Re: IWANNHN hUPHRETHN Acts 13:5

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 13 1998 - 17:44:29 EDT


At 12:00 PM -0700 7/13/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>F.F. Bruce suggests rather tentatively that John (Mark) might have been
>performing a service somewhat beyond that of a water boy when he was with Paul
>and Barnabas in SALAMINI. The word hUPHRETHN is not going to settle this
>issue. The argument that hUPHRETHS is used of those who proclaim TON LOGON in
>Luke 1:2 does not really prove anything, because in that context hUPHRETAI is
>modified by TOU LOGOU which adds nothing to the semantic domain of hUPHRETHS.
>
>Perhaps this is not clear. What I am saying is, you cannot prove that then
>semantic domain of X is extended to include X + Y, where Y is a genitive
>modifier of X, simply by finding pattern XY in a relevant text. This is a
>common fallacy found in argumentation about lexical semantics. Finding the
>pattern XY only proves that X is capable of being limited by Y, nothing more.
>
>In Acts 13:5 hUPHRETHN cannot be read as hUPHRETHN TOU LOGOU just because
>this pattern exists in Luke 1:2.

I don't understand what the basis of your negative argument is. Has
somebody actually suggested that hUPHRETHS in Acts 13:5 means the same as
hUPHERTHS TOU LOGOU in Luke 1:2? Surely that's not what Bruce is
suggesting, is it? It strikes me as a strange suggestion for anyone to
make. So: Mark NOT = Gunga Din?

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@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 - 15:39:53 EDT