Acts 19:1, question about accusative

[Barry_Hofstetter]

1. τὸν ληνὸν … τὸν μέγαν would be an easy to understand error but τὴν ληνὸν … τὸν μέγαν is not. ληνός even continues as a feminine noun in the next sentence.

2. The author of Revelation uses θυμός μέγας, showing that it’s a conjunction that at least occurs to him

3. It’s a common usage in the Septuagint, and was therefore on the lips of Greek-speaking Jews/Christians of the time. See the 2 Chron. for a possible base phrasing

This is bordering on the absurd, so I’ll leave you to it Joel. However:

1. Why? It has never occurred to anyone else that it’s difficult.

2. I shouldn’t have to point out the logical fallacy here.

3. If 6 times is a common usage, then yes.

[jeidsath]

1. Mistaking the gender of a substantive is a common second language error, especially one with a form like ληνος. However getting the gender right (multiple times), but then applying a masculine article and adjective, does not seem like a normal second language error. Certainly not one to expect in someone who could write Revelation.

2. Not a logical fallacy. Not all adjectives are used with all substantives. Establishing a given usage by a given author is the most basic argument for its probability elsewhere.

3. Enough to establish the possibility

[mwh]

What I had in mind was not such one-off curiosities as την ληνον … τον μεγαν, which regrettably tend to monopolize discussion (what intervenes must be an important factor, so should not be skipped over), but less exceptional deviations from orthodox syntax, such as we find (to take an example at random) at the long-deferred climactic opening of the seventh seal (still early on in the book!), famously marked by the half hour of silence: 8.1ff. και οταν ηνοιξεν την σφραγιδα την εβδομην εγενετο σιγη εν τω ουρανω ως ημιωριον· και ειδον τους επτα αγγελους οι ενωπιον του θεου εστηκασιν και εδοθησαν αυτοις επτα σαλπιγγες· και αλλος αγγελος ηλθεν και εσταθη επι του θυσιαστηριου εχων λιβανωτον χρυσουν· και εδοθη αυτω θυμιαματα πολλα ινα δωσει ταις προσευχαις των αγιων παντων επι το θυσιαστηριον το χρυσουν το ενωπιον του θρονου· … και ειληφεν ο αγγελος τον λιβανωτον και εγεμισεν αυτον ….
All these and more are paralleled in contemporary papyri and elsewhere and no-one should blink at them.
The passage is almost incantatory (it cries out for oral delivery by a practiced preacher), as it builds steadily higher and higher, like a child’s building blocks. If it eventually reaches the top, what shall we find there? See what I mean about suspense?

I write in (probably vain) hopes of escaping the black hole of ληνος, worse even than the Lernean hydra.

[Barry_Hofstetter]

What I had in mind was not such one-off curiosities as την ληνον … τον μεγαν, which regrettably tend to monopolize discussion (what intervenes must be an important factor, so should not be skipped over), but less exceptional deviations from orthodox syntax, such as we find (to take an example at random) at the long-deferred climactic opening of the seventh seal (still early on in the book!), famously marked by the half hour of silence: 8.1ff. και οταν ηνοιξεν την σφραγιδα την εβδομην εγενετο σιγη εν τω ουρανω ως ημιωριον· και ειδον τους επτα αγγελους οι ενωπιον του θεου εστηκασιν και εδοθησαν αυτοις επτα σαλπιγγες· και αλλος αγγελος ηλθεν και εσταθη επι του θυσιαστηριου εχων λιβανωτον χρυσουν· και εδοθη αυτω θυμιαματα πολλα ινα δωσει ταις προσευχαις των αγιων παντων επι το θυσιαστηριον το χρυσουν το ενωπιον του θρονου· … και ειληφεν ο αγγελος τον λιβανωτον και εγεμισεν αυτον ….
All these and more are paralleled in contemporary papyri and elsewhere and no-one should blink at them.
The passage is almost incantatory (it cries out for oral delivery by a practiced preacher), as it builds steadily higher and higher, like a child’s building blocks. If it eventually reaches the top, what shall we find there? See what I mean about suspense?

I write in (probably vain) hopes of escaping the black hole of ληνος, worse even than the Lernean hydra.

Could you give a good example from one of the papyri in which this is done?

[jeidsath]

I know of no one in the history of interpretation that takes it in the way you want.

Well, other than my little Alexandrian friend, scribbling out the oldest extant copy of the verse in P47.

No doubt a correction attempt for original τον μεγαν, but someone must have felt του μεγαλου to agree with θεου or θυμου was better than την μεγαλην to agree with ληνον.

---

But now back to Michael’s papyrus demonstration. Is ειληφεν really a known papyrus alternate for the aorist, and not there for “vividness” and storytelling effect?