Acts 3:16 James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Fri May 14 15:46:17 EDT 1999
Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond syntax and semantics Hello all.This verse recently generated a lively discussion at my bible study, andreading it in the Greek has raised a number of questions for me. Itreads; KAI EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU TOUTON hON QEWREITE KAIOIDATE, ESTEPEWSEN TO ONOMA AUTOU, KAI hH PISTIS hH DI AUTOU EDWKENAUTWi THN hOLOKLHPIAN TAUTHN APENANTI PANTWN hUMWN.Apart from the punctuation given in the critical edition (UBS4), which Iunderstand would not have been in the earliest uncials, it seems that TOONOMA AUTOU could either be the subject of ESTEPEWSEN in the firstclause or go with hH PISTIS in the second clause. Most of the Englishtranslations I’ve checked make it the subject of the first clause (AV,RSV, NRSV,NASB). However, the NIV translates it as part of the secondclause (“It is Jesus’ name and the faith…”).Is there anything in the Greek syntax that would lead us to prefer onerendering over the other? While I know KAI usually is not the firstword in the sentence, is this convention usually followed in compoundsentences? A cursory investigation suggests that this is the case (inJohn 6:11, hOMOIWS comes before KAI, but goes with the followingclause).If TO ONOMA is the subject of the first clause, then we’re left with thequestion of whether this is a personal reference or an impersonal one— invocational or incantational (I like how that that preaches :-).Also, “On the basis of faith in his name, his name has strengthened…”seems a bit clumsy, at least in English (Is it also clumsy in theGreek?). Wouldn’t KAI EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU hOUTOS hONQEWREITE KAI OIDATE, ESTEPEWQH have been smoother, or am I looking at itonly from an English point of view?If, however, TO ONOMA belongs with the second clause, then the subjectwould be personal (“On the basis of faith in his name, he hasstrengthened..”). This would clearly erase any notion of anincantation, or at least shift it to in the next clause. However,because of the parallel between the two clauses, I think this wouldrequire us to understand TO ONOMA in a personal sense; e.g. the namestanding for the person who healed, or possibly the authority by whichthe man was healed.Any thoughts? Thanks.JimJames S. MurrayRacine, WI
Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondsyntax and semantics
Acts 3:16 James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Fri May 14 15:46:17 EDT 1999
Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyond syntax and semantics Hello all.This verse recently generated a lively discussion at my bible study, andreading it in the Greek has raised a number of questions for me. Itreads; KAI EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU TOUTON hON QEWREITE KAIOIDATE, ESTEPEWSEN TO ONOMA AUTOU, KAI hH PISTIS hH DI AUTOU EDWKENAUTWi THN hOLOKLHPIAN TAUTHN APENANTI PANTWN hUMWN.Apart from the punctuation given in the critical edition (UBS4), which Iunderstand would not have been in the earliest uncials, it seems that TOONOMA AUTOU could either be the subject of ESTEPEWSEN in the firstclause or go with hH PISTIS in the second clause. Most of the Englishtranslations I’ve checked make it the subject of the first clause (AV,RSV, NRSV,NASB). However, the NIV translates it as part of the secondclause (“It is Jesus’ name and the faith…”).Is there anything in the Greek syntax that would lead us to prefer onerendering over the other? While I know KAI usually is not the firstword in the sentence, is this convention usually followed in compoundsentences? A cursory investigation suggests that this is the case (inJohn 6:11, hOMOIWS comes before KAI, but goes with the followingclause).If TO ONOMA is the subject of the first clause, then we’re left with thequestion of whether this is a personal reference or an impersonal one— invocational or incantational (I like how that that preaches :-).Also, “On the basis of faith in his name, his name has strengthened…”seems a bit clumsy, at least in English (Is it also clumsy in theGreek?). Wouldn’t KAI EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU hOUTOS hONQEWREITE KAI OIDATE, ESTEPEWQH have been smoother, or am I looking at itonly from an English point of view?If, however, TO ONOMA belongs with the second clause, then the subjectwould be personal (“On the basis of faith in his name, he hasstrengthened..”). This would clearly erase any notion of anincantation, or at least shift it to in the next clause. However,because of the parallel between the two clauses, I think this wouldrequire us to understand TO ONOMA in a personal sense; e.g. the namestanding for the person who healed, or possibly the authority by whichthe man was healed.Any thoughts? Thanks.JimJames S. MurrayRacine, WI
Word Order: Mark 3.1 and beyondsyntax and semantics