Steven Cox stevencox_backonbgreek at yahoo.co.uk
Tue May 19 21:14:05 EDT 2009

Hello Carl (cc Stephen)
Well you said that this has become an ink-fest (which I see on the web) and that not much would be gained by more splatters, and I'm sure you're right. However I for one have gained something, since I'm starting from zero on this.

Following Stephen's comments I looked through Belleville and Wallace's pdfs and came to much the same conclusion (without obviously your or Stephen's level of expertise to do so) that the basic EPISHMOS EN+ dat. structure is inherently capable of ambiguity, even with existence of the less ambiguous EPISHMOS EK+gen. alternative had Paul wanted it.

Which leaves me with 3 take aways:

1. The reason that Euripides : AFRODITH... EPISHMOS EN BROTOIS is obvious is because it is obvious: we already know that Aphrodite is not a mortal. Wheras KORNHLIA...EPISHMOS EN SAMIOIS (invented example) isn't obvious unless you know whether Cornelia comes from Samos.

2. The level of being EPISHMOS *by* the apostles is already not bad. The level of being EPISHMOS *among* the apostles puts this couple up with Peter and James in Jerusalem. Which also raises the following thought:

3. I may have missed it but I didn't see in Wallace and Belleville Acts 8:1 mentioned:
"And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." 
Unless I'm having a dull day (which happens) wouldn't the following be relevant:
3.1 whichever way we read Ro16:1 this couple came from Jerusalem.
3.2 Saul of Tarsus would not show mercy even among his own family
3.3 the presence of Saul of Tarsus' kinsmen in Rome.
3.4 all having fled "except the apostles"
(Carl is going to tell me: "Steven that's already been round the ink-fest a dozen times!)

PS * In addition to those takeaways, I got a great deal of pleasure out of this insult from Lucian. On Salaried Posts in Great Houses 28:4  

If a whispering servant accuse you of being the 
only one who did not praise the mistress's page when 
he danced or played, there is no little risk in the 
thing. So you must raise your thirsty voice like a 
stranded frog, taking pains to be CONSPICUOUS AMONG
THE PRAISERS and to lead the chorus ; and often when 
the others are silent you must independently let 
drop a well-considered word of praise that will convey 
great flattery. 
That in itself justifies the excursion for me :)

--- On Tue, 19/5/09, Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson at mindspring.com> wrote:

From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Euripides : AFRODITH... EPISHMOS EN BROTOIS
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>, "Steven Cox" <stevencox_backonbgreek at yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: scarlson at mindspring.com, "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tuesday, 19 May, 2009, 5:40 PM

Thanks, Carl, for alerting me to this.

I revisited this question in a seminar on Romans at Duke last

Based on the examples adduced in the Linda Belleville article
in NTS, I have now come to the opinion that the construction
is grammatically ambiguous as to whether the apostles of Rom
16:7 either included or excluded Andronicus and Junias.  Both
Burer/Wallace and Belleville have legitimate examples favoring
their own position, but they both fail to discount the others'
own examples.  Thus, I see no way to resolve the ambiguity,
without appealing to some background assumptions or knowledge
outside of the text.


Stephen C. Carlson
Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)


More information about the B-Greek mailing list