From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 03 1997 - 14:51:09 EST
At 1:19 PM -0600 1/3/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 12:58 PM -0600 1/3/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>How should I understand the accusative for ARXHGON KAI SWTHRA in this phrase:
>>
>> TOUTON hO QEOS ARXHGON KAI SWTHRA hUYWSEN THi DEXIAi AUTOU
>Isn't this simply the direct object of hUYWSEN? I suppose that you'd
>probably have to understand hHMWN with ARXHGON KAI SWTHRA. I'd have to say,
>however, that this looks like more home-made Greek, a patchwork made of a
>phrase from Hebrews and a phrase from Paul and a verb from John's gospel.
>The dative in THi DEXIAi AUTOU strikes me as sort of fishy. PLEASE don't
>tell me that it comes straight out of the NT! (I do think you would have
>cited author-chapter-and-verse).
>
>For what it's worth, this comment is neither gold, dross, nor fluff. It's
>closer to froth, which may be akin to a mome rath. Silence, perhaps, were
>preferable.
Clearly silence WERE preferable. Of course, as Carlton rightly notes,
TOUTON is the direct object, ARXHGON KAI SWTHRA predicate accusative with
hUYWSEN.
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:01 EDT