[snip}
> And I
> think that Carlton's interpretation would be a bit more probable if the
> phrasing were thus: PROS DIDASKALIAN ESTIN PASA GRAFH QEOPNEUSTOS KAI
> WFELIMOS, PROS ELEGMON, PROS EPANORQWSIN ... This would much more clearly
> indicate that the PROS + acc. phrases all belong to the predicate; it would
> also strengthen the likelihood that QEOPNEUSTOS KAI WFELIMOS should be
> taken together as attributive to GRAFH, and that WFELIMOS should not be
> deemed a predicate adjective pointing to the PROS + acc. phrases. How we
> punctuate also makes a difference in how we understand the whole complex.
>
> I am inclined to think that QEOPNEUSTOS is intended to be attribute to
> GRAFH, but I'm very much inclined to agree with Edgar on this one--that KAI
> WFELIMOS (ESTIN) KTL. really constitute the predicate.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
Didn't Luther take it Carlton's way? That is, as reading "every scripture
which is profitable is inspired" (and implying that not all srciptures
are profitable and hence not inspired), thus setting up criteria for
judgement of canonicity and authority? If so, do you think
this was on the basis of sound grammatical insight or in the service of his
own polemic of what was canonical?
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu