On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:33:32 -0500 "Carl W. Conrad" writes: > > With all due respect to Mark, I would, for my own part, > > (a) rather not get into ANY discussion at all (certainly not in THIS forum) > regarding THEOLOGICAL implications of other passages comparable to > Acts 13:48, and > > (b) rather not prejudge or generalize about "middle/passive" forms > in reference to the destiny of believers; if what is learned from one > instance can be made to apply to another, so be it, but I think there is > considerable danger in leaping to universal judgments from what one > believes to be the case in a single instance. Think for instance, of > Colwell's principle, and how judiciously it has to be applied to be > at all useful when examining instances of two substantives (supposedly) > governed by a single article. Generalizations (if I may generalize) have a > way of getting us into making judgments that sweep too far in a single > stroke. Er, aren't you referring to the Granville Sharp rule, rather than Colwell's rule? Colwell's Rule says that definite predicate nominative preceding the copula tend to be anarthrous. Thanks for the solid catch on the possible over-generalization. It is always good to be reminded of faulty logical inferencing. Paul Dixon --- 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