Split from Acts 2.23-24 participle nom plural

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
User avatar
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Split from Acts 2.23-24 participle nom plural

Post by brainout » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:23 am

Yeah, well I go with your interp whether anyone else did or not, for that's what Peter means. Playing on how dia is conduit. For it was illegal for the Jewish Sanhedrin to do it, so they had to get Pilate to do it by threatening revolt. Play on 'by', see. We know from the Gospels that it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to assess the death penalty. I'd say that was authoritative enough, wouldn't you?

Don't forget that in Attic they often dropped prepositions, too. So Peter's playing with classical Greek and Koine, assigning the dative of agency to God first (tei horismenei boulei -- sorry, this computer lacks the right Greek fonts). Then the more Koine (common, low, mean) 'dia' for the conduits (hahahaha) used by the Sanhedrin's 'boulei'. Clever.
daivid wrote:
C. S. Bartholomew wrote:διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων looks to me like a general reference to Gentiles who were without the law of Moses. Post-Panama Supertankers full of ink have been spilled on the subject of who was responsible for what, in regard to the crucifixion. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com probably has articles on it.
Given the context I would have thought that it is the Romans who actually hammered in the nails that is intended. I am first of all concerned with what the Greek actually says. As I read it, given there is an instrumental dative, Peter is portrayed as claiming his hearers have actually hammered in the nails albeit using the godless Romans as their tool. However, at least several translators don't go that far and it is safe to assume that they understand Greek better than me. Hence my hesitation in believing I have read it right.

Post Reply