From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Jan 27 1998 - 06:20:39 EST
One of our esteemed classics professors pointed out to me that what is missing
from the last clause of Acts 8:24 in Codex Bezae is a connecting particle
(e.g., DE). This raises a question in my mind about the syntax of the relative
clause. A relative clause that is embedded within another clause needs no
connecting particle, but a relative clause that follows a well formed K. Greek
clause should be introduced by a connecting particle. Is this a fair statement
of the situation?
My previous question:
clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> In Acts 8:24 Codex Bezae is 50% longer than the received text
> (NA26/UBS3) and the end of the verse (in Bezae) includes a relative clause
> which has given pause to a number of commentators. Bezae reads:
>
> APOKREIQEIS DE hO SIMWN EIPEN PROS AUTOUS:
>
> PARAKALW, DEHQHTE hUMEIS PERI EMOU PROS TON QEON
> hOPWS MHDEN EPELQHi MOI,
> TOUTWN TWN KAKWN hWN EIRHKATE MOI,
>
> hOS POLLA KLAIWN OU DIELIMPANEN.
>
> The last line causes several commentators to complain about the placement of
> this clause, how awkward it is (e.g., Metzger's textual commentary). My
> question is simple. If lines 2-4 are the contents of Simon's response, is it
> really all that hard to connect hOS in line 5 with it's antecedent hO SIMWN in
> line one? The distance between the relative and it's antecedent is a problem
> only if you ignore the narrative structure. If you simply factor out Simon's
> speech, as a subordinate element in the narrative structure, then the distance
> between the relative and it's antecedent is not problematic at all. I have
> tried to illustrate this point visually in my citation above.
>
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:00 EDT