Paul Danove, «A Comparison Of The Usage Of Akouw And Akouw- Compounds In The Septuagint And New Testament», Vol. 14 (2001) 65-86
This study characterizes all occurrences of
a0kou/w and seven related verbs (a0ntakou/w,
diakou/w, ei0sakou/w,
e0nakou/w, e0pakou/w,
parakou/w, and u9pakou/w)
in the Septuagint and New Testament according to their semantic and
syntactic properties, develops a single set of rules to describe the
distribution of noun phrase objects of these verbs, and then compares the
patterns of usage of these verbs in the Septuagint and New Testament. A
preliminary discussion identifies the semantic and syntactic properties
necessary to describe all biblical occurrences of
a0kou/w and proposes a set of descriptive rules that govern the
syntactic case of its noun phrase objects. Further investigation then
indicates that this same set of rules with only one minor modification
also is adequate to describe the syntactic case of noun phrase objects of
the noted a0kou/w-compounds. The discussion
concludes by comparing the distribution of noun phrase objects in
particular syntactic cases within the Septuagint and New Testament.
Paul Danove
84
It may be used intransitively [17 occurrences]55 but never in the pas-
sive; and it has a significantly greater usage in contexts in which a
response is registered (>98%) than ajkouvw (60%)
The second construction of uJpakouvw is similar to the second con-
struction of ejpakouvw in that it requires two arguments, an agent and an
experiencer. It may be translated «respond [concerning what was heard]
to [the speaker].» It appears only twice, once with a dative noun phrase
object [+speaker] (Gen 39:10) and once intransitively (Heb 11:8) 56.
9. Comparison of the Usage of akouw and akouw-compounds in the
v jv
LXX and NT:
The analysis indicates significant continuity in the patterns of usage
for ajkouvw and its compounds in the LXX and NT:
1. only ajkouvw may indicate indirect perception (topic construction)
and have arguments realized by verb phrases (topic and content con-
structions)
2. all of the noted verbs exhibit usages of the content construction
3. among verbs of multiple attestation, eijsakouvw, ejpakouvw (#1), and
upakouw (#1) show a marked bias for use in contexts characterized by
J v
[+response]: this may indicate a preference for these verbs over ajkouvw
when the presence of a response is to be stressed
4. genitive [–speaker] noun phrase objects of ajkouvw, eijsakouvw, ejpa-
kouw (#1), parakouvw, and genitive and dative [–speaker] noun phrase
v
objects of uJpakouvw (#1) always are characterized by [+response]
5. [–speaker, + response] noun phrase objects of ajkouvw, eijsakouvw,
enakouw, and parakouvw may appear in the accusative
j v
6. [–speaker, –response] noun phrases objects of all the verbs always
are in the accusative: this is the only permitted use of the accusative with
enakouw, ejpakouvw (#1), and uJpakouvw (#1)
j v
These results indicate a very high degree of continuity in usage between
the LXX and NT. They also reveal differences in the distribution of usages
for ajkouvw in the NT: (1) an increased use of object interrogative pronoun
clauses and (2) the introduction of two new usages: the subject correlative
clause for the content construction (Luke 12:3) and the eij clause object
for the topic construction (Acts 19:2b). The differences in the distribution
of noun phrase objects of direct perception in which the subject indicates
a response is more pronounced: of the 397 such noun phrases objects in
the LXX , the accusative appears 1.56 times more frequently than the gen-
itive (242/155); whereas in the NT the accusative appears 2.62 times more
frequently than the genitive (68/26). The investigation also reveals that
the use of all ajkouvw-compounds except uJpakouvw is significantly curtailed
in the NT: the already rare ajntakouvw and ejnakouvw are absent from the
FOLLOW US