klitwak wrote:In looking at the phrase AUTOS DIDOUS PASI ZWHN KAI AND PNOHN KAI TA PANTA in Acts 17:25. I don't have a grammatical rule for this, but since KAI can mean "indeed," I am wondering if it is justifiable to translate this as "since he himself gives to all life and breath and indeed all things." It is the third KAI that I want to give an intensive/emphatic sense. If this was a narrative sequence, it would be appropriate to render KAI KAI KAI as and ..and..and but this is not narrative, and this seems to me to be a good choice, since ZWHN and PNOHN are parts of the larger whole, TA PANTA. Is this reasonable?
Also, is there a better way to understand DIDOUS than a concessive or circumstantial participle? Thanks.
George F Somsel wrote:David Lim wrote: "Rather it could simply be that the author is saying that God gives to all creatures to live and breathe and have all things that they need. The Byzantine text has something different though."
That seems unlikely since the practice in the use of δίδωμι seems to be that the accusative is used for the object given while the dative is used to designate the recipient.
George F Somsel wrote:David Lim wrote: "I indeed took "πασιν" to be the recipient ("all [creatures]") and I took the three accusatives to be the things given …"
My apologies. Apparently I misunderstood you.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest