to this rule. There is nothing impossible about your interpretation. But just glancing at a Greek concordance, I noticed that in Acts 20:26 the same construction, KAI TAUTA EIPWN, and in Acts 27:35 a very similar construction (EIPAS DE TAUTA) occur where clearly the actions follow and are separate from the speeches. On the other hand, Luke uses the present TAUTA LEGWN in just such a construction as you suggest in Lk 11:45 (“by saying these things you also insult us.”) So I think if Luke meant to say that the words dismissed the assembly he would have used the present or maybe something like EV TAUTOIS LOGOIS. But again, your translation is possible and if the text said this to you, go for it! Mark L. Webb Mealy <webb at selftest.net> wrote: KAI TAUTA EIPWN APELUSEN THN EKKLHSIAN (Acts 19:40)On first reading this said to me,”And with those words he dismissed the meeting.”But nobody seems to agree with me. People generally render it, “After saying these things he dismissed the meeting.”Is there anything in terms of grammar that tells us clearly that the sayingof those words and the dismissing are two different actions that happen insuccession? Or is it just that those words seem like inappropriate words touse to close a meeting?Webb Mealy— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ ———————————Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

 

[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40[] KAI TAUTA EIPWN, Acts 19:40

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]