From: wes.williams@twcable.com
Date: Mon Jun 24 1996 - 16:18:19 EDT
Randy wrote,
<<without the article the ordinal seems to indicate another instance
of the same sort as previous ones; with the article it seems to point
an additional instance that differs from the previous ones.>>
I considered many of the verses you listed and I would like to
respectfully submit that another conclusion is warranted than the
conclusion you reached. The article is a pointer (Robertson). It
draws attention to a PARTICULAR instance. This PARTICULAR instance is
not necessarily a DIFFERENT instance, although it may be the same
instance. Drawing attention to a PARTICULAR instance would not of
necessity affect the translation of the rest of the sentence.
For example, to cite an example of an articular instance from your
list:
Many citations in Mt, Mr, Lk: "... on the third day"
This is a PARTICULAR third day. Let's consider an anarthrous use
before considering how it may be *different.*
From the anarthrous list:
Mt 22:39 and Mk 12:31;
"... second (commandment)... is this"
Even though anarthrous, the second commandment is a different instance
than the first commandment, just as the third day is a different
instance than any other day. So I suppose I do not accept the premise
that an arthrous vs anarthrous ordinal *mandates* that the respective
instances be different or alike. I view the articular use as drawing
attention to a *specific* instance, whether or not a *different*
instance. Although I'm sure the grammarians will provide more as to
the use of the article. (We haven't heard from Edward Hobb's yet, have
we?)
<< In other words, I suggest that the use of the article is positive
evidence that the context DEMANDS us to understand Jesus' third
question as different from the second. Since the only difference is
the verb, the two verbs must mean something different here; therefore
this is not an instance of free variation.>>
I suppose I do not see it as positive, nor a demand to apply to Jesus'
third question. Even if it arguably *were* a *different* rather than
particular instance, it seems a stretch to attempt to prove that the
verb must mean something different, although I agree with your
conclusion. The best argument that the verbs are different are their
respective differing usages in the scriptures and elsewhere, as many
have already dome in this thread.
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT