From: Kevin Cauley (cauley@airmail.net)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 23:32:52 EST
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
PNEUMATOS
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. :)
Kevin Cauley
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:19 EDT