From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 06:53:18 EDT
At 5:59 AM -0400 6/21/97, J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
wrote:
>
>What you are overlooking is the fact that the passive form EDOQH has to be
>taken as a "passivum divinum". Compare V.P. Furnish, 2 Corinthians (Anchor
>Bible), p. 528:
>"This is a conventional use of the passive voice to avoid mentioning the
>divine name".
>Idem, p. 547:
Is there really any consensus judgment on this use of the passive voice? I
certainly won't argue that the form isn't passive, but I'm curious whether
this is a phenomenon sufficiently attested that its "conventional" status
may be legitimately assumed. I may be wrong, but it looks to me like a
commentator's assumption that may have been uncritically taken over by
others. How strong, in fact, is the evidence for such a "convention"?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT