Lk 7:30; HQETHSAN EIS hEAUTOUS

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jan 16 19:20:28 EST 1999


At 1:50 PM -0500 1/16/99, Jim Beale wrote:
>At 6:15 AM -0600 1/16/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>I think, if I've understood the sense of the Greek rightly, that hEAUTOIS
>>would have been the more classical formulation and also clearer than EIS
>>hEAUTOUS, which may reflect a Semitism. Certainly in terms of traditional
>>grammatical constructions, if EIS hEAUTOUS were meant to construe
>>attributively with THN BOULHN it should have another article (THN EIS
>>hEAUTOUS BOULHN)--but surely the phrase must construe adverbially with
>>HQETHSAN: they rejected it as something not applying to or obligating
>>themselves.
>
>Hi Carl,
>
>Doesn't EIS + accusative function as a pure dative here?
>It seems to me that it does.  Robertson and BDF both
>classify it as such.  A dative of reference would seem
>to be equivalent to your construction, wouldn't it?  Or
>perhaps a dative of (dis)advantage would show greater
>personal interest.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make, in fact. I think older
traditional grammar would have preferred the dative, but I rather suspect
that the use of EIS + acc. and PROS + acc. in the Hellenistic period
encroaches ever more upon earlier dative usage. And it may well be that
this is a Semitism given a push forward by the Hebraic usage of LE with
personal objects.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list