In Acts 5:3, what is the function of σε?

[Barry Hofstetter]

Thank you Jeffrey, that makes more contextual sense, I think, and puts my concerns to rest.

I don't know who Jeffrey is, but I'll be sure to pass on your thanks if I meet him.

[Bill Ross]

Thank you Jeffrey, that makes more contextual sense, I think, and puts my concerns to rest.

I don't know who Jeffrey is, but I'll be sure to pass on your thanks if I meet him.

LOL. Well now you know what a dotard you're dealing with!

[Jonathan Robie]

Siebenthal is in German, but it is being translated, I hope the translation is good.

The translation is finished. Here is the English version: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Greek-Gr ... 1789975867. According to the preface, it is basically a slightly-edited and slightly-expanded (primarily with regard to issues of text-coherence) version of the German work. I haven't seen it yet, but really hope to get it soon.

I asked them to send me the free sample for Kindle ... the formatting is all messed up and unreadable on my Mac Kindle reader. It's a lot better than that on Android but still not good.

The German edition's formatting is fine.

So for now, at least, I'd consider the print book if I were getting this in English.

[MAubrey]

Siebenthal is in German, but it is being translated, I hope the translation is good.

The translation is finished. Here is the English version: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Greek-Gr ... 1789975867. According to the preface, it is basically a slightly-edited and slightly-expanded (primarily with regard to issues of text-coherence) version of the German work. I haven't seen it yet, but really hope to get it soon.

I asked them to send me the free sample for Kindle ... the formatting is all messed up and unreadable on my Mac Kindle reader. It's a lot better than that on Android but still not good.

The German edition's formatting is fine.

So for now, at least, I'd consider the print book if I were getting this in English.

Just be aware that Peter Lang's bindings are terrible and will fall apart with any long-term use.

It looks like it got cleared up, but I do want to emphasize that my analogy to English was just that: an analogy.

All subjects of infinitives in Greek are always accusatives and that's the normal way of things.

[Barry Hofstetter]

All subjects of infinitives in Greek are always accusatives and that's the normal way of things.

405. The nominative with the infinitive. Classical Greek has only a few exceptions to the rule that the subject of the infinitive, if it is identical with the subject of the governing verb, is not expressed, but supplied in the nom. from the governing verb (§396). The few exceptions are prompted by the need of laying greater emphasis on the subject or by assimilation to an additional contrasting subject which must necessarily stand in the acc. Dependence of the infinitive on a preposition causes no change in the rule, nor does the insertion of δεῖ, χρή (NT not with the nom., except perhaps A 26:9 [s. infra (2)] in the speech of Paul before Agrippa; otherwise with the acc. and infinitive). (1) In the majority of cases in the NT too, a subject already given in or with the main verb is not repeated with the infinitive, and if the infinitive is accompanied by a nominal predicate or a modifying word or phrase agreeing with its subject, the latter is never and the former not always a basis for altering the construction to the acc. with the infinitive. In other words, the modifiers must, and the predicate can, be in the nom. as in classical: R 9:3 ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγώ, 1:22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί, H 11:4 ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος. (2) In those cases, however, in which, in addition to the personal construction preferred in Attic, an impersonal construction is also possible, the NT prefers the impersonal. The personal construction with the nom. is not at all common, especially with the passive (λέγομαι εἶναι and the like; H 11:4, s. supra), though it is a little more likely in the case of an infinitive denoting what is to happen (δεδοκιμάσμεθα πιστευθῆναι 1 Th 2:4) and with adjectives like δυνατός, ἱκανός (§393(4)); thus we have ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ δεῖν πρᾶξαι A 26:9 along with ἔδοξέ μοι Lk 1:3 etc.

Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (pp. 208–209). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[Bill Ross]

Thank you for posting that Perry. Should I understand from that that since the subject in the previous Claus is Satan, the subject and the claws under consideration now is non-optional and explains why it is explicit?

[Jason Hare]

Thank you for posting that Perry. Should I understand from that that since the subject in the previous Claus is Satan, the subject and the claws under consideration now is non-optional and explains why it is explicit?

Or, Jeffrey.

[Bill Ross]

It's my spell checker, I swear!

[Barry Hofstetter]

Thank you for posting that Perry. Should I understand from that that since the subject in the previous Claus is Satan, the subject and the claws under consideration now is non-optional and explains why it is explicit?

1) To answer your question seriously, yes, that's one reason to make the subject of the infinitive explicit.

2) On a lighter note, your spell check misadventures reminds me of the following:

What's the difference between a cat and comma? One has claws at the end of its paws, the other has a pause at the end of its clause.

[Bill Ross]

Grammatical stand-up has a limited but loyal following!